Going back to code 80?!

[peteski]

I just finished reading an article about Steve Van Meter's South Pacific West layout in the Nov. 2012 Model Railroader.

The layout uses C55 track from Atlas, ME and Peco (so he has all three brands).  The article also mentions "Much of the track, but were he to do it again, Steve would use code 80".  But that is all that is mentioned. No further explanation why. I wonder why would someone would go back to code 80 track in N scale.  I can see the reasoning for code 80 on N-Trak but why would someone who graduated to constructing their layout using code 55 track want to go back to code 80. 

Also mentioned is "He wants someone to make a good code 80 turnout that is DCC-friendly". That is another statement I don't understand, but then the whole "DCC-friendly" moniker to me is silly. Nowadays, to me all turnouts are DCC friendly.  If anything, it is the locomotive wheels (too wide or too flat of a thread or under-gauge) that aren't DCC-friendly if they short out on the frogs. 

Sometimes I just don't get it!

[Philip H]

well, considering how much rolling stock and motive power ISN'T Code 55 friendly, I can see where he'd perhaps make a decision in that direction.  Sure, it's way to big from a prototype standpoint, but after reading his article, I think reliable running is one of his top two interests, and many folks still think Code 80 is better then code 55 for that.

[MVW]

I think reliable running is one of his top two interests, and many folks still think Code 80 is better then code 55 for that.

So ... is it?

I would have preferred Code 55 when I switched to N about three years back ... but that was during a Code 55 drought, so I ended up buying Code 80. That was the right move for me (at the time), although there's no denying the superior look of Code 55. But is Code 55 as reliable as Code 80?

Just wondering.

Jim

[MichaelWinicki]

I've used code 80 in the past and use code 55 now. 

For the life of me I can't imagine going back to code 80.

And you have to consider the world is much more code 55 "friendly" now than it was even a couple years ago.  Virtually everything that comes out now is code 55 ready.

As for dependability... Built a sloppy layout using code 80 or code 55 and you'll have issues.  Build either one carefully and you'll be A-OK.

I can run 30-car freights backwards through numerous switches without a derailment on my present code 55 pike.

I don't know if you can ask much more than that.

[havingfuntoo]

The length or number of cars in your train that you can run backwards through switches or yard ladders will be more influenced by where your couplers are mounted ....... on the the body or the truck, rather than the code of the track. I love code 55 and think it looks great, it encourages you to lay track more carefully but as some of us get older the finer details seem less important, and getting trains to where we want them with out having to climb all over the layout does take precedence. Fortunately I am still young enough to enjoy the challenges of code 55.   

[Bluford Craig]

Why not just lay a third rail down the middle too?...

[GimpLizard]

Why not just lay a third rail down the middle too?...

Now yer talkin'! 

[MichaelWinicki]

The length or number of cars in your train that you can run backwards through switches or yard ladders will be more influenced by where your couplers are mounted ....... on the the body or the truck, rather than the code of the track. I love code 55 and think it looks great, it encourages you to lay track more carefully but as some of us get older the finer details seem less important, and getting trains to where we want them with out having to climb all over the layout does take precedence. Fortunately I am still young enough to enjoy the challenges of code 55.

If you don't mind me asking why do you have to climb all over your layout to get your trains to go where you want them to go using code 55?

[peteski]

Better reliability? How?  Easier to lay down? Really?

Lets' take Peco C55.  It has no spikes inside of the rails so it will accept pretty much every piece of N scale equipment ever produced.
Harder to precisely lay down? How's that? It is actually a special profile code 80 track which is partially buried in the ties. So it is just as rigid (or maybe even more so) than code 80 track.  So if you can lay code 80 track well, you can do the same with Peco code 55.

I'm still looking for a good reason to go back to code 80. 

And why we are now discussing body-mounted couplers?!  VIOLATION!   

[eja]

I'm still looking for a good reason to go back to code 80. 
 

Old eyes !

[ryan_wilkerson]

I like the way Peco Code 55 is really taller rail, really a good solution for operations and durability. I don't like how the ties look though so I'm going with Atlas 55 now.

There is a also compromised size, Micro Engineering Code 70! I actually bought 24 of them thinking it was 55! Dang it.

[Mark W]

From a physics stand point, assuming the rail is laid to a point of acceptable tolerance, and excluding cases where wheel tread is larger than rail height (MT pizza and Atlas C55), train operation is exactly identical whether the rail be code 55, 80, 250* or 10.  Of course the head of 250 code rail would be too rounded for N scale wheels, but if we got precise square head rail, and the rail foot doesn't get in the way of the gauge, it would then operate identical.  Rail height has nothing to do with how a wheelset acts across the top of rail.

I think the argument that code 80 operates better because it's easier to lay is a myth.  If you can lay code 80, you can lay code 55. 

[MichaelWinicki]

If you can lay code 80, you can lay code 55.

I think that's true.

If you can do code 80 flex, then code 55 flex isn't much different.

And I think the similarities between sectional code 80 and sectional code 55 are even closer.

[Kisatchie]

Just on a lark ten years ago, I decided to make an oval on the dining room table using Atlas code 80 sectional track and switches/turnouts ( ). I ran about two dozen Intermountain 40' reefers with Micro-Trains truck-mounted couplers forward and backward through the turnouts at about 40 scale MPH with no trouble at all.

I guess I live a charmed life. 


Hmm... I'm takin' a bath
here. How about some
privacy...!?

[CBQ Fan]

I would love to have switched to code 55 but I have so much Code 80 from prior layouts and that was new and unused I just could not justify dumping it all in the trash and spending a ton of cash on code 55 when I could spend it on engines and cars, etc.