Is Code 100 still used on "serious" layouts?

[davknigh]

I use Code 100 rail, hand spiked to wood ties...

 

 

20171227_113245.jpg

 

No one mentioned which Scale

Code 100 looks very good in O scale, just what you need for a decrepit old siding

 

Cheers,

 

David

[SRman]

As several others have said, Peco's code 100 is very robust and reliable. With proper ballasting it can look quite presentable. On my previous layout, all done with Peco code 100, a visitor once paid me the ultimate compliment by asking if it was finescale track. Painting the rails and ballasting to the tops of the sleepers, or even over the sleepers for the engine shed tracks, disguises the depth of the rails considerably.

On my current layout, I have only got as far as ballasting the Underground tracks (not in the tunnels, I should add), plus one small portion of the upper level tracks, and the programming track.


N15 30764 Sir Gawaine on Race Special - 1 cropped by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr


Bachmann Class 66 125 Sunderland - Portrait by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr


Bulleid 10201 with Bulleid coaches - 1 cropped by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr


And one from the old layout:


Middlehurst from engine shed - mod 3 by Jeffrey Lynn, on Flickr


I am using some Peco code 75 and bullhead track in the new engine shed area, but this will not be a high traffic/heavy use area. I noted that even handling these tracks requires a lot more care because they are markedly more fragile than the code 100 track. I should also point out that I have tried a few other, cheaper brands of track over the past years, and all have failed the test of robustness, with rails popping out of the retainers even after some years of being pinned or glued in place - I always came back to Peco, and mostly to code 100, certainly for all the main running lines.

[Peter Crawford]

Who would the cheaper brands be, SRMan?

[SRman]

Many years ago it was possible to find all sorts of odd brands or even unbranded track. I know one of them was Lima, but there were others I cannot remember now; all I do know is they were somewhat cheaper than Peco was, but in the long run, they weren't worth the money anyway.

[johnb]

It's better for exhibition layouts rather than those that never leave home as unless you tell viewers, they will only be able to guess. Furthermore, at a normal viewing distance, no one will notice it. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would need a magnifying glass etc. to see the difference half a metre away.

I agree having exhibited with layouts using both, Code 100 is definitely the more robust, both at board ends and for pointwork. I use Code 100 on my own exhibatable layout and am often asked if it's Code 75, it is ballasted, pained and quite heavily weathered and as Peter C says it is not easy to tell the difference at usual viewing distance.

 

John

[Peter Crawford]

The finescale craze doesn't equal the outlawing of Code 100

 

Edit: Finescale is not a craze.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Peter Crawford

[DCB]

This telephoto shot to compress the curve through the station was a test. It is Peco code 100 laid on top of Peco bullhead to a revised formation. The Code 100 rail is far more apparent because of its unpainted flat bottom section. Two-thirds of my layout uses Code 100 with some of it outside in the garden.....

 

WEB Code 100 1.jpg

I don't think anyone would notice the difference, apart from the point blades.  It is the reverse curve entering the loop which catches the eye, keeping the inner radius constant and swinging the outer wider would make al the difference and that is where hand building or bending RTR  points makes the difference.

 

I find getting the "6ft" as near to scale as possible makes more difference visually than the height of the rail especially where track is ballasted, and that is from personal regrets at laying key parts of the layout at standard 50mm centres.

[Pacific231G]

I wonder if PECO were to make scale 60ft lengths (of flexi) whether this would be a great selling addition to the Bullhead range?  Not sure if you can get 2 or 3 exact 60ft scale lengths out of a single yard length but you might end up with lots of end of yard waste lengths hence my suggestion (and thus no or very little waste).  I would buy them for the reason below.

 

Whenever I have watch some videos on YouTube where the layout owners have laid scale 60ft lengths its wonderful hearing a full length passenger express pass over the regularly spaced joints and sounds totally realistic bringing back to life that old clickety clack noise we rarely hear these days in the UK.   With yard lengths you just don't get that rhythmic sound.

