I'm just putting together a list of parts to build an N gauge layout,
Am i better off using Peco Code 55 Flexitrack or Peco Code 80 Flexitrack, I have searched & read most of the forum but still couldn't find the answer.

Many Thanks
Toonie

When I asked a similar question the majority replied code 55.

Thank you

Code 55 tends to be stronger as part of the rail is buried in the sleeper webbing.
Whichever you plump for please don't mix codes.
There is no insulfrog in code 55. All the points are electrofrogs so wiring can be a little more tricky but the better running is worth it.

Thank you Newportnobby, It's begining to make a little sense now

Toonie

Quote from: Newportnobby on May 18, 2025, 06:30:31 PMCode 55 tends to be stronger as part of the rail is buried in the sleeper webbing.

It's also, IMO, easier to lay code 55 flexitrack as, although it's stiffer and a bit harder to bend to the desired curve, unlike code 80 it doesn't tend to spring back as soon as you let go of it to grab a pin or whatever.

QuoteThere is no insulfrog in code 55. All the points are electrofrogs so wiring can be a little more tricky but the better running is worth it.

Apart from the medium radius turnouts which are now the new Unifrog type.

Electrofrogs don't need the frog wiring via a switch, although it does make them more reliable, and they provide power routing - such that only the output track to which the point is set is powered.

Unifrogs do need the frog switching unless one only has long locos with pickups over a lot of the length. Otherwise, the frog is dead and short wheelbase locos could stall on it. Also, they don't provide power routing, both output tracks are powered all the time.

Quote from: Newportnobby on May 18, 2025, 06:30:31 PMWhichever you plump for please don't mix codes.

Yes - Golden Rule - whatever type you choose, use that type (rail code and brand) throughout the layout...

It then depends what you want...

If you want to use pre-formed sectional pieces, those are only available in Code 80.
Otherwise, the default recommendation is Peco Code 55.

The Insul-frog vs Electrofrog vs Unifrog, is then another debate to be had after that...

Quote from: Newportnobby on May 18, 2025, 06:30:31 PMCode 55 tends to be stronger as part of the rail is buried in the sleeper webbing.
Whichever you plump for please don't mix codes.
There is no insulfrog in code 55. All the points are electrofrogs so wiring can be a little more tricky but the better running is worth it.

In my experience there is absolutely no problem mixing codes in terms of rail heights, personally I have code 55 on my scenic section and Code 80 in the fiddle-yard. HOWEVER I think the geometry of points may be slightly different and from that perspective mixing might cause a few headaches, and I can understand advice to avoid mixing from that point of view and a visual one.

That aside Code 55 is essentially Code 80 cleverly disguised with rail part-buried in the sleeper base instead of having functioning chairs, to give the visual impression of being finer. This approach still allows even old pizza-cutter wheels to function on it. The inner chair is the merest impression to allow the necessary clearance. The illusion is pretty convincing, but look at things like point blades and you will see they are little different to Code 80 in design and depth.

Joining the two, there is a miniscule discrepancy of about five thousandths of an inch in rail-height which in my experience causes no issues at all. My advice would therefore be to stick to one type or another on any given section of your layout, but there is (for example) no problem if (say) you want to use Code 80 in your fiddle-yard and 55 on the scenic side.

Roy

Thanks everyone for your help & advise,

I will be going with Code 55 for by railway build.

Regards & thanks
Toonie 

A fact that is not sometimes well-publicized is that Peco code 55 flexible track has arrows on the underside of the sleepers indicating the direction that the track should be made to curve.  That is, the arrows point to the inside of the curve.

The sleepers on the outside of the curve are linked together continuously under the rail whereas the sleepers on the inside of the curve have a small gap at every fourth sleeper.

The track can be made to curve either way but it is easier if you look for the arrows.

Ian 

Quote from: icairns on May 18, 2025, 09:59:35 PMA fact that is not sometimes well-publicized is that Peco code 55 flexible track has arrows on the underside of the sleepers indicating the direction that the track should be made to curve.  That is, the arrows point to the inside of the curve.

The sleepers on the outside of the curve are linked together continuously under the rail whereas the sleepers on the inside of the curve have a small gap at every fourth sleeper.

The track can be made to curve either way but it is easier if you look for the arrows.

Ian

i think ive learned something new there--i thought the little arrows point to the outside of the curved track.

I know zero about Unifrogs so am grateful to have been corrected by @chrism
All my points are code 55 small or large.

Quote from: Roy L S on May 18, 2025, 09:22:43 PM

Quote from: Newportnobby on May 18, 2025, 06:30:31 PMCode 55 tends to be stronger as part of the rail is buried in the sleeper webbing.
Whichever you plump for please don't mix codes.
There is no insulfrog in code 55. All the points are electrofrogs so wiring can be a little more tricky but the better running is worth it.

In my experience there is absolutely no problem mixing codes in terms of rail heights, personally I have code 55 on my scenic section and Code 80 in the fiddle-yard. HOWEVER I think the geometry of points may be slightly different and from that perspective mixing might cause a few headaches, and I can understand advice to avoid mixing from that point of view and a visual one.

That aside Code 55 is essentially Code 80 cleverly disguised with rail part-buried in the sleeper base instead of having functioning chairs, to give the visual impression of being finer. This approach still allows even old pizza-cutter wheels to function on it. The inner chair is the merest impression to allow the necessary clearance. The illusion is pretty convincing, but look at things like point blades and you will see they are little different to Code 80 in design and depth.

Joining the two, there is a miniscule discrepancy of about five thousandths of an inch in rail-height which in my experience causes no issues at all. My advice would therefore be to stick to one type or another on any given section of your layout, but there is (for example) no problem if (say) you want to use Code 80 in your fiddle-yard and 55 on the scenic side.

Roy

I cannot agree with Roy as, according to Peco's own diagram there is a 0.6mm difference in height between the two codes and the two are very different in shape. Certainly enough to cause derailments on lighter weight stock e.g. Dapol rolling stock
Never be tempted to file that difference in height off

@Bigmac - I think you might be right! 

Full disclosure: My layout Ferryhill is 100% code 80 and I have never laid an inch of code 55 track.

I can see that it makes sense that the gaps between sleepers should be on the outside of the curve because they will continue to open up as the curve radius gets smaller.

I suppose that code 55 can be laid with the sleeper gaps on the inside of the curve until the gaps close up.  I am not sure what radius that would be.

Ian

Part of my main layout uses code 55 bent down to 9" radius but I wouldn't want to go any tighter!!

Quote from: Newportnobby on May 18, 2025, 10:33:12 PMI cannot agree with Roy as, according to Peco's own diagram there is a 0.6mm difference in height between the two codes and the two are very different in shape. Certainly enough to cause derailments on lighter weight stock e.g. Dapol rolling stock
Never be tempted to file that difference in height off

That diagram is slightly misleading, as the joiners are on the bottom of the rail, not the bit in line with the top of the sleepers. So the difference is actually the 0.03" difference in rail profile (code 55 actually being 0.083" rail). The 0.6mm is more akin to the shimming needed under the sleepers. Indeed it's more than that, as code 80 sleepers are thicker too.

I'd avoid mixing and matching too much, it just causes unnecessary headaches, chances for derailments and bad running (speaking as someone dealing with code 40 track at 9.42mm gauge joining to 9mm Peco code 55).

Peco code 55 all the way.