Code 80 V Code 55

[polo2k]

Hi all,

Im currently planning my next potential layout.
I have a reasonable stock of code 80 flexi track, however I have been tinking that if im ever going to use code 55, then now is the time to decide! I will be using code 80 in the fiddle yard and in hidden areas and potentially code 55 in the front.

Obviously I know what code 80 looks like whn its laid, but im looking for a comparison of the 80 Vs 55 profiles. I will be modeling a US Branch line so I think the lighter rail would be more appropriate, the question is, will it be notices?

some of my locos will be arnold locos from the 80`s will these need working on to be suitable for use on code 55?

[Zunnan]

It depends on which code 55 track you are going to use. Peco code 55 is really code 80 rail with a second foot to the rail, the extra depth is then sunk into the sleeper moulding and proves to be a very strong construction indeed; the points are probably the most robust that I've come across in N while looking suitably fine. I run 1970's Minitrix and some ancient Farish pizza cutter trains on Peco code 55 with no issues what so ever. As it is a US branch you may be considering Atlas code 55, and I have to say I probably find this to be my favourite track in N for appearance alone, the downside is that it is genuine code 55 rail meaning that older models will need suitably fine wheelsets fitting, or flanges grinding down and the back to backs suitably adjusted.

Personally I much prefer to use Peco code 55 over Peco code 80. Code 80 points have no standard geometry where the (Peco) code 55 frogs are all set at 10 degrees which means that everything works smoothly with everything else in the range. That, coupled with the significantly larger range of pointwork available, the far more robust feel to the code 55 points and their ability to still support running older models makes it a pretty academic decision to use it in preference to code 80.

[H]

It is quite common for layout builders to use code 80 in the fiddleyard and code 55 for the scenic section (both Peco). They are compatible although the code 55 rail height is actually nearer code 83 with 55 thou showing above the plastic sleeper base. Both are designed to connect together with standard peco fishplates and the smidge of 3 thou difference is easily overcome with the wipe of a file for absolute smooth running (although it's not necessary and trains will run across without problem). A little packing is also required for an inch or two under the code 55 track but that is hidden with ballasting (if on the scenic area). It's also best to try and keep the join between types on straight track with a little straight section lead in from both directions; joins on a bend are always best avoided.

H.

[polo2k]

its the peco ive been thinking of.

Have you got any pics of the various examples? I have only knowingly seen the Code 80 peco. How does the atlas differ?

[poliss]

There are comparison photos on Trainboard.com. Not sure if you have to join to see the pics.
http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?101408-Is-Atlas-Code-55-track-Any-Good/page6
Close-up on photobucket. http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll221/CSXDixieLine/misc/20090113Gate063.jpg

You can also get code 40 track. 

[Zunnan]

Atlas code 55 is modelled on US prototype. The ties are prototypically closer together and the overall appearance of the track is much more as you will see in the US. Peco points/track is distinctly more European in appearance, I say European as it is definately not British in appearance. I know its nitpicky, but it does make a huge difference to the overall look of a layout when you are fussy with the track.

[Dr Al]

Sounds a reasonable plan to reuse your old track off stage - many have done  .

There is a myth  that Peco code 80 and 55 can be joined without any work - alas this is not true, there is a bump as the rail heights are different. Worth looking here at the video illustrating quite the bump you get when joing Peco code 55 (called Super N in the video, as it was in its early 1980s days, prior to the code 55 turnout range becoming available) to code 80.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J5IZVamnns

All such bumps should be eliminated or the risk of derailments and unnecessary wheel wear is always present. It doesn't take much to derail a light 4 wheel wagon 

Also code 55 turnouts are prone to having misaligned point blades at the pivots that can cause bumps and poor conduction of the blade surfaces at the toe ends - as such for best reliable performance it's worth considering having the power separately switched. If nothing else it gives redundancy.