 

Were the Hornby/Peco/Bachmann set track "Double straights" manufactured to a scale 60ft I wonder?   They look about the right length but obviously these are Code 100.

I think notching the rail head and fitting dummy fishplates would achieve the same result especially if you adjusted the sleeper spacing appropriatelyat each "rail join"  without the problems of laying a lot of short lengths of track without kinks or doglegs especially on curves.

 

The answer might be to make up a jig for a panel of track and use  that to position the sleepers appropriately  while laying flextrack having cut the webs.

 

You can go to a very high level of precision with this as the diagrams here illustrate but I have found the simpler examples useful for respacing  Peco sleepers.

 

http://www.club-proto-87.com/index.php/plans-de-poses/voies-anciennes-compagnies

 

I don't know if anyone has ever produced similar templates for the different British companies and BR.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Crocodile414]

I use peco code 100 on all my layouts, its robust, cost effective and once its ballasted and/or weathered it blends in well. I admire the efforts people make with finescale track and sleeper spacing but ultimately its down to the individual's preference. Many exhibition layouts with code 100 often have the most reliable running in my experience

[Peter Crawford]

I think that Code 100 is more versatile, furthermore, most of us have gathered track from train sets and job lots etc. so this would be a problem if our layouts were Code 75. I have only recently considered any serious layout, preferring the 'train set on a table' mentality up until the past year or so. Therefore, my trackwork is all modular and Code 75 forces you to use flexitrack for curves...

[Pete the Elaner]

I don't think anyone would notice the difference, apart from the point blades.  It is the reverse curve entering the loop which catches the eye, keeping the inner radius constant and swinging the outer wider would make al the difference and that is where hand building or bending RTR  points makes the difference.

 

I find getting the "6ft" as near to scale as possible makes more difference visually than the height of the rail especially where track is ballasted, and that is from personal regrets at laying key parts of the layout at standard 50mm centres.

You have a good 'point' there about point blades. It is areas like this which make the track height more noticeable.

I disagree about noticing the difference though. Someone who is used to using code 75 will notice code 100 fairly easily, but someone modelling code 100 is less likely to.

It is not too dis-similar to video. Back in the day, we were happy watching VHS. Then along came DVD. The step forward in picture quality was not immediately obvious until I put on an old video & it looked dreadful. Now HD TV & Blu-Ray in the standard, I don't think I could watch a VHS video even if I had a working player!

 

I remember seeing it mentioned earlier in the thread about code 75 being underscale. Remember that OO gauge is also underscale, so anything else bang to 4mm scale will not necessarily look correct & it may be necessary to cheat the dimensions to make the proportions look correct.

Maybe this is the reason 75 thou was chosen?

 

The 6' is another thing I have been working with. Again the compromise of OO means we can't use the correct 6' because the track centres would be too close & adjacent stock would foul each other. 'Train set' curves are another issue.

I have laid short test tracks to look at this & to me, the difference is slight until you put some trains on the rails, then it becomes much more noticeable. After using it on my current layout, I found that it is more noticeable on longer stretches of track even without any trains on them & particularly though platforms.

[Baby Deltic]

I used code 100 on my exhibition layout 'Sumatra Road' as I find it far more durable and forgiving than code 75 in an exhibition environment where baseboards might not always be dead level at the join. The club I belong to are using it on our next project and there are some serious so called 'fine scale'  modelers among us, one of whome models in P4.

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Baby Deltic

[Dan Griffin]

I use code 100, always have done. two reasons,

one its durability. it can take a lot more knocks and bumps than code 75,

 

and two I have quite a lot of it from previous layouts ect, and the cost of going over to code 75 for me is prohibitive.

 

IMO it looks good when weathered and ballasted.

 

it is also handy that when laying fiddle yards and using set track to save space, different manufacturers can be mixed with no ill effects or special joining/translator pieces of track.

[Silver Sidelines]

An interesting question. I currently use Code 100 basically because I had track from previous layouts.

The latest Peco Code 100 large radius points have minimal extra plastic showing. I am impressed.



