My recent "Enola Yard" expansion project uses Atlas N scale code 55 track. I often wish I'd used code 55 on the original HCD layout, but I didn't. Nevertheless, the code 80 track only really bothered me in close-up photos. It always looked just fine to my naked eye... until now.
The joint below is a "brute force" joint, i.e., I crushed code 80 joiners and soldered the 55 on top. You can see where my heat sink slipped and I melted a bit of tie. Code 80 (left) and code 55 (right):
The difference is profound. Profound enough that I'm now bothered by the original layout. Two more pictures illustrate the difference (code 55 first then code 80)... First are the arrival/departure tracks for Enola:
Second is the east end of Lewisport:
I make no judgements as to others' choices of track, but I am clearly committed now to Atlas code 55.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave
As always, nice work. Not only does the rail size look better, but the size and spacing of the ties too.
Now let's not get too carried away thinking about what we can do with the HCD layout.......
Ricky
Doctor V, as is your forte your photography is superb and very illustrative of the point you are making: in one plane the difference between Code 55 and Code 80 is a mere 1/40th of an inch but in another plane -- the prototypical one -- that is a whoppin' 4 inches and becomes readily apparent when the two are placed side-by-side.
I built my first N-Scale Code 55 layout in 1982; as is true with many N-Scale modelers my first N-Scale endeavor was in somebody's Code 80 -- this far down the road I can't remember whether it was from Atlas or somebody else. I picked up 10 pieces from my local. I had been using Codes 83 and 70 on my last HO-Scale endeavor and the more I looked at that Code 80 track the more grotesque it became. I finally decided to give Code 55 a try. RailCraft was the only manufacturer of Code 55 rail and track in those now far-distant days of yore; I wanted to do this new layout with handlaid trackwork so I laid in a case of rail and a couple of thousand ties -- my local didn't feel he could market individual pieces of Code 55 rail so he required that I order it up by the case and prepay -- for taking the case out the back door unopened he did give me a 10% discount. My handlaying extended to a whoppin' 25 or so feet before my patience expired and I went back to the store for a couple of cases of flex. With the shrinking of N-Scale flanges to a more prototypical depth, I am giving serious thought to going with Code 55 and Code 40 when, down the road apiece, I get around to building a new layout -- which will, because of my advancing age, probably be my last.
One thing that became apparent right from the git-go was that, although oversized ballast didn't look too awfully bad with Code 80 rail, to look really good Code 55 required a more prototypical size. It was at this time that I made my first trip out onto the desert and brought home a couple of buckets of sand from out of a dry wash and strained out the larger stones. I'm not sure what brand you are using but your ballast blends very nicely with your flex.
I'm going to search back through my Scale Rails magazines to find the article by an N-Scaler who, if memory serves me, resided in New Jersey and who was doing his layout in Code 35(?); he wasn't actually using rail as such but rather was using a flat wire which he obtained from a company in Connecticul(?). I reason that rail profile on something only 35/1000 of an inch high would be virtually unnoticeable. I don't recall him saying whether this wire had been drawn to his individual specifications or was an off-the-shelf item but it does serve to show that, with patience-and-elbow-grease, N-Scale is coming of age.
I have always been impressed with your layout and hope to see more photos in the future. You stated that your are
now bothered by my original layout.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Yesterday, code 80. Today, code 55. TOMORROW, CODE 40!
Mark
RT,
I've given serious thought to replacing the current layout's track with code 55, and maybe correcting some of the operating deficiencies. The layout itself would remain essentially the same.
Hi from Belgium,
Since he appears on the market I use only Peco code 55 for my Maclau River RR. I never use the Atlas code 55.
I never understand why so many people were afraid about the flanges of old models with code 55.
I have some very old Rivarossi/Atlas 0-4-0 running om my layout they have very big wheel flanges by today standard but I never encoured any problems with these tiny engines.
Now I use Micro Engenering code 55 Flextrack and Fastrack homemade turnouts and the tiny's are still running without any problems.
