# Which code to use?



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

I am building a new permanent N scale layout. One of the challenges is that there are multiple codes. How do you decide a code?


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

Modern locos and rolling stock operate well on code 55 track. Also that track looks more realistic than larger codes. Modern stuff will operate well on either small or large code track.

Older locos and rolling stock have larger (taller) flanges on the wheels. Running them on code 55 track causes the flanges to hit the ties, thereby causing some derailments. Older stuff requires the taller code track.

I don't know what years the manufacturers started changing to smaller flanges. Good luck!


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

The 2 main codes of N scale track are 80 and 55.....80 being taller than 55.....

Rail height (in thousandths of an inch) is expressed as a "*code*": thus, *Code 55* rails are 0.055 inches (1.4 mm) high while *Code 80* rails have a height of 0.080 inches (2.0 mm).


----------



## Dave NYC 1962 (Oct 17, 2020)

I made the same decision last year when I started. I went with 55 (atlas) but here are a few issues I came across. 
1) Neither of the 2 local train shops stock much code 55. They had some code 80. 
2) For a newbie, the code 55 was a pretty challenging place to start. I actually ripped out my entire mainline after the first install. The trains just didn’t run well. It is much better now, but I still find the turnouts to be rough.
3) Turnouts seem to be in short supply.

If you are already pretty skilled, I would go with code 55. My layout is not too large. I wish I had given more consideration to Kato snap track. Might not look as good, but I think it would be better for operating.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

Dave NYC 1962 said:


> I made the same decision last year when I started. I went with 55 (atlas) but here are a few issues I came across.
> 1) Neither of the 2 local train shops stock much code 55. They had some code 80.
> 2) For a newbie, the code 55 was a pretty challenging place to start. I actually ripped out my entire mainline after the first install. The trains just didn’t run well. It is much better now, but I still find the turnouts to be rough.
> 3) Turnouts seem to be in short supply.
> ...


I have/had a modular layout that I am retiring. It was the Kato unitrack.

Sounds like code 80 is the better one.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

Code 55 is more realistic looking with smaller rails.
Code 80 is grossly oversized.

Modern equipment should run fine on either.
Some really old stuff if you're using it may have wheels with grossly oversized flanges (sometimes referred to as "pizza cutters"). These wheels may not operate on code 55 due to the extreme size of the flanges hitting the molded "spike" details.


----------



## GeeTee (Dec 23, 2020)

Even code 55 is oversize , roughly equivelent to HO code 100 , prototype 155 lb rail. Only a few railroads had this size , the Pennsy , and possibly the Bessemer and Lake Erie. To be true to scale code 40 is closer to the 130 ish lb modern rail.

If the wheel flanges are oversize , you just swap out the wheels on the cars. The locomotive flanges are what you need to be concerned about.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

GeeTee said:


> Even code 55 is oversize , roughly equivelent to HO code 100 , prototype 155 lb rail. Only a few railroads had this size , the Pennsy , and possibly the Bessemer and Lake Erie. To be true to scale code 40 is closer to the 130 ish lb modern rail.
> 
> If the wheel flanges are oversize , you just swap out the wheels on the cars. The locomotive flanges are what you need to be concerned about.


How do I find out if any of my locos will be a problem? I ran them on Kato unitrack and they all ran fine.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

If your locos are fairly recent issues, they should be fine......


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

Old_Hobo said:


> If your locos are fairly recent issues, they should be fine......


The issue is that I have a few I got from someone else and I don't know how old they are.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You could measure the flange depth and compare it to "known good" locos, or just play it safe and go with the larger code.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> The issue is that I have a few I got from someone else and I don't know how old they are.


If you could post pics, we could tell.....


----------



## GeeTee (Dec 23, 2020)

The simplest method is an NMRA gauge for N scale , it has a flange/wheel gauge NMRA N Scale Standards Gauge – Midwest Model Railroad , the standard shows flange depth "should" be .022" .So if your equipment meets the NMRA standards then you should be good down to Code 40 I would think .