In the past I have experimented with Graham Farish Formoway which I believe had 4mm scale sleepers / spacing. Unfortunately the design of the points were not up to Peco standards and the points blades soon became detached. The fundamental problem is the 16.5mm gauge. I am not sure that the 'scale' sleepers and spacing really works for 00 gauge.  EM should be the answer but then that is a different question and it is not going to happen.  You might say it was all decided by Frank Hornby a long time ago and could not be influenced by the likes of Trix with their 3.5mm offerings in the early 60s.

 

Ray

[Free At Last]

I use code 100 as I had bought quite a bit of it in the 70s for a layout that never got of the ground. When I started back modelling about 20 years ago the only thing I changed was from insulfrog to electrofrog points. The only drawback I found was the lack of electrofrog slips but found them easy to convert. 

 

 

Edit to add  I am by no means a 'serious' layout modeller.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Free At Last

[cravensdmufan]

I have used (and reused) Peco Code 100 for over 30 years - the same track and turnouts on 3 different layouts!  Fantastic product which is strong and long lasting.  When painted and ballasted I reckon it's great.  Plus all my stock, old and new, runs perfectly on it.  So a definite thumbs up from me!

[Crewlisle]

I use peco code 100 on all my layouts, its robust, cost effective and once its ballasted and/or weathered it blends in well. I admire the efforts people make with finescale track and sleeper spacing but ultimately its down to the individual's preference. Many exhibition layouts with code 100 often have the most reliable running in my experience

 

Totally agree.  I started 'Crewlisle' 45 years ago with minor modifications to the layout to the present date.  I used Peco Code 100 track & eventually installed a total of 30 Code 100 Insulfrog points as that was all that was available.  Over the intervening years I modified them to live frogs.  It is only in the last 5 years I started to replace all my points as they had worn out.  Many modellers on this forum think I should be burnt at the stake because I state that Peco Code 100 Electrofrog points can be used straight out of the box without the need for polarity switching & I have been DCC for 10 years!  The only polarity switches on my layout are for my live diamond, converted from Insulfrog to live frogs.

 

I have exhibited at the NEC (5 times), Ally Pally twice, Hornby's Great Electric Train Show & local shows.  I can count on one hand the number of point failures I have had over the years (both at home & at exhibitions) & these have only been in sidings.   My track is laid on 1.5mm white polystyrene wall insulation, ballasted, spray painted with a dark grey ballast colour with a quick light pass down the centre of the track with Humbrol 'Track Colour'.  I have lost count of the number of times visitors to exhibitions who have asked if it is Code 75.  This is probably because the sides of the rails are painted thus disguising the height of the rail.

 

As many have stated in previous comments, it is robust & reliable - especially the points.  You have to trade off realism/scale for reliability.

 

Peter

Edited July 2, 2018 by Crewlisle

[Peter Crawford]

Crewlisle makes sense...

[Barry Ten]

Perhaps I'm just excessively clumsy, but I've found Code 75 points very liable to the rails separating from the webbing at the heel end; I've had this happen with several points during routine "handling" of track laying and adjustment.

[Pacific231G]

You have a good 'point' there about point blades. It is areas like this which make the track height more noticeable.

I disagree about noticing the difference though. Someone who is used to using code 75 will notice code 100 fairly easily, but someone modelling code 100 is less likely to.

It is not too dis-similar to video. Back in the day, we were happy watching VHS. Then along came DVD. The step forward in picture quality was not immediately obvious until I put on an old video & it looked dreadful. Now HD TV & Blu-Ray in the standard, I don't think I could watch a VHS video even if I had a working player!

 

I remember seeing it mentioned earlier in the thread about code 75 being underscale. Remember that OO gauge is also underscale, so anything else bang to 4mm scale will not necessarily look correct & it may be necessary to cheat the dimensions to make the proportions look correct.

Maybe this is the reason 75 thou was chosen?

