# Rolling stock truck N Code 55 compatibility and/or swaps



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

I’m curious if I can get some insight from folks, I’m debating Code 80 or Code 55 track for my layout (construction has yet to begin), I like the lower profile of Code 55, but some of the things I’ve seen online seem to indicate that a substantial amount of rolling stock is not compatible with Code 55 out-of-the-box.

Can anyone tell me if that’s the case? Im mostly trying to understand if it’s “a lot” or if there’s a way I can gauge if it’ll be compatible or not. And if there is a compatibility issue, how hard is it to swap trucks with lower-flange versions on N-scale rolling stock?


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm not sure I believe the hype, although, I have always used Code 80, so I have no direct experience with using Code 55. It's the flange depth that is of concern. Older trucks may have wheels that have "pizza cutter" like flanges.

As far as replacing the trucks on older rolling stock, I have been doing that simply to get rid of the older Rapido style couplers. The VAST majority of older rolling stock is very simple to replace the trucks with new MTL ones. And of all the rolling stock, the vast majority used the "short" coupler length of the MTL trucks.

I bought a pack of trucks with "medium" length couplers, and only have found a couple cars that need the longer length.

I have had issues with a few pieces of older rolling stock that don't play well with ANY replacement truck, but they are few and far between. The worst are ones where the "pin" that holds the truck as actually part of the frame of the car. Those are a PITA, but can still be fitted with replacement trucks with a little carefully thought-out surgery.


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

It seems that, if you acquire cars with wheel flanges too large, you could replace those wheels. However other posters have indicated that replacing wheels could present a problem of axle length. Apparently different makers make the axles to different lengths, so you have to measure the axle length. It's a mad,mad. mad world.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

pmcgurin said:


> It seems that, if you acquire cars with wheel flanges too large, you could replace those wheels. However other posters have indicated that replacing wheels could present a problem of axle length. Apparently different makers make the axles to different lengths, so you have to measure the axle length. It's a mad,mad. mad world.


Yeah it seems wheels and axles are all over the place, measurement-wise. Figured it'd be easier to do the whole trucks instead.



JeffHurl said:


> I'm not sure I believe the hype, although, I have always used Code 80, so I have no direct experience with using Code 55. It's the flange depth that is of concern. Older trucks may have wheels that have "pizza cutter" like flanges.
> 
> As far as replacing the trucks on older rolling stock, I have been doing that simply to get rid of the older Rapido style couplers. The VAST majority of older rolling stock is very simple to replace the trucks with new MTL ones. And of all the rolling stock, the vast majority used the "short" coupler length of the MTL trucks.
> 
> ...


Good to know, I'm not sure I'll switch over to Code 55 (I can only find Peco Electrofrog turnouts, no insulfrogs), but I'm still evaluating. Code 55 seems more expensive than Code 80 too, I wonder if it's just because Code 80 is more common.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Generally speaking, replacement trucks are the way to go. You can replace just the wheelsets, but the small $ you save by doing that ends up being more money spent later on when you realize that the old trucks were part of the problem to begin with.

I have never had an instance where replacing just the wheels has been as good as replacing the whole truck. It's about $8-10 per car to replace 2 entire trucks versus about $5 per car to replace 4 wheelsets. And as pmcgurin points out, some of the older trucks use shorter axles. So there is a small chance that replacement wheelsets won't really be a good solution unless you already have more modern trucks to begin with.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

If I remember correctly, Peco's code 55 track uses the same rail as their code 80, but it's just buried deeper into the ties.

I like Code 80. It's simple to keep clean. Not sure if the extra rail height makes it simpler to keep clean, but I believe it does help. To me, N scale track is like static grass. From 3 feet away, I can't really tell the difference between code 55 and code 80. Just like from 3 feet away, 2mm static grass doesn't look appreciably better than regular old "fine turf" which is a fraction of the cost and simpler to apply.


----------



## Oomowmow (10 mo ago)

I gotta agree that wheel replacement (as opposed to truck replacement) can be a bit of a crapshoot. I bought a fair number of MTL wheels, and they don't always fit my old (80's Bachmann and Atlas) rolling stock. MTL Replacement trucks on the other hand, usually work with little or no other modifications.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Agreed….in N scale, it’s harder to tell the difference in track….going code 80 would also save a lot of money, in both track and not having to replace trucks/wheels….a win/win….


