N scale code 55 vs code 80

[oplholik]

Before I go buy a bunch of track, what should I use, code 55, or code 80? I will be using Atlas track. I have used code 55 in the past, but never really knew if one is preferred over the other.

 

[montanan]

Years ago I was into N scale. I got out of it after building a layout with over 11 scale miles of main line mainly because of the crappy locomotives available in the late 70's, but the looks of the grossly tall rail with N scale was another reason.

Sold all of the N scale and built an HO scale layout using code 70 rail.

The code 55 will look so much better.

 

[oplholik]

Thanks Chet, just wanted to make sure before I had the track.

 

[MikeOwnby]

The one caveat is that older locomotives with taller wheel flanges won't negotiate code 55 turnouts and crossovers. As long as you have fairly recent equipment (I want to guess at 10 years or so), though, the code 55 is a better option. I've stuck with code 80 precisely because I do actually have some old, rehab'ed locos that need it.

In other words, code 55 is infinitely preferable aesthetically, but it will keep you from running older equipment.

 

[oplholik]

Thanks, my equipment is new enough to run on code 55.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

As has been said, Code 55 is a lower profile rail and a little more prototype so older equipment might have problems due to their deeper wheel flanges. Code 55 is possibly a little more robust than Code 80 as well as the rail is set deeper into the ties.

 

[Sirfoldalot]

So you're saying that it's the same size rail, but just "buried down" more and doesn't sit as high above the ties??

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Sherrel,

That is how I understand it, yes.

 

[jdetray]

So you're saying that it's the same size rail, but just "buried down" more and doesn't sit as high above the ties??

That is NOT the case with Atlas Code 55. It is not "buried down." It is actual Code 55 rail.

On the other hand, Peco N-scale Code 55 track uses larger rail that is, indeed "buried down." See photo below, courtesy of Bone Valley Modeler.

- Jeff

 

[goscrewyourselves]

I knew Peco used the method I described and probably because they use a finer rail and "setting it into the ties" gives the rail a lot more support and rigidity. I do stand corrected on the other two makes though.

 

[Iron Horseman]

That kind of makes it hard to connect the other brands to Peco doesn't it. For that matter how does the Peco connect? I don't remember Peco track from 1985 (the last time I used it) looking like that.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

That kind of makes it hard to connect the other brands to Peco doesn't it. For that matter how does the Peco connect? I don't remember Peco track from 1985 (the last time I used it) looking like that.

In my case, I only use Peco track so joining it with other brands is a non issue.

A question comes to mind though, if using Peco Track why would you want to connect another brand of track to it? If it comes down to it, why would you want to mix and match track makes regardless of the make?

With respect to Peco though, it joins the same as any other track using rail joiners scale appropriate. It maybe different in HO scale but I connected Peco Turnouts to Atlas Flex (before I discarded the Atlas track, without an issue. As said, it maybe different to N Scale codes though.