Jump to content
 

N gauge query


Recommended Posts

After much deliberating I have decided that due to space, or lack of it, I am going to change gauge and go to N gauge.

Right, I have seen a nice layout that I would like to replicate  a 4 x 2ft 6 board.

 The question I want to ask the N gaugers is this. Would I be better off using  code 55 or code 80, I intend to use Farish and Dapol modern era Locos and stock. I feel I should go to code 55, but are there any pitfalls in using this finescale track?

Any help /comments would be appreciated.

Thanks

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Peco n gauge track has a nice advantage that the two scales can be mixed and matched. Therefore you can use the more realistic code 55 on the display side and code 80 in the fiddle yard, depends what you are after. I think code 55 flaw is that anything with 'pizza cutter' wheels from the dark ages will not like the shallow depth of track.

On a code 80 peco set track points are first radius unlike the oo gauge equivalent which is second, this is something to look out for in your planning as modern stock do not like first radius.

If you do mix and match you may need to slightly file the code 55 to match the code 80

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

Hi there,

 

You can use either code of track, and pretty much any wheels will work on both.

 

Code 55 track is something of an ingenious cheat - the outside face of the rail appears finer as the track is "embedded" in the sleeper base so it appears to be only 55 thou deep, however the on the inside the rail has a depth of 80 thou, allowing older stock to run OK.

 

Cheers

 

 

Ben A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If you are planning a round and round layout, you may find it easier to use fixed Setrack curves at the ends than to form tight radii with flexitrack. Alternatively a Tracksetta jig at 12" radius is available to lay flexitrack accurately. I'd still use code 55 elsewhere for the better appearance.

 

 

Hi there,

You can use either code of track, and pretty much any wheels will work on both.

Code 55 track is something of an ingenious cheat - the outside face of the rail appears finer as the track is "embedded" in the sleeper base so it appears to be only 55 thou deep, however the on the inside the rail has a depth of 80 thou, allowing older stock to run OK.

Cheers

Ben A.

I hate to contradict a man of your standing, Ben, but the extra height on the inside of code 55 flexitrack is due to the vestigial rail clips and is not the full 80 thou - the sleepers are the same depth right across. However, as you say, there shouldn't be a problem running older stock.

 

Peco do pull the trick you describe in the switch section of code 55 pointwork, presumably to allow extra depth and hence robustness in the switch rails (it's unfortunately quite noticeable and is probably the least visually successful aspect of the system).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

After much deliberating I have decided that due to space, or lack of it, I am going to change gauge and go to N gauge.

Right, I have seen a nice layout that I would like to replicate  a 4 x 2ft 6 board.

 The question I want to ask the N gaugers is this. Would I be better off using  code 55 or code 80, I intend to use Farish and Dapol modern era Locos and stock. I feel I should go to code 55, but are there any pitfalls in using this finescale track?

Any help /comments would be appreciated.

Thanks

John

 

 Would this be the layout featured in the latest Hornby Mag by any chance? Nice layout in the flesh if it is, clever use of space.

 

Here are a couple of shots of an old code 80 point against a code 55 one. Sorry they are in such a poor state, they are just spares that have been used a bit as you can see but might be useful for comparison. As you can see the bottom of the code 55 is buried into the sleeper base. The rail is actually code 80 in height, but drawn with a double foot so only the top section is visible. It's a clever way of making it appear smaller while keeping a measure of strength in the track.

 

post-12706-0-15144200-1487242632.jpg

 

post-12706-0-42188100-1487242643.jpg

 

 

There are a few drawbacks. It needs packing in height under the sleeper base to join up with code 80 if you want to mate them as the sleeper base is the same thickness. And cutting through the rail means cutting down through the sleeper base as well, which you don't do with code 80. It is also more of a faff to fit fishplates for the same reasons, you need special sleepers with room for the fishplates. And as has beem mentioned it all falls down with the point blades area where it is visible code 80. But ballasted it does look a bit better overall, although nothing can really stand comparison with Easitrac/FiNetrax or handbuilt code 40 for looks these days, but which isn't always feasible for many modellers.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a code 80 peco set track points are first radius unlike the oo gauge equivalent which is second, this is something to look out for in your planning as modern stock do not like first radius.

That's not quite correct. Peco N gauge set track 1st radius is actually equivalent to 00 set track 2nd radius scaled down. Minitrix 1st radius is pretty much the equivalent of 00 1st radius curves, with their 2nd radius being the same as Peco 1st, and the small radius Minitrix pointwork being based on their 1st radius - quite a few modern British outline N will be less than happy with those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...