I have just started in this hobby and require some assistance/guidance. could someone please help me with some info?
what is the difference between code 55 and 80?
which manufacturer is best to start with?
are the tracks from the different manufacturers compatible?
janneman wrote: I have just started in this hobby and require some assistance/guidance. could someone please help me with some info?what is the difference between code 55 and 80?which manufacturer is best to start with?are the tracks from the different manufacturers compatible?
Welcome to a great hobby and this site. I think you'll find lots of help here but please realize this isn't the only place to find it. Get Model Railroader magazine and some of the others as well. One of the editor's of MR, David Popp, is into N-Scale so you'll find some good information in anything that carries his by-line. You might also look at Railroad Models Craftsman and N-Scale magazines as well.
As for your question about manufacturers, well there are good products and bad products and a lot in between. Kato and Atlas are probably the best you'll find but that doesn't mean everything by either company is always great. Most of the others aren't to bad but you'll find that Bachman, Life Like and some of the others are of uneven quality and sometimes are more toy-like than anything else.
As for track, code numbers refere to how high the track is. Code 80 in N-Scale would be very heavy track. It seems to be what was used from the beginning when wheels had deep flanges and were necessary to keep stuff from flying off the track. Lots of equipmen still available today needs this kind of track.
Code 55 track more closely resembles what is used today on the prototype railroads. Many of us use that now but many of us (including me) still use code 80 because we have old stuff that requires it.
Compatibility is another issue because it depends on whether you just buy the track itself or buy the stuff that has the rail incorporated into a plastic roadbed system. Those different systems (EZ-Track, Kato Track, etc) are only compatible with the same manufacturer specific system. Atlas Snap Track, for example, is compatible with similar track sold by on other manufacturers. These come in short lengths and given radius curves.
I would recommend that you explore some of the Kalmbach publications dealing with N Scale model railroading and buy a couple of beginners guides that wil give you some additional information. And you can always find help here. You also might consider visiting a N Scale railroad club.
If you'll tell us a little more of what you are doing we can probably answer some more questions which you haven't asked yet.
I've been into N-Scale since the late 1970s and I can tell you've come into it at a good time.
Irv
Hi,I am a newbie to MRR too. Good luck.
Code refers to the hight of the rail that is above the ties.
Code 55 is closer to prototype but is not as strong and wont hold up as long as code 80.
Code 80 is stronger and is ment more for newbies like us.
Atlas is a good manufacturer to start with. There stuff is good quality and resonable price. I would stay away from Bachmann. There quality is not as good.
Hope this helps!!
-Tim
timbob wrote: Code 55 is closer to prototype but is not as strong and wont hold up as long as code 80.Code 80 is stronger and is ment more for newbies like us. -Tim
Unless you're running 2 pound locomotives the code 55 rail will hold up just fine. It is a bit more delicate to handle when laying it, but once it's down and secured it'll be just fine.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
I am starting an N scale layout as well. I bought a little code 55 to check it out. I find that the wheel flanges on some of my stock hit the "spike heads". They don't seem to cause derailments, but do make a clicking sound.
Would different wheel sets solve this problem?
Thanks for letting me tag on.
majortom
majortom wrote: I am starting an N scale layout as well. I bought a little code 55 to check it out. I find that the wheel flanges on some of my stock hit the "spike heads". They don't seem to cause derailments, but do make a clicking sound.Would different wheel sets solve this problem?Thanks for letting me tag on.majortom
You're likely using rolling stock equipped with what we fondly call "Pizza Cutter" wheels. These are deep-flanged wheels that are typically found on Micro-Train (MT) cars. They work fine on Atlas code 80, but tend to bottom out on the spike heads on Atlas code 55 track. Atlas claims that MT wheel sets are not NMRA (National Model Railroad Assoc) compliant, and will thus have issues on their code 55 track. MT claims that they have been making their wheel sets for ages and they are preferred by their customers. Some N-scale modelers wondered why Atlas would knowingly make a new line of track that they knew would not work so well with a major N-scale line like MT. The debate rages on even today...
As a result, MT (for a while) offered two wheel sets with their rolling stock. One of them had lower flanges that would work on Atlas code 55. They recently stopped this practice and now only offer their original (deep flanged) wheel sets.