----------



## pmcgurin (Sep 7, 2010)

Expensive hobby. I replaced most freight car trucks with Micro Trains for the couplers. Then my tastes changed and I went with passenger cars. You can light them up. Then I read metal wheels cause less crud on the tracks. I think the MTL have plastic wheels. Stick a fork in me, I'm done. And the axles have no apparent standards. Go with MTL and ignore the rest of the mind benders.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

MTL also sells metal wheelsets to go in their trucks…..it can be endless if you want it to be…. 😁


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Yeah, eventually, I'll probably be switching to metal wheelsets. It would be great if MTL replacement trucks could be bought with metal wheel already installed.

There is a good discussion on this very topic Here on MTF


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

I already have a piano that's an endless money pit (to the tune of $6k in the last year...pun intended), I'm starting to wonder if model railroading is for me...

I kid I kid, all jokes aside, this is good info. I think I'll hold-pattern with the Code 80 track, this is one of those things where "realism" is less important than "sanity". Plus, I didn't know if the difference was even discernible, sounds like it largely isn't from a distance.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

Atlas and/or Peco code 80 = no problems with deep wheel flanges. And both track brands are interchangeable with each other. They connect to each other with no problems.

Code 55 track.................. well, that's a whole 'nuther story. It depend on which brand.

Atlas code 55: Very realistic, American-looking track system. Very fine, closely-spaced ties (prototypically-sized), with molded spikes and tie plates. But there's the rub - the molded spikes and tie plates interfere with the deep "pizza cutter" flanges found on older rolling stock and locos. The deep-flanged equipment will roll over it, but will make a heck of a racket in the process.

Peco code 55: Still has the classic, fat & wider-spaced ties like its code 80 cousin. The rail is a special rolling, with a bulbous bottom that is buried in the tie strip. It's not the same rail as the Code 80 rails. With cutting and filing of the bulbous bottom, you can get it to mate up with Atlas code 55. But that's a lot of fiddly work. On the plus side, since there are no molded tie plates or spikes, deep "pizza cutter" wheel flanges roll down the rails perfectly fine. However, don't know how hard it would be to steadily source both track and turnouts. May or may not be problematic.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

EBrown said:


> I’m curious if I can get some insight from folks, I’m debating Code 80 or Code 55 track for my layout (construction has yet to begin), I like the lower profile of Code 55, but some of the things I’ve seen online seem to indicate that a substantial amount of rolling stock is not compatible with Code 55 out-of-the-box.
> 
> Can anyone tell me if that’s the case? Im mostly trying to understand if it’s “a lot” or if there’s a way I can gauge if it’ll be compatible or not. And if there is a compatibility issue, how hard is it to swap trucks with lower-flange versions on N-scale rolling stock?


,
EBrown;

Virtually all N-scale rolling stock manufactured in the last 20 years or so will normally come with shallow flange wheels that will work on code 55 track. Early N-scale trains had very deep flanged wheels nicknamed "pizza cutters." These, and the grossly oversized code 80 rail, helped keep the trains on the track.
Later N-scalers demanded more realistic track & wheels. Atlas code 80 track has rail that would be about a foot high if scaled up to real world size. That's higher than any rail ever used on real railroads. Also the ties are too short, and spaced too far apart. Compare a piece of Micro Engineering code 55 flex track to a piece of Atlas code 80 flex and you will see an obvious difference in realism.
By the way Micro Engineering code 55 track will work with either shallow, or deep, flanged wheels. Some Atlas code 55 will not work with deep flanged wheels. The wheels rattle along the spike detail on the track.

I use Micro Engineering flex, and some of their turnouts, on the visible portion of my layout. The hidden track is some Atlas code 80 that I had lying around. Both work fine, but one looks very toy like and the other looks like real track.

If you should end up with a car equipped with "pizza cutter" wheels you can easily replace them with aftermarket wheelsets from Intermountain, Micro-Trains, or Fox Valley Models. Micro-Trains also sells replacement truck assemblies with their "low profile" (aka shallow flanged) wheels installed.