 

The 6' is another thing I have been working with. Again the compromise of OO means we can't use the correct 6' because the track centres would be too close & adjacent stock would foul each other. 'Train set' curves are another issue.

I have laid short test tracks to look at this & to me, the difference is slight until you put some trains on the rails, then it becomes much more noticeable. After using it on my current layout, I found that it is more noticeable on longer stretches of track even without any trains on them & particularly though platforms.

Hi Pete

On the excessively wide 6ft, I don't know if this is useful but the BRMSB "Standard Dimensions" published in 1950 give a  centre to centre straight running track separation  of 50mm (1.97 inches) for OO. This is what a Peco Streamline crossover will gives you (it's close to US prototype practice in HO but wide for both British OO and Euopean H0) but the BRMSB standard also gave 45mm (1.772 inches) centre to centre for EM and 40mm or 1.575 inches for H0 which is a bit tight (The NEM standard separation for H0 is 46mm for running tracks and 50 mm in stations) 

 

I see no reason why you shouldn't uses a 45mm centre to centre for double track, making due allowance on curves of course. OO track being narrow gauge does make the six foot a bit wide but is actually about right for the current 2 metre "six foot"   If you're prepared to carve up your points (or build your own) this should also make pointwork a bit shorter- I'm experimenting with that now.

 

Back to Code 100 etc.

 

Curiously, the original BRMSB standards published in 1942 had a rail height of 2.0 mm (79 thou) for H0 and  "Scale OO" (18mm gauge) and 2,5mm (close to 100 thou) for "Standard OO"  I assume that was for bullhead because the BRMSB "Standard Dimensions" published by META in 1950 gave a rail height of 2.5mm (0.098 inches) for bullhead and 2.25mm (0.089 inches) for flat bottom rail for H0, 00, EM and EMF (EM fine) so clearly they didn't see those as particularly overscale for 4mm/ft even though they are.

 

I think it's modern standard rail being heavier than its predecessors that makes code 75 rail slightly underscale for OO, for steam era it's probably close to correct. check rail clearances were given as 1mm for H0 and EMF but 1.25mm for OO and "ordinary" EM and I wish the manufacturers had stuck to that.

 

Given that the BRMSB gave modelling dimensions principally in mm  and that was also true in Europe*, the specification of rail in "codes" expressed in thousandths of an inch came from the USA - presumably from the NMRA. In any case, by 1950 2.5mm or code 100 height rail seems to have been so well established on both sides of the Atlantic for both H0 and OO that it's often just referred to in Britain as "BRMSB Standard" (usually with a note that Maerklin and Trix required a special higher rail).  Finer scale rail starting with code 83 in the US and code 75 in Europe came a bit later but I'm not sure when. All my samples of early track, mostly point kits, use rail close to code 100. Philip Hancock started his 009 Craig and Mertonford using standard Peco rail but turned to their smaller section conductor rail (now quoted as Code 60) as soon as it became available. Peter Denny used "standard" 00 bullhead rail which was overscale but turned to code 75 BH rail when that became available.

 

* NEM 120 on rail profiles and fishplates gives rail profiles in numbers corresponding to ten times the height in mm. It does give the closest NMRA Code to each but profil 20 is supposed to correspond to Code 83 though at 0.0787 inches it's actually slightly closer to Code 75 which, courtesy of Peco, is what a majority of "serious" French modellers (i.e those whose layouts get published) seem to be using nowadays.    

Edited July 4, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Mutley]

I’ve been in a bit of a modelling rut for the last year or two, became very frustrated with the effort it took to get even a bit of track down and wired, bits falling off points etc and assumed it was all me.

 

I’ve been contemplating a move to O Gauge as I felt I needed a real change and sketched up a plan in XtrkCad.  This would be a radical move for me as I’ve accumulated a fair amount of OO stock over the years that’s special to me and with my sensible hat on, decided to mock up the O Gauge plan to the same proportions in OO just to see if it had enough operational interest for me.

 

To cut a long story short, I’ve been working in Code 75 for years but have some Code 100 stashed away from previous layouts and for some reason I turned to that for my mock up. 

