Track types, for N Gauge layout/diorama - 2mm, Peco 55, Peco 80, Code 40?

[Royal42]

Hello everyone,

I am new to model railways and I need to start investing in track for a static layout of approx. 4ft x 3ft.  I have tried to read as many threads on RMweb as I can but I am still confused over which type to buy.  My first query is:  what is the difference betwen 2mm, Peco 55, 80 and Code 40.  Second question would be: are they all compatible and can they be intermixed?

I like the idea of the 'build your own' with Code 40, but would that mean I have to stay with that code once I had started?  I need to keep costs down and, as such, I will try to buy bundles from the best value suppliers, which might mean ending up with different types, hence my query.

I would be grateful for any constructive advice on here.

cheers,

Mike

Edited March 17, 2021 by Royal42

[Andrew D]

Hi Mike, as far as I understand it, code 40 is the most realistic but also the most expensive as it is the least used (lower volume) and quite fragile. I believe it also requires alteration to RTR wheels (shimming the flanges) and needs to be laid painstakingly carefully - but this won't be an issue if you are building a static layout. 

 

Code 80 is the thick bomb-proof rails that are strongest, easiest to lay, but can look quite unrealistic. My N gauge layout is in Code 80 and now I really wish I'd used code 55. 

 

Here's a picture to show how thick Code 80 looks: 

 

 

Code 55 seems to be a great compromise. If I build another N gauge layout it will be code 55. It has a good realistic appearance and can take modern RTR stock without modification. It's also fairly popular, so the price-to-realism ratio is a good one. 

 

Maybe others have their own preferences, but these are my thoughts. 

 

 

[Kris]

23 minutes ago, Andrew D said:

Hi Mike, as far as I understand it, code 40 is the most realistic but also the most expensive as it is the least used (lower volume) and quite fragile. I believe it also requires alteration to RTR wheels (shimming the flanges) and needs to be laid painstakingly carefully - but this won't be an issue if you are building a static layout. 

 

Code 80 is the thick bomb-proof rails that are strongest, easiest to lay, but can look quite unrealistic. My N gauge layout is in Code 80 and now I really wish I'd used code 55. 

 

Here's a picture to show how thick Code 80 looks: 

 

 

Code 55 seems to be a great compromise. If I build another N gauge layout it will be code 55. It has a good realistic appearance and can take modern RTR stock without modification. It's also fairly popular, so the price-to-realism ratio is a good one. 

 

Maybe others have their own preferences, but these are my thoughts. 

 

 

Recent (post 2000 ish) stock will run on code 40 track without any modifications needed. It is more expensive than Peco track but not by much but it does require a lot more time to lay as you have to build it first.  There is no question that code 40 track does look the most realistic. 

 

Peco code 55 track is arguably stronger than code 80 track as part of the rail is bedded into the base of sleepers making it harder to break the rail away from these. Peco code 55 track is compatible with Peco (and other some other brand code 80 track).

Edited March 17, 2021 by Kris

[Royal42]

Hello Andrew,

thank you very much for this, I do appreciate it.  I have been looking at that Code 40 on Wayne's site and I do like the idea of building your own, as I am a scratchbuilder at heart.  Your description of the Peco 55 sounds like the type to go for and it is probably easier to get hold of; however, I'm not sure that all the curves (very technical rail speak?) can be achieved from Peco's parts list.  Which leads me on to my next query:  having looked at the Peco site, how can I work out what a curve type would be needed?  How do I work out the radius, such as long or medium radius?

Here is a view of the layout/diorama area I plan to make and could do with advice on how to define the angles/curves of the tracks, and them match them to suppliers products?  

 

Then, I could do with knowing what type of points or cross-overs are in view on this plan.   I have started a CAD drawing, to 3D print the 50 foot turntable.

 

Thanks again,

Mike

Edited March 17, 2021 by Royal42

[njee20]

I’d say the only way to get anything approaching a realistic rendition of that is to handbuild it all. Using Peco trackwork will require a massive compromise to achieve that. 
 

