Code 100 vs 83

Code 100 vs 83

Post by GhostWtr » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00



I already know what brand of rail I'm going to use: RailCraft flex (Atlas
in tunnels and storage) and Shinohara (or Walthers) turnouts.  What I
haven't decided is what size of rail to use.

Any good or bad experiences with the different rail sizes?

Paul

 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by Frank Kastenho » Wed, 27 Sep 1995 04:00:00


 > I already know what brand of rail I'm going to use: RailCraft flex (Atlas
 > in tunnels and storage) and Shinohara (or Walthers) turnouts.  What I
 > haven't decided is what size of rail to use.
 >
 > Any good or bad experiences with the different rail sizes?

I thought a lot about this 2 or 3 years ago. I decided to go with
code 100.  To me it was absolutely critical that the trackwork be
'good' - I didn't want to be stopping a train every 5 minutes to put
a car back on the track. I felt that the larger size of the code 100
rail would give me a larger margin of error when dealing with stuff
like the ballast, filing down the solder for the soldered joints, etc.
Painting the rail sides and the ties and ballasting makes it look
somewhat smaller.

--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln

 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by Bill Daniel » Wed, 27 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Good choice on the Railcraft rail...excellent apperance. I keep hearing
rumors that Railcraft will produce switches in HO. My club (the Napa
Valley Model Railroaders...don't ask) has to rebuild all of the Shinohara
turnouts they use, since they otherwise won't perform reliably in stock
configuration. As for rail height, since you are going to use Railcraft
track, use the code 83 (or smaller). There is no advantage to using code
100 (it is much too large), and it will destroy the otherwise scale look
of your track. Code 83 scales out to approxmately 132 lb. rail, which is
the heaviest rail in use today (back in steam days, the P.R.R. used 152
lb. rail on their mainline, which is about code 100 in size. But, with
dieselization, the rail was scaled back.)

--
Bill Daniels
Tucson, AZ

 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by David Ryujiro Olse » Wed, 27 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:
> I would concur with the other Gentleman that stock Shinohara turnouts
> need work before use. Peco turnouts are better out of the box...

        Can you elaborate on what needs to be done to improve Shinohara
turnouts? I'm getting ready to use some, and I am very happy with their
appearance, but I would like to take care of the problem before I lay the
track and ballast it. I seem to remember someone saying the points come
loose or something. Thanks!

                                        David Olsen

P.S. Does anyone know of a mail order place that offers really good deals
on Shinohara? Most places seem to have the No.6 switches for around
$10.95 or so. I'd like to save another buck or two if possible.

 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by Nathanael W Berr » Fri, 29 Sep 1995 04:00:00



writes:
Quote:

>I already know what brand of rail I'm going to use: RailCraft flex
(Atlas
>in tunnels and storage) and Shinohara (or Walthers) turnouts.  What I
>haven't decided is what size of rail to use.

>Any good or bad experiences with the different rail sizes?

>Paul

    I assume your talking HO here. I have Cd 100,83, and 70 on my
layout - with Cd 100 Atlas as you indicate. If I were doing everything
again I would use only Cd 83 and 70 - I like the way it looks. I cannot
complain about operations on the Cd 100 and would not consider
rebuilding. Cd 70 is used only in the yard areas. Some of the Cd 70
turnouts manufactured as late as the late 80's had large "spikes" which
some flanges tend to bounce off - at low speeds this is not a problem
(I think of it as rumble strips for my yards). I have portions of
mainline in Cd 100 and 83 and have not noticed any operational
difference. Be aware that the smaller code track needs more feeder
(power) wires per given lenth.

Nate

 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by collin.. » Sat, 30 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>>writes:
>>>I already know what brand of rail I'm going to use: RailCraft flex
>>(Atlas
>>>in tunnels and storage) and Shinohara (or Walthers) turnouts.  What I
>>>haven't decided is what size of rail to use.
>>>Any good or bad experiences with the different rail sizes?
>>>Paul
>    Another memory - jogged by other posts. I have had some trouble
>with the shinohara/walthers turnouts. Resoldering point rails,
>replacing pivot rivet, and basic fine tuning come to mind. Offhand
>about 10-15% required more than basic tune-up I do with any turnout
>before installation. Once "fixed" I have not had problems with the
>turnouts, but I am not exercising them at the rate a club would. I used
>#6 switches for my yards, and cut them back to shorten the length of
>ladders. I have not had any problems with these modified switches.
>Nate

Before I built my layout I was told by all I asked that without a doubt
Shinohara turnouts were the best.They looked good and so I bought a swag of
them. I also picked up a number of second hand Peco. Due to the cost of the
turnouts I also handbuilt a number of turnouts, also handbuilt a number of
unusual turnouts that there were no proprietary turnouts available for. I also
ended up with a couple of atlas turnouts.
Now 13 years further down the track and from my experience I would not
recommend the Shinohara turnouts if operation and durability are requirements.
They appear to be too delicate in the interests of obtaining the fine scale
appearance. In other words they do not stand up to the continous use expected
of them from an operating layout. The blades come loose and they disintergrate
at the soldered joints. More so with soleniod switch machines. I have had more
reliability with them from***drive switch machines, this type of machine
does not have the thump associated with the soleniod type and therefore is more
gentle on the turnout.
Of all the turnouts I have I would rate the Shinohara at the top for looks but
at the bottom for durability, Peco the other way around, tops for durability
and near the bottom for looks. You take your pick and you have your options.
The odd Atlas turnout I have, have never given me any trouble in the 13 or so
years they have been in use. My handbuilt turnouts have had the odd soldered
joint come unstuck, but not as numerous as the Shinohara, and the Peco ones
have been virtually trouble free, just the odd one with a problem with the
plastic disintegrating, don't forget they were second hand and they could have
been exposed to our harsh UV which breaks down plastic with time. To date Peco
that I bought new are still holding up but there were only a couple of them. If
I was to start over again I would go with Peco and then consider also the Atlas
turnouts for areas out of sight.
Graham Collins
 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by Paul Deutsc » Mon, 02 Oct 1995 04:00:00


After 10 years of operation with Atlas switches and TorToise under table
motors, nothing ever misses. Always a good contact and NO derailments at
the switch. I have had Code 100 since the beginning. Some of my older
engines wouldn't run on 83. Too Short for the flanges of the older
engines. I not so good that I can see the difference.
 
 
 

Code 100 vs 83

Post by RBAI » Thu, 12 Oct 1995 04:00:00


I find that code 100 works fine and looks great--if you weather the sides
of it. Almost anything runs on it.