 

What a revelation!  The track went down in about 2 hours, it looked fine (to my eyes) and it was nice and robust - no rails parted company with the sleeper webbing, the point springs were all nice and strong.  I got some of my stock out and pushed it around a bit and everything ran smoothly … all of a sudden, the modelling mojo is back!

 

I’d started to build a new OO Gauge layout in Code 75 a month or two back that seemed to take forever and the whole thing has been stalled with a handful of points and some lengths of plain track laid forlornly on their cork underlay …

 

Spurred on, I ripped that up, re-laid it (and wired it) in Code 100 in double quick time and have booked a day off of work to do some more.  Thoughts of O Gauge have been banished for now at least.

 

Life's too short and there’ll be a few job-lots of battle-scarred Code 75 pointwork / slips etc  heading for a well known auction site shortly 

Edited July 4, 2018 by Mutley

[adb968008]

Were the Hornby/Peco/Bachmann set track "Double straights" manufactured to a scale 60ft I wonder? They look about the right length but obviously these are Code 100.

4mm = 1ft.

4mm x 60ft = 240mm

Peco ST-201 = 331mm (double straight) - Hornby R601

Peco ST-200 = 168mm (short straight) - Hornby R600

 

Sadly not any scale at any length... HO is 210mm

 

Piko has a 60ft section cat # 55200 - 239mm also other short straights at 231mm... cat# 55201.. track quality is very good, nickel silver, slightly thinner rails, so a bit of effort joining Peco track at the fishplates which are a bit slimmer, but perfectly usable, for a perfect fit Piko even make fishplates to adapt between Roco (Hornby’s original supplier and which the code 100 std is based) and Piko cat 55293.

Edited July 5, 2018 by adb968008

[Marcyg]

Totally agree.  I started 'Crewlisle' 45 years ago with minor modifications to the layout to the present date.  I used Peco Code 100 track & eventually installed a total of 30 Code 100 Insulfrog points as that was all that was available.  Over the intervening years I modified them to live frogs.  It is only in the last 5 years I started to replace all my points as they had worn out.  Many modellers on this forum think I should be burnt at the stake because I state that Peco Code 100 Electrofrog points can be used straight out of the box without the need for polarity switching & I have been DCC for 10 years!  The only polarity switches on my layout are for my live diamond, converted from Insulfrog to live frogs.

 

I have exhibited at the NEC (5 times), Ally Pally twice, Hornby's Great Electric Train Show & local shows.  I can count on one hand the number of point failures I have had over the years (both at home & at exhibitions) & these have only been in sidings.   My track is laid on 1.5mm white polystyrene wall insulation, ballasted, spray painted with a dark grey ballast colour with a quick light pass down the centre of the track with Humbrol 'Track Colour'.  I have lost count of the number of times visitors to exhibitions who have asked if it is Code 75.  This is probably because the sides of the rails are painted thus disguising the height of the rail.

 

As many have stated in previous comments, it is robust & reliable - especially the points.  You have to trade off realism/scale for reliability.

 

Peter

I use code 100 track, mainly as I run an awful lot of Lima locos, in the region of 44 class 47's, 8 HSTs etc, so changing all those wheels isn't an option. They simply won't run on code 75. Also, as per Crewelisle, I switch my point frogs through the switch blades only, no frog switches use (although I admit I've used PM1 point motors so I can switch them in future if needed) and other than having to keep them clean, I've had no problems at all. Easy, cheaper and other than having to think about which decoder I have to use, I can plonk anything on the layout and it will run fine

[Budgie]

I use Code 100 rail, hand spiked to wood ties...

 

 

20171227_113245.jpg

 

No one mentioned which Scale

There are some full-size railways with track like that, as some YouTube videos will attest.

[Budgie]

My one gripe with Peco Code 100 is that there are no electrofrog diamond crossings and slips in the range. I assume they are going to reissue their insulfrog crossings and slips as unifrog in due course, but who knows when?