Going back to code 80?!

[LV LOU]

You really think that visually the 0.025" makes *THAT* much difference (in laying track or re-railing cars)?

I also keep seeing statements where people think that old equipment will not run on c55. Well, let me repeat: It runs fine on Peco c55 (for the reason I mentioned earlier!)

Most of it runs fine on ME55,too..But seriously,what's the advantage of Peco?? It doesn't truly look ANY better than Atlas C80,all they did was make the outside ties higher,and the tie spacing looks worse than the Atlas.It also costs WAY more..

[MichaelWinicki]

Yeah Atlas code 55 needs to be weathered in order to take it to the next level.

[robert3985]

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!

Peteski, the only reason someone would want to "convert" back to code 80 is if they were purposely building a layout to appear like N-"gauge" did in the 60's and 70's, and using equipment on it from that time period also, OR...they simply don't give a rat's rear-end about how their trackage looks.

If anybody thinks laying code 80 trackage is easier because it's taller than code 55 or code 40...that is not logical, and you're wrong (sorry...but it's true).  Sloppy workmanship makes for unreliable running no matter what the height of the rail. Just because the rail is higher, does not make it any easier to align properly...in fact, just the opposite may be true.

If anybody thinks that trains don't run as well through Atlas 55 and ME 55 turnouts because of the rail height...that has nothing to do with it...unless you're running huge pizza cutters and they are buzzing on Atlas turnouts.  Most code 80 turnouts are much sloppier in their tolerances than either Atlas 55 or ME 55 turnouts, which are pretty much "spot-on" as far as NMRA clearances are concerned.  If your engines don't want to run through turnouts that comply with NMRA standards, then FIX YOUR ENGINE...it's not the code of the rail that's the problem.

As far as appearance is concerned, I'm going to say it like it is...code 80 looks like crap.  It is NOT a European look...it's a toy-like look inherited from the toy N-gauge engines and cars that were first introduced in the '60's.  Kato Unitrack is also toy-like.  I'm not saying this to offend anyone, but it is simply the truth, and sometimes, the truth hurts.  Take a peek at some of the N-scale stuff that our German counterparts are building...the track and ties sure don't look like Atlas 80 or Peco 55!

Atlas 55 is also not the greatest looking trackage because of the grossly oversized thingies that pass for "spikeheads" on each tie.

ME code 70, code 55 and code 40 also have oversized spikeheads when compared to the original Railcraft flex.

However, because of the more prototypical tie size and placement, both Atlas and ME flex and turnouts look exponentially better than any code 80 rail products or Peco "fake" code 55.

And, lastly...Code 55 is a bit too high and wide to properly represent any prototype rail ever used on any mainlines in the USA or Canada...with the one exception of possibly some of the Pennsy's rail.

As Tony Hines opined, it ain't the height of the rails your eyes see most...it's the ties!  That's the reason Kato Unitrack also looks like crap...it's the TIES!!

Unless you're dropping framing hammers or anvils on your rails, then code 80 is not "more reliable" or "more robust" than code 70, 55 or 40.  I also find that my code 55 rails on my old Ntrak modules never "popped" from heat expansion, as did many of the other modules using Atlas 80.  My experience says it's more stable than code 80.

As opposed to Tony's experience, the best running layouts I've ever seen are my own, and my fellow module builder Gregg Cudworth's.  We build standard gauge trackage from Railcraft code 55, hand lay all of our turnouts to tight NMRA specs, and I use both Railcraft code 40 or handlaid code 40 trackage for sidings and branchlines.  Our layouts run great!...and what I mean by "great"...is that they run flawlessly, with trains running without a wobble or hesitation over all turnouts, sidings and mainlines.  Gregg also constructs Nn3 (filling his basement with a double-decked layout of the entire RGS) using hand-laid code 30 ribbon rail, and it all runs "flawlessly".  Obviously, the height of the rail has nothing to do with reliability.  All of our modules and layouts are weighted to run prototypically, which means equally towards rail-fanning and ops.

