# Code 83 or 100?



## SamFoy (Dec 15, 2014)

Just starting in the hobby. I need to know if which code to go with. I went to a local shop and saw both codes at the same price - both were Atlas tracks and made with nickel/silver. I know this is a can of worms, but can I get anyone's thoughts please.


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

I used code 83 because I think it looks better but code 100 is easier to work with or at least I think so. There are times I wish I had used code 100.

Magic


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Unless you are going to be buying old locos or other locos with large flanges I would go with Code 83.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

There is one other consideration. 

Check to see that the hobby shop also has the same code turnouts,
crossings and the like that you'll need to work
with the code track you select. 

Don


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

I use 95% older equipment that I have restored. For this reason I run code 100. If I were to run only newer equipment I would go code 83. To me code 70 looks better but I like the extra clearance given by 83.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The code is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch. Code 83 is a pretty close approximation for the 130lb-ish rail that is in use in the US today. Lighter rails could use code 70. Code 100 is oversized. If you need a durable layout, maybe it would be good, otherwise, go for code 83.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Another consideration would be if you want to run dual gauge. I was all set to use code 83, then decided I wanted to include some HOn3 lines. Unfortunately it seems nearly all n3 track is code 70, so I've had to reconsider my layout and need to be even more particular about the equipment I run. Ah well, I gotta admit that the smaller track really looks great for modeling the steam era, I'll just have to learn how to make my lines smoother and my turnouts tighter.


----------



## SamFoy (Dec 15, 2014)

I thought I would will probably run more blue box stock, but I'm liking the newer cars out the box. That being said, I really should hold to some older cars too. I will run more of a praire scene with larger grass areas so i can enjoy the hobby of the train more.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

if you want to run older stuff, all you need to do is change the wheels to more shallow flanges......then you can run code 83.....there is a fix for everything in this hobby....


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

That's exactly what I've been doing... I'm taking the old Tyco unloading hoppers and swapping out all the trucks. Got a pack of Tichy archbar trucks on Saturday, and I have a couple packs of Kadee metal wheels that seem to fit well.


----------



## Mr. SP (Jan 7, 2015)

*83 or 100*

My layout is built with Atlas code 100 flex track. Code 83 track wasn't available when I built the layout. Switches are Atlas Custom Line #4 & #6. The track is on cork road bed and is ballasted. There is a ancient AHM Cab Forward that has deep flanges so requires code 100 track


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Visually these is very little difference between the two. Peco market their code 83 as being specifically for US HO so may have more accurate tie spacing than the code 100 which was produced for the UK OO scene.

Like your layout Mr SP especially your attempt at the back scene.


----------



## jfrye (Feb 4, 2015)

Not to hi-jack a thread, but I didnt think it was necessary to start a new thread for a simple question related to this. I am also new to the hobby (not counting the little set passed down to me from the family), so I am starting out completely frest.


I was searching on eBay (sorry if thats frowned upon, but usually a deal sometimes), and came across some track that is code 83, but it says DCC friendly.

Do you have to use certain track for DCC engines, or is that just something they put in the ad to try and get more money?


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

DCC friendly? That's a new one! :laugh:


----------



## johnfl68 (Feb 1, 2015)

jfrye:

Track is track, DC or DCC. 

However, Turnouts and Crossings can be DCC Friendly/Ready. The way they are constructed for DC use can cause issues in DCC use, so there are some minor changes that are made to these, or in come cases can be made by the end user to DC turnouts and crossings to make them work for DCC use.

John


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I continue to mumble and mutter about the term 'DCC friendly' when
referring to turnouts. Like track, they don't care what power is in
their rails.

The difference in turnouts that this is referring to is the frog. In
some turnouts it is plastic thus does not conduct current. That may
be bad for the rare small wheelbase loco but has nothing
to do with DCC.

In other turnouts the frog is metal and the current in it is most
often switched, thus reversing it's polarity. The frog rails must
be joined to the track with an insulated joiner to avoid
short circuits. It is more bother to wire but again has 
nothing to do with DCC.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

John is right -- although brass and steel track is not so "DCC friendly" because they tarnish easily, interfering with the good conductivity that improves DCC performance.

Turnouts on the other hand -- Don's explanation is pretty good. Peco uses the terms Insulfrog and Electrofrog. Powered frog divert current on the rails, making them great for DC layouts running only one loco at a time. Powered frogs can cause shorts when bridged by metal wheels. Insulated frogs avoid this issue, and are generally preferred for DCC installations.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

DCC friendly - sounds like marketing hype!


----------



## pn6 (Feb 13, 2015)

for my 2 cents..............Nickel Silver Code 83 is my choice.:thumbsup:


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I'll throw in code 70 just to be difficult 

OK guys I have a serious question about powered turnouts, but I realize I'm new to DCC setups so there's probably something I'm missing. My understanding is that the powered frogs are useful to help smooth the transition across the gaps of the turnout and hopefully prevent the loco from hitting a dead spot where all of it's wheels are unpowered. So can someone tell me why you don't just put a large capacitor across the inputs in the loco to act as a short-term battery for these areas? I can understand available space may be an issue in some cases, but for the most part this seems like an easy solution to what appears to be a common problem?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Not everyone wants to get into that much trouble. But those capacitors are sold by model railroad parts companies. You can find them on line. Some examples include "Power Xtender" by Digitrax and NCE's "No Halt".


----------



## D&J Railroad (Oct 4, 2013)

You can use a combination of Code 100 and code 83. Walthers makes a conversion track which is about 6" long or you can solder your own rails together to accomplish the same thing. 
The best way to do this is: take the two tracks that you want to solder together, lay them upside down, i.e. railhead down on a glass surface or something that the solder will not stick to, apply heat and solder, allow to cool.

Use the code 100 in places that the observer can't see the difference very well and the code 83 on the forward edge of the layout where you can point it out as a detail.


----------



## Yoppeh7J-UPmp954 (Nov 23, 2014)

*Atlas HO 551 Code 83 to Code 100 Transition Joiners (12)*
$4.95\

Description

Atlas HO 551 Code 83 to Code 100 Transition Joiners is used to connect Atlas Code 83 and Code 100 track and this is sold as a blister pack of 12 joiners.
Includes 12 Metal Rail Joiners
Used To Transition Code 83 To Code 100 Rail
SKU: ATL-551


----------