Where it says wheels you can check the depth of the flange , wheel spacing , and wheel width . The standard shows that 132lb modern rail is Code 45 .045" Code 40 is a little lighter, Code 50 .050" is 155lb PRR rail. 

Make sure that whatever rail size you use , you can get the appropriate turnouts and flex track .

NMRA Standards:Standards


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

GeeTee said:


> The simplest method is an NMRA gauge for N scale , it has a flange/wheel gauge NMRA N Scale Standards Gauge – Midwest Model Railroad , the standard shows flange depth "should" be .022" .So if your equipment meets the NMRA standards then you should be good down to Code 40 I would think .
> 
> Where it says wheels you can check the depth of the flange , wheel spacing , and wheel width . The standard shows that 132lb modern rail is Code 45 .045" Code 40 is a little lighter, Code 50 .050" is 155lb PRR rail.
> 
> ...


I have one of those. 

Of the 3 codes (40,55,80) which one has more turnouts that can handle DCC easier?


----------



## brob2k1 (Dec 7, 2015)

swimmer_spe said:


> I have one of those.
> 
> Of the 3 codes (40,55,80) which one has more turnouts that can handle DCC easier?


Im new to N scale and have not purchased track yet but it looks like code 80 has a decent selection of flex track and turnouts. look into Peco code 80 turnouts


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> I have one of those.
> 
> Of the 3 codes (40,55,80) which one has more turnouts that can handle DCC easier?


 swimmer_spe;

You will be able to find the widest selection in code 80. Though grossly oversize (scaled up to real life, it would be rail about a foot high which no railroad had) Code 80 is the size used in most train sets, and is very common. There is a decent selection in code 55 too, though not as much as in code 80. If you're pretty new at laying track, code 80 may be more forgiving, and it can handle either old deep flanged wheels, or the modern shallow-flanged ones. There are no code 40 turnouts available, that I know of .

The file below has more info on track.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Code 80 is much more popular, easier to find, hence less expensive. In N scale the appearance difference is only apparent to "rivet counters" IMHO. Peco turnouts are the gold standard and are made in both codes, stay away from Atlas's sectional track poorly made turnouts. Peco turnouts are made in both electrofrog and insulfrog versions in both codes, code has nothing to do with DC or DCC compatibility. insulfrog are a little more easily wired/modified for DCC, but have more problems with slow speed and short length locos like switchers stalling over the frogs in rail yards. The 2021 versions are supposed to work out of the box, but I have no experience with them.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

scenicsRme said:


> Code 80 is much more popular, easier to find, hence less expensive. In N scale the appearance difference is only apparent to "rivet counters" IMHO. Peco turnouts are the gold standard and are made in both codes, stay away from Atlas's sectional track poorly made turnouts. Peco turnouts are made in both electrofrog and insulfrog versions in both codes, code has nothing to do with DC or DCC compatibility. insulfrog are a little more easily wired/modified for DCC, but have more problems with slow speed and short length locos like switchers stalling over the frogs in rail yards. The 2021 versions are supposed to work out of the box, but I have no experience with them.


I am not a rivet counter. I care that things run well and don't derail on me.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> I am not a rivet counter. I care that things run well and don't derail on me.


swimmer_spe;

Good for you! 
I agree with scenicsRme that code 80 track may be a better choice for now, I think one look at a piece of Atlas code 80 track and a piece of Atlas, or Micro Engineering code 55 track will show the obvious difference in realistic appearance. One doesn't ,need to be a "rivet counter" to see it.

As I understand the term, "rivet counters" are those annoying types who like to nitpick others efforts, and "demonstrate" (though only to themselves) their "vastly superior knowledge" (of stuff no normal person cares about) by saying things like "The old CB&Q didn't have locos with that wheel arrangement, or that tender, or literally, that number of rivets, blah blah ,blah." 
However, since at least one manufacturer offers a line of locomotives called "rivet counters" maybe my definition is too narrow.
I also agree about the excellence of Peco turnouts, and the flaws of Atlas Snap Switch turnouts.
Though most of the latter are correctible, I too advise you to use Peco to avoid problems right from the start. Insulfrog, Electrofrog, or Unifrog, they are all good.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

traction fan said:


> However, since at least one manufacturer offers a line of locomotives called "rivet counters" maybe my definition is too narrow.


