Does anyone use Code 75/100 instead of Code 83 for North American Layouts?

[GEOEng03]

Hi,

Hope everyone is well.  I just wondered if anyone uses Code 75/100 instead of Code 83 for North American Layouts.  If so, how do you get on with it.  I have some points and track spare that is Code 75 and wondered hwo it would suit N.American locomotives - newer stuff such as SD70, SD40 etc... 

Cheers

[johnb]

I've used both Peco 75 and 100 on US layouts, no issue at all. A variety of locos through from Trackmobiles up to SD50s .

[F-UnitMad]

I did use Code 75 on an HO layout, but it was years ago & before the Code 83 range was available. Certainly no issue with wheels, the NMRA standard being finer than NEM as far as I know.

Of course being chaired UK track, both Codes 75 & 100 look wrong for a US layout, but only if you look closely - I even got away with using Peco O scale UK track on a US outline layout a few years ago, and no-one at the couple of Exhibitions I did with it noticed.

It was the 'rough track' way I laid it that got all the comments...

[Alcanman]

I've been using Peco Code 100 on my US layouts for years for it's reliability and robustness.

 

With careful painting and ballasting it looks good. IMHO.

 

 

[AndrewC]

Generally I stick to 83. However, I had 50 yards of 100 from an aborted project which was repurposed as staging track. No issues at all. Even with some really fussy Proto:87 wheel sets. 

[roundhouse]

I used code 75 when I built Fort Myers 26 years ago before code 83 was available. Older Athearn bluebox locos abound from when the layout was built but much newer models also run fine.

[fulton]

Used code 75 on home and exhibition layouts with no problems, IMHO when ballasted and weathered looks good, my latest layout I thought I would give the recently available code 70 or 83 a try, I could get code 83 points but no track, or code 70 track but no points! So have used Code 83 points and code 70 track, a little bit of packing all works and looks good. Photo shows code 83 points with code 70 track, I run everything from Athearn blue box to Exact Rail without problems, careful laying and flat baseboards are the key.

[EmporiaSub]

I use Code 100, find it just as good for all my US stock.

Once ballasted and weathered it doesn't look to bad.

[F-UnitMad]

The rails of the front & rear tracks here on my (very unfinished) layout are Code 100.    

 

... but it is O Scale

 

[Andy Reichert]

 

For our HO Freemo modules we use a mixture of Central Valley and Hand-laid.  (But absolutely NO PCB sleepers)

 

Andy

[rodshaw]

I used Peco code 100 on my HO scale American layout, including some insulfrog turnouts. Everything ran like a dream. I have some left over and I'm using it on a switching plank to run my remaining HO up and down. If I bought any more track for HO I might give code 83 a try though.

[GEOEng03]

On 29/10/2020 at 19:01, F-UnitMad said:

I did use Code 75 on an HO layout, but it was years ago & before the Code 83 range was available. Certainly no issue with wheels, the NMRA standard being finer than NEM as far as I know.

Of course being chaired UK track, both Codes 75 & 100 look wrong for a US layout, but only if you look closely - I even got away with using Peco O scale UK track on a US outline layout a few years ago, and no-one at the couple of Exhibitions I did with it noticed.

It was the 'rough track' way I laid it that got all the comments...

Thanks for that. TBH, looking at the picture, you can't really tell from the sighting level being looked from. Looks fantastic by the way and it's so prototypical of US track to not be laid perfectly. Assume the trains operated over it with little issue. 

[GEOEng03]

On 29/10/2020 at 21:45, EmporiaSub said:

I use Code 100, find it just as good for all my US stock.

Once ballasted and weathered it doesn't look to bad.

Looks fab to me and I can't tell from the level the picture has been taken from.  Thanks 

[GEOEng03]

Thanks all for replies, sorry I hadn't replied sooner, lost the week.  It's very hard to track down Code 83 track and points that aren't stupidly priced.  I've found some track at TMC and points and points at Model junction, but seems easier to source Code 75/100, though that's in short supply as well. 

 

Tough one really, but at least I don't need lots for a 2.1m x 0.4m shelf layout I'm planning. Some great inspiration from the pictures though, really good to see everyone's work

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thanks for posting this topic - I have both US and UK rolling stock for separate projects but only one supply of track, which is Code 100.  From the photos shared here, careful attention to track laying and ballasting (when I get that far) may be a more effective use of my time and budget than trying to duplicate (or convert) my permanent way.  Really helpful, and some nice layout shots to enjoy too, Keith.