Of course changing out the wheels on locomotives is impractical. However, an N-scale loco old enough to have "pizza cutters" under it is probably a poor running dog from long ago, so I wouldn't buy it anyway. Newer locomotives have better motors, better gearing, better detail, better low speed performance, and shallow flanged wheels.

Traction Fan


----------



## USCStephen (4 mo ago)

This is all fascinating reading. I have enjoyed this hobby from HO to G to O and now to N for over 50 years. I had NO IDEA how important track-height, ballast, couplers, trucks, wheels and pristine switches could be until I got into N scale. I am thrilled to achieve smooth operation. The idea that I or anyone would use "code 55" track to make N even less finicky literally boggles the mind. Of course, for all I know, I have "code 55" already. I never paid attention because I never had to worry much about such things to enjoy other gauges.


----------



## Mixed Freight (Aug 31, 2019)

EBrown said:


> I already have a piano that's an endless money pit (to the tune of $6k in the last year...pun intended), I'm starting to wonder if model railroading is for me...
> 
> I kid I kid, all jokes aside, this is good info. I think I'll hold-pattern with the Code 80 track, this is one of those things where "realism" is less important than "sanity". Plus, I didn't know if the difference was even discernible, sounds like it largely isn't from a distance.


Atlas and Peco code 80 track are the good ol' bullet-proof defacto standard of N-scale track, in my opinion. Probably why N-TRAK modular layouts are virtually all built from a combination of these two brands.

I also have two scenic'd N-scale layouts at home. One layout is 100% Atlas code 80 track and turnouts. The other is 100% Atlas code 55 track and turnouts (with a crossing or two thrown in for good measure). Both layouts are ballasted, weathered, and scenic'd to various degrees. With that in mind, the code 80 track looks *every bit as good* as the code 55 track. At least to me it does.

Bottom line - if you want to go with code 80 track, go for it. You'll be perfectly fine.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Mixed Freight said:


> Atlas and Peco code 80 track are the good ol' bullet-proof defacto standard of N-scale track, in my opinion. Probably why N-TRAK modular layouts are virtually all built from a combination of these two brands.
> 
> I also have two scenic'd N-scale layouts at home. One layout is 100% Atlas code 80 track and turnouts. The other is 100% Atlas code 55 track and turnouts (with a crossing or two thrown in for good measure). Both layouts are ballasted, weathered, and scenic'd to various degrees. With that in mind, the code 80 track looks *every bit as good* as the code 55 track. At least to me it does.
> 
> Bottom line - if you want to go with code 80 track, go for it. You'll be perfectly fine.



EBrown;

I happen to disagree with Mixed Freight's opinion that Atlas code 80 track "looks every bit as good as code 55 track." However, as he says, that's simply a matter of personal opinion.
I do agree that code 80 track will work just fine, and so will code 55. The only difference is how it looks, and possibly tolerance for those old "pizza cutter" deep-flanged wheels. In fairness to Atlas, the most notable "deep-flanges-rattle-along-the-spike-heads" problem was with their earlier production flex track, which had very oversized spike detail.
Atlas has recently re-designed their flex track with smaller spike heads that will accommodate deep-flanged "pizza cutter" wheels with no rattling. They also greatly improved the looks of their flex track, to the point where it rivals Micro Engineering's super-realistic looks. Unfortunately, the rattle-along-the-spikes problem still exists on Atlas code 55 sectional track, I don't know why.

None of this matters if you don't use old deep-flanged wheels, and these days there is no need to. N-scale locos & cars have come with shallow flanged wheels, right from the factory, for many years. To even find "pizza cutters" you need a pretty antique car, and even then its simple to replace the wheels.

Either code 80, or code 55, track will work very well, provided it is laid properly. Neither will work well if laid poorly. This is just as true in any scale from Z-scale up to prototype.

