Going back to code 80?!

[peteski]

I started this thread simply because I wanted to get peoples opinion as to why someone with a beautiful layout (using c55 track) would wish to use c80 (or possibly to re-do that layout using c80 track). That made no sense to me.   That's all. Bu the thread has evolved (even to include couplers)!

As far as expansion (of track or layout), I witness this on friend's layout.  It is in a finished and climate controlled (air conditioned and heated) room at the ground level.  He did incorporate expansion gaps but even with that, 2 years after the track was laid, one curve popped up from something contracting or expanding.  I don't know if it was wood or metal but something did. Once we fixed that, it never happened again.

[CBQ Fan]

I just wish that Atlas made turnouts that were the same size.  If I could pull up small sections at a time and replace them as I wanted to and not have to rip out all the road bed and completely realign my entire track plan it would be easier.  I would also like to see a transition track available that you could use rail joiners to bridge the gap without having to create my own.

I know the usual suspects will judge me as inferior but I really don't care.  I don't have hours each day to hand lay my own track.  I am lucky to get a few hours a week to do any actual modeling.  Things like work, wife, kids and life in general get in the way.  I don't begrudge anyone getting to spend an unlimited amount of time on their model but I often feel those are the same who judge others.  My layout has hundreds of turn outs.  If I spent my available modeling time building turnouts I would only have enough completed two years from now.  I would still have no other track laid and no way to run anything.  So, I bite the bullet and use a huge amount of Code 80 and build a layout that I can run stuff.  So I buy a lot of equipment because it isn't always going to be available.  I am currently building structures for engine yard.  I have my new passenger 8 track terminal to wire up and get running plus one other yard as well.  That is the reason I am not moving to DCC anytime soon, I have no interest in spending all my time tearing apart locos and putting in decoders.

When I move ahead to Code 55 (or maybe something better when it is developed) and DCC some day when I have more time available I don't see why I would move back to Code 80 or DC.  For now it works just fine.  I have developed my table work to be able to be broken down and reassembled in any combination I desire in the future.  So, some day it will all get gutted and redone and I will be interested in the next greatest thing.

[VonRyan]

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.

the "grossly over-sized" fixtures are not what you say they are. They are perfectly scaled rail chairs, but sadly they are holding (instead of supporting) flatbottom rail, which should be bullhead. The chairs are why i prefer PECO flex and points, but the only problem being is that finding PECO flex is near impossible to find in c80 (c55 a bit less so, but turnouts are hard to find), plus their c55 is a bit rough to work with, plus the fact that flatbottom rail should not be in chairs. Had i an economical source of PECO c55 flex and turnouts, i would have done my entire N-Trak module with it for a more accurate and appropriate look of GWR Mainline and Branchline trackage... Especially with Dapol's new 57xx Pannier tanks.

Now for here in 'Merica, atlas c55 and all the ME range is excellent, with the exception of ME's poor mouldings resulting in alot of flash on the ties making them seem overly wide. Atlas flex and turnouts (as i amass the necessary pieces) will be used on my new HCD layout. I've decided that for such a small point-to-point layout, it has more benefits. For a larger layout i'd probably stay with c80.

-Cody F.

[John]

I know the usual suspects will judge me as inferior but I really don't care. 

That's pretty a pretty unfair statement to make .. Build it any way you want .. I tore up a whole layout of code 80 and went the other way -but hey, why not .. 

[CBQ Fan]

That's pretty a pretty unfair statement to make .. Build it any way you want .. I tore up a whole layout of code 80 and went the other way -but hey, why not ..

It is not a statement without base, although I think some take me a little to literally.  An opinion is neither right nor wrong.  It is just an opinion.  Some seem to see their opinion as fact.  But as you say, Build it anyway you want and I do.  I am very happy with what I have going on in my layout room! 

[nscaleSPF2]

It seems we are offering mostly opinions.  Here's mine.

In 1984, I constructed a 4 x 5 foot "spaghetti" layout.  High ratio of track to scenery.  Laid and wired all of the code 80 track and turnouts.  Bought new Pennsylvania steamers (Minitrix).  0-4-0, 0-6-0, 4-6-2, 2-10-0.  All of these ran very, very poorly, when they ran at all.  Best loco in the stable back then was an Atlas RS3.

