Jump to content
 

in 00 gauge, code 75 v code 100, advantages and disadvantages?


Recommended Posts

Good Afternoon everyone,

I am finalising the build of a 00 layout for me by third parties. (the reasons why I am not doing this myself are not relevant!) 

 

The layout is a secondary main line in WR area which will run in two eras c1960, and c1990.

 

There are 30 points, the minimum curve radius is second radius.

My preferred builders are suggesting I go for code 75 although my preference is for code 100, to allow me to run older items such as Lima products and HB 00 two rail rolling stock.

Is it better to choose code 75 and change the wheel sets on older items ( mainly rolling stock and diesels)?

 

I realise there are cost implications in either choice?  

 

Many thanks

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

100% code 75 Paul and you won't regret it. If you really must run that old Lima stock then re-wheel by all means but the track will always look better in my opinion. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Really does depend on how much you want to run the old stuff, it'll be a major pain to convert significant quantities of Lima / HD stock. 

 

Well ballasted, painted and weathered code 100 can look better than badly done code 75, but the latter is always going to win on a level playing field. Only you know which is the least painful route for you.

Edited by spamcan61
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It should depend on exactly what your old stock is. As spamcan61 mentions swapping wheelsets on older stock can be a pita. For example, Lima Mk1’s have undersized diameter wheels and the axles are shorter than the standard 26mm. I recall some wagon chassis’ of various manufacturers needed modifications to get clearance for replacement wheels too. If you have significant amounts of older stock it’ll be worth buying a small radius code75 point and just try your fleet through it. That will give you a definitive answer. Code100 can look really good with some effort in the ballasting and painting. If you want to have maximum operating flexibility for legacy and contemporary models C100 will be your best option.

  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a few rakes of Lima Mk3s, GUVs  and a couple of Class 156s Class 73s and 92s as well.  IMO all still look good and run well and I'm not going to re-wheel them.

 

So I still use code 100 as everything will run on it.  With the rail sides painted, and sleepers and ballast weathered (and vegetation added to little used sidings!) I'm still pleased with it.

 

Depends on how much Lima and Hornby Dublo you've still got I guess.

 

Edit:  I have added a photo of my old Hornby 142 which has really chunky wheels!  It's amazing how a bit of paint and weathering powder can transform the look of old track and trains!  And (OT) the 142 is hard wired for DCC with one cheap decoder and it's motors wired together.  And it runs superbly .... on Code 100 of course!

  

PICT0013.JPG

PICT0013 (2).JPG

PICT0114.JPG

PICT0084 (6).JPG

Edited by cravensdmufan
To include further photos
  • Like 12
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My suggestion would be to re-wheel the Lima stock anyway, as I would be bothered by the pizza cutter profile  (Lima wheels are fine apart from this, just me being obsessed with appearance), which would give you the choice between 75 and 100.  It is surprising what you can get away with if you use code 100; I bought a couple of Triang shorty clerestories, in 1961 form, a while back and was amazed to find that I could run them through Peco Streamline code 100 turnouts.  I replaced the wheels anyway with Bachmann all metal, my standard, and running was improved, but the old plastic Triang wheels were perfectly useable.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ravensclyffe uses code 100 on the main line and code 75 in the yards and sidings to give a visible difference in rail weight. If I was starting it now I'd probably use bullhead in the sidings.

 

Andi

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it kind of depends on track you're modelling... for example on mine I'm using code 82 for flat bottom rail on concrete or wooden sleepers and code 75 for bullhead.

 

I often prefer seeing code 100 with concrete sleepers and think for main lines looks perfectly fine. A trick is to widen the sleeper spacing if you can be bothered. 

 

Sidings etc will probably look a bit better using code 75 tbh though.

 

Only recommendation from me is to use the largest radius points where possible.

 

Enjoy!

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

There are 30 points, the minimum curve radius is second radius.

