I just got a big lot (48 pieces) of Walthers code 83 flex track. Can I get your opinion on this type of track? I have nothing on my table I'm still in the planning stage.
Opinion on Walthers code 83
- Thread starter jasbourre
- Start date
I just got a big lot (48 pieces) of Walthers code 83 flex track. Can I get your opinion on this type of track? I have nothing on my table I'm still in the planning stage.
Well I used Walthers code 83 on my last two layouts and I liked it. You can mix it to some extent with code 100, Walthers makes some (or used to anyway) some 'transition tracks) that are straight sections about 5" long, code 83 on one end and code 100 on the other. But unless you have a lot of code 100 I would stick with code 83 throughout the layout, looks more realistic.
You can also mix Atlas code 83 with Walthers code 83, they mate together using normal rail joiners.
You can also mix Atlas code 83 with Walthers code 83, they mate together using normal rail joiners.
Jas----I was advised to be careful about buying old locomotives on eBay with deep "cookie cutter" flanges that are not compatible with code 83. You might research this a little more. I wonder if all currently manufactured HO engines are compatible with code 83 or if there are any exceptions. And what is the reason the local hobby shops still sell both code 83 and 100?
Several years ago, our club started using Atlas code 83 on all non-mainline track. We have around 200 feet in use and so far, we've had no problems with operations, including flange depth.
George
George
By the time I dropped O scale and started building an HO layout (early 1988) Walthers code 83 was already around and was quickly replacing code 100 as the 'industry standard'. I think a few HO items from Rivarossi or other foreign manufacturers continued to have deeper flanges, but they usually had deeper flanges than US equipment did anyway. By 1990 or so I think anyone making HO stuff for the US market had wheels that were code 83 compatible. Any engine made in 1990 or later should be no problem, before that it might be a little more hit and miss but I would guess any US manufacturer (Athearn, Atlas etc.) should be fine going well back into the 80's.
My modular railroad club has a requirement that the mainlines be Code 100 track and the branch can be whatever you want - ie: Code 83 or whatever. So as to avoid complications in track laying I have decided to go with all Code 100.
For what it is worth, is there any real significance that the visual untrained eye would notice???
Before you ask - yes, I am a rookie in modeling.
For what it is worth, is there any real significance that the visual untrained eye would notice???
Before you ask - yes, I am a rookie in modeling.
The code 83 is more realistic for mainline track in ho scale, but if your modular club requires code 100 for the mainline, go with it. Our club used to require code 100 on the mainline because of Rivarossi locomotives with the big flanges. Everyone just assumed that the deep flanges wouldn't work on code 83. One of the men on the standards comittee decided to see how a Rivarossi with deep flanges would work on code 83. He was surprised to discover that the deep flanges worked better on code 83 than they did on 100. It seems that the spike detail on code 83 is also smaller than on code 100, so locomotives with oversize flanges didn't have any problem with code 83!
I have an old AHM that I run on code 100. I don't own any 83. I am wondering tho if the manufacturer makes a difference. For example, I purchased a bulk order of Model Power nickel silver code 100 and it looks like brass; whereas Atlas nickel silver really has that bright nickel silver appearance. I wonder if they didn't ship brass track instead of nickel silver as there was no label on the box. Has anyone else had any experience with this Model Power nickel silver track from Trainworld? Even the guys in my club are in disagreement as to what it is.
N
nachoman
model power flextrack-
I've used the stuff, over 10 years ago. I remember they make brass and nickel silver. The brass has that obvious "yellow" brass color. The nickel silver is duller than the bright and shiny atlas track, kinda the color of stainless steel. It wasn't steel, though, because I could solder to it.
I really can't comment much on the quality of the track itself because it was so long ago. The layout I had as a kid had a mixture of many track brands, and as far as I can remember the model power ran as good as the atlas and got dirty about the same. If I was still using code 100 HO, I would consider model power track vs atlas and probably choose based upon appearance of the ties, or if I could get the model power significantly cheaper. If you are building a module, it is best to stick to the standards of the club for the mainlnes. In fact, on a small module or layout, the cost difference for just a few pieces of track is negligable.
kevin
I've used the stuff, over 10 years ago. I remember they make brass and nickel silver. The brass has that obvious "yellow" brass color. The nickel silver is duller than the bright and shiny atlas track, kinda the color of stainless steel. It wasn't steel, though, because I could solder to it.
I really can't comment much on the quality of the track itself because it was so long ago. The layout I had as a kid had a mixture of many track brands, and as far as I can remember the model power ran as good as the atlas and got dirty about the same. If I was still using code 100 HO, I would consider model power track vs atlas and probably choose based upon appearance of the ties, or if I could get the model power significantly cheaper. If you are building a module, it is best to stick to the standards of the club for the mainlnes. In fact, on a small module or layout, the cost difference for just a few pieces of track is negligable.
kevin