!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: Code 80 Vs Code 55  (Read 18591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tgv_obsessed

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: yes
  • 2mm Association Number: no
  • Posts: 174
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2012, 11:33:18 AM »
Well I suppose I mean "number one in Japan" and "Ideal for digital" - phrases that come up on retailers websites again and again, and Unitrack is turning up in quite a few places now.

OK its not the cheapest, but it is cheaper than everything other than peco setrack- the straights and curves come in packs of two, and the points have the motors and switches built in- a large radius electrofrog point is 15.50 and the switch- 5.55- thats 21 pounds for a hassle free, quality 28 INCH radius point where all the wiring and motorising is done for you

even for someone experienced that must look tempting
running in is so you get used to the noise, oops, to bed the gears down properly

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1177
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2013, 03:09:35 PM »
"Before we give consideration to your baseboard design, we have some concerns about the practicality of your proposed track plan. a) The track seems to be a mixture of Code 80 and Code 55 track, whilst in theory this is possible, in practice we have found the connection between the two track sections to be problematic at best."

Now I am in a quandery. Do I have to revise my plans and size of layout in order to go Code 55 only?  ??? ??? ???
(Sorry, but you are not allowed to access the gallery)

Offline EtchedPixels

  • Advertiser
  • Trade Count: (+44)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 16353
  • 2mm Association Number: 4412
  • Posts: 8286
  • Country: wales
  • Gender: Male
    • Ebay
    • Google+
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
    • Etched Pixels
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2013, 03:11:49 PM »
Peco code 55 to code 80 isn't a big problem - it means card shims to level the thinner base. The code 55 track looks way better than the code 80 anyway. It's also stronger.

For an all new layout I'm not sure why you'd use code 80 except if you needed to fix up some sharp offscene curves.

Alan
"Knowledge has no value or use for the solitary owner: to be enjoyed it must be communicated" -- Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1177
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2013, 03:32:25 PM »
Peco code 55 to code 80 isn't a big problem - it means card shims to level the thinner base. The code 55 track looks way better than the code 80 anyway. It's also stronger.

For an all new layout I'm not sure why you'd use code 80 except if you needed to fix up some sharp offscene curves.

Alan


I need to use ST-5 & ST-6 points and x-overs to fit the layout into space.

(Sorry, but you are not allowed to access the gallery)

Offline H

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1660
  • Country: 00
    • grahamehedges
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2013, 07:44:43 PM »
Peco code 55 to code 80 isn't a big problem - it means card shims to level the thinner base. The code 55 track looks way better than the code 80 anyway. It's also stronger.

For an all new layout I'm not sure why you'd use code 80 except if you needed to fix up some sharp offscene curves.

Alan

I need to use ST-5 & ST-6 points and x-overs to fit the layout into space.


Alan is right - try to avoid code 80 for a new layout.

The setrack points are code 80, insulfrog and have toy trainset like curves. It's usually recommended to use code 55 and electrofrog points (assuming you've decided on Peco) for the scenic parts of the layout. It might be better to reconsider the overall plan so you end up with a more realistic look and more reliable trackwork.

H.

Offline EtchedPixels

  • Advertiser
  • Trade Count: (+44)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 16353
  • 2mm Association Number: 4412
  • Posts: 8286
  • Country: wales
  • Gender: Male
    • Ebay
    • Google+
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
    • Etched Pixels
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2013, 07:46:15 PM »
The ST-5/ST-6 points are also 9" radius - which means some bigger steam locomotives won't take them, and they will prevent a lot of closer coupling elsewhere on the layout.

"Knowledge has no value or use for the solitary owner: to be enjoyed it must be communicated" -- Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden

Offline H

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1660
  • Country: 00
    • grahamehedges
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2013, 07:50:20 PM »

Unitrack is turning up in quite a few places now.

(snip)

. .  even for someone experienced that must look tempting.


Nope, not for me.  :D

Unitrack uses code 80 and the rail top looks very chunky. The ballast base is very plasticky and far too high with an over-pronounced shoulder. I'd rather code 55 or even code 40 rail, and a more realistic looking ballast.

Of course, it's a personal choice thing - but I'm not tempted.

H.

