Any one ever experience problems with Atlas code 83 track ?

[peteski]

He did post some photos earlier in the thread, but they aren't  very clear.  This is a  strange one. I have never seen this type of problem (flanges hitting the molded spikes) mentioned in H0 scale (but then again I'm an N-scaler).

[davefoxx]

He did post some photos earlier in the thread, but they aren't  very clear.  This is a  strange one. I have never seen this type of problem (flanges hitting the molded spikes) mentioned in H0 scale (but then again I'm an N-scaler).

Definitely strange.  Something else must be going on.

DFF

[greenwizard88]

I had that problem with an old IHC/AHM diesel, and I know that some Tyco engines experience problems on code 83 rail.

I'm surprised that you would experience that issue with an Atlas diesel, but if it's an older diesel, not completely shocked.

[unittrain]

Anyway to get photos yet? This ones a mystery I've tested all my HO locomotives and all are fine with code 83. 🤔

[strummer]

Any pictures?  I've got a couple dozen of HO scale Atlas, Athearn, Rapido, and Intermountain locomotives, and none of them ride the spikes on Code 83 track.  I have Atlas flextrack and Walthers (Shinoharo) turnouts.  Either you have a defective piece of track or something else is going on.

DFF

I agree. After reading this I tested various locos (from a Kato SD-40 to an ancient Mantua all-metal Pacific); not only did they all function just fine on code 83, but they all did equally well on code 70...

Mark in Oregon

[nuno81291]

I have one Rapido loco (f40ph) that likes to pick points on my atlas turnouts. The gauge seemed a bit tight versus all of my other Atlas and Atherns. It seems also the much smaller flange is a contributing factor. In my case I think it was a piece of flex going into the turnout that was out of gauge (a curve into the turnout) that let this particular engine fall. It didn’t help that it was mostly while pushing 4 walthers amfleets (they do not roll freely... at all). Pulling was fine. I could not recreate it with other engines. Get an nmra gauge and check your wheel sets and track. This was my old layout my new one I was more careful when superelevating curves, also I now run that particular train with an engine on both ends, which helps to avoid what I think was the issue in that case.

[MarkInLA]

Just a little tidbit about C100 track: The largest rail the 1:1 scale rides on is about 152 Lb per yard (If you sliced off 1 yard of it it would weigh 152 Lb) and is about 9" tall (of course, not including the ties). C100 scales out to about 14" and so is 5" too tall to look proto... C83 does scale out to near 9" tall.
Good move replacing it with C83...Also, C83 Atlas CustomLine switches (TOs) have a metal frog which enables them to become powered, promising little to no stall outs on them, especially with short wheel base locos. The frogs have a black coating on them which rubs off revealing the metal.
Here's something unexpected: Atlas sectional track has very small more realistic spike heads than its flex track ! My theory is flex requires the bigger thicker spike heads to counteract the outward pressure against them when the track is bent...
One sure way you could see if your loco flanges are hitting the spike heads would be to get down at eye level and gaze down it from the end, not side, of a straight track with loco sitting on it..You'd surely see the cause of the bumpiness....M, Los Angeles

[nkalanaga]

" C100 scales out to about 14" and so is 5" too tall to look proto..."

It's not quite that bad.  Code 100 is 0.100 inches tall, so in HO, would be 0.1*87.1, or 8.71 inches.  Still a little oversized, but not too bad for a heavy mainline, if one chooses operating reliability over exact appearance.

C83 would be 0.083*87.1, or 7.23 inches tall.

A BN chart, years ago, gave 140 lb rail as 7.3 inches tall, and 132 lb as 7.125.  Those were apparently the largest they were using.  C83 would be perfect for either one.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Here is the source of my skepticism about the flange. Here is one of my locos (Athearn SD40-2) on some Japanese brand of Code 83 track  . There is so much room between the flange and the spike that you could put a Ed K side Philly Sub in there.

Haha, I just saw this.

You know, it's always bothered me calling the CSX Philly Sub the Philly "Sub". It should really be "Hoagie".

[Mark5]

Haha, I just saw this.

You know, it's always bothered me calling the CSX Philly Sub the Philly "Sub". It should really be "Hoagie".

Good point. I was "somewhere" this weekend and it was hoagies everywhere.

Mark

[Mark5]

Finally picked up a few pieces of Atlas C83 sectional - the sectional track actually has smaller spikes than the flex (the flex spikes being larger presumably to deal with the stress of being "flexed").

I can't see any loco produced in the last 40 years having problems with hitting the spikes.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[MarkInLA]

nkalanaga. Sorry. Just got back to this thread today...
I must say that I believe you are incorrect about code100 ..
Without attempting any math it looks like your calculations are faulty.
Just visually one can see how much taller c100 rail is than c83 rail...
There's a general consensus with HOers that c83 represents the tallest main line US rail at about 9". So, c100 which is 17 mm higher has to be quite out of scale. But, if 'in scale' is not an issue with you or anyone, that is perfectly fine..It's a hobby... For me though, 100 just looks somewhat toyish..
Also, Atlas HO CustomLine C83 switches (TOs) have metal frogs (there's a thin coat of black on them which rubs off. I think it's to protect the pot metal frog from pitting while hanging on store racks for long periods). These frogs can be powered..
Maybe today's brown-tie c100 has metal frogs..But the old black-plastic tie 100 has plastic, problematic frogs to boot.. M

[Mark5]

Code 100 is still black ties. Code 83 brown ties.

Mark

[davefoxx]

nkalanaga. Sorry. Just got back to this thread today...
I must say that I believe you are incorrect about code100 ..
Without attempting any math it looks like your calculations are faulty.
Just visually one can see how much taller c100 rail is than c83 rail...
There's a general consensus with HOers that c83 represents the tallest main line US rail at about 9". So, c100 which is 17 mm higher has to be quite out of scale. But, if 'in scale' is not an issue with you or anyone, that is perfectly fine..It's a hobby... For me though, 100 just looks somewhat toyish..
Also, Atlas HO CustomLine C83 switches (TOs) have metal frogs (there's a thin coat of black on them which rubs off. I think it's to protect the pot metal frog from pitting while hanging on store racks for long periods). These frogs can be powered..
Maybe today's brown-tie c100 has metal frogs..But the old black-plastic tie 100 has plastic, problematic frogs to boot.. M

Mark,

I agree with @nkalanaga’s numbers, i.e., Code 100 equals 0.100” x 87.1 (HO scale) = 8.71”.  That’s supposed to be oversized for the average mainline rail, and I recall only roads like the PRR ever used rail that heavy.  Code 83 is 0.083 x 87.1 = 7.23”, which matches the average Class 1 mainline trackage.  Code 83 is not oversized for mainline rail, and I think it looks good.  Code 70 is lighter rail, and is good for sidings and yards.  It’s Code 100 that is oversized.  I agree that you can see the difference, because I have Code 100 in a staging yard with Code 83 elsewhere.

DFF

[peteski]

There is no way anybody should disagree with nkalangs's numbers.

Code 100 rail is 0.1" high - that is a fact.  And since H0 scale is 1:87.1 (another well known fact), then the height of the 1:1 rail will be 0.1 X 87.1 = 8.71"  Basic math.   Not sure why anybody would think that it is incorrect.

Code 83 in H0 would be 0.083" high (again a fact).  Thus the 1:1 rail height equivalent would be 0.083 x 87.1 = 7.23" Again, simple math.

If the heaviest 1:1 rail is 9" high, then even code 100 (not code 83) rail is slightly undersized.  Again, this is all basic grade school math.