foop Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I'm returning to the hobby and just starting to design a layout for my son*. I'm still undecided about whether to go with code 80 or code 55 track. My first major question when looking at code 55 track is: If I butt two points together to give parallel running lines will the track separation be correct? It looks right, but I don't want to make assumptions. A subsidiary question: Given that when I start playing in Anyrail with code 55 track nothing seems to join up, am I going to end up cutting lots of short bits of flexi-track to join up pointwork in sidings and the like? * In other words I'm designing a layout that my son, if lucky, might be able to play with when I'm not fiddling with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 you might end up with lots of short bits of flexi but that depends on your plan. The difference between the two is that code 55 is actually code 80 rail sunk into the sleepers to give a more realistic rail height than the code 80 (also means it can't easily be joined together) this does have the by-product that the code 55 is more robust than the code 80 I have used code 80 on my layout and have my track separation set by butting two points together, although mine is a short end-to-end (milliedale in my signature) and so does not have any corners to go around. I intend to use 55 on my next layout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I used code 55 as I wanted to get curves as natural as I could given the tightness of the layout. Designing a small layout for a code 55 roundy roundy is tricky, but the long points have much better and more realistic transitions as the loco enters the yard. Code 55 is far more work though, having to cut, fishplate and stick down track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I'm returning to the hobby and just starting to design a layout for my son*. I'm still undecided about whether to go with code 80 or code 55 track. I would advise code 55 every time. It looks better and it is mechanically stronger because the bottom portion of the rail is buried in the plastic sleepers. Code 55 rail does not really require finer wheels on the rolling stock because the chairs are cosmetic and hence coarse wheels do not ride on them the way that coarse wheel sets in 00 do when running on finer scale track. For a modest additional cost, the improvements are well worth it in my oppinion. My first major question when looking at code 55 track is: If I butt two points together to give parallel running lines will the track separation be correct? It looks right, but I don't want to make assumptions. Track separation varies on the real thing. The mininum distance between running rails is 6' but it is sometimes wider than this, particularly on GWR lines which were originally laid as broad gauge. The track spacing with peco streamline is wider than this minimum but not by a big margin. Having a slightly wider separation is useful in modelling terms as it means stock is not likely to strike on the curves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted September 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 2, 2012 code 55 streamline and code 80 streamline share the same geometry, No they don't. The crossing (frog) angles are different between the two systems and a code 55 point butted against a code 80 streamline point will not produce parallel tracks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 The spacing between track centrelines on Streamline is about 27mm, which is about 5mm bigger than the prototype minimum (though as mentioned the separation can be greater on the prototype). It is possible to cut a bit off the outer curving rail (ie not the one that goes into the frog) on each point of a crossover to reduce the spacing. As well as looking better, this has the advantage of needing a bit less length, but you may have to ease the spacing out again on curves so that trains can pass without touching. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sheep Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 No they don't. The crossing (frog) angles are different between the two systems and a code 55 point butted against a code 80 streamline point will not produce parallel tracks. I'm sure I'd been told that they shared the same geometry on the points, but if they don't then they don't. I've corrected my post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted September 3, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 3, 2012 I'm sure I'd been told that they shared the same geometry on the points, but if they don't then they don't. I've corrected my post. To clarify, the Code "55" system is more like HO/OO Streamline in that all points are based on the same crossing angle (10 deg for N, 12 deg for HO/OO). The short crossings are therefore 20 deg / 24 deg. The Code 80 system has a 14 deg crossing angle for the medium radius points and an 8 deg crossing angle for the long radius points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
66C Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I'm returning to the hobby and just starting to design a layout for my son*. I'm still undecided about whether to go with code 80 or code 55 track. My first major question when looking at code 55 track is: If I butt two points together to give parallel running lines will the track separation be correct? It looks right, but I don't want to make assumptions. A subsidiary question: Given that when I start playing in Anyrail with code 55 track nothing seems to join up, am I going to end up cutting lots of short bits of flexi-track to join up pointwork in sidings and the like? Hi there You may find it useful to download the templates for the Code 55 range from here in the Peco website: http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc55 Jusr remember that when printing the pdf files that no scaling should be used - that is do not fit to page or fit to paper. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foop Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Many thanks for all the helpful advice, folks. It's going to be a small (5' by 2'8") roundy-roundy layout as it's for my son and I don't think he'd appreciate a shunting plank yet. As such, it will probably have to have unrealistically tight curves in places. I've got a layout that will fit in setrack, so there's always a backup plan. I'll see what I can do in Anyrail with code 55 points and flexitrack. If all else fails, I can use code 55 for my next project (although I might be getting ahead of myself here). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
more-kits Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Sorry Im all coded out here. So 55 is finer than 80 and looks more realistic?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted October 23, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 23, 2012 The "code" refers to the visible rail height in thousands of an inch so yes Code 55 is slightly finer in that respect and all other things being equal will look better. For reference, 95lb bullhead is about 39 thou high in British N scale and UIC60 flat-bottom about 46 thou[citation needed but won't be forthcoming]. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wherry Lines Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Sorry Im all coded out here. So 55 is finer than 80 and looks more realistic?? In short, yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
c2c Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 After reading this debate on the difference between the two codes, I have just offered one kind against the other and from what I can see code 55 as described by one post is buried into the sleeper and is finer. The only visible difference with a keen eye is the sleeper height as code 80 has a thicker sleeper. However It is quite common for layout builders to use code 80 for complexed junctions and fiddleyards then code 55 for the scenic section as both types connect together, allbeit that the 55 will need a little packing underneath the join as the 80 will lift it a little. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sse Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 One thing I noticed with code 55 flexitrack is that you have to take care to sort out the sleeper spacing when forming curves - this may require cutting the "webbing" on the rail between the groups of sleepers. I often found that the sleepers would bunch up and look somewhat strange if I didn't take care to move them along when laying the track which seemed to take longer than laying the real thing! In the non-visible parts of the layout I used code 80 which didn't seem to have the same bunching problem. As for track spacing I cut myself a 25mm spacer from hard plastic and used to trim the end rail off the code 55 points to maintain the nominal 25mm spacing, the code 80 I left alone so they were a touch wider. I also canted the tracks over on all curves which makes a surprising difference to the look of the track. Sadly all track is now lifted as we have moved house, but I hope to start on a new "layout on a door" before the end of the year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.