I would prefer to use Peco code 55 but I will have some older stock that probably won't run on it without problems.
I have thought about turning the flanges down on the wheels,are  there any useful tips,articles on doing so?
What code of travck would you recommend?
Thanks.

I've old Poole Farish, Minitrix and Lima stuff as well as more modern Chinese made models and all run on my code 55 with no issues. Rolling stock can always be re-wheeled using Farish 379-410/411/412 if necessary.

Unless it's really really old (like 50+ years) it'll almost certainly be fine on code 55.

Peco's code 55 is designed to cope well with older models.

I used code 80, but if I had been starting from scratch, with all new track, I'd have used code 55.

I actually do have code 55 scissors and double slips. I'm not running the layout yet, but I have run my stock through without problem.

look at code 55 its actualy code 80 on the inner rails

Quote from: nick_bastable on December 12, 2022, 11:39:49 PM
look at code 55 its actualy code 80 on the inner rails

Code 80 always looks chunky to me and when I thought about N some 15/20 odd years ago most of the advice I had was to use that rather than code 55, due running issues with older stock.
I have a length of flexible Peco track but it's not marked with any code, it doesn't look over chunky but doesn't look overly fine. How can I identify what code it is?

Easy... Code 80 sits in the chairs on top of the sleepers, Code 55 rail is embedded in the sleeper base. Bend Code 80 tightly and it has a habit of popping out of the soft plastic chairs.

I'm told that Code 55 will only flex one way. As you may guess, my layout is Code 80.

Code 80 is labelled as SL-300 on the plain track



Code 55 (on left) has some track embedded in the base, where Code 80 (SL-300) sits atop the base.




Code 55 comes in yellow packets/labels while Code 80 has blue.

For me, I prefer code 55, I find code 80 has left its chairs at times.
My oldest mechanism is a 1970's Arnold in my Hymek and it is fine on Code 55.

For compact layouts the Code 55 range has a small radius point (about 12") which is very helpful, as well as medium and large radius. The medium is now a Unifrog, but the small and large are still electrofrog.

Mark

I have found the Poole Farish stock with "pizza cutter" wheels does run on code 55 track without derailing. It is better to change the wheels on stock with those wheels as they don't run so smoothly on code 55 track.

I would argue the difference between the two isn't all that big. If you are looking for realism painting the track sides a nice colour is far more important than the rail height. I use sleeper grime as I think that is much closer to the usual colour of rail sides than rust colour.

This is one of my layouts that used code 80




And this one uses code 55



Yes code 55 is better but the when the rail sides are painted there isn't a lot of difference. British Finescale code 40 track would be much better but I really am not into building my own track. I can see why some folk do though.

Quote from: nick_bastable on December 12, 2022, 11:39:49 PM
look at code 55 its actualy code 80 on the inner rails

It's code 83 rail technically, but the reason for the potential incompatibility (and why it's called code 55) is the bottom part being buried in the sleepers, so only 0.055" is exposed. Hence anything with over deep flanges can hit the sleepers.

However, as has been noted, most old stuff works on it.

This site shows the difference in code 80 and code 55 very well and also shows why both can be joined easily.

http://www.spurstow.com/daniel/images/code55-code80.jpg

Has Bealman says code 55 prefers to bend one way, there are little arrows to guide you printed underneath the track. I find it better for nice curves it does not come out of the sleepers like code 80.

Peco code 55 every time: looks better, is stronger flexi track and holds a curve while you're laying it.  In the 70s and 80s Peco code 80 rail would easily ping out of the chairs if you weren't careful when bending and laying it or if you dropped something heavy on the track and caught the rail.  They did strengthen the chairs in later production but it's still something that could happen.

Due to only having dummy representation of chairs on the inside  99%+ of models will run on Peco code 55, the only wheels I've ever found that bottom out on plain track are really ancient Arnold from the mid 60s. Later 70s onward Arnold (still with pizza cutter wheels) runs fine as does old Farish etc. The comments about older stock not running on it are an "old wives' tale" as far as I'm concerned, if you're getting stock bumping along on code 55 you've probably got ballast grains too high     The same can't be said for other brands of code 55 (eg. Atlas) which I think is more traditional rail and chairs.

I have noted that some of the more recent Peco code 55 points I've used (3-way and slips for example) seem to have shallower flangeway depth in point frogs which old stuff might bump over slightly.   I think this is a case of Peco trying to make sure modern fine flanged wheels don't drop into point frogs, flangeway depth was never a problem with older code 55 pointwork I used in the 90s. Given that I do run a lot of old 1970s Arnold and Minitrix I just take a needle file and deepen the flangeway if necessary - that cures the problem.

The thing about code 55 flexi having arrows indicating which way to bend it:  I used the stuff for 20+ years before becoming aware of this, and never had any problems bending it either way. I still take no notice of the arrows and just use the track as it comes.  Mind you, I don't bend flexi track down to tight radii where such a limitation might come into play. If I want a tight curve (hidden trackwork only) I'll use code 80 Setrack pieces.

There is a slight bump if you try and join Peco code 55 and 80  (as has been said, the code 55 rail total height is more like code 83). Some folk don't notice the bump but I certainly do!  I'd never recommend filing the rail to remove the step, that just ruins the rail head.  Tapping with a block of wood and hammer can deform the joiner and even up the tops of the rail, but I only ever line up the two codes at baseboard joints (no joiners involved).

I only have space for end to end layouts, so sharp curves not really an issue.  For the current 2 layouts I have used code 55 in the scenic area and still had enough code 80 for the fiddle yards.  The appearance is vastly better.  One of the layouts uses cassettes, the other a point based fan using Setrak points to give greater spacing between tracks (better for handling) and leaving greater length for the trains.  I may though go back to Code 80 in the future as I don't want to use the new Unifrog points.  Too much plastic spoils the appearance, and the need for additional switching/wiring to replace the fact they are not self isolating from the box in the way Electrofrog are.  I do though have a small stock of Code 55 Electrofrogs which I could use in the future.