The real operational difference is in the turnouts. The only type of code 80 turnout made in N-scale is the rather notorious "Snap Switch" variety. This design has been derailment-prone, in both HO & N scales for a long time. (It is possible to Improve their performance, see attached files) but I recommend simply using the much better Peco turnouts.
Atlas's better designed "Custom Line" turnouts are available in HO-scale, but (despite some mis-labeling*) they are not available in N-scale.*

Peco turnouts, regardless of scale, are very reliable right out of the box, and I highly recommend them.
N-Trak isn't keen on having turnouts in the main line at all, but if you do include a turnout there, they specify "the Peco type." 

Traction Fan

* There are some Atlas N-scale turnouts marketed as, and even labeled on their packaging as, "Custom Line."
If you compare one of these "Custom Line" N-scale turnouts to the Atlas "Snap Switch" N-scale turnout, They are identical in both geometry, and materials. The only difference in the "Custom Line is the absence of the Atlas switch machine, and the higher price.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

traction fan said:


> EBrown;
> 
> I happen to disagree with Mixed Freight's opinion that Atlas code 80 track "looks every bit as good as code 55 track." However, as he says, that's simply a matter of personal opinion.
> I do agree that code 80 track will work just fine, and so will code 55. The only difference is how it looks, and possibly tolerance for those old "pizza cutter" deep-flanged wheels. In fairness to Atlas, the most notable "deep-flanges-rattle-along-the-spike-heads" problem was with their earlier production flex track, which had very oversized spike detail.
> ...


For myself, Peco are the turnouts. I've already decided that, based on a large compilation of data from both this forum and over a dozen other locations. Everyone has the same complaints about the Atlas N-scale ones: lots of derailment.

Because I plan to do DCC, and all my loco's are larger, I was planning on using insulfrogs, but the only Code 55 turnouts I can find are electrofrogs, and I'm not sure what I'll have to do to make those do what I want.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

EBrown said:


> For myself, Peco are the turnouts. I've already decided that, based on a large compilation of data from both this forum and over a dozen other locations. Everyone has the same complaints about the Atlas N-scale ones: lots of derailment.
> 
> Because I plan to do DCC, and all my loco's are larger, I was planning on using insulfrogs, but the only Code 55 turnouts I can find are electrofrogs, and I'm not sure what I'll have to do to make those do what I want.



EBrown;

Electrofrogs will work. So will Unifrogs. Were you able to find them? 
There are several videos online about modifying Electrofrogs for DCC. If all your locomotives are large, & have all wheel electrical pickup, you could even turn an Electrofrog into a sort of "Insulfrog" or "Unifrog." 
I have used the Insulfrog, and the Unifrog, on my layout, but not the Electrofrog, so I have no personal experience with Electrofrogs. The information I do have on them was gathered online.

First, when using electro frogs, you should use insulated rail joiners,( simple) or cut insulating gaps,(more difficult) in both the short rails exiting the frog. Then look for the factory gaps with jumpers in both of the longer "closure" rails on the other side of the frog. You can see the small gaps from the top, and find the jumpers by looking at the bottom of the Electrofrog. Cut both of the little jumpers. 
NOTE: By inserting the insulated rail joiners, and cutting the two jumpers, you have just "isolated" the frog, meaning it is now electrically insulated from all the other rails of the turnout. Without doing anything else, you now have a "dead" (unpowered) frog. This is electrically similar to the Insulfrog's plastic frog, or to the composite (part metal part plastic) frog of the new Unifrog Peco turnout.
With all wheel pickup, your locos may roll right through an unpowered frog. If there is any stalling on the frog, you can connect the frog feeder wire that comes on the Electrofrog, and the Unifrog. This wire will need to feed through either a commercial "Frog Juicier" circuit board, or a micro-switch that is operated when the points move to change routes. Either device will change the electrical polarity of the frog, which prevents shorts as the route is changed.

Traction Fan


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

traction fan said:


> EBrown;
> 
> Electrofrogs will work. So will Unifrogs. Were you able to find them?
> There are several videos online about modifying Electrofrogs for DCC. If all your locomotives are large, & have all wheel electrical pickup, you could even turn an Electrofrog into a sort of "Insulfrog" or "Unifrog."
> ...


I was going to insulate all the joiners on the frog-end, but I really don't want to have to modify 38 turnouts like that.

