Code 55 or code 83?????

[panagopolis]

I am just starting to revive my long lost hobby of N scale railroading.  I have a lot of rolling stock and locos that I ran on the original layout, on code 83 (?) track.  I was looking forward to the new layout having code 55 rail because it looks more proto type, but...  On the older cars and locos the flange runs on the ties or 'spikes' of the code 55.  Any advice on whether to replace, cut down or modify the wheels of the loder stock, or just go back to the code 83?  I am still in the planning stages and haven't laid any track yet so I can still change.  I really do prefer the code 55.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

I guess the question is how much is a lot, and how old is old?

The best way to find out if you have a problem might be to pick up a bit of code 55 and test it!  I have read that a screwdriver run along the spikes can "fix" a lot of problems, without damaging the track.  I have not tried it, so I don't have firsthand experience.

 

[gandydancer19]

There is also code 70.  That's what I used on my former layout that was using N scale track etc. with older equipment.  If using the larger rail sizes, code 83 or 70, paint the sides a rusty brown.  (I use Floquil Roof Brown)  You will be amazed at how the paint makes the rail seem smaller.

[panagopolis]

Thanks for the reply.  I do have a length of code 55 that I have tried and that is how I found out about the 'pizza cutters'.  I only have 4 old (35 years) steamers with the deep flange, and about 40 cars.  All of the stuff that I have collected in the last 2 years or so have the shallow flange, about .020".  The flanges on the older stuff are about .040". The only reason that I would want to run the older units is naustalgia.  They were run by my kids, and still run great.  Now the grand kids get a chanun them.  I am thinking that I will probably go with code 55 and park the older units.

Thanks for your input.

John 

 

[Anonymous]

You're doing things right.  The beginning stages is a perfect time to set yourself for years to come.  Track is becoming expensive, and it's pain to have to deal with at a later time.  I do agree that the new equipment is far superior to that of two decades ago.  If the deeper flanges are your problem, you might want to consider purchasing new equipment.  Track is a matter of choice.  I much prefer the higher code track and the deeper flanges, but that's a personal opinion and choice.  I think that your choice for code 55 is a logical and a good one.  If everything is planned and set in the beginning, and if equipment is designed for it, I think you'll find your choice rewarding.

[panagopolis]

Thanks for the reply.  I have been leaning hard toward code 55 (Atlas) and I guess that I just needed a little shouve in that direction.  Thanks for your input.

John 

[panagopolis]

I didn't know about code 70 I'll have to look into that.  The paint idea sounds like it might work better than I had thought.  Thanks.

John 

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

There is some code 70 track on this page:

http://wig-wag-trains.com/Micro-Eng/Micro-Engineering-Track_Product-Page.htm

I don't know if anyone other than ME makes it.  And I wonder how long it will be around, now that code 55 is readily available.  But that's just speculation on my part.

[tgindy]

Code 55 has greater prototypical appearance, and Code 80 is just rock solid in reliability.  For example:  Some modelers will use Code 55 for "scenic trackage," and; Code 80 for "hidden trackage" when trouble-free operations is the goal for tunnels, or staging without scenery concerns.

So, just a little observation by looking at the Atlas website...

• 1st - 'N' Code 80 Track => http://www.atlasrr.com/Trackmisc/ncode80.htm

• 2nd - 'N' Code 55 Track => http://www.atlasrr.com/Trackmisc/ncode55.htm 

Print out the web pages to easily review them and then ask yourself:

Which track code makes more sense as to availabilty?  And as to price?  Then fitting into your track plan radius requirements?  Do you want to use sectional and/or flex track?  ...etc.

[tomikawaTT]

If you can't raise the bridge, lower the river.

Since you are only facing problems with four units, why not turn down the flanges on the drivers of those four units?  I have done this with some really horrible HO pizza-cutter drivers, simply by placing the unit on its back and applying GENTLE pressure with a flat file.  Rocking the file rounds the flange, and the result will track through turnouts made with the smaller rail you prefer.

Before you start, check to make sure that the shavings you produce will be non-magnetic.  It is also possible to pack tissue paper into the frame openings to prevent the shavings from getting up inside the superstructure.  Once you finish, make sure the loose material is all cleaned out of the locomotive.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with file-reduced flanges)

[panagopolis]

Thanks for the links to Atlas track.  I will be using flex track.  I was thinking to use code 55 in the rail yards, but maybe that would be the worst place for it, thinking of reliability.  The finer turnouts may be more finiky......

John 

[panagopolis]

That sounds doable on the drivers, but how does one turn the pilot and trailing wheels?

John 

[GraniteRailroader]

If you can't raise the bridge, lower the river.

Since you are only facing problems with four units, why not turn down the flanges on the drivers of those four units?  I have done this with some really horrible HO pizza-cutter drivers, simply by placing the unit on its back and applying GENTLE pressure with a flat file.  Rocking the file rounds the flange, and the result will track through turnouts made with the smaller rail you prefer.

Before you start, check to make sure that the shavings you produce will be non-magnetic.  It is also possible to pack tissue paper into the frame openings to prevent the shavings from getting up inside the superstructure.  Once you finish, make sure the loose material is all cleaned out of the locomotive.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with file-reduced flanges)

To further what Chuck said, if you're worried about the engines having problems with their flanges, start by taking the shell off. Apply power directly to the motor, and then use the file to smooth down the wheels. You can change how much comes off the flange by adjusting the speed of the motor and keeping consitant and equal pressure on the file.

[wm3798]

You can purchase replacement wheel sets for your older rolling stock, or get the MT replacement trucks and couplers with low profile wheels included.  Code 55 track will work anywhere that code 80 does.  The Atlas track system is as easy to work with as their c80 system.  With any track, a little care while installing will pay dividends over the long haul.

I've had to turn down some drive wheels, what I do is place two files on a board, secure them with staples, then clip the power from the track to the files.  The wheels turn on the files, and the grindings are less likely to get into the mechanism because the engine is upright.  To replace the pilot and trailing truck wheels, check some contemporary models and see if it wouldn't be practical to simply replace the the wheelsets and/or trucks.

Lee 

[ChrisNH]

Some folks have had trouble with flanges on the Atlas stuff because of the little plastic spike heads that hold the track in place.

My peco code 55 works fine because it doesnt use plastic spike heads to hold track, the rail is just sunk deeper into the ties. Unfortately the tie spacing is british and the track has become very expensive due to the exchange rate difference.

From what I have read, the micro-engineering flex doesn thave the same trouble atlas track has (or had.. havent followed this).

As others have said, pick up some flex of various brands and try out your stuff on them. 

Good luck!

Chris