Cost.  Unless you've got a closet full of code 80, the cost has risen and the price differential between code 80 and code 55 trackage has virtually disappeared. 

By the way, I had a closet full of code 80 which my ex-father-in-law gave me.  I gave it to a buddy of mine who is going to use it for non-visible trackage on his new layout.  Using it never occurred to me...even though it was free.

If you wanna save a crap-load of money, take a few hours and learn to build your own turnouts without expensive jigs and fixtures (they're not necessary).

If you're running newly manufactured equipment on your layout, with fine details, low-pro wheels, correct paint, knuckle couplers, etc., etc., then why would you want to run these lovely models on trackage that is so obviously and grossly incorrect and oversized in every aspect?

Yeah...I know some of you think that's okay, or even preferable...but, like Peteski (and plenty of others) I just don't get it...


Here's a photo of my old Wilhemina Pass Ntrak modules which I built back in the 80's with Railcraft code 70 flex.  Do you notice the "tallness" of the rails? Nahh...all you see are the size and spacing of the ties, and that there are no grossly oversized "fixtures" clamping the rails to the ties.

[bill pearce]

 I also find that my code 55 rails on my old Ntrak modules never "popped" from heat expansion, as did many of the other modules using Atlas 80.  My experience says it's more stable than code 80.

I like your use of quotes on popped, Bob. Here's the straight poop:Ten or fifteen years, some PhD posted the real info somewhere on the internet, including citing reference material for his statement, that rail doesn't expand or contract an appreciable amount under common temperatures, it's the movement of the wood underneath, which is affected more by humidity than temperature. I think my next layout will be made from metal studs and micore.

[alhoop]

 Here's the straight poop:Ten or fifteen years, some PhD posted the real info somewhere on the internet, including citing reference material for his statement, that rail doesn't expand or contract an appreciable amount under common temperatures, it's the movement of the wood underneath, which is affected more by humidity than temperature. .......

Well, it was track expansion caused by heat that geve me kinked rails on a 16 foot section with no expansion joints.
A six foot section of flex will expand/contract about 1.5 mm over a 100 deg F swing. Most wood about a third of that.
Guess the PHD was right if you make a habit of soaking your layout.
Al

[LV LOU]

Well, it was track expansion caused by heat that geve me kinked rails on a 16 foot section with no expansion joints.
A six foot section of flex will expand/contract about 1.5 mm over a 100 deg F swing. Most wood about a third of that.
Guess the PHD was right if you make a habit of soaking your layout.
Al

My RR is in a second floor bedroom.I only use Styrofoam,and the room gets maybe a 20 degree swing at most.I don't have any expansion joints whatsoever on this one,pretty much the same conditions on my last one,no problems at all over 20+ years and two railroads...I think the thing with wood is,it's not temperature,but humidity that makes it do goofy things..

[eja]

Yawn ...  everyone has there own ideas of what looks good, what is easy to work with, and what it "should" look like.

Chill folks ... if it works for you fine! Don't try to impose your idea of the perfect solution on the rest of us.


Have fun ... go run some trains !!!

[Flatrat]

Agreed. I recently witnessed a discussion on a large scale forum on the importance of mounting screws in sectional track get way out of control. Some good people lost perspective and eventually said some things that they later came to regret. We all have different goals for our model train layouts. Peco 55 suited my needs for the layout I just built intended to run mostly heritage junk from the 70's/80's. If I was starting from scratch tomorrow with all new engines and rolling stock i would have chosen a different track, like Atlas 55. We are all working on different projects so there's no one right way to do things.

[robert3985]

Actually, I haven't read a single post here "imposing" anything on anyone.  Just opinions.  Also, I haven't noticed anyone posting anything about a "perfect" solution either...

I also really enjoy reading other opinions, and the reasons for them.  Lots of original thinking and years of cumulative experience available here. 