Looks like I can find Code 55 unifrogs, but they're much pricier than the Code 80 insulfrogs. Around $5/each from the suppliers I'm finding them at, which ends up being around $200 overall.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

EBrown said:


> I was going to insulate all the joiners on the frog-end, but I really don't want to have to modify 38 turnouts like that.
> 
> Looks like I can find Code 55 unifrogs, but they're much pricier than the Code 80 insulfrogs. Around $5/each from the suppliers I'm finding them at, which ends up being around $200 overall.


 If the $5 difference in each Unifrog vs. Insulfrog price adds up to $200, that means FIFTY turnouts!
Yikes!  That must be some layout you plan on building.

Only the two short rails out of the frog need insulation. If you haven't laid the turnouts yet, insulated rail joiners on those two short rails will be quite easy, and fairly cheap. A pack or two of insulated rail joiners won't cost all that much.
If the turnouts are already glued down, then insulating gaps can be cut at the joints between those short frog rails and the tracks they feed into. As for the jumpers, and the frog-powering wire, (IF you even need it.) those are factory-installed. All you have to do is turn the thing upside down and snip, snip the two jumpers, or cut further down in the existing slots if a turnout is already in place.

You're modeling in N-scale right? You mention "code 55 Unifrogs, and code 80 Insulfrogs. Which track are you going to use, code 55 or code 80? 
If you're going to use code 55 track, and Peco code 55 turnouts, use Peco Brand code 55 track. This is because Peco has a very weird notion of what constitutes "code 55 rail" I have 4 Peco code 55 N-scale Unifrogs. While they are excellent turnouts overall, the rail in them is actually code 78, with 55/1000ths of it visible above the ties, and the rest buried in the thick plastic tie strip. This rail has two "bases" (the normally-at-the-bottom part the rail joiners slip over) One is at the bottom, where you would expect it. The other is higher up the rail's "web" (the vertical part) at the location where any other brand of code 55 track would have its base in order to keep the two joining rail tops even with each other. The problem is there is no slot for a rail joiner up there! I had to perform major Dremel surgery and solder the remaining bits together to make a joint between Peco's "Code 55" rail and the real, (actually 55/1000ths" high), code 55 rail on my Micro Engineering flex track. Peco's own "code 55" flex track, or any brand of code 80 track, will join just fine, with no modification, using the bottom bases for the rail joiner.

So, pick a rail code 55 or 80. Then pick a turnout Peco Insulfrog, Electrofrog, or Unifrog, OR Micro Engineering. These are excellent too, and you may find them cheaper than Peco. I have some on my layout and they look, & operate great. They, like Unifrogs, come with the DCC friendly configuration factory-installed. About their only downsides are lack of selection, (#6 right & #6 left, that's it,) and they are less tolerant of ham-fisted handling than Pecos, which are super-strong. 

Traction Fan


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

IIRC, He's currently got 38 turnouts in his layout design, so $200 with tax is about right.

If it was me, I'd look more at the Peco pieces that are available in code 55 versus code 80. I believe there are more slip switches and scissor switches in the code 55 library than what is available in code 80. But then, single slip switches aren't really necessary, and double slip switches aren't used very often... and you can make your own double crossover (aka scissor switch) by using 4 turnouts.

I'd recommend Code 80 unless the code 55 stuff looks "better enough" to make a difference. For me it didn't. Also, if you go to a local hobby shop, your chances are much better that they will have code 80 in stock versus code 55.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

Yeah I think I'm leaning the Code 80 route. It's hard to tell from pictures, but I honestly can't tell the difference between pictures of Code 55 and Code 80.



traction fan said:


> If the $5 difference in each Unifrog vs. Insulfrog price adds up to $200, that means FIFTY turnouts!
> Yikes!  That must be some layout you plan on building.


Yeah as Jeff mentioned, I have 38 turnouts Of those, 6 are for mainline switching (reverse loop or where the mainline splits into two lines), 17 are for sidings / spurs (freight loading), 1 drops the programming track in, and then the remaining 14 are for the yard, caboose and diesel storage areas. According to RailModeller, I have around 2275" (just under 190') of track, which is around 5.75 scale miles. Excluding the yard and programming track (so, basically, just the mainline and reverse loops), it's around 1500" (125') or a little over 3.75 scale miles.