Best bet (IMO) would be to use Finetrax plain track (it’s flexible; as is Peco Streamline, you don’t buy curves) and handbuilt the pointwork using PCB sleepers and soldered construction, or potentially 3D printed bases. Finetrax don’t do any of the more complex formations you’ll need.
 

you’ll want to plan it all out in Templot to get all the right sizes and alignments. That has a bit of a learning curve, but is very satisfying once cracked!

Edited March 17, 2021 by njee20

[Kris]

The track shown there is very complex. You could do some of it with Peco but not all of it. Many of the crossings are on a curve, or of an angle that could is not produced. You could produce all of this with code 40 from Finetrax. If I were looking to produce this layout however I would start by trying to create it in Templot.

[Royal42]

Thanks njee, I remember your previous and helpful advice and I am storing it all in readiness.   I am quite happy to laboriously measure, mark out and cut pieces etc., my last big venture was to construct Portsmouth Dockyard, but that didn't need specific hardware like the tracks.

This was built at 1:1200 scale.

 

 

cheers,

 

Mike

[Royal42]

6 minutes ago, Kris said:

The track shown there is very complex. You could do some of it with Peco but not all of it. Many of the crossings are on a curve, or of an angle that could is not produced. You could produce all of this with code 40 from Finetrax. If I were looking to produce this layout however I would start by trying to create it in Templot.

Hi Kris,

yes, I am going to need to look at Templot and have a few practices with it.

Thanks,

Mike

[njee20]

42 minutes ago, Kris said:

You could produce all of this with code 40 from Finetrax.

I disagree with that - I guess you physically could, but you’d need to do a lot of manipulation to the vast majority of pieces. There’s no curved diamonds or anything.

 

handbuilding it will be cheap too - the cost being time and effort, not financial outlay. 

 

re: mixing different ‘codes’ (the code refers to the height of the rail section in thousands of an inch - Peco code 55 is a misnomer because it’s 0.083” rail with the bottom part buried in the sleepers.), it’s possible, but you have to manage a ‘step’ in the rail head. Whilst I see no issue with using a coarser track ‘off scene’ to save effort of handbuilding it I wouldn’t mix is visible areas. Here’s some code 40 Finetrax alongside a code 80 Peco turnout. 
 

 

[Royal42]

Thanks Kris,  I believe you have won me over and I shall start with Code 40.  It will probably, well almost certainly, take more time but that is what I have.  The funds are the problem and that is why I don't want to be buying track items that don't fit and end up in a drawer somewhere.  The build-it-as-you-go-along method means I can progress at a pace that would suit my learning and my budget.

Thanks again,

Mike

[Kris]

Plan everything first before you purchase anything. Having seen what you have previously made, the total hand building route with copper clad sleepers and code 40 track would be the cheapest way to go. I would strongly recommend joining the 2mm scale association to purchase the components. 

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello Mike,

 

I'd third what Nick and Kris have alreay said - for the plan you want to produce with the self evident skills and patience you have, I would use Code 40 track and combine it with sleepers and track from the 2mm Association.  This would give you maximum flexibility to build what's there on the plan, and not have to start cutting into point kits or compromising to fit standard RTR track geometry.

 

You would have to join, but in the greater scheme of things the membership fee is negligible, and joining gives you access to help and tips too.  You may also wish to purchase track gauges and similar track assembly aids.

 

Templot is good.  As others have said can take some time to master but it will give you a plan with the sleepers, check rails and other track components in exactly the right place.

 

Good luck with the project - can you tell us a bit more about what you're planning in terms of era, atmosphere etc?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

 

 

[Royal42]

Hi Ben,

 

I thought that I would start off with something fairly simple, such as Birmingham New Street c1955-1963   just before the major rebuild of the station.

I plan to start with the West end, in the area of the turntable and the road junction above.  It was an area that I used to go train spotting in my yoof.

This view shows the area, with the turntable in the bottom right of the picture, albeit the photo shows a pre-war view.

 

I shall be producing the turntable as a 3D print and have already started on the drawing.

 

cheers,
Mike

 

[Sweet pea]

Mike I like your enthusiasm and energy. I will be following your fairly simple build. 