I think your definition is just about spot on. That company is using the name for marketing purposes to make us think they are more accurate.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

traction fan said:


> swimmer_spe;
> 
> Good for you!
> I agree with scenicsRme that code 80 track may be a better choice for now, I think one look at a piece of Atlas code 80 track and a piece of Atlas, or Micro Engineering code 55 track will show the obvious difference in realistic appearance. One doesn't ,need to be a "rivet counter" to see it.
> ...


Your definition of rivet counter is mine too. I don't know much about my rolling stock, except what it says on the boxes. There are some who know enough to tell me what order they should be in, or how wrong it is to have this with that, etc.

I am most likely going with Code 80 with Peco switches.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Steve Rothstein said:


> I think your definition is just about spot on. That company is using the name for marketing purposes to make us think they are more accurate.


The definition of rivet counters aside, have you ever SEEN a Scale Trains Rivet Counter model up close? It's not just hype. They are amazing, and the price reflects it.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> The definition of rivet counters aside, have you ever SEEN a Scale Trains Rivet Counter model up close? It's not just hype. They are amazing, and the price reflects it.


No, I have not seen any of their models. I am sue they are fantastic, but I sincerely doubt any mass produced model can ever be spot on like I think a "rivet counter" would want it. I do admire how nice they look though.

As I posted in another thread, I am more of a close-your-eyes scale modeler. In planes, I would buy a scale kit but then modify it by closing my eyes and saying "If I owned this, how would I paint it?" This will translate over into my railroading in that I am designing the layout to do what I want, and I will probably not keep all the trains to one era, just as one example.

And all of this is to say that I not only admire people who are rivet counters when it comes to building, and who truly have the knowledge, but I admire people who have the attitude of "I know it isn't right, but I like it." Plenty of room for all of us in any hobby.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Well, Rapido equipment would definately fall under the “rivet counter” moniker.....when they make a model, they LiDAR scan the real locomotive/car, and it becomes an accurate, spot-on model of the real thing.....on the body surfaces, as well as all the detail on the piping,brake lines, etc, on the underbody.....actually, the under-body detail tends to be too much sometimes, as the details often get in the way of truck swing and operation....and yes, they are mass-produced models, at least mass-produced to the numbers of pre-orders, which vary from model to model.....


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Roco, Märklin, BEMO, and TRIX are four manufacturers that I know do that same thing with LiDAR. Not certain about others 'over there'.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> The definition of rivet counters aside, have you ever SEEN a Scale Trains Rivet Counter model up close? It's not just hype. They are amazing, and the price reflects it.


Never seen one. In N scale, I am not worried about the extreme detail.



Steve Rothstein said:


> No, I have not seen any of their models. I am sue they are fantastic, but I sincerely doubt any mass produced model can ever be spot on like I think a "rivet counter" would want it. I do admire how nice they look though.
> 
> As I posted in another thread, I am more of a close-your-eyes scale modeler. In planes, I would buy a scale kit but then modify it by closing my eyes and saying "If I owned this, how would I paint it?" This will translate over into my railroading in that I am designing the layout to do what I want, and I will probably not keep all the trains to one era, just as one example.
> 
> And all of this is to say that I not only admire people who are rivet counters when it comes to building, and who truly have the knowledge, but I admire people who have the attitude of "I know it isn't right, but I like it." Plenty of room for all of us in any hobby.


I respect them only as far as they understand their way is not the only way. Some people will go on about how this engine is wrong because of *_* or, this car is wrong because of ____ . In N scale, much of that detail is not easily seen, and as such not a concern.



