Just joined

[castaway]

I had not modelled n gauge for more than 30 years until my son showed an interest about 2 years ago. He, unfortunately has lost that interest over the last year but has left me with the 'bug'.
Every time I read on a forum or a magazine/book I realise how much I don't know - I'm sure it wasn't this complicated 35 years ago 
One question tho, if anyone can help, whats the difference, advantage/disadvantage between code 80 and 55 peco track and are they compatible
Cheers   

[castaway]

Cheers, Zunnan
Now all I have to do is decide on a layout, where its going to go and how much space I have for it  I'm currently sorting out my loft, but it needs good insulation before I can start - hopefully done by Christmas 

[zwilnik]

As far as space is concerned, I've seen some brilliant n-gauge shoebox layouts and plan to have a go at doing my own at some point.

[Lawrence]

Really all of the advantages are in favour of Code 55. Common frog geometry across the range, a wide selection of pointwork, more robust due to the rail section and way it is moulded into the sleepers. I won't mention that it looks considerably better as well...theres no need, you should be sold by the common geometry making everything in the range fully compatable with itself Code 80 by comparison has differing frog geometry across the range and a smaller selection of pointwork. The only 'advantage' to code 80 is the Setrack range, but I wouldn't call that an advantage as such, it just makes laying tight curvature easier.

The two are compatible, but when you join code 55 to code 80 you do need to lay the code 55 on a shim of card to raise it up a smidge because the rail sits shallow 'in' the sleepers.

All well and good if you plan on running all new stock with low profile wheels, there is still a lot of older stock or lower end of the market stuff that comes complete with the "pizza cutter" wheelsets.  Certainly some of the US stock I purchased a few years back wouldn't run on code 55 because of the size of the wheel flanges.  You can of course convert pretty much all stock to low profile wheels now, but it is an added expense and time consuming, so bear that in mind.
There is no doubt that there is a wider range of crossings, and yes it does look more prototypical than code 80.  I know some folk who weill run 55 on their mainlines and 80 in their yards or branch lines.

Go to a model shop or show and have a look at what is available, do the sums too, then go for what suits you, and remember its not just Peco any more, just to make it even more complicated you have a range of manufacturers to pick from too 

Enjoy

[Flakmunky]

Hi,

I am also new and just joined. I have about a years N-Scale modelling experience under my belt.

I would go with Zunnan's advice - I've read so much about how you shouldn't do this or shouldn't do that... And am convinced that, like many urban myths, these 'rules' have grown and been embellished over the years and many new modellers trot them out as 'facts' without actually having any experience about what they are talking about! For example many 'experts' will tell you a gradient steeper than 2.5% is a terrible thing... It is... IF you have prototypical length trains. If you don't (due to space) then you can get away with steeper gradients. It is amazing just how often this one is trotted out without thought...

You can't beat empirical testing!

Also, Code 55 all the way... You won't regret it...


Regards,

Timmo

[Lawrence]

Certainly some of the US stock I purchased a few years back wouldn't run on code 55 because of the size of the wheel flanges.  You can of course convert pretty much all stock to low profile wheels now, but it is an added expense and time consuming, so bear that in mind.

With respect guys, it is hardly a myth if it has occurred (and I'm not the only one), and I was not trying to put anyone off using a particular code or brand of track, merely mentioning one of the pitfalls I came across, and making him aware that he has many options and that he should look into what best suits him

Hi,
And am convinced that, like many urban myths, these 'rules' have grown and been embellished over the years and many new modellers trot them out as 'facts' without actually having any experience about what they are talking about! For example many 'experts' will tell you a gradient steeper than 2.5% is a terrible thing... It is... IF you have prototypical length trains. If you don't (due to space) then you can get away with steeper gradients. It is amazing just how often this one is trotted out without thought...
Timmo

Whilst I agree with your post regarding gradients Timmo, I find the rest of your post rather judgemental, please re-read what I said.  We cant all know everything there is to know about model railways (some may think they do though!), but a great way to learn is by others experiences, which is what I was sharing.

[castaway]

Many thanks for all the comments, they are much appreciated

[zwilnik]

One thing regarding gradients, as with everything else on the layout it depends what rolling stock you're using amongst other things. For instance if you've got any of the smaller Dapol engines, my experience seems to be than any gradient is a bad idea as they're incredibly light because of their plastic bodyshells (more detailed, but usually way too light).

It's horses for courses though as some of the models are better than others for gradients, curves, tunnel clearance (ran a really nice US diesel on my layout only to find the horns on top tagged the top of the tunnel entrance to the fiddle yard )

[Flakmunky]

I was speaking very generally about a lot of advice I have read or been given, perhaps I could have made that clearer. I can see how, as you were advising the OP of your experience you felt I was being judgemental. Apologies for this; if it weren't for people like you (and others) passing on their experience then I would have been stuck on a number of occasions!

I have never come across problems with stock and code 55 track, but having said that my oldest stock is British and only 20 years old...

The main thrust of my post was that given every case is different, empirical testing can't be beaten. If the OP has some old stock they wish to run, buying a code 55 point and a length of flex track and testing the stock would be a sound approach.

So Lawrence, please don't get upset about what I said. Remember, the internet is full of idiots... And I'm one of them!

[ddolfelin]

Perhaps another thing to bear in mind as it's been mentioned is the problem with weighting light locos.
Extra weight = more towing power but also = potential burn out of motor.

[Lawrence]

I was speaking very generally about a lot of advice I have read or been given, perhaps I could have made that clearer. I can see how, as you were advising the OP of your experience you felt I was being judgemental. Apologies for this; if it weren't for people like you (and others) passing on their experience then I would have been stuck on a number of occasions!

I have never come across problems with stock and code 55 track, but having said that my oldest stock is British and only 20 years old...

The main thrust of my post was that given every case is different, empirical testing can't be beaten. If the OP has some old stock they wish to run, buying a code 55 point and a length of flex track and testing the stock would be a sound approach.

So Lawrence, please don't get upset about what I said. Remember, the internet is full of idiots... And I'm one of them!

Accepted, no probs.  I did exactly what you mentioned, bought a couple of points and a length of track, that was when I discovered the problems.  Curiously enough it was American stock on American code 55 track that I had issues with  go figure