Code 75 v 100

[centenary]

Yes, Im almost at the stage of deciding track profile! I like the look of DCC Concepts Legacy products new OO scale flex track with better sleeper spacing. It then becomes a decision whether to go code 75 or 100.

DCC Concepts say use code 75 because it looks better. I dont intend to run old stock with bigger wheel flanges but that said, what rough date did manufacturers reprofile wheels compatible with code 75?

So, where wheel flanges arent an issue, apart from the better look, what if any advantages are there in code 75 over 100? Is C75 harder to lay properly compared to C100? While cost may be a factor, there doesnt seem to be any price differential between either of DCC Concepts Legacy codes and currently Rails discount it so it is cheaper than Peco's.

Im not into bullhead rail so not considering anythingfancy. What's better to use, C75 or 100, any disadvantages of one over the other?

[Bufferstop]

Code 75 looks a bit slim for modern high speed lines in 00. America tends to use 78-80 and that's in H0 so 100 is quite acceptable in a modern setting.
I've run stuff from the 1970s on code 75 without the flanges being a problem, I doubt anything made from the 80s onwards will have problem flanges. There are two things that may need rectification but aren't killers, that's back to back dimension, the wheels may need pushing out slightly. The second being tyre/tread width, mainly a Triang/Hornby problem the wheel treads are a scale foot wide, when the B-2-B is set correctly the tyres may bridge the two rails just behind the point of the V on insulfrog points. It causes sparking on DC and may result in the system resetting on DCC. There are a number of ways of dealing with it, paint the first few millimetres of rail with varnish as the simplest through to converting the point to live frog operation. Or bite the bullet and go live frog from the outset, the new Unifrog designs won't need any adapting.

[Bigmet]

I would suggest code 75 in your situation. It should be said my experience of code 75 is solely with SMP and Peco flexi, both FB and BH, haven't tried the DCC Concepts product, as I bulk purchased almost all that I needed a good while past, before they entered the market. I would hope it performs similarly.

I believe the DCC Concepts rail is stainless steel, should be a more realistic colour than nickel silver. Now, some have reported difficulty soldering to this rail: technically there should be no difficulty provided that an appropriate flux is used, and an iron that can supply sufficent heat. I would suggest seeking advice, and making a trial of what is suggested to ensure it works for you, before jumping in the deep end...

The major advantage over code 100 that I enjoy when laying track: forming curves with no kinks at rail joints is so much easier, quite simply because two code 75 rails are equivalent to the cross section of one code 100 rail. Smallest 'running line' radius I use is 36", and there is no need to pre-form code 75 rail ends, the rail joiners are sufficient to hold a smooth curve profile through the joints. With code 100 it is usually necessary to bend a slight set into the rail ends to ensure a smooth joint on a curve. (I still mostly use code 100, that's for economy on the off-scene sections, too mean to pay the extra for this convenience on what is the great majority of the layout track. You may hear the occasional distant grumbling sound, 'it would be much quicker with code 75, mutter, mutter, mutter'.)

Appearance: speaks for itself. My viewing positions are alongside the line at eye level (roughly equivalent to standing on a platform) this effectively conceals the gauge error of OO; the correct spacing of the chairs and a rail height appropriate to the final years of steam operation are what is seen.
I think the running is a little quieter on code 75 plain track, though I haven't gone to the trouble of measurement. The contrast between plain track joints and point crossing noise as a long train goes past seems greater on code 75: on a 9' wb mineral train, the change in beats as the 16' wb brake van goes over the point crossing seems more prominent. May just be my imagination...

Wheels, I'd be cautious of Lima among past products back to circa 1980. The coarsest wheels I have are on the Airfix designed Mainline/Dapol/Hornby N2 'Big Met' 0-6-2T, and these are fine on code 75: and it's easy to skim a little off flanges should there ever be trouble...

[Suzie]

Go with the code 75. It looks better because the narrow gauge makes code 100 rail profile look a bit big.

In practice if stock will not run on code 75 it will need serious attention to run on any modern trackwork, generally the flange width and back to back will be a problem even if the flanges are not too big that they run on the chairs.

[Free_at_last]

I like the look of DCC Concepts Legacy products new OO scale flex track with better sleeper spacing.

Don't confuse this with the 'better sleeper spacing' of PECO bullhead track, it's not a lot different from PECO Streamline.
The DCC Concepts flat bottom track is Hi Nickel Silver.

[centenary]

Thanks all for comments. Sounds like C75 is the way to go. Shame I used C100 to design my layout in Anyrail! I'll have to transpose the parts from C100 to 75 and make sure I buy the right version!