 

If the second radius curves are to be Hornby or Peco Set Track, then these will be Code 100, so arguably the rest of the layout should match unless these are in a hidden part of the layout, in which case you can transition between Code 100 for the hidden part of the layout and Code 75 for the scenic section.  Scale rail height for flat bottom track is Code 82 but isn't so readily available and the point work has to be hand built.  Since the track gauge in 00 is too narrow, going for the under scale rail is likely to look better.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your 2nd Radius is likely to cause more grief than the choice between code 100 and code 75.   There are quite a few post 2000 RTR locos which are marginal on 2nd radius, My 64XX can't get round, the Hattons 14XX struggles and the Q1 shorts out. 64 and 14XX are fine on 3rd.

I have a few code 75 points and Hornby Dublo seems to be fine through them as do pin point axle Triang wheels, in fact they run better than on code 100 as the flanges run along the bottom of the flangeways,   Triang locos needs re wheeling except the B12/ Hall etc take Hornby County / Castle tyres on their original wheels. The Hornby "Siver seal" stock won't run through code 75 but can be rewheeled except the tender drives which need binning as do some of the Lima stock which I think use HO axles as do some Airfix but Airfix and Mainline seem fine.    Its just whether you have significant numbers of the affected locos.   If not code 75 sounds like a no brainer but so does avoiding set track points and 2nd radius curves..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting again I'd probably go for code 75, but I have plenty of code 100, so I'm stuck with it. What I don't like is running 4mm models on 3.5mm track (I'm not referring to the gauge though EM is preferable!) Luckily I have sufficient stocks of Formoway, which only needs the sleeper spacing reset. For some strange reason track manufacturers seem to always set them too close together.

 

Streamline was originally designed to accept Tri-ang and HD wheels, but the flangeways have been tightened up over the years.

 

Lima axles are 2mm diameter, as are most 00 wheels, so it is possible to fit other wheels to the axles. 12mm and 11.5mm are close enough to present little trouble with clearances. Shifting the uninsulated wheel without damaging the axle is really the only problem.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for everyone's input!

 

Another factor pushing me towards Code 100 is that I am probably going to be ballasting this layout myself as the builders say in current situation  it will be problematic for them.

 

My only experience of ballasting was some years ago when building a small 3 point shelf layout when I remember ballasting being a real turn off, messy, points getting clogged, and I was never satisfied with the looks of the finished ballasting!

 

So I think ballasting code 100 will be easier than code 75.

However, saying that, I like the suggestion of code 100 on the running lines and code 75 in the scenic sidings. 

 

While most of the curved running lines will be outside of the scenic area, I am concerned at the views expressed that some small locos do not like 2nd radius. The only one that has been mentioned that I have is the Hattons 14xx. I was considering the 64xx as a purchase however.

Has anyone else views on these or any other larger WR/LMR/Standard steam that are a problem on 2nd radius?

 

Best regards

Paul 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Il Grifone said:

Starting again I'd probably go for code 75, but I have plenty of code 100, so I'm stuck with it. What I don't like is running 4mm models on 3.5mm track (I'm not referring to the gauge though EM is preferable!) Luckily I have sufficient stocks of Formoway, which only needs the sleeper spacing reset. For some strange reason track manufacturers seem to always set them too close together.

 

 

I believe Peco is based on a North American prototype. Since British modellers make up a smaller market & the track looks reasonably ok, they chose to use the same tooling.

Maybe the others (Hornby etc) have similar reasons? Sleeper spacing on straight track can be modified. It costs are only in the amount of time it takes.

 

43 minutes ago, Tallpaul69 said:

Thanks for everyone's input!

 

Another factor pushing me towards Code 100 is that I am probably going to be ballasting this layout myself as the builders say in current situation  it will be problematic for them.

 

My only experience of ballasting was some years ago when building a small 3 point shelf layout when I remember ballasting being a real turn off, messy, points getting clogged, and I was never satisfied with the looks of the finished ballasting!

 

So I think ballasting code 100 will be easier than code 75.

 

 

Don't experiment on your layout.

Buy a small quantity of track, cut it into small sections, stick them on some off-cuts of wood & ballast it. Find a method which works for you.

Your ballasting will now be a lot tidier & you'll be ready to apply it to your layout.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Don't experiment on your layout.

Buy a small quantity of track, cut it into small sections, stick them on some off-cuts of wood & ballast it. Find a method which works for you.

