I am going to be buying materials for my layout soon, I have had alot of help from one of the members here with planning and parts choice. Just looking for opinions. I have the part compiled but can go 2 ways here, Peco all around. Code 80 or code 55 ? with C80 I will still have to use 2 code 55 turnouts with C55 I will have to use 2 C80 turnouts. due to the size and radius of the switches. I guess this is all well and good but for the sake of ease I would like to go all the same 100% all around the track, I guess its not gonna be. What is the procedure for joining 2 diff track codes and do they look right after it's done? What would the easy way be to get the entire layout layed for a newbie to track laying? I know the C 80 is big for scale but is it that much easier to lay and work with that the 55 as I have heard ? Thanks T
You can freely and easily mix and match Peco code 80 and '55'. Peco uses the same code 80 rail in both of them. The 'code 55' is just sunk deeper into the sleepers so the visible rail height is only 55 mil. Consequently, the code 55 flex track is stiffer to bend than the 80. Cheers, Mo
I mix and match both the C55 and C80 turnouts. They all have code 80 rail, with a different profile on the C55 that allows it to be sunk into the track ties to look shorter. They fit fine and look fine together. I think your bigger consideration is knowing that the C55 and C80 turnouts need different wiring and gapping, since the C55 are power routed and need gaps or insultated joiners on the inside rails beyond the frog in all cases. The C80 insulfrog (actually you can get those in both electro and insulfrog, too) are more like Atlas C80 turnouts and are not power routed and don't need gaps (although they are sometimes gapped if they divide control blocks)
Is it really easier? I hadn't heard that. I used C80 for my last layout and I'm using C55 for my current layout. If anything, I enjoy using the C55 more. Maybe because it is just a little stiffer. Not so sproingy. If you end up with bends where you don't want them it is really easy to take them out by pushing the inside of one rail against a steel straight-edge ruler. I use Xuron track cutters and Peco joiners. Maybe that's why I don't notice a difference.
The Peco C80 is sloppy in the frog area and needs shims on the guard rails. It was designed for European standards which were more generous than the NMRA. Go with the C55 which Peco