# Peco and Atlas track confusion



## Subsailor (Mar 9, 2017)

I am using SCARM software to draw my Ho scale layout and am confused as to which Peco track library to use. I am going to use Peco turnouts based on posts I have read in the forums. btw I have a supply of Atlas code 100 nickel silver that I plan to reuse or else I would use all Peco track. My last layout was over 12 years ago and I am still a newbie.

I am using the Atlas HO code 100 nickel silver library to draw the layout. But am confused as to which Peco track (turnouts) library to use. Do I use the code 83 or the OO code 100 library?

I used the oo/100 library initially because I thought it was HO code 100. Is this a valid assumption? 

Should I be using the Peco code 83 library?

Is Peco code 83 compatible with Atlas code 100?

Thanks for your assistance in resolving this newbies dilemma.


----------



## scaleddown (Mar 13, 2014)

Awaiting some awesome answers too.


----------



## thysell (Jun 8, 2013)

I believe you should use Peco HO 100 to match the Atlas track you plan to use. I didn't see a Peco HO code 100 in the SCARM libraries though. I did a quick search and Peco does make HO code 100 track. I would use the Peco code 83 track and verify that the code 83 and code 100 dimensions are the same except for the rail height. 

Typically the rail height is the difference between Code 83 and code 100 for a given manufacture. Code 83 track height is less than code 100. You cant just mix and match the two without using transitions from one to the other. There are some great pictures in this forum that show the size difference between code 83 and code 100. The code 83 tends to look more realistic but sometimes older locos and cars that have large flanges on the wheels can have trouble on it. There seems to be a really large selection of track and turnouts for code 83 that was not available back in the day. 

I'm using code 83 and really like it. I had a few pieces of code 100 flex track from a previous layout that I created a separate programming track for DCC locomotives.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Can't help you with Atlas but here's a run down on Peco track. Peco offer both code100 and code83(which they say is US specific.) There is also their Setrack range which is code100, these are shorter with tighter radii than their Streamline. The geometry of the Streamline and Code83 should match but obviously the rail profile won't. But they do transitions that allow you to join the various profiles.
Just to further confuse you they also do Code75, but this is really for UK Modellers of OO.
I did have some problems with European models using deeper flanges on code 83 but it was soon solved using a fine file to relieve the depth of the plastic part of the frog.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Here is a picture of the code 100 and code 83 turnouts. The latter is on the right. You can see the finer appearance and US tie spacing. Geometry and length is virtually identical with the rh turnout fractionally shorter. 

The other thing to decide on is electrofrog (live frog) or Insulfrog (dead frog). Here the Code83 is electrofrog and the Streamline is Insulfrog.


----------



## Robert_56 (Dec 20, 2010)

Subsailor said:


> I am using SCARM software to draw my Ho scale layout and am confused as to which Peco track library to use. I am going to use Peco turnouts based on posts I have read in the forums. btw I have a supply of Atlas code 100 nickel silver that I plan to reuse or else I would use all Peco track. My last layout was over 12 years ago and I am still a newbie.
> 
> I am using the Atlas HO code 100 nickel silver library to draw the layout. But am confused as to which Peco track (turnouts) library to use. Do I use the code 83 or the OO code 100 library?
> 
> ...


Was the answer given here http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showpost.php?p=1660186&postcount=3 incorrect? Let me know if it is wrong, can either edit or delete the post. Don't want to put out any bum info!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Unless I am greatly mistaken, UK OO and US HO use the same track gauge, 16.5 mm. In this case, the two would be interchangeable, with the primary difference being the appearance of the ties.

Just to be safe, unless someone can confirm this beyond any doubt (maybe an e-mail to Peco), i would get one and test it with an NMRA HO standards gauge, just to be sure.

On the other hand, I'm thinking that the best solution would be to swich to code 83. Then you won't have an issue. The cost difference is negligible.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Code 83 does look a little better and both Peco and Atlas make code 83 turnouts (big difference in how they work and look, with the Peco being the superior). Micro Engineering also sells code 83 flextrack. they also make "transition" jointers that have code 100 on one side and code 83 on the other. As another alternative, I use Central Valley ties and then glue ME code 83 rail to the ties, which lead to me making my own turnouts - which is very satisfying work. See their site http://www.cvmw.com/. Its surprisingly easy to lay central Valley ties. Making turnouts is a little more involved but with parts from Proto 87 stores, its less complicate than one might think!


----------