Most other manufacturers of N-scale rolling stock have come equipped with code 55 compliant wheel sets for some time.
Changing out the wheels would resolve your issue. Atlas, Fox Valley models, and Intermountain offer replacement wheel sets that are code 55 compliant.
To be precise, the code number is thousands of an inch. Thus code 80 is 80 thousands of an inch high. The width of the rail is also an issue when connecting different brands. Though I am in HO, there is a definate advantage in picking a brand of rail and staying with it.
Welcome to the hobby you guys.
I re-entered the hobby (N scale) recently after a 15-year hiatus...
15 years ago I used Atlas code 80. I thought it looked OK and was more within my budget as compared to Peco, who makes very top-quality track but is/was a bit pricey.
Well, as I re-entered the hobby in 2007, I picked up some of the Atlas code 55 track in order to compare it to the many pieces of code 80 that I still had stored away.
My first reaction was "Wow, this code 55 stuff looks good-- darned good!"
I always hated the overall size of the Atlas code 80 rail... Just too darned big.
I wasn't as down on the code 80 tie spacing, at least not when I was active in the hobby back in the early 90's, but that's before I had a piece of code 55 track in front of me. The tie-spacing on the code 55 is much more conforming to American RR standards, than is the code 80, which has a more European tie-spacing. The bottom line is that the code 55 looks so much better than the code 80, that for myself, I'd never use Atlas code 80 track ever again. I spent a lot of money reinvesting in replacing the code 80 that I owned, with the code 55, but I'm much happier.
As far as the whole "flanges too deep to run on code 55 track" thing, the cost of converting 25 cars over to the low-profile wheelsets is less than $20. As with the code 55 track, I like the look of the low-profile wheelsets as compared to the "pizza-cutters" anyway.
Welcome to this great hobby and site. now your answer:
code 55 is smaller than code 80. I suggest atlas as a great track supplier. Code 55 rail is code 55 rail, no matter the manufacturer. however, the tie size is different. You might have to put styrene or some other material under ties to bring different mnufaturers' ties up to the same level. Same for code 80. I've heard that Peco code 55 is code 80 buried in the ties, so you can probably use it w/ code 80 w/o shimming the rails (transitioning between codes, to keep the rails flush you might have to shim the rail bottoms), but probably have to shim code 55 w/ it.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
MichaelWinicki wrote: I re-entered the hobby (N scale) recently after a 15-year hiatus...15 years ago I used Atlas code 80. I thought it looked OK and was more within my budget as compared to Peco, who makes very top-quality track but is/was a bit pricey.Well, as I re-entered the hobby in 2007, I picked up some of the Atlas code 55 track in order to compare it to the many pieces of code 80 that I still had stored away.My first reaction was "Wow, this code 55 stuff looks good-- darned good!"I always hated the overall size of the Atlas code 80 rail... Just too darned big.I wasn't as down on the code 80 tie spacing, at least not when I was active in the hobby back in the early 90's, but that's before I had a piece of code 55 track in front of me. The tie-spacing on the code 55 is much more conforming to American RR standards, than is the code 80, which has a more European tie-spacing. The bottom line is that the code 55 looks so much better than the code 80, that for myself, I'd never use Atlas code 80 track ever again. I spent a lot of money reinvesting in replacing the code 80 that I owned, with the code 55, but I'm much happier.As far as the whole "flanges too deep to run on code 55 track" thing, the cost of converting 25 cars over to the low-profile wheelsets is less than $20. As with the code 55 track, I like the look of the low-profile wheelsets as compared to the "pizza-cutters" anyway.
For me I wanted a combination of:
1. Rail height that was as prototypical as possible.
2. Tie-spacing that was "American" and not "European".
3. Track that was easily available.
4. Track that was affordable.
After taking all those points into consideration, the choice of the Atlas code 55 was relatively easy to make.
janneman wrote:Thanks for all the advice guys. Just another bit of advice. Why not use Model Power tracks or Fleischman, compared to Atlas or Peco?
Not sure about Fleischman, but I don't think Model Power makes N-scale track anymore. It's possible that you found someone selling old stock. I see people trying to sell it off on eBay (and not mention what brand name it is). MP made code 80, but I think Atlas code 80 would be better quality and far easier to work with.