Worse, the height of the rail really began to bother me.  Back then, an N scale scene was immediately recognizable (to me) by comparing the height of the rail to the rolling stock.

Layout, track and turnouts went into the trash.  Kept the locos.

Fast forward to 2010.

Spied some Atlas C55 in the LHS.  Hmm.  Nice diesel and steam locos, too.  Thinking, thinking...

As one who normally jumps in with both feet (not something I would normally recommend), am 2 years into constructing a 16 x 17 foot layout with a high ratio of scenery to track.  Atlas C55, DCC, replacing the old Minitrix mechanisms with very nice running Kato's.  So far, have not regretted this direction.

Looking forward to the next 2 years, even though the layout will never be up to the standard that others have set on this forum.

Just my opinion.

Jim

[pnolan48]

When I was younger, I tended to do everything in one swell foop. In 2002, when I built my "new" layout, Atlas C55 was brand new and plentiful. So I bought 1200' of flex and 85 switches all at once. And learned the 400 cars I had converted to the "Cadillac" of wheelsets--i.e., Microtrains--just the year before wouldn't run very well on it. So I switched all the cars to Accumates, which were also brand new and plentiful. Arrggh! The track worked flawlessly. The Accumates routinely exploded for no reason. Couplers should be like shoes: you put them on every morning with no reason to expect them to explode some time during the day. Of the ten or so engines with large flanges, I had a friend turn down one of the Minitrix K-4s, which still ran crappily, and didn't miss the other nine. Who could really miss the Arnold F-9 that I bought for $9.95 in 1976? Or the Lima FP-45 that never did much more than fritz on the track? Because I also went to DCC at the time (another swell foop), I really wasn't going to spend a lot of time hardwiring old locos (or even newer ones) that weren't up to the new standards of performance. Why put a $20 decoder in a $15 engine that didn't run on Atlas C55?

I do think the long scarcity of Atlas C55 components was a disservice to the hobby.

[CBQ Fan]

Another issue that jumped out at me was the lack of codee 55 availiability.  How long was that issue?  For me I had no desire to committ to the switch and then be unable to find the product when I wanted it and the quantity I needed.

[jdcolombo]

My 2 cents:

I agree with Tony Hines that rail height (Code 80 vs. Code 55) really isn't noticeable unless you are taking close-up photos of rolling stock from ground level in a side-on view.  Code 80 track, properly weathered and ballasted, pretty much looks like Code 55, IF (and this is a very big "if") the tie spacing and size are North American Prototype.

I switched from Peco Code 55 to Atlas Code 55 not because of a rail height issue (I disagree with Tony that Peco Code 55 offers no visual advantage; it does offer a visual advantage in the one case in which rail height is noticeable: a side-on close-up photo, where you only see the outside of the rail profile), but rather the tie spacing/size issue.  If Atlas had offered the same tie spacing and size, along with the same selection of switches/crossings, in Code 80, I likely would have been indifferent (I probably would have picked the Code 55 because I don't have any engines/rolling stock that aren't compatible with it; I switched over to all low-profile wheelsets back in 1993, and all my engines, with the exception of two Arnold S2's that I've since replaced the wheels on, were Code55 compatible).

I will say that I've had more problems with Atlas Code 55 switches than I ever had with Peco, and I greatly miss the Peco spring-over turnout control, which allowed me to avoid having external switch linkages (either manual or electric).   If Peco had made a North-American prototype track (like they do for HO scale), I'd have bought it, even if it had been Code 80, because the stuff is just a whole lot less "fussy" than Atlas.

As for operations, I think that is 99.9% standards implementation and careful track laying.  I have zero operational problems with my new Atlas Code 55, but it took going over every turnout with an NMRA standards gauge (most were fine; a few were not) to get there.  Long ago I had already standardized on body-mounted couplers, and MT trucks with low-profile wheelsets (though I've gradually been switching over to FVM metal wheels), along with weighting all my rolling stock to NMRA standards.   I will say that I think the single most important aspect of good operations after careful track work is the weight of rolling stock; most if it is WAY too light in N scale, though the most recent releases from top manufacturers have addressed this issue.  The downside of proper weighting is that you can pull fewer cars per engine; that's not much of an issue with MU diesel lashups, but it can be aggravating if you run steam, like I do.  I worked for months on my LifeLike Berks to get them to the point where they can reliably pull 25 cars plus caboose on a 1% grade (and nothing more; 1.1% stymies them).