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hi Mike,

 

Wow, that photograph is just dripping with atmosphere.  I know that arrangement of overbridges, and the surrounding buildings that survive, fairly well having spent a fair amount of time working nearby over the last decade or so.

 

Please keep posting your progress if you can!

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[Chris M]

As you are new to the hobby I recommend that you start with something simple maybe using Peco track. You will learn a huge amount from a small simple project and there is an awful lot to learn by experience. This will enable you to make the right decisions when you embark on something bigger and better.

[Royal42]

Thanks everyone for all this usefull advice.   Ben, having worked in that area, you will know that the city centre is built on a big hill; with one rise coming up from Digbeth (Bordersley route) and then going down to the BT Tower etc.  I am having difficulty in identifying the gradients in the immediate vicinity of the station, does anyone know where I might find that sort of information?  As can be seen in the photo I posted, the Queen's Hotel and other buildings in the background are much higher than the road level in the foreground. 

cheers,
Mike

Edited March 18, 2021 by Royal42

[Jim Martin]

Hi Mike

 

I take it that this is intended to be a static diorama, rather than a working layout? 

 

Also, do you have any more photos of your dockyard model online?

 

All the best

 

Jim

[Royal42]

ello Jim,

Yes, it will be a purely static diorama; therefore, the idea is to have more accuracy as there will be no need for points to work etc.  I am learning so much about this that I need to stop reading and start cutting plastic and wood!

 

I'm afraid that I didn't take many photographs whilst building the model; plus I kept changing the period, from WW2 to the 1960's and then to modern times.  It is all stored away now as I have retired and live in a little bungalow.  I need the space for this new rail diorama.

 The squares are 1 inch equals 100 feet markers.

 

I don't have a mobile either (a camera that you can also make telephone calls with!) and have to borrow swmbo's when I do.

 

I really do like this CAD system though, because I can draw the part and then capture the image to post here; otherwise I have to try and prise the mobile out of her hands.

 

cheers,
Mike

[Royal42]

19 hours ago, Ben A said:

 

.........I would use Code 40 track and combine it with sleepers and track from the 2mm Association.  This would give you maximum flexibility to build what's there on the plan, and not have to start cutting into point kits or compromising to fit standard RTR track geometry.

You would have to join, but in the greater scheme of things the membership fee is negligible, and joining gives you access to help and tips too.  You may also wish to purchase track gauges and similar track assembly aids.

Hello Ben,

I have just sent of the application form to join the 2mm Association.

cheers,
Mike

[njee20]

Good decision. You’ll find references to bullhead and flat bottom track everywhere within - you’ll want bullhead. 

[Royal42]

Thanks, what is bullhead?

Another query, as my setting is the city centre station, I am assuming that the sleepers were concrete but when would concrete have replaced wooden sleepers at mainline stations?

Mike

[arran]

21 hours ago, njee20 said:

I disagree with that - I guess you physically could, but you’d need to do a lot of manipulation to the vast majority of pieces. There’s no curved diamonds or anything.

 

handbuilding it will be cheap too - the cost being time and effort, not financial outlay. 

 

re: mixing different ‘codes’ (the code refers to the height of the rail section in thousands of an inch - Peco code 55 is a misnomer because it’s 0.083” rail with the bottom part buried in the sleepers.), it’s possible, but you have to manage a ‘step’ in the rail head. Whilst I see no issue with using a coarser track ‘off scene’ to save effort of handbuilding it I wouldn’t mix is visible areas. Here’s some code 40 Finetrax alongside a code 80 Peco turnout. 
 

 

HI All

 

I always find these comparisons disingenuous  when you have Peco code 55  , properly ballasted and weathered it looks fine.

 

I'm not saying code 40 is not a way to go for some but side by side comparisons with code 70 !!!

 

Regards Arran

[nick_bastable]

2 hours ago, Royal42 said:

Hello Ben,

I have just sent of the application form to join the 2mm Association.

cheers,
Mike

Good move its worth getting the 2mm Track Book covers anything your need to know 

Nick B

[Royal42]

Disingenuous, is that when the loco uncouples from the coaches?  

 

Mike