Should I prioritise flexi?

[Portpatrick]

To pick up on Ted's reasonable question about why mixing.  Partly covered by others reinforcing my own point.  Setrack points are shorter and give wider track spacing.  This might be helpful in a point based fiddle yard as you maximise the available length and the wider spacing makes putting stuff on the track much easier - I speak from bitter experience on that.

As to why I have mixed codes on a simple terminus-fiddle yard layout, that is simple.  I had plenty of code 80 in hand as I had overbought on a previous layout and it made sense to use most of it, especially as it is out of sight.  Even when retired, an accountant's habits die hard!!  But if I had bought more code 55 for the cassettes I would still have needed to jack up the (hidden) approach rail because of the thickness of the conduit which is the basis of the cassettes.  The idea of using conduits came from an article on Apa Park in an NGS journal a couple of years ago.  A simple easy and cheap way of doing cassettes so I decided to try it.

Incidentally Ted the reason you may be having trouble sourcing especially medium radius Electrofrog Code 55 is that Peco are changing to their new Unifrog design, and the medium radius are the first to change.  See specific threads on this.  To me they are replacing something which is so very simple and usable straight from its box to something which requires more complex wiring or alterations to its built in wiring to achieve the same effect.  I do not know if they will change code 80 as well.   

[ntpntpntp]

On my design, I've been mainly using:

SL‑E391F
SL‑E392F
SL-E395F
SL‑E396F

These are code55 flex (streamline).

What I did notice is that there seems to be limited stock on many on these, they're not end of life are they - or is low stock just the nature of this industry? Either way, they don't make it easy!

395 and 396 have been replaced by a Unifrog design SL-UxxxF.   The old E models are getting hard to find, which is upsetting some folk as the Unifrog doesn't *quite* work the same electrically without modification (but that's a separate debate you'll also find on here).

[Ted]

On my design, I've been mainly using:

SL‑E391F
SL‑E392F
SL-E395F
SL‑E396F

These are code55 flex (streamline).

What I did notice is that there seems to be limited stock on many on these, they're not end of life are they - or is low stock just the nature of this industry? Either way, they don't make it easy!

395 and 396 have been replaced by a Unifrog design SL-UxxxF.   The old E models are getting hard to find, which is upsetting some folk as the Unifrog doesn't *quite* work the same electrically without modification (but that's a separate debate you'll also find on here).

Oh jeez, every other item I want is 'out of stock' and it's really starting to grate. 

I've seen a video about rewiring the frog which seems simple enough, shame I'll have 28 to do. 

[Portpatrick]

Glad you find it simple Ted.  Given the construction of Code 55 with well buried rail it looks horrendous to me, even if I did not have a major hand tremor, and a major step backwards from the former simplicity of straight from the box.  Some have said it makes life easier for DCC users but I remain in DC.  And having to do 28 points.  Help!

[Ted]

Glad you find it simple Ted.  Given the construction of Code 55 with well buried rail it looks horrendous to me, even if I did not have a major hand tremor, and a major step backwards from the former simplicity of straight from the box.  Some have said it makes life easier for DCC users but I remain in DC.  And having to do 28 points.  Help!

Haha, well I did just add sound to my 08 shunter which is probably the hardest job I'll ever have to do - it all seems simple now!

But I do have the luxury of starting from scratch, no retrofitting track etc, this is all blank canvas for me. A veritable luxury... although I'm chomping at the bit to just get things running.

[Tom U]

Well, as I have just finished laying my track, here are my comments:
My layout is a long narrow dogbone with double track.  R2 inside R3 at each end.
I went for code 80 as I wanted to use set track for the 180 deg + curves at each end as I was afraid of trying to sculpt the curves in code 55 flex.
That was a mistake!  Experience has shown that I could have laid the code 55 on the curves without problem.  Experience has shown that code 80 is awful to work with as it is so delicate and rail can pop from the sleepers at minimal provocation and when cutting the rail and soldering droppers for isolated sections etc. it is difficult to avoid melting the chairs and having the rail pop out of alignment. (OK, my failing, but my experience).
I sincerely wish I had chosen code 55.
Cheers,
Tom

[Newportnobby]

And just to upset some folk (again) I would never countenance using set track points as way too much of my stock will not traverse a 9" curve. therefore the smallest point I use, being all code 55, is the small electrofrog through which everything passes.
Yeah - I know some folks have no issues with set track points but I do.

[Portpatrick]

Well we all find our own "no nos". Part of the fun of this hobby
.  I last used setback points in the fiddle yard of a layout I sold in 2003.  In those days few things had trouble with 9 inch points etc.

[NeilWhite]

Ted

You say:

"On my design, I've been mainly using:

SL‑E391F
SL‑E392F
SL-E395F
SL‑E396F

These are code55 flex (streamline)."

The 'F' in the point names (e.g. SL-E391F) is for 'Finescale' = code 55. There is no such thing as Peco "code 55 flex" points. Code 55 comes as flexitrack in yard (or is it metre?) lengths and (rigid) points/crossings/slips (e.g. SL-E391F).

Streamline is code 80, so the "(streamline)" in your description is wrong and confusing.

Ideally I think you should stick to one type (e.g. code 55).

Neil

[ntpntpntp]

Streamline is code 80, so the "(streamline)" in your description is wrong and confusing.

No, Streamline refers to both the code 80 and code 55 systems which include flexi, whilst Setrack refers to the fixed sectional track system.