Any one ever experience problems with Atlas code 83 track ?

[nkalanaga]

If I remember right, the heaviest 1:1 rail was PRR's 152 pound rail, right at 8 inches tall.  So, yes, code 100 is too tall for HO, and code 55 (8.8 inches) is too tall for N.  I certainly won't disagree with that!

[MarkInLA]

Well, in HO 3.5 mm = 1 scale foot.. 3.5 mm is just about 1/8". Code 100 rail is near 1/8" tall.. This then would be near 12" in 1:1 scale. And, again, the tallest US rail is near 9" tall (+-).. So....
Ironically, though, it's not so much the rail to me as it is the black plastic ties under it..They are for sure too wide/fat across, which in turn causes too narrow spacing, tie to tie...And, unless Atlas has retooled, their frogs are plastic which can cause...yadda yadda.....
C83 CustomLine switches have metal, powerable frogs... So....yadda yadda....
Hey gang, I leave it here.. I ain't lookin' for trouble....I simply don't like code 100. .....At least, not in HO  !

[peteski]

Well, in HO 3.5 mm = 1 scale foot.. 3.5 mm is just about 1/8". Code 100 rail is near 1/8" tall.. This then would be near 12" in 1:1 scale. And, again, the tallest US rail is near 9" tall (+-).. So....
Ironically, though, it's not so much the rail to me as it is the black plastic ties under it..They are for sure too wide/fat across, which in turn causes too narrow spacing, tie to tie...And, unless Atlas has retooled, their frogs are plastic which can cause...yadda yadda.....
C83 CustomLine switches have metal, powerable frogs... So....yadda yadda....
Hey gang, I leave it here.. I ain't lookin' for trouble....I simply don't like code 100. .....At least, not in HO  !

Again, code 100 track is 0.100" tall.  1/8" is 0.125" (that is a rather sizable difference).
But then again, you not liking code 100 is a personal preference and you are just looking for justification to just reject code 100 track as being grossly out of scale.  So you're right, we'll just have to leave it at that.

[DKS]

Well, in HO 3.5 mm = 1 scale foot.. 3.5 mm is just about 1/8". Code 100 rail is near 1/8" tall.. This then would be near 12" in 1:1 scale. And, again, the tallest US rail is near 9" tall (+-).. So....

Not trying to make a big deal of this, but your math is way off. in HO, Code 100 rail is 0.100" X 87 = 8.7" tall. The heaviest common mainline rail is about that tall. So... there's actually nothing wrong with using it. 

[lajmdlr]

It all depends on which RR is being modeled. Most of us don't model the PRR, meaning code 100 can be WAY OUT OF SCALE! But if your locos & cars haver pizza cutter wheels then you HAVE TO use code 100. ~}

[nkalanaga]

DKS:  That right there is the catch when talking rail size - what prototype!  When the BN abandoned the ex-GN Mansfield Branch in Washington it still had some 75lb rail from the 1890s.  Heavy stuff back then, but too light for anything bigger than a 70-ton freight car in the 1980s, and they had to use special-built lightweight GPs.  The main freight was wheat, during the once-a-year harvest, and the railroad finally paid the elevators to switch to trucking it to the mainline.

That was also the last home for "standard" 40 ft boxcars in the Northwest.  When it was abandoned, dozens of the cars, sitting in Wenatchee, were scrapped.

[pedro]

Here’s my contribution:

Prototype rail chunk collected from Powder River division. I believe it was 136# rail.
I measure it right at 7-5/16”, or 7.3125”
7.3125/87.1=.0839, or code 83-ish. How ‘bout that...



By the way... In case anyone ever wondered how hard it is to drive spikes by hand into a railroad tie, it’s really, really, really hard.

[nkalanaga]

That's why many roads have the ties pre-drilled.  It also helps preserve the tie, as the creosote gets down into the holes.

[wazzou]

That's why many roads have the ties pre-drilled.  It also helps preserve the tie, as the creosote gets down into the holes.

Eh, not as many as you think, speaking from experience.

[peteski]

Lots of discussion (both mode, and prototype), and we still don't have many clues as to what the original problem is, or a solution. 

[pedro]

Lots of discussion (both mode, and prototype), and we still don't have many clues as to what the original problem is, or a solution. 

<shrug> Let it go...It has to be an aberration. I imagine the controversy In HO-land would have dwarfed the N scale code 55 “scandal” if this were a thing.

I have one piece of Atlas code 83 flex, purchased this past winter. I get .043” (+/- .001) from the top of the spike-blobs to the top of the rail. NMRA calls for .028 max flange depth.

[Dave V]

Way back before I switched to N scale in 2002 I used exclusively Atlas code 83 with tons of older HO stuff including MDC stuff from the 70s.  Never had any issues with spikehead contact.  Not saying it didn't happen in this case...just that I have not had similar experience.

[davefoxx]

Way back before I switched to N scale in 2002 I used exclusively Atlas code 83 with tons of older HO stuff including MDC stuff from the 70s.  Never had any issues with spikehead contact.  Not saying it didn't happen in this case...just that I have not had similar experience.

Yeah, when I think "pizza cutters," I think N scale, not HO.

DFF

[lajmdlr]

DFF
It's been many moons since model companies made HO pizza cutter wheels, but some modelers still have them & want to run them. Have an HO modeler friend who still thinks he HAS to have code 100 track.

[davefoxx]

DFF
It's been many moons since model companies made HO pizza cutter wheels, but some modelers still have them & want to run them. Have an HO modeler friend who still thinks he HAS to have code 100 track.

I get that, but my trains in the 1970s didn't have pizza cutters.  Time to step into at least the late 20th century, fellas. 

DFF