Your ballasting will now be a lot tidier & you'll be ready to apply it to your layout.

No, I had already thought of that!

Luckily I have a few bits of code 75 as well as plenty of code 100 to experiment on!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

While it doesn’t last forever, don’t rule out foam underlay instead of loose ballast and glue.  My 00  layout uses Peco code 100 track and their foam underlay and its been to many exhibitions (including one of the ‘big shows’), not a single person has commented on the foam underlay.  It is weathered and worked into the scenery, far easier than trying to use loose ballast. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to Pete's advice, why not get a job lot of broken points and practice ballasting them, I have had so little success that I abandoned trying to ballast points as I end up gumming up the blades or insulating bits of rail which shouldn't be insulated!   Underlay starts looking like a great alternative especially for points.

The old Peco code 100 was designed for late 1950s era TRI-ANG flanges. Triang and H/D are poles apart  profile wise, H/D like code 75 track, a lot of Triang and some 1970 on Hornby can't cope at all.  Peco code 100 has a deep groove between the check rail and running rail to take the huge Triang flanges. Hornby Dublo had much shallower flanges which ran along the bottom of the flangeway groove on H/D points.  with code 100 Peco the H/D wheel drops into the rail gaps, with code 75 it doesn't.     

Edited by DavidCBroad
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

By chance I’ve been remodelling the mancave, for forthcoming media stuff.

I’ll run a few items through this

5ED83170-4000-48AF-A525-4BDC1ED12CEF.jpeg.58a5f4cd0fbfd65c75c1578aae2c8b27.jpeg

 

and see what occurs. There’s no problems with Hattons 14xx, Bachmann 64/57/8750 panniers. There are other factors to consider which I’ll take pics of, but if you can get away from 2nd radius with your possible fleet mix, I’d think that a worthwhile effort. If your track is being laid for you, ask the ‘contractor’ to consider transition curves using flexitrack, they’ll help with smooth running.

Edited by PMP
Spellin
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ColinK said:

While it doesn’t last forever, don’t rule out foam underlay instead of loose ballast and glue.  My 00  layout uses Peco code 100 track and their foam underlay and its been to many exhibitions (including one of the ‘big shows’), not a single person has commented on the foam underlay.  It is weathered and worked into the scenery, far easier than trying to use loose ballast. 

Unfortunately, foam underlay is not an option because the layout (apart from ballasting, signals, and scenics is being built by others (and no before any one asks I can't undertake the track laying myself!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PMP said:

There’s no problems with Hattons 14xx, Bachmann 64/57/8750 panniers. There are other factors to consider which I’ll take pics of, but if you can get away from 2nd radius with your possible fleet mix, I’d think that a worthwhile effort. If your track is being laid for you, ask the ‘contractor’ to consider transition curves using flexitrack, they’ll help with smooth running.

Thanks, that's useful!

 

I can't go much larger than equivalent of 2nd and 3rd radius, there is not the room. I think they are using flexitrack so transition curves may be a useful idea and not make a space problem.

 

Cheers

Paul 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

The layout is a secondary main line in WR area which will run in two eras c1960, and c1990.

 

 

My preferred builders are suggesting I go for code 75 although my preference is for code 100, to allow me to run older items such as Lima products and HB 00 two rail rolling stock.

 

 

Paul,

 

Consider the fact that Much Murkle is all code 100.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tallpaul69 said:

I can't go much larger than equivalent of 2nd and 3rd radius, there is not the room. I think they are using flexitrack so transition curves may be a useful idea and not make a space problem.

 

Just so long as they don't make the tightest part of the curves smaller than 2nd radius in order to accommodate the extra length required for the transition curves within the space occupied by a normal 2nd or 3rd radius curve.  You still need more room for transition curves even if the main body of the curve is still at your chosen minimum radius.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with replacing Lima wheelsets is the short axles. However. Alan Gibson will supply wheelsets on HO axles if you specify it. With the HD stuff, the problem there is the wheels are plastic, or similar and pick up dirt like..............well, lets just say they pick up dirt. And then transfer it onto all the wheels on your other stock.

Edited by JZ
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...