They have been heavily modified, remotorized and are DCC but I never managed to changes the loco wheels.
So as far I am concerned stay with a code 55 track for the better appearance and don't be afraid about the wheels problems; just take your time and check again and again the track when laying it.
Good luck.
Marc
Dave, Explain what you did to the joiners. I am having almost the same trouble, I'm trying join Atlas c55 to Kato track and my N joiners won't go onto the c80 Kato. I have an idea about a butt joint, too, but fear that it won't be strong enough w/o a joiner to hold it in line. Also, I'm concerned about the height difference. How did you do all of this? By the way, it is good to see your notation. How do you like Lincoln?. Remember me, we met at Tom's Train Station at a MRR show, when my family attended.
SFBill (Hemstreet), Youngsville, NC
SF Bill,
Yes, I remember you... How are you? I'm living just outside of Omaha in Bellevue, about an hour from Lincoln. Just off Offutt Air Force Base.
The way you do the joint is this. You take the code 80 joiner and slide it onto the code 80. Then take a good pair of pliers and squash the unused end of the joiner flat, as close to the end of the rail as possible. Then lay the code 55 track right on top. Use plenty of resin flux, and solder away. The height difference is corrected for by having the code 55 rail sit right on top of the crushed code 80 joiner.
That said, I don't know how well this will work with Kato track. Does fine with Atlas code 80. You may have to use an Atlas code 80 joiner and not use the Kato Uni-joiner.
Good luck!
Dave, thanks a lot, I'll give it a try when I can get back into my shed. I didn't realize that c80 and c55 had different sizes of joiners! I was going to try using an HO joiner in a similar manner, with a lot solder. SFBill
markpierce Yesterday, code 80. Today, code 55. TOMORROW, CODE 40! Mark
Amen Brother! In the famous words of Kid Shelleen, "I'll drink to that!"
If we could get the manufacturers to adhere to NMRA S-4.2 standards and RP-25 recommendations then there would be no reason why Code 40 could not become the standard for N-Scale railroading. Someone a couple of years ago indicated an intent to develop a Code 45 rail for N-Scale; nothing, apparently, has ever come of this. Table 2 of NMRA RP-15.1 equates Code 45 to 132# rail, a good size for modern railroading; Code 40 rail equates to about 110# rail, a good size for older railroading -- READ: the transition-era -- and for modern sidetracks and industrial trackage. ((PLEASE! I KNOW THAT 132# RAIL WAS BEING USED BACK IN THE '20s OR EARLIER BUT ACCORDING TO TABLE 3 OF NMRA RP-15.1 -- WHICH, BY-THE-WAY, IS IN BAD NEED OF BEING UPDATED -- THAT WEIGHT RAIL ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR ABOUT 9% OF INSTALLED RAIL IN 1940!)
It was great that Atlas developed a Code 55 flexible track; having gone in the right direction it is beyond me why they opted to wander off into the wilderness with Code 65 rail for their N-Scale True-Track® -- or whatever they call it -- they could easily have come up with something more prototypical in rail size. Let's face it: you're already oversize by 10% with Code 55 rail -- why don't we go even further afield with Code 65? (Pardon me, I don't sit in the board room when these decisions are being made but I am forced to wonder if Atlas is sending a message that they are not particularly interested in adhering to NMRA S-4.2 and RP-25 specifications and if you want to run their locomotives and equipment you will be forced to buy their Code 65 or Code 55 track. This strikes me as a like-it-or-lump-it proposition. I've got some news for Atlas: I refuse to be a captive audience to anyone -- I won't buy their Code 65 track and don't buy their Code 55 track electing instead to continue using Micro Engineering product.)
. . . . . . . . . . and that, my beloved brothers, out here on the high iron, concludes my afternoon rant for Saturday, the 15 day of August, in the year of our Lord, two thousand and nine. Blessings on you all and leave a love-offering of unwanted Kato SD40-2s on the table at the entrance to this, the hallowed Temple of Allen, Armstrong, and McClellan as you depart.