Request - Peco N Gauge Code 55 Finescale Flexitrack (SL-300F) Dimensions

[Locksley]

Morning all,

 

Bit of a random question, I'm in the very early stages of designing a new layout using Code 55 Finescale. This is my first proper dive into N gauge so unfortunately I don't actually have any track yet but need to start thinking about some 3D CAD designs for buildings, roads etc. 

 

My plan is to have some inset track over a road, so I would be eternally grateful if anyone could provide the following measurements of Peco N Gauge Code 55 Finescale Flexitrack (SL-300F):

 

1. Overall height of the track from bottom of sleeper to top of rail

2. Height of the sleepers themselves

3. Overall width of the track including sleepers

4. Overall width of the rails measured from the outside (i.e. not the 9mm between the rails)

 

Thanks very much in advance!

[scottystitch]

1 - 3.23mm

2 - 1.8mm

3 - 16.32mm

4 - 10.1mm

 

Best

 

Scott.

[Locksley]

43 minutes ago, scottystitch said:

1 - 3.23mm

2 - 1.8mm

3 - 16.32mm

4 - 10.1mm

 

Best

 

Scott.

 

Wonderful! Thank you very much indeed  

[JohnDMJ]

The Code number tells you the rail height (almost!)

 

Code 80 is 80 thousands of an inch but for production purposes, Peco decided that Code 55 is a double edged sword where the visible track is 55 / 1000 of an inch high, the rail is actually 80 / 1000 of an inch so their 80 and 55 code rails can be intermingled!

[RexAshton]

Maybe look here. I think it used code 80 rail but that wouldn't matter I don't think as I believe the overall height of both 55 and 80 is the same.

[njee20]

On 08/12/2021 at 19:00, JohnDMJ said:

The Code number tells you the rail height (almost!)

 

Code 80 is 80 thousands of an inch but for production purposes, Peco decided that Code 55 is a double edged sword where the visible track is 55 / 1000 of an inch high, the rail is actually 80 / 1000 of an inch so their 80 and 55 code rails can be intermingled!

Code 55 rail is actually 0.083” tall, but yes buried in the sleepers to reduce the visible height to be more akin to code 55, without the limitations on running which ‘proper’ code 55 brings.