Code

[railroader9731]

Hello i got a huge box of code 100 track and i want to know if any one out there has the same on their layouts and get some input on it? I will also answer any questions if you guys ask. Thanks

[MasonJar]

I am sure that there are lots of people with Code 100 (0.100" high) track. It was the standard - in brass - for many, many years, and has been also produced in Nickel Silver, steel, and a few other metals too...

What feedback are you wanting? Are you looking to use this on your layout?

Andrew

[eightyeightfan1]

I use code 83 in visible parts of my layout. In places that are hard to reach, and my yard, I use code 100. All my turnouts are also code 100.

[Selector]

I use Code 100 throughout. Tuff stuff. Looks good when properly ballasted and weathered up.



-Crandell

[tetters]

That looks awesome Selector! hock:

[Ralph]

Code 100 here. I use it throughout the layout.



Ralph

[railroader9731]

First off thanks for the response. 2nd AWSOME pics guys. Last yes we plan on useing the code 100.

[Puddlejumper]

Code 100 is very reliable, you can run any HO rolling stock from any manufacturer on it without worry of flange depth, including ALL toy trains, ALL foreign manufacturers (Marklins, etc.) It also looks good if properly prepared (weathered, etc.) Just one warning... I believe that only PRR (and subsequently PC and CR) used rail that heavy in reality (approximately 155 lbs per yard).

For most modelers code 83 would be more accurate to represent the actual height of prototype rail.

[BR60103]

My current layout re-used most of the code 100 I had from the previous layout. The new stuff I bought was Peco code 75. I also have some British scale track. Most of my stock runs on all of it; some old Tri-ang objects to some of the switches and crossings (both old and new). Some older stuff bounces on the scale rails.
Code 100 looks better if you paint the sides of the rails a dark rust or other dirty colour -- the size is much less noticeable; just avoid fuchsia.

[Selector]

Thanks for the compliments. I do like the second image very much, and so add my compliments.

Yes, if you would rather lean more toward accuracy in scale...as in "modelling"...you would be better to use Code 70, or in some cases for heavy mainline use, Code 83. Code 100 works out to 165 lbs/yard of rail, and nobody ever used it...nobody. One or two used 155 weight, including the PRR as stated by Puddlejumper.

-Crandell

[Sumpter250]

Code 100 is very reliable, you can run any HO rolling stock from any manufacturer on it without worry of flange depth, including ALL toy trains, ALL foreign manufacturers (Marklins, etc.) It also looks good if properly prepared (weathered, etc.)

and that's the reason why code 100 is specified for the modules in our group.

Years back I hand laid code 70, on an 8' X 10' sectional layout.....I didn't have any "deep flanged" equipment.

[Steamtrains]

Nothing but code 100 on the LC&P....



These dudes ride in comfort on sturdy rails...and looks good too..!!

[nkp_174]

Before dismantling, the older parts of my HO layout were code 100, as well as the hidden track (to use it up). The new, visible track was all Code 83...as much for the ties as for the rail.

[Trolleyfan]

I use code 70 and code 55 for track on private right of way and code 100 for track in streets.

Greg