Honestly, if I were doing a layout from scratch, I'd use Atlas code 55 line. It looks far better and Atlas now makes a variety of C55 turnouts and crossovers to support it. Your layout will look much better in the end.
I have been into N scale for more than 35 years and have tried all types of track. I am now retired and building me "dream layout". For this one I used Peco code 55. It has been great. But for you as a beginner I would recomend the Atlas code 55 flex as it is less costly than the Peco. I also highly recommened you use the Ribbon Rail track alignment gauges so all the radii are true. Also use the straight gauge on your straights. When you are going to transitation from straight into a radius do a 2 degree lead in for about 2 inches of the straight. Also solder all connections. If at all possible stay away from the section track. It will only cause you a lot of problems.
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
My layout as a kid was all Atlas code 80. It looked like a toy set though. My current set is all Kato Unitrack and I regret ever doing it. Their switches are quite frankly junk. They are very finicky and fragile. This may not be true if you are just trying to snap it together on a table top but if you are going for any semblance of realism, stay away from it. It's hard to detail. I've done it but it's very time consuming. When you open them up to see inside (or fix them) it's amazing to think some engineer actually thought that design was acceptable. It's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen internally.
A few of my switches kept causing derailments. It didn't matter what went across them. Everything derailed. The guy at my local train store kept trying to tell me that the switches were perfect as Kato's always are. He said that my rolling stock was all out of alignment. I'd believe that if it were only one or 2 things derailing but not everything. It turns out there were flaws in a couple of my switches after all. He also told me the issue was that the #4 switches I had were too sharp and that #6's would be better. That's crap! I've never had an issue like this with Atlas or Peco #4 switches. The Kato's are the problem. I had to take a Dremel to a few of them. Others I had to hand file. They all work now. I also ruined a couple of switches during ballasting due to slight glue runoff. My fault but I never had this much of an issue with other switches. I have alot of Unitrack still lying around and may just build a couple of small layouts and give them away to friend's kids. I'm never using it again. If I could go back and do it all again, I'd use Code 55 and just take my sweet time.
fredswain wrote: My layout as a kid was all Atlas code 80. It looked like a toy set though. My current set is all Kato Unitrack and I regret ever doing it. Their switches are quite frankly junk. They are very finicky and fragile. This may not be true if you are just trying to snap it together on a table top but if you are going for any semblance of realism, stay away from it. It's hard to detail. I've done it but it's very time consuming. When you open them up to see inside (or fix them) it's amazing to think some engineer actually thought that design was acceptable. It's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen internally.A few of my switches kept causing derailments. It didn't matter what went across them. Everything derailed. The guy at my local train store kept trying to tell me that the switches were perfect as Kato's always are. He said that my rolling stock was all out of alignment. I'd believe that if it were only one or 2 things derailing but not everything. It turns out there were flaws in a couple of my switches after all. He also told me the issue was that the #4 switches I had were too sharp and that #6's would be better. That's crap! I've never had an issue like this with Atlas or Peco #4 switches. The Kato's are the problem. I had to take a Dremel to a few of them. Others I had to hand file. They all work now. I also ruined a couple of switches during ballasting due to slight glue runoff. My fault but I never had this much of an issue with other switches. I have alot of Unitrack still lying around and may just build a couple of small layouts and give them away to friend's kids. I'm never using it again. If I could go back and do it all again, I'd use Code 55 and just take my sweet time.
Interesting take. I'm starting out my layout with Unitrack, and so far I love it. I've never had a problem with any of the switches, but I only use #6 so far and haven't decided if I want to go to #4. Perhaps this will make me stay with #6. I'm currently detailed all the track I have before laying it, then I'll ballast and finish it off when its in place. From a connection standpoint and ease of assembly, the Unitrack can't be beat. I've never experienced a problem with connectivity with Unitrack and the kids play with it a LOT. I've run a 3x9 layout with one feeder and never had a problem. When I used Atlas track in my younger days in N scale, I had all kinds of problems with connectivity. I'll stick with Unitrack, but I may just stay away from #4 switches or try out a couple of them.