John C.

[DKS]

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.

A friend of mine has both Code 80 and 55 on his layout. He has said many times if he had to do it over, he'd only use 80. The code 55 track (Peco not included) is quite flimsy compared to most Code 80. The roadbed must therefore be much more precise, since Code 55 track will follow it more faithfully--imperfections included. He also also owns a lot of old rolling stock with pizza cutters (way too much to convert), and anyway he prefers pizza cutters over low-pro wheels as being more reliable. The worst problem he has found laying Code 55 is track twisting, where one rail rides up a little higher than the other, and if it twists even slightly, low-pro wheels just walk off the track. Given that he has some physical limitations that make it difficult for him to create near-flawless roadbed, the Code 80 is actually much better suited for him, especially since he rates reliability over appearance by a significant degree. As for Peco Code 55, the double-web rail is a problem for him to join, and I tend to agree--it can be a real pain in the arse.

[fredmoehrle]

Well, my $.02.

I'd laid the rural area of my layout, got it weathered, ballasted down and scenery around it when Atlas announced their code 55 line.
At the time, I wanted to get trains up and running, and with the economic slow down hitting Michigan hard in '02, couldn't justify the cost of replacing the track.  (Especially with all those neat GP-38's coming from Atlas.)
I figured I'd wait in do the town area of my layout with code 55 when I got around to it.
Fast forward a few years, I'm looking to start my town area, and there's nothing but some flextrack in Atlas code 55.  So I went with the plentiful code 80.  (lots of which I'd stocked up on when other people switched over themselves.)

One time I was railfanning, I realized I was actually looking at the track, because as the trains went over the diamonds at Marion, there was mud spraying out from under the ties!
 
About the only time I've paid attention to the track in real life.

[Blazeman]

Nothing new here. This debate springs up now and then, same as with DC/DCC.

Simply speaking, nice we have these options to discuss: Atlas, PECO, ME, Unitrak. 80, 70, 55.

Were I starting today, I'd pick the 55. But I started too long ago and I'm not of a mind to swing over. Means I'll have to make sure the 80 is weathered and ballasted well to blend.

I agree the ties are the eye catcher when looking down and the rail height when looking with your chin on the table top.

But N has evolved with rail height, tie spacing, coupler size, brick size, windows, handrails thickness. Really a good thing to make the scale viable in the eyes of others.

[Rossford Yard]

I agree that when running trains (my fave part) I don't focus on the track a lot, and its more important if you want museum quality, magazine worthy layouts.  If not, then have fun.

The C55 shortage is a bear.  I decided to use it, and found out a lot of things like turnouts were in short supply.  I probably over bought to be sure, and will take a loss on about 20 turnouts when I get my track laid, given all my extras.

As to Blazeman and the increase is scale authenticy, I was reading the last MR editorial and its take on "scaling down lighting" to HO and N.  In theory, light brightness should be a bit less in N, but at some point, it can get too dark to really illuminate the inside of those contest quality structures.....

[mionerr]

Steve is a good friend of mine and I've spent a fair amount of time in his basement. While he is a retired surgeon (so is his wife, btw) his time is not limitless. Look at the box that tells who he is. Trains are his main hobby, but he is a serious skier and spends a couple of weeks in Aspen and Canada each year. They have grandkids that they spend time with. They both are serious Civil War historians and attend seminars on that topic. They attend various productions in San Fransisco as well as in New York. Unlike many of us, Steve likes lots of things. What he doesn't like is maintenance and as someone pointed out, code 55 turnouts can be fussy. The layout runs and he's getting into operations (trains, not people). He believes in the 3 foot rule and "good enough". I've spent more than a few hours running trains roundy roundy in his basement while the party was upstairs. I ran the trains while he and Sharon hosted the party. Did I mention his wine cellar? Large. Next to the layout. Me. Sometimes alone in the basement.
Steve is a great guy with  a great sense of humor and he's doing what he enjoys, the way he enjoys it. That's what it's all about. I don't think the article mentioned the part of the layout where the Keddie wye is adjacent to the Tehatchape loop. With a glint in his eye and a sly smile. There's several stories about those flamingos, too. Different strokes for differnt folks.

[FrankCampagna]

Code 55 vs. code 80. Take 7,340,813!!!!!!!!