Offline bluedepot

  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2650
  • Country: 00
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2013, 08:09:28 PM »
i think a lot of people new to the hobby use code 80 because that's all a lot of the model shops stock, or maybe they have code 80 to re-use from an old layout.

i wasn't really fully aware of code 55 when i started my layout so i used code 80. i have painted the rail sides / sleepers and i only used large or medium radius electrofrog points so this has helped it to look better.  if i make a brand new n gauge layout in the future i will use code 55 though.


tim

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1177
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2013, 09:03:50 PM »
Peco code 55 to code 80 isn't a big problem - it means card shims to level the thinner base. The code 55 track looks way better than the code 80 anyway. It's also stronger.

For an all new layout I'm not sure why you'd use code 80 except if you needed to fix up some sharp offscene curves.

Alan

I need to use ST-5 & ST-6 points and x-overs to fit the layout into space.


Alan is right - try to avoid code 80 for a new layout.

The setrack points are code 80, insulfrog and have toy trainset like curves. It's usually recommended to use code 55 and electrofrog points (assuming you've decided on Peco) for the scenic parts of the layout. It might be better to reconsider the overall plan so you end up with a more realistic look and more reliable trackwork.

H.

OK, but before you all go peddeling your own agenda. Read what I said and look at the layout.

I DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE IT!!!
(Sorry, but you are not allowed to access the gallery)

Offline H

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1660
  • Country: 00
    • grahamehedges
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2013, 09:38:43 PM »
Hey, ease up. There's no need for 'shouting.'

I don't think anyone is 'peddling' their own agenda. It's just that if you post about a subject you are bound to get some advise that might not fit with your plans. However, the suggestions are that it might be a good idea to reconsider them. But, of course, you don't have to action the suggestions and it's always nice to get a cross section of ideas to think about.

And you did actually ask "Do I have to revise my plans and size of layout in order to go Code 55 only?"

H.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 09:44:14 PM by H »

Offline moogle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 5694
  • Posts: 1397
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad as a hatter and proud!
    • PhotoBucket
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2013, 10:08:03 PM »
Now, now children. Play nicely or Tank will take your toys away!
Personal motto: You don't have to be mad to be a modeller, but I find it helps!

My Irish layout here

My Edwardian Seaside Layout here

My Backscene painting tutorial here

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1177
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2013, 11:14:00 AM »
 :-[ :-[

Got carried away. Now, are there any other suggestions which may fit in with my desire not to change too much?

 :thankyousign:

I may have to buy Anyrail to try the full package if Code 55 is the only way forwars. But I doubt if I will have available space for the revised layout. Time will tell I guess.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2013, 08:53:39 PM by Arrachogaidh »
(Sorry, but you are not allowed to access the gallery)

Offline Newportnobby

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+95)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 32840
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2013, 09:14:05 PM »
I think you have to decide where your priorities lie :hmmm:
If you could let us know what you intend to run then we can help with experience of running such items and what they will run round. If you want large Dapol steamers, for example, you will not be able to use set track curves and points. If you want the layout as you have drawn it up and have to use set track, you WILL limit yourself as to what you can run.
May I suggest you look at the small points (SLE391/392) which actually have a 12" radius so you can pretty much run what you want. One way or another, you may have to compromise somewhere along the line ( :doh:)

Offline Sprintex

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: CLOSED
  • Posts: 7158
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2013, 09:25:07 PM »
I may have to buy Anyrail to try the full package if Code 55 is the only way forward. But I doubt if I will have available space for the revised layout. Time will tell I guess.

Given what that amount of track (and especially points and crossings!) is going to cost I'd say 35 quid for the full version of Anyrail to make sure everything will work as it you want it to would be a darn good investment ;)


Paul

Offline Arrachogaidh

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 8539
  • Posts: 1177
  • Country: scotland
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Code 80 Vs Code 55
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2013, 10:35:12 PM »
Thank you Newport & Sprintex. Yes, on reflection a small outlay may give me a better perspective. There are limitations when using trial version of Anyrail which mean I am concentrating on segments rather than the full layout.

The main station layout, I wasn't really happy with as although it was a reasonable representation was fairly "trainset-ish" as others have stated.

I will have a fresh go at the planning during the week on the full version and see where it leads me. I may have to extend my garage as a result.......    :stop: :stop:
(Sorry, but you are not allowed to access the gallery)

 

Please Support Us!
December Goal: £60.00
Due Date: Dec 31
Total Receipts: £25.00
Below Goal: £35.00
Site Currency: GBP
42% 
December Donations


Advertise Here
anything