# Using code 55 Atlas track



## BNSF Fan (Feb 27, 2010)

At what point in time did manufactures start making locos, and rolling stock to run on code 55 track?
I didn't realize it, but on my old layout, I was using code 80, and now I want to use code 55 because the different curved radius track in code 55 better suits my new layout.
The locos, and rolling stock I bought back in 2009 - 2010.
Maybe you could just tell me the wheel dia., sizes of the two and I could just check the wheels.


----------



## Massey (Apr 16, 2011)

I was more into HO than N back in the early 2000’s but I can remember reading about the new shallower flange wheels in ModelRailroader back in like 03-04 but I don’t think it really was a big deal until the later 2000’s. This is when the manufacturers really started improving the quality of N scale equipment and locos. So I would say you should be ok but you could always buy a car from ExactRail or another high quality manufacturer and compare. I’m not sure about an NMRA gauge, I don’t know if it follows the older or newer flange depth.


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

BNSF Fan said:


> At what point in time did manufactures start making locos, and rolling stock to run on code 55 track?
> I didn't realize it, but on my old layout, I was using code 80, and now I want to use code 55 because the different curved radius track in code 55 better suits my new layout.
> The locos, and rolling stock I bought back in 2009 - 2010.
> Maybe you could just tell me the wheel dia., sizes of the two and I could just check the wheels.


There are, theoretically, things you can do to reduce wheel flange diameter, but they may not work for all situations. I have a Bachmann NW-2 whose flanges are too thick for code 55 turnouts, and I'm more likely to destroy the gears trying to turn them down.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

BNSF Fan said:


> I didn't realize it, but on my old layout, I was using code 80, and now I want to use code 55 because the different curved radius track in code 55 better suits my new layout..


Why not just use code 80 flex track instead of having to stick to the fixed geometry of sectional track? Much cheaper option.


----------



## BNSF Fan (Feb 27, 2010)

Thanks, that may be the best, and easiest solution, and my local hobby store carries the code 80 track. Going code 55, I was going to have to order online everything I needed


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Code 55 compatible wheels*



BNSF Fan said:


> Thanks, that may be the best, and easiest solution, and my local hobby store carries the code 80 track. Going code 55, I was going to have to order online everything I needed


BNSF Fan;

I recommend you use code 55 track, not code 80. The code 80 rail, if scaled up to full size, would be about one foot tall! That's a lot bigger than any rail ever used on a real railroad. I use Micro Engineering brand's beautiful, code 55, flex track, for all the visible track on my N-scale railroad. For hidden track, I do use Atlas code 80 flex, because it's cheaper, and while it looks awful, it still works fine. 
I doubt that you will have any wheel flanges that are too deep for code 55 track, unless you have very old equipment from the 1970s or early 1980s. Back then both rail and wheel flanges were made grossly oversize because it was thought that the new, smaller, N-scale trains wouldn't stay on the track reliably without big rail, and flanges. Not true. Apparently the manufacturers of that day overlooked the fact that HO-scale trains stayed on well-laid track just fine with closer-to-scale wheel flanges, and rail, even though they were 87 times smaller than the real thing. Z-scale trains, which are smaller than N-scale, also seem to manage quite well.
At any rate, there is no reason to avoid code 55 track. If your local hobby shop doesn't stock code 55 track, they should be willing to order it for you. If for some bizarre reason, they won't, then there are plenty of online suppliers who will.
The N-scale version of the NMRA standards gage does measure the newer, small flange depth. This is just to fill in for an earlier respondeder, who wasn't sure.
If you do happen to have a few of the old "Pizza Cutter" wheels, they can be easily replaced. Fox Valley Models, Intermountain, and other companies, offer excellent quality, metal wheels, with smaller flanges, that work fine on code 55, or even code 40 rail. The local N-scale club, here in San Diego, uses code 40 rail on its huge layout, without problem.
Atlas brand code 55 track will work well with the smaller flanges on modern cars. However, Atlas code 55 track has oversize spike detail that will not play nicely with those old "Pizza Cutter" type wheels. These old wheels will hit the spikes on Atlas code 55 track. By contrast, Micro Engineering brand code 55 track has beautifully detailed, and much smaller, spike and tie plate detail, which will handle old deep flanges, or the newer smaller flanges. Micro Engineering does not make sectional track, however, only flex track. That may not be what you want, since you mentioned the wider assortment of curves Atlas makes in code 55. 
As long as you're not running old "Pizza Cutters" then Atlas code 55 will work fine for you.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

Photos below show an old tank car with "Pizza Cutter" wheels, and a gondola that is fitted with Fox Valley's shallow flange wheels. Look at the left side of the gondola to see the smaller wheel flanges. Then compare them to the giant ones on the tank car. By the way the gondola is rolling on Code 55 track from Micro Engineering. TF


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Flange reduction*



Ko Improbable said:


> There are, theoretically, things you can do to reduce wheel flange diameter, but they may not work for all situations. I have a Bachmann NW-2 whose flanges are too thick for code 55 turnouts, and I'm more likely to destroy the gears trying to turn them down.


