Planning an n scale layout. Wondering what the difference betwen code 80 (Peco) and code 55 from Peco.operational advantage......i.e. will train locos run better on bigger rail? less derailments? or is it just personal taste?
a
I'd say it's personal taste in that code 80 is grossly out of scale at n scale. At least code 55 looks slot closer to scale. If the looks of code 80 doesnt you it's probably going to cost less.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I model in HO. I started with Code 100, but switched to Code 83. It just looks better to me. I had some old wheelsets that bounced on the ties with the Code 83, but I got better wheelsets and that's no longer a problem.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Code 80 is .080" high, which scales to 12.8" in N. It looks ridiculous. Code 55 is .055" high (break the code yet?). That scales to 8.8" in. Still too big, but not nearly as bad. Code 40 is about right, but while you can get flextrack, there are no commercially produced turnouts available.
The only reasons to use code 80 are if you have a ton of it already on hand, or if you have a lot of old (like 1970's old) rolling stock with the pizza cutter flanges on the wheels that you don't want to fix.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
N scale continued to use larger flanges well past the typical early 70's cutoff for HO, so that can be an issue. Replacement wheels are available for rolling stock.
Friend of mine built his layout using hand laid Code 40 turnouts, for some of his locos he had to turnt he flanges on a lathe to get them to work, rolling stock was a matter oif swapping wheels and/or trucks. But I think he turned a lot of wheels himself. He did do a small section of Code 25 (which is really just flattened wire, it doesn;t have a rail shape, you couldn't see it anyway) but that was going a bit far and it was quite delicate and finicky. The Code 40 looked nice, no obvious giveaway that it was N scale when viewd closely. But if I were doign N scale today, I think I'd be perfectly happy with Code 55. The Peco kind is quite sturdy because they do a little trick - the rail itself is still Code 80, but it's embedded in thicker than usual ties so above the ties it's .055" yet s has the strength of the heavier Code 80.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Peco code 55 is actually code 80 rail (with a bit of a differnt profile) where .025" is buried in the ties, so only .055" is exposed. This makes the track very robust and reliable. If I remember correctly, the inside of the rail has a bit more exposed to accomodate for earlier "pizza cutter" wheel flanges. I used Peco code 55 for over 10 years with zero issues. It was very reliable. The biggest reason I switched was the tie spacing, it is more to British standards than North American standards. But I would recommend Peco code 55 to anyone.
Thanks,
Scott
The only advantage of Peco55 over Peco80 is appearance. They are 100% compatible. Peco55 also works with other code 80 brands.
Peco55 doesn't look as good as other code 55 brands but they are less robust and don't play well with code 80.
I used code 80 for main lines and Peco55 for sidings and spurs.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.