Old_Hobo said:


> Well, Rapido equipment would definately fall under the “rivet counter” moniker.....when they make a model, they LiDAR scan the real locomotive/car, and it becomes an accurate, spot-on model of the real thing.....on the body surfaces, as well as all the detail on the piping,brake lines, etc, on the underbody.....actually, the under-body detail tends to be too much sometimes, as the details often get in the way of truck swing and operation....and yes, they are mass-produced models, at least mass-produced to the numbers of pre-orders, which vary from model to model.....


I buy Rapido because they have the rolling stock I need, but not because of the details. I have some of their Via and ONR stuff, and have preordered the Canadian. 

However, when I have the choice in something like track, it is not so easy. I don't care that it looks good. I care that it runs good. That means no issues with derailing and compatible with DCC.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

My point was not to say that we should all be buying hyper-detailed, micrometrically precise models. I'm personally in the "close enough" camp.

What I meant was that the "Rivet Counter" line's moniker wasn't a marketing gimmick to jack up the price. There really is a lot more accurate detailing on the model. Personally, I'm happy with their "Operator" line, which is cheaper and close enough for me.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

swimmer_spe said:


> Your definition of rivet counter is mine too. I don't know much about my rolling stock, except what it says on the boxes. There are some who know enough to tell me what order they should be in, or how wrong it is to have this with that, etc.
> 
> I am most likely going with Code 80 with Peco switches.


 That sounds fine to me.
Have fun with it.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Steamer_11 (Jan 23, 2021)

Code 80, even though it appears a foot tall is by far the most popular and most forgiving. Personally, I like the "rivet counters" because, for the avid model railroader, they tend to see details that others do not. However, they are not allowed to visit my railroad due to the "superior" knowledge. Unless you are building after a specific era or railroad, it all comes down to this...it's your railroad, build it as you wish. I use ALL code 80 mainline(Atlas flex track, Peco Insul-frog turnouts) with code 55 guardrails. I switch to code 55 for detailed sidings, spur lines, and industrial leads. It's important that your trains operate smoothly. Afterall, without operating trains, it becomes a static display. Go with your gut on track code choice but there will always be issues with each code. As I said, it's YOUR railroad. Enjoy the hobby!!!


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

Steamer_11 said:


> Code 80, even though it appears a foot tall is by far the most popular and most forgiving. Personally, I like the "rivet counters" because, for the avid model railroader, they tend to see details that others do not. However, they are not allowed to visit my railroad due to the "superior" knowledge. Unless you are building after a specific era or railroad, it all comes down to this...it's your railroad, build it as you wish. I use ALL code 80 mainline(Atlas flex track, Peco Insul-frog turnouts) with code 55 guardrails. I switch to code 55 for detailed sidings, spur lines, and industrial leads. It's important that your trains operate smoothly. Afterall, without operating trains, it becomes a static display. Go with your gut on track code choice but there will always be issues with each code. As I said, it's YOUR railroad. Enjoy the hobby!!!


I didn't think it was a good idea to mix codes.

As far as my layout and other people critiquing it, My simple rule - If you don't like it, you can fix it.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You certainly can mix codes. Real railroads use different weights of rail, and many modelers like to mix codes to reflect that.

The issue with mixing codes is that you must take great care to line the ends of the rails up perfectly... and "perfectly" isn't too much of an exaggeration. If you're careless in aligning the ends, especially the tops of the rails, then you will have problems with stalls and derailments. Shims and special joiners make this fairly easy to do, though.


----------



## swimmer_spe (May 3, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> You certainly can mix codes. Real railroads use different weights of rail, and many modelers like to mix codes to reflect that.
> 
> The issue with mixing codes is that you must take great care to line the ends of the rails up perfectly... and "perfectly" isn't too much of an exaggeration. If you're careless in aligning the ends, especially the tops of the rails, then you will have problems with stalls and derailments. Shims and special joiners make this fairly easy to do, though.


Do you have a link to those shims and joiners?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Transition joiners are a common hobby item. Many different options available (and this isn't an exhaustive selection): Search Results

Shims are whatever you use. Cardboard, basswood, styrene, foam, or whatever. Anything that holds the lower rail at the height of the higher is fine.


----------