And...I'd like to know who the "rest of us" are who think they're being "imposed" upon?   I think it's time for a poll

Also, my idea of "fun" is not just running trains.  As Peteski and others here know, model railroading can be a lot of fun, even if you don't have a layout or a circle of track to "run trains". 

One of the reasons I'm active here at The Railwire is to read remarks from deeply opinionated modelers.  Although I don't agree with everybody, I do learn a lot, which is really fun for me, but...maybe there are others who would rather just chill and run trains.  No comments, no discussion, no opinions would make this a dull place indeed.

I'm happy it's NOT dull.

[Rossford Yard]

There are deeply opinionated model railroaders?  I'm shocked!

On the previous layout (built over the years from the late 1980's through 2011)  I mostly had Atlas and Peco C 80.  Also Peco C55.  Later, I did use ME C55 for conrete ties in spots. I guess I like to tinker.  When a layout gets built over decades, there is always that problem of using new stuff or sticking with the older stuff to be consistent.

BTW, on my new circa 2012 layout, I use code 80 for staging level and Code 55 (atlas all the way) for the visible portions.

I know some great modelers/tracklayers who still prefer C80 for its reliability.  The note that small flanges jump smaller rails more easily, and it makes sense to me.  When trains move vertically, due to warped wood, bad track, etc. it would seem more vertical rail would make for fewer derailments.  I know others who say that there is less friction on the smaller rails which helps reduce derailments.  Overall, I think its couplers and out of guage wheels that have given me the most problems over time, along with unweighted cars. over rail size.  Right now, I have more problems with the new BLMA wheels falling into Peco frogs in staging than I do with old pizza cutters not fitting the rails, just as an example.  So, it goes both ways sometimes.

As time goes on, most modelers will go C55, but there is always that transition period between old and new tech. 
Fine scale is now achievable in N scale to a greater degree and will continue to be easier.  Its "in", and over time, fewer and fewer new layouts will be built with C80, and most of us will go along willingly.  Some won't.  And some will continue with C80 for practical reasons, like expanding an old layout and preferring a consistent look, or building new and the old C80 will be cheaper to use in non visible areas.

[Catt]

The perfect solution is, It's your hobby do it the way you like.I have two N scale layouts one fills half my basement and uses Peco code 55 track.The other one is 36" x72" and uses ATLAS code 80.Both layouts have weathered and ballasted track and both look just fine to me.(I am the only critic that matters  )

If you really think code 55 is the answer for you use it.If you think the code 80 fills the bill use that.Just don't knock my choice of track because it is my hobby and my money going into it.

[bill pearce]

A six foot section of flex will expand/contract about 1.5 mm over a 100 deg F swing.

Here's another one of my "Why sould anyone do..." questions: What person in their right mind puts a layout somewhere that allows 100 degree F temp swing?

[Hyperion]

The note that small flanges jump smaller rails more easily, and it makes sense to me.  When trains move vertically, due to warped wood, bad track, etc. it would seem more vertical rail would make for fewer derailments.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, this doesn't make sense. 

The distance that a train/car has to move vertically to jump the rail, is exactly the same whether that rail is Code 30, 50, 80, or even 10,000.  The distance is always the same from the tread of the wheel to the end of the flange, and that's what's going to determine whether or not the flange climbs the rail or not.

[Rossford Yard]

True that, but I figured if pizza cutters are too deep for C55, but not C80 (atlas version anyway) then they are deeper in flange than the wheels that can be used on C55.  So, I would agree with you its the wheel depth, I made the logic jump to shallower rails equal shallower flanges, and shallow flanges jump more easily than deeper ones.

[alhoop]

A six foot section of flex will expand/contract about 1.5 mm over a 100 deg F swing.

Here's another one of my "Why sould anyone do..." questions: What person in their right mind puts a layout somewhere that allows 100 degree F temp swing?

Me and BarstowRick.

...."it's the movement of the wood underneath, which is affected more by humidity than temperature. "

What person in their right mind would put a layout where the humidity is high enough to cause the wood to expand enough to affect
the layout?


Al