I plan to do it in small stages, I'm only going to order 11 of the turnouts to start with (5 left, 6 right), about 1/3 of the flex-track I need, and slowly add more track as I build. I'll be putting an order in for the first round of stuff in the next few days or so. We finally have a move-in date for the new house, so it begins!


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

I once again disagree with Traction Fan. The reality is that the height difference in the two codes is 25_Thousandths_ (0.025) of an inch, just a tiny bit more than the thickness of a business card, or the thickness of a fingernail. If anyone can see that thickness once ballasted at 5 feet away has the vision of an eagle or is a rivet counting snob with their pants on fire IMHO. On most layouts the viewer is looking down on the track so that difference becomes even more difficult to see. Code 80 track is much more available, especially on the used market, at a significantly lower price. I buy and use preowned or used Peco turnouts, They are practically bulletproof and can be had for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of new stock. I stay away from Atlas track except their flex track that I use for hidden runs if I find some at an exceptional price. I even stay away from the fancy Peco multiple turnouts that are only available in code 55 because the complexity makes them much less reliable as well.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I am completely happy using Atlas Code 80 flex track. I also use several Atlas Code 80 re-railers, some crossings, and a few other sectional where they made sense. For example, if I have a curve coming off a turnout, I try to use a sectional piece just so I don't have to "force" a piece of flex track into a curve where I DIDN'T want to solder the joint to prevent a kink.

Someone suggested to me that I shouldn't solder the joints of a turnout. That way, you can more easily remove it if it needs replaced.


----------



## EBrown (5 mo ago)

scenicsRme said:


> I once again disagree with Traction Fan. The reality is that the height difference in the two codes is 25_Thousandths_ (0.025) of an inch, just a tiny bit more than the thickness of a business card, or the thickness of a fingernail. If anyone can see that thickness once ballasted at 5 feet away has the vision of an eagle or is a rivet counting snob with their pants on fire IMHO. On most layouts the viewer is looking down on the track so that difference becomes even more difficult to see. Code 80 track is much more available, especially on the used market, at a significantly lower price. I buy and use preowned or used Peco turnouts, They are practically bulletproof and can be had for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of new stock. I stay away from Atlas track except their flex track that I use for hidden runs if I find some at an exceptional price. I even stay away from the fancy Peco multiple turnouts that are only available in code 55 because the complexity makes them much less reliable as well.


I'm planning to use Atlas Code 80 flex if I do the Code 80 route, but it sounds like if I do Code 55 and plan to use Peco turnouts (which I do) that I need Peco flex track.



JeffHurl said:


> I am completely happy using Atlas Code 80 flex track. I also use several Atlas Code 80 re-railers, some crossings, and a few other sectional where they made sense. For example, if I have a curve coming off a turnout, I try to use a sectional piece just so I don't have to "force" a piece of flex track into a curve where I DIDN'T want to solder the joint to prevent a kink.
> 
> Someone suggested to me that I shouldn't solder the joints of a turnout. That way, you can more easily remove it if it needs replaced.


That's good to know about both the corners and the soldering a turnout. I was only planning to solder the connections for a continuous power run, not between runs, but I will try to avoid soldering the turnout as well.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

JeffHurl said:


> I am completely happy using Atlas Code 80 flex track. I also use several Atlas Code 80 re-railers, some crossings, and a few other sectional where they made sense. For example, if I have a curve coming off a turnout, I try to use a sectional piece just so I don't have to "force" a piece of flex track into a curve where I DIDN'T want to solder the joint to prevent a kink.
> 
> Someone suggested to me that I shouldn't solder the joints of a turnout. That way, you can more easily remove it if it needs replaced.