HTH,
Alan

[Zunnan]

Things seem to have changed a little since that video, while there is certainly a discrepancy between the rail height it is nowhere near as pronounced as that clip shows. When measured the difference is probably 2 or 3 thou between the rail height of a code 80 medium radius and a code 55 medium radius turnout, the clip looks closer to 10 thou if not more. I've used code 80 to code 55 with no modification on 12" curved track in the past and not experienced problems, and as H mentions, a quick draw with a file if absolutely neccessary will definately do the trick. Re: the point blades conductivity, that I agree with, the contact could be a lot better. I tend to solder the stock rails, then cut and switch the frog independantly. Overkill perhaps, and some say not neccessary, but I've not had a single continuity faliure involving a modified point to date; to be honest it is a preference thing above all else, I prefer belt and braces.

[Dr Al]

Things seem to have changed a little since that video, while there is certainly a discrepancy between the rail height it is nowhere near as pronounced as that clip shows. When measured the difference is probably 2 or 3 thou between the rail height of a code 80 medium radius and a code 55 medium radius turnout, the clip looks closer to 10 thou if not more. I've used code 80 to code 55 with no modification on 12" curved track in the past and not experienced problems, and as H mentions, a quick draw with a file if absolutely neccessary will definately do the trick.

I don't think so. I deliberately tried all these combinations with a length of code 55 (new) and a variety of turnouts and grades of code 80 when I first started in N in 1997. There was always a bump to varying degrees, but essentially consistent with the video, and since I was starting completely from scratch, at that time I felt it better just to buy all code 55 track for my layout.

Bumps, kinks, and suchlike are fatal for poor running - maybe I'm a perfectionist, but I feel removing them at the start is the surest way to give reliable running in the long run. The sheer number of "exhibition" standard layouts with such problems is amazing - and so often the resulting running is....patchy at best.

The only derailments I can recall having are through errant wheelsets, or operator error!

Re: the point blades conductivity, that I agree with, the contact could be a lot better. I tend to solder the stock rails, then cut and switch the frog independantly. Overkill perhaps, and some say not neccessary, but I've not had a single continuity faliure involving a modified point to date; to be honest it is a preference thing above all else, I prefer belt and braces.

IMHO this is completely unnecessary and is just introducing more bumps into the equation. All that's required is frog switching which can be done with no modification to the turnout itself. You could switch the frog in the same way without cutting the rails (i.e. frog switching as I describe), so I can undestand no reason for doing it.

I go one step further and solder the undersides of the blade pivots for strength and because these tend to bend out of alignment and cause bumps and kinks that are impossible to fix after the track is laid. It also aids conductivity.

So far I've had the same trackwork for 14 years using this with no trouble. Only one turnout has ever failed and that wasn't as a result of this or frog switching (the tie bar failed - even then this point is still in action with a new PCB tie bar!).

Cheers,
Alan

[Zunnan]

There is a reason that the facility to break the closure rails is built into 00 pointwork, its a shame that it wasn't done with the Peco N Gauge points, with Atlas code 55 points they're physically and electrically separate and you get no choice in the matter (don't ask me why I mentioned the stock rails earlier! ). Switching the frog and leaving a permanent electrical connection to the point blades introduces the possibility of momentary short circuits from both the switching and out of gauge wheelsets. With enough slop in the point motor/switch arrangement the duration of the momentary short becomes significant enough to trip protection circuits in the controller. Having experienced this happening with an old H&M controller at every throw of several sets of points on an ageing club layout regardless of how well adjusted they were, I now cut every stock rail to guard against this whether operating DC or DCC. Cutting and soldering the closure rails introduces no kink/bump/whatever and does not impede physical running. What it does do is guarantees a feed to the closure rails and better guarantees electrical continuity to the point blades (blade/stock rail contact and blade/closure rail pivot) over an unmodified unswitched point, and eliminates the chance of momentary short circuits developing over a switched frog unmodified point. And when something does derail at the points or an out of gauge wheel contacts the open switch rail I have short circuits occur far less frequently. Electrically speaking, this reliability is what I look for as I don't experience any issues with my tracklaying causing derailment.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words...

