Code 55 or 80

[DSchmitt]

A lot of N scale equipment can't run on Atlas code 55 [:(]. The wheel flanges are too deep and hit the simulated spikes. However, most of the recently released quality locomotives and car will work with no problem[^][:D]. It is not difficult to change the wheels on most cars [:)], but older locos are a problem [:(].

Some other brands of code 55 are more tolerant of deep flanges.

Peco code 55 is actually functionally code 80. The design makes the rail look smaller.

From the standpoint of appearance, the thickness of the rail head is more noticeable to me than the rail height. Some brands of track look very toy like because they have thick rails.

[Anonymous]

We're using Atlas code 55, not only because of the difference in rail height, but because the ties are narrower and set closer together -- this gives more of a sense of distance. We're also using Micro Engineering code 55 bridge track (wider ties much closer set) on the bridges, and ME code 40 for sidings.

The big advantage with all of these for us is that the layout will photograph well.


--Mo

[Anonymous]

Ross,

The Code refers to the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch. So, Code 80 is 80/1000 or .080". Code 55 is .055" and is closer to the prototypical rail in mainline use today. In N scale, the difference to the casual observer isn't obvious, but you can set the rules on your layout and determine what size rail you want on your road.

[Anonymous]

What is the difference between code 55 and 80 track in N Scale? Why would I want one over the other?


Ross