 Here is a method of turning down the flanges of your Bachman NW-2. It's not theoretical, I have done this with several locos. It's actually quite easy. 
The loco needs to be upside down, and held steady. A good way to do this is to use a locomotive cradle. (Shown below) Mine is simply three pieces of scrap 1x2 lumber and a piece of felt.
Use a power pack to run the loco. Connect the two output wires from the pack to the motor, or wheel brushes of the loco. Then lightly hold a file against one of the wheel flanges, while running the loco. When some of the flange has been turned down, check the flange depth with an NMRA gage. Take it in small steps. Stop and check the depth frequently. You won't have to turn the flanges down to NMRA standard (Though there's no harm in doing so.) The wheel flanges only have to be small enough to let your NW2 get through the turnout without hitting anything. I'm not sure I understand why you think you would destroy the gears. If you're concerned about metal dust getting into the gears (I never have.) then it shouldn't be too hard to cover them with a curved (so the gears can still turn freely) piece of thin cardboard taped in place over the gears.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

traction fan said:


> Here is a method of turning down the flanges of your Bachman NW-2. It's not theoretical, I have done this with several locos. It's actually quite easy.
> The loco needs to be upside down, and held steady. A good way to do this is to use a locomotive cradle. (Shown below) Mine is simply three pieces of scrap 1x2 lumber and a piece of felt.
> Use a power pack to run the loco. Connect the two output wires from the pack to the motor, or wheel brushes of the loco. Then lightly hold a file against one of the wheel flanges, while running the loco. When some of the flange has been turned down, check the flange depth with an NMRA gage. Take it in small steps. Stop and check the depth frequently. You won't have to turn the flanges down to NMRA standard (Though there's no harm in doing so.) The wheel flanges only have to be small enough to let your NW2 get through the turnout without hitting anything. I'm not sure I understand why you think you would destroy the gears. If you're concerned about metal dust getting into the gears (I never have.) then it shouldn't be too hard to cover them with a curved (so the gears can still turn freely) piece of thin cardboard taped in place over the gears.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I did that. They're not too deep, anymore, they're too thick. When checking to see if I could turn the thickness down, I found the file would impact the gear teeth.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

The OP doesn’t even mention the foot high rail so maybe it doesn’t bother him. If he wants to swap to code 55 it means, I’m assuming junking all his old track which is fine but maybe he doesn’t want to spend all that money.


----------



## BNSF Fan (Feb 27, 2010)

I realized after finding some code 80 flex in the back of a closet, that, that is what I was using before. I didn't think then that it looked out of whack, so I decided to go with it. One other reason for going with it is that my local hobby shop only sells code 80, so if I need something, it's convenient.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Your railroad, your rules.*



BNSF Fan said:


> I realized after finding some code 80 flex in the back of a closet, that, that is what I was using before. I didn't think then that it looked out of whack, so I decided to go with it. One other reason for going with it is that my local hobby shop only sells code 80, so if I need something, it's convenient.


BNSF Fan;

Since you have, and are happy with, code 80 track, by all means use it. Mechanically, any code of rail will work. The different codes are strictly about appearance. As long as you are satisfied, that's all that matters. "Your railroad, your rules."

Have fun!

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Ko Improbable said:


> Yeah, I did that. They're not too deep, anymore, they're too thick. When checking to see if I could turn the thickness down, I found the file would impact the gear teeth.


Instead of using a file, what about using a dremel with a small pointed stone? That should allow you to hold the dremel in a precise position while the loco wheels are turning and help avoid the gears.


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Instead of using a file, what about using a dremel with a small pointed stone? That should allow you to hold the dremel in a precise position while the loco wheels are turning and help avoid the gears.


It *could*, but I suspect my hand isn't steady enough to keep it there. No worries. It's not serious enough that I'm desperate to replace or fix the locomotive.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Narrowing wheels, but not grinding gears.*



Ko Improbable said:


> It *could*, but I suspect my hand isn't steady enough to keep it there. No worries. It's not serious enough that I'm desperate to replace or fix the locomotive.


Ko Improbable;

If you should ever decide to try narrowing those wheels, I would use a thinner file, as opposed to a Dremel tool. I agree with your concern about the Dremel slipping and doing major damage to the gears. That would be all to easy to do. I would think that miniature hobby files, like those from X-acto, or the Harbor Freight set shown below, would be thin enough. www.harborfreighttools.com 
If not, a steel nail file would work. They are typically less than 1/16" thick.
However if you're happy with things as they are, that's all that matters.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

traction fan said:


> Ko Improbable;
> 
> If you should ever decide to try narrowing those wheels, I would use a thinner file, as opposed to a Dremel tool. I agree with your concern about the Dremel slipping and doing major damage to the gears. That would be all to easy to do. I would think that miniature hobby files, like those from X-acto, or the Harbor Freight set shown below, would be thin enough. www.harborfreighttools.com
> If not, a steel nail file would work. They are typically less than 1/16" thick.
> ...


Yep. I have two sets of tiny files. None of them lack "teeth" on the edges if they have "teeth" on the flats. The gears protrude from the plastic housing of the trucks.


----------