[F-UnitMad]

4 hours ago, GEOEng03 said:

Thanks for that. TBH, looking at the picture, you can't really tell from the sighting level being looked from. Looks fantastic by the way and it's so prototypical of US track to not be laid perfectly. Assume the trains operated over it with little issue. 

On my loft layout, I hand-spiked my track. The one siding (passing loop in UK terms) I did really 'rough' indeed. I posted a photo of it here on Thursday.

6-axle locos can't handle it, but 4-axle & freight cars are fine - I do loosen the trucks a bit on the cars. the fact US stock is all on trucks (bogies!) helps enormously - as it does in real life too!!

Old Atlas Plymouths manage it pretty well, too.

here's a video from earlier in it's construction...

 

[Andy Reichert]

I've used code 55 rail a lot for my own projects. The rail cost is far less than code 83 or even code 70, because there is so much less metal. So you can make a lot more track for the same money. It also looks better for the lighter rail of the early 20th Century.

 

The same argument doesn't apply to Code 40 however, as it takes significantly much longer manufacturing time to draw than the larger rail codes

 

Andy.

[Bagpuss]

If you can find code 83, it looks a lot more like US track than code 75/100. The smaller, closer spaced ties and moulded spikes look much better than the chaired flat bottom Frankenstein that is code 75/100.

 

My experience is that it runs better than code 75/100 too. The raised flangeways in the frog area prevent wheel drop.

[F-UnitMad]

4 hours ago, Bagpuss said:

If you can find code 83, it looks a lot more like US track than code 75/100.

At the risk of stating the screaming obvious, that is the idea....

[Bagpuss]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

At the risk of stating the screaming obvious, that is the idea....

In the same way that your hand laid O scale track looks much better than Peco O gauge track.

The short answer is code 70/83 looks much better than 75/100. The question is can you live with the appearance of 75/100.

[Regularity]

The point is that the code 83 and code 70 ranges are created specifically to use US design features and crossing numbers, whereas the code 100 is an old slightly generic pattern, and the code 75 is simply the same geometry and sleeper spacing with a smaller rail section.

If track work is of interest to you (and let’s face it, if you are modelling a railway, rather than trains and operations, then it must be) then these features will be important.

The old code 100 range was a world leader for many years, and was successfully used on many layouts, so it works: that’s not an issue, as decades of experience supports that viewpoint. As to what other modellers think, it’s your hobby: if more accurate track bothers you, then you will use 70 or 83. 

 

[F-UnitMad]

23 hours ago, Bagpuss said:

In the same way that your hand laid O scale track looks much better than Peco O gauge track.

The short answer is code 70/83 looks much better than 75/100. The question is can you live with the appearance of 75/100.

My track might look slightly better than Peco - for American track. For my UK O layouts I've used Peco, because for British track it looks better than my efforts!!

 

The OP's question indeed was 'can you live with Code 75/100?' - for an American layout! 

The overwhelming concensus seems to be that it's perfectly tolerable and not a hanging offence.

[Nick_Burman]

47 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

The OP's question indeed was 'can you live with Code 75/100?' - for an American layout! 

The overwhelming concensus seems to be that it's perfectly tolerable and not a hanging offence.

 

 

For the kind of US modelling that interests me code 83 is just too heavy. The alternative would be Walthers/Shinohara code 70 but it's  unreliable (one rather grouchy US model shop owner called it "S***ohara"). Another alternative would be Micro Engineering... hard to find at times and their flex is a pain to bend. That leaves Peco 75 as the closest alternative - bullet-proof (almost), easy to work and readily available. Which leads to the question - what of PECO's code 70 line?

 

Cheers Nicholas

Edited November 3, 2020 by Nick_Burman

[Keith Addenbrooke]

9 hours ago, Nick_Burman said:

 

 

For the kind of US modelling that interests me code 83 is just too heavy. The alternative would be Walthers/Shinohara code 70 but it's  unreliable (one rather grouchy US model shop owner called it "S***ohara"). Another alternative would be Micro Engineering... hard to find at times and their flex is a pain to bend. That leaves Peco 75 as the closest alternative - bullet-proof (almost), easy to work and readily available. Which leads to the question - what of PECO's code 70 line?

 

Cheers Nicholas

Has the Code 70 been released yet?  Perfectly possible I’ve missed it, but I’ve not seen any references to it in use yet?

[z4driver]

I think the flex track is available but no switches yet. I think they've announced that #6s will be out first but no date.