Code 55 point joined to code 80 point straight out of the box. No hammer to knock the fishplates into shape, no filing. The height difference is minimal, perhaps the thickness of a sheet of paper or two. I agree that it is best to stick with one or the other, but if you have a lot of code 80 to hand to use in a fiddle yard and want to use code 55 on the visible section of a layout, then it is straightforward to join the two; just keep the number of code 55 - code 80 interfaces to a minimum. Where it may need fettling to smooth out little more than a scrape over with a file and buffing with a track rubber is required. I think this is a far better option than effectively writing off what could be a significant amount of track already in posession, or deciding that its not possible to use the slips and/or 3 way with the code 80 you have and so compromise your track plan in order to use the limited range available to code 80. I don't think I've ever had a derailment at a code 55 - code 80 join, or an ELSIE coupler decide to give way and uncouple itself, operator error or out of gauge wheelsets included; even the first release 9F ran through unhindered on that layout! When any track is laid properly you get little to no problems unless the train itself is at fault.

[Dr Al]

There is a reason that the facility to break the closure rails is built into 00 pointwork, its a shame that it wasn't done with the Peco N Gauge points, with Atlas code 55 points they're physically and electrically separate and you get no choice in the matter (don't ask me why I mentioned the stock rails earlier! ). Switching the frog and leaving a permanent electrical connection to the point blades introduces the possibility of momentary short circuits from both the switching and out of gauge wheelsets. With enough slop in the point motor/switch arrangement the duration of the momentary short becomes significant enough to trip protection circuits in the controller. Having experienced this happening with an old H&M controller at every throw of several sets of points on an ageing club layout regardless of how well adjusted they were, I now cut every stock rail to guard against this whether operating DC or DCC. Cutting and soldering the closure rails introduces no kink/bump/whatever and does not impede physical running.

Hmm there's a gap there though that wasn't before, where you've cut it, so by definition there's a bump! Anything unnecessary like that is something to be avoided IMHO.

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on cutting up turnouts with regards conductivity - I've used simple wiring, no cutting and (widely acknowledged to be fairly mediocre) PL13 accessory switches with zero shorts or failures in 14 years.

Code 55 point joined to code 80 point straight out of the box. No hammer to knock the fishplates into shape, no filing. The height difference is minimal, perhaps the thickness of a sheet of paper or two.

Maybe, but my experience is variable - some had similar to you show, some more like the video. Either way why go with something like this when it's easily smoothed out?

I think this is a far better option than effectively writing off what could be a significant amount of track already in posession, or deciding that its not possible to use the slips and/or 3 way with the code 80 you have and so compromise your track plan in order to use the limited range available to code 80.

Indeed, I wasn't pushing at that - merely dispelling the myth that code 80 and 55 have the same rail height!

When any track is laid properly you get little to no problems unless the train itself is at fault.

Here here! Never a truer word spoken and one that many on the exhibition circuit should heed. But for me that also means eliminating all the bumps, kinks and misalignments IMHO, which is why I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on some of the above   !

Alan

[richie894]

I used all peco code 80 before. It was tricky to get the fish plates on and often the flexi track would "peel" off the sleepers when trying to install. Is code 55 any easier to work with?

[Newportnobby]

I used all peco code 80 before. It was tricky to get the fish plates on and often the flexi track would "peel" off the sleepers when trying to install. Is code 55 any easier to work with?

I think it is generally accepted that getting fishplates onto the rails regardless of code can a pain (literally), with the resultant Fishplate Finger for the next couple of days
Having used code 80 before and now currently using code 55, I have never had the rails leave the webbing on either
I prefer code 55 as the rails are part sunken into the sleepers, it looks better, and I can get small points in code 55 whereas only medium in code 80.

[Dave95979]

i personally found code 55 easier to cut and bend it is very robust

[Jack]

Personally I find Code 55 easier to bend, just remember to check the arrows on the underside and make sure that they are facing inwards.