Yes, DCC Concepts say their Legacy products code 75 (and 100) are higher silver content and say there should be no soldering issues. They would say that, wouldnt they?

Ive a selection of soldering irons, an Atten 65w, which is just rebranded for DCC Concepts plus an 85 & 100w alternatives.

[Bigmet]

...The DCC Concepts flat bottom track is Hi Nickel Silver.

Is that a change from what was originally announced, or am I mistaken thinking it was originally proposed in stainless steel rail?

[centenary]

...The DCC Concepts flat bottom track is Hi Nickel Silver.

Is that a change from what was originally announced, or am I mistaken thinking it was originally proposed in stainless steel rail?

DCCC actually call it "Improved “real-steel” nickel silver alloy."

Linky https://mailchi.mp/dccconcepts/legacy_t ... 7c62d458f6

[Bigmet]

Thanks for the link, which explains that the stainless steel rail was abandoned, the new 'high nickel' code 75 FB looks pretty good, I am inclined to try some. The reduced copper content will reduce the quantity of 'black muck' generated (which is copper oxide). The new rail joiners too, including what looks like a good insulating type instead of Peco's ugly item which doesn't actually fit their own track that well, and which has resulted in me gluing in pieces of black plasticard between rail ends when breaks are required...

[centenary]

Is he right?! David(?) from McKinley Railway says in this vid if you're using code 75, you need to change the wheel sets on Dapol wagons suggesting flanges are too deep?

https://youtu.be/JoI7Iz0lkOk

[Dad-1]

Hi Centenary,

O.K I've NOT looked at the video - yet, although I have been and worked some of McKinley
once. More years ago that I can recall, but certainly pre-Covid.
So while I can understand the lack of confidence in Dapol wagon wheels sets. One thing is absolutely certain
it can't be because of Dapol wheel set flange depth. If they're commenting on Dapol Locomotives than I have
no experience of them and therefore can't comment.

Dapol wagon wheels have a rather thick flange and a radius turn from tyre onto the flange that makes them
more likely to lift and ride up the rail in very limited and specific locations. Personally I have no trouble from
them and the newer sets now tend to be non-magnetic that reduces magnetic creep from track & under track
fixed kadee magnets.

Will have a look at the video tonight,

[Dad-1]

O.K, centenary, some comments from me.

Firstly David Townend I seem to recall has used code 100 track, certainly was when I drove it.
I added that comment as that was the OP's heading and not querying the Kadee nightmare.
I also have kept to code 100, partially because that's what I started with and have always
had too much spare to change standards. Were I starting again I probably would go code 75.

The Kadees are great, but will tax your patience. I have and do use with both hidden beneath
track & ballast fixed magnets, as well as the fixed between the rails magnets.
I have experimented with an electro magnet on a test rig, but decided not to use on cost, power
supply and wiring that wasn't worth the trouble in MY opinion.
I do have some videos somewhere showing what can happen when working with single wagons
that respond badly to the fixed magnets, by creeping and upsetting the Kadee function.
IF you're interested just say and I'll search Youtube - back perhaps 5 years ??

While I like the motorised wagon drop, that is limited to just the first wagon, or the complete
train as the locomotive has the motor/thread/decoder. The perfect and affordable system has
yet to be found !!

Geoff T

[Bufferstop]

Thanks all for comments. Sounds like C75 is the way to go. Shame I used C100 to design my layout in Anyrail! I'll have to transpose the parts from C100 to 75 and make sure I buy the right version!

The only code 100 items with a different footprint to code 75 are the settrack points of which there is no code75 equivalent. I printed out a supply of Peco code 100 point plans long before they had a download page. They match exactly the downloadable ones for code 75. I think the only oddity is the asymmetric 3 way point. Your plans should still work.

[Dad-1]

Ahh, Bufferstop missed out that the code 75 3 way point is asymmetric, but as he's
already mentioned that all other track items are a perfect match, but without any
matching items with the set-track geometry.

I suppose we've both been there and done it !!

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

Today, clearing things up ready for my club's Summer Exhibition I uncovered the HS-II
shunting puzzle and realised the one positive reason to use code 100 track.
You can't cover sleepers for a 'Yard' look on code 75 or the flanges of your wheels will
bounce along the ballast.
Even on code 100 track I wouldn't use Hornby wheels, on code 75 I doubt you could
achieve the right look - mind you, if you don't have, or want a yard then it's not of any
interest.



Obviously the ballast can't be laid thick on points.

Geoff T.