I'm sorry, I misstated: I do use a few pieces of atlas sectional track too, rerailers in hidden locations "just in case"(I much prefer the removable ramp style rerailers for putting locos and cars on the track), and a crossover in an angle Peco doesn't offer. I only use Atlas flex on hidden locations since there is a visual difference between it and the Peco flex on the majority of the layout, or in a yard where I'm going to about bury the ties in fine ballast and weathering anyways. I agree, I never solder in a turnout.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

scenicsRme said:


> I once again disagree with Traction Fan. The reality is that the height difference in the two codes is 25_Thousandths_ (0.025) of an inch, just a tiny bit more than the thickness of a business card, or the thickness of a fingernail. If anyone can see that thickness once ballasted at 5 feet away has the vision of an eagle or is a rivet counting snob with their pants on fire IMHO. On most layouts the viewer is looking down on the track so that difference becomes even more difficult to see. Code 80 track is much more available, especially on the used market, at a significantly lower price. I buy and use preowned or used Peco turnouts, They are practically bulletproof and can be had for 1/2 to 1/4 the price of new stock. I stay away from Atlas track except their flex track that I use for hidden runs if I find some at an exceptional price. I even stay away from the fancy Peco multiple turnouts that are only available in code 55 because the complexity makes them much less reliable as well.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Here we go again TF taking everything i say out of context and claiming it as directed at you personally. I only mentioned my disageeing with you to try the head off this part of the discussion. I said "*anyone *who claims they can see 25 thousandths of an inch difference in rail height" (at average viewing distance) "has the eyesight of an eagle" or is a snob rivet counter with their pant's on fire". NOWHERE did I say your name in that sentence! You yourself just stated your eyesight isn't that good but you have been championing code 55 as the only track scale looking enough to be worth using. Even in a closeup horizontal photograph I don't believe that anyone can really tell what code track the train is sitting on from the picture since the drive wheels are usually undersized and the flanges on the best wheels are still oversized from exact scale. Then you said you could distinguish the track code by the tie length (and spacing)? That may be true I don't know since I don't use code 55, but tie length and spacing was not the topic of discussion. If the length and/or spacing is important to anyone, then they should spend the money and buy the code 55. If I should want to take super fine pictures of my layout from near track level, because of foreshortening and perspective, no one will be able to see how long my ties are, or judge the spacing. If I desired to enter a rivet counter photography or model contest, I would build a photo set module with exact scale hand laid track for the train to sit on. I don't know about you or anyone else, but unless it's stated in the description I can't tell what code track was used when viewing layout pictures either close up or at normal viewing distance. So I'm not going to pay for what I can't see or inflict myself with unneeded operating grief. YMMV. I know you will HAVE to get in the last word, so go ahead, I'm out.


----------



## REdington (Aug 20, 2018)

I've been a modeling in N scale for 50 years and I can tell the difference between code 55 and code 80 by the tie spacing. Here is a photo that show the real difference between the two.







When Railcraft (now Micro Engineering) started making code 55 flextrack around 1990, I made the decision to switch to code 55. Back then most locos and rolling stock had large flanges and worked well on their code 55 track. At first, I started scratch building my turnouts as none were available. Soon ME released their #6's. On my present very large mushroom design layout, I use a mixture of ME, Atlas and scratchbuilt turnouts. My mainline is almost 400 feet from helix to helix. I've laid close to 1000 feet of code 55 and I used another 500 feet of code 80 for the helix and staging yard. 

So if you have any idea of thinking of using code 55, just start with it and never look back.

Here is a look at my Oroville yard on my Western Pacific layout.







Rodney


----------



## Oomowmow (10 mo ago)

REdington said:


> I've been a modeling in N scale for 50 years and I can tell the difference between code 55 and code 80 by the tie spacing. Here is a photo that show the real difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's huge, very impressive!


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

EBrown said:


> I'm planning to use Atlas Code 80 flex if I do the Code 80 route, but it sounds like if I do Code 55 and plan to use Peco turnouts (which I do) that I need Peco flex track.
> 
> If you are going code 55 you will need the peco code 55 turnouts which are designated with an F (for fine) after the stock number. If new they will have an extra tie on the ends you can cut off and use to fill in the empty tie space where 2 tracks join. Peco also sells packs of extra ties. I will take a cutoff from my flex track, slip out the rails and shave the spike detail off the ties and slip them into place. I find those missing ties look like someone who has lost a front tooth, your eye can't stop looking at them.


----------

