cwhowell2Although an HO modeller, I've decided to dabble a bit with a small N scale layout. (Yeah, I know. It's an addiction). With HO the rail size is easy; it's either code 83 or 100. And maybe 70 for the narrow gaugers, but after a check of the current Walthers catalog, I see that N scale track comes in 5 different sizes. 40, 55, 65, 70 & 80. Code 80 seems a bit high for me but I wonder if Cd55 might be too troublesome with standard N scale equipment. I don't mind swapping out wheelsets on rolling stock, but changing wheels on locos would be out of the question. So far I have an Atlas GP7 and Intermountain FT A-B set. Thanks - Bill
Although an HO modeller, I've decided to dabble a bit with a small N scale layout. (Yeah, I know. It's an addiction). With HO the rail size is easy; it's either code 83 or 100. And maybe 70 for the narrow gaugers, but after a check of the current Walthers catalog, I see that N scale track comes in 5 different sizes. 40, 55, 65, 70 & 80. Code 80 seems a bit high for me but I wonder if Cd55 might be too troublesome with standard N scale equipment. I don't mind swapping out wheelsets on rolling stock, but changing wheels on locos would be out of the question. So far I have an Atlas GP7 and Intermountain FT A-B set. Thanks - Bill
There are many rail codes in N, but the two main ones are code 80 and 55, 80 and 55 are more or less the N-scale equivalent to HO's code 100 and 83, in terms of commercial availability.
Also, like HO scalers using code 70 for the more fine-scale, hand-layer crowd, N's equivalent is code 40.
Codes 65 and 70 are for certain legacy or niche products, and are nowhere near as popular or available as code 80 and 55 track, Code 65 track is only available for Atlas Tru-Track (their answer to Kato Unitrak, with the molded-on roadbed). Code 70 is older N-scale rail manufactured years ago by Shinohara,Not many people use that one.
BF&DWhoa! Code 70 is the best looking for transition era HO model railroads, code 83 only for very heavy rail Class 1 coal haulers - code 55 for yards and spurs. HO Code 100 is outside the bounds of protypical reality.
Exactly right. 70/55 is the only way to go. Any flange issues are easily addressed by simply turning them down.
Hi from Belgium,
Use code 55 its better looking.
Peco code 55 run fine, and when weathered is fine as Atlas .
Atlas code 55 is fine also, but some wheels with big flanges run accross the molded spikes.
ME code 55 is very fine, but for better soldering issues use only the unweathered ones.
For turnouts, may be take a look at the Nscale code 55 Fastrack turnouts www.handlaidtrack.com they offer jigs which made fine scale turnouts that are flawssely in running qualities and in electrical continuity.
Good choice and happy new year
I run Atlas's code 55 with my atlas engines and cars and everything works fine. Any rolling stock with RP-25 wheelsets will work on code 55, though the older stuff (and also micro-trains "pizza-cutter" wheels) will need swapping out to ones that are RP-25 compliant. Otherwise, code 55 is the best option IMO after having used code 80 as well. The code 55 looks much more realistic.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
Not having much luck finding Atlas Cd55 flex. So far everyone I've tried is out of stock. Anybody know a good mail order or upstate NY store? Thanks - Bill
Wow, lots of good advice. I'll definitly do the "try & see" method. Buy a section of flex and a turnout in Atlas Cd55 and see how they work with my equipment. Only trouble is my LHS (Vestal, NY) only carries Cd-80 and it's pretty much impossible to special order a single section of flex track. I should be able to tell with just a single turnout. Thanks everyone for your input. - Bill
> With HO the rail size is easy; it's either code 83 or 100.
> And maybe 70 for the narrow gaugers
Whoa! Code 70 is the best looking for transition era HO model railroads, code 83 only for very heavy rail Class 1 coal haulers - code 55 for yards and spurs. HO Code 100 is almost outside the bounds of protypical reality.
I don't do "Need glasses" scale, but code 80 looks just awful - code 55 in N is still pretty much oversize - liek code 100 in HO - but at least it doesn't look quite so toylike.
Here's a thousand words about the appearance of Atlas c55...
It provides you with three key advantages:
It looks great (particularly in terms of tie spacing and size...not as chunky as the old c80 track)
It's readily available with a wide variety of sectional, flex and turnout pieces
It's the most economical c55 track system there is.
Micro Engineering offers c40, 55, and 70, but it's not as easily obtained, offers a less complete line, and is far more costly. However, they do offer c55 "bridge" track, which has longer ties and closer spacing, as you would find on many types of bridges.
ME bridge track was used in the image above. Happily it mates cleanly with Atlas c-55 track.
About the only drawback to the Atlas system is that the turnouts require something to hold them into position. (ME and Peco turnouts are self-sprung) but there is a cheap and easy fix for that. If you use micro-slide switches, Double Pole Single Throw, you can fashion a switch machine that is unobtrusive visually, and effective mechanically and electrically.
The slide switch holds the points securely in position, and the DPST connection allows you to route power through the frog, eliminating stalls on your turnouts.
I hope this information is useful.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Those Atlas (Kato made OR Classic versions) have some very accurate wheel spacing and nice low flanges, and of course the Intermountain semes to be finer than Kato's across turnouts and the like. Go with the 55, you'll be happy! Just leave the Bachmann and LifeLike rolling stock on the shelf for the snap-track chaps, Micro-trains etc. is a nice bet to keep it rolling smoothly on low-pro track. Also, I have heard that superelevation plus code-55 track is one heck of a nice sight!
The last time I built an N scale layout, code 80 was the defacto standard.
Now, I'm back into N and am loving the delicate look of Atlas code 55. Atlas locos and rolling stock run fine on it; and I am adding MTL cars with low-profile wheels, so that takes care of that issue.
After looking at my new Atlas TOs, anything larger (including Peco) just looks toylike to me.
I've build code 70 and code 55 for my standard layout. Now I'm into narrow gauge and have build quite a few code 55 turnouts. Next step are code 40 turnouts. The first code 40 track is laid.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
On top of that you will find that cd55 vs. somebody elses cd55 is not the same. I am sure there are some on here who will argue this with me but here is what I found. By the way, I use Peco cd55 for everything, run all recently manufactured stuff (<5yrs old) and all runs great. When I first decided to go back into N scale I trialed several different track types to see what I like best. Looked at Atlas cd55 and peco cd55. They are HUGELY different sized track. Yes I know that Peco is actually cd80 buried in the ties a little more to be called cd 55 but I wonder. I have locos that run perfectly fine on Peco cd55 but will bump over every tie on Atlas cd55. That to me says that one of these track types is not truely cd55. I love the look of the Atlas cd55, I think it looks more prototypical because of its overall size but I found that a lot of rolling stock i had would not clear the ties. That is why I settled on the Peco cd55 and I am very happy with my decision.
Go pick up a few pieces of each at your LHS and run a train over them. That's the best way to make your decision. Sell the leftovers on Ebay.
Bill,C55 is a good choice but,there is one problem: oversize wheel flanges(aka pizza cutters)...The best method in dealing with this problem is to use low profile wheels and use the newer locomotives and cars that come equipped with smaller flanges.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"