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

[Nick_Burman]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

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?

 

Well, it had been announced... then, silence.

 

I have a bit of US HO which I would like to give a place to run. Most of it represents a pre-1929 shortline, so code 70 or 75 track is a must, code 83 is just too heavy for this. I'm not going to order Peco code 75 if Peco 70 becomes available.

 

Cheers NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nick_Burman]

Oh yea, forgot to say - one advantage of Peco 75/100 switches is their geometry - the fact that you can join a small radius switch next to a large radius one while still retaining parallel tracks is nothing short of a stroke of genius. Plus the fact that they are more compact for a given radius (the Peco Small Radius is the equivalent of an US #5). I wish that PECO had transmitted these characteristics to the code 83 and the future code 70 switches (or has it?), rather than following the US 4-6-8 denomination.

 

Cheers NB

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Nick_Burman said:

I wish that PECO had transmitted these characteristics to the code 83 and the future code 70 switches (or has it?), rather than following the US 4-6-8 denomination.

But if they did that, it wouldn't be American track, would it? Plus it would lose them their target market - which isn't a few Brits who like American trains, but the rather more important HO market to the left of The Pond.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Nick_Burman said:

one advantage of Peco 75/100 switches is their geometry - the fact that you can join a small radius switch next to a large radius one while still retaining parallel tracks is nothing short of a stroke of genius

That’s definitely a matter of subjective opinion, and in my contrary view, is the biggest drawback of the range, and is what makes them toy train tracks, rather than the correct 4-6-8 geometry and correct tie spacing which makes the 70/83 ranges model railway track units.

[GEOEng03]

Hi all, 

Thanks for the interesting discussion.  I have secured a source of Code 83 points #6 and a double slip (which is much bigger than I thought it would be!!! as Nick_Burman states), plus 11 pieces of wooden track.  This should be enough to keep me going for the start of the layout.  I agree, I wanted Code 83, because of its accuracy (or better) to US railroads and the differences are night and day when I have stuck Code 75 and Code 83 next to each and was definitely the right thing to do! 

 

For me, it was getting hold of the track that was the issue, which prompted the post and if others had used Code 75/100 successfully, which I was very impressed to she had been achieved. 

 

Baseboards (shelf layout) are built and I have acquired some modern NS and CN/CP/VIA rolling stock, so I am now looking forward to cracking on with the build. 

Cheers

Bryn

[Nick_Burman]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

But if they did that, it wouldn't be American track, would it? Plus it would lose them their target market - which isn't a few Brits who like American trains, but the rather more important HO market to the left of The Pond.

 

No, because what makes track look American is sleeper size and spacing, not geometry. Yes, here are the AREA standards - but there were many places where track could or was not laid to AREA standards, especially because of space constraints. And even the Americans appreciate the PECO 75/100 offering exactly because of its compactness when compared with a standard 4/6/8 - a large steam loco traversing a PECO Small radius point looks less ridiculous than if it were traversing a #4, for example. So I do believe that if PECO had retained the S/M/L geometry in the code 83 and 70 it would have something special and different for the market.

 

 

Cheers NB

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, Nick_Burman said:

So I do believe that if PECO had retained the S/M/L geometry in the code 83 and 70 it would have something special and different for the market.

‘different’ can be a mixed blessing - in some cases compatibility with the geometry used by other manufacturers can be an advantage - the basic geometry used by both Peco and Hornby for OO Gauge Setrack in the UK is the same, for example.

 

I’d imagine Peco were also mindful of how published American track plans are drawn - if Peco were different could it make it more difficult?

 

I can only think of one published Kalmbach / MR track plan that did specify Peco Medium points (just for hidden trackage), for the compactness Nick described, but the author (Andy Sperandeo) was careful to explain his reasoning.
 

 Just a thought, Keith.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3 hours ago, GEOEng03 said:

Hi all, 

Thanks for the interesting discussion.  I have secured a source of Code 83 points #6 and a double slip (which is much bigger than I thought it would be!!! as Nick_Burman states), plus 11 pieces of wooden track.  This should be enough to keep me going for the start of the layout.  I agree, I wanted Code 83, because of its accuracy (or better) to US railroads and the differences are night and day when I have stuck Code 75 and Code 83 next to each and was definitely the right thing to do! 

 

For me, it was getting hold of the track that was the issue, which prompted the post and if others had used Code 75/100 successfully, which I was very impressed to she had been achieved. 

 

Baseboards (shelf layout) are built and I have acquired some modern NS and CN/CP/VIA rolling stock, so I am now looking forward to cracking on with the build. 

Cheers

Bryn

Glad you found a source.
 

‘Legacy’ (for want of a better word) can be another consideration for some.  Prompted by this conversation, I priced up what it would cost to convert my UK Code 100 to Code 83 if I wanted to.  Even for a small plan: 10 switches and 11yds of track (like yourself), I think I’d be looking at something like £200 - £250, plus redesign for the change in geometry, as discussed above.  My Code 100 supply was built up over twenty-five years and more, but a sudden change would be way beyond my budget.*

 

I was going to say I’d have higher priorities...but then I read the comment on side-by-side comparison!

 

Keith.

 

(* Point of irony - as my UK interest is mid-20th Century GWR, I realise they had done a full conversion of course!).

 

 

[EmporiaSub]

If you want to see the difference between Code 83 \ 70 \ 55, then my previous layout had all 3 in this photo...

Edited November 5, 2020 by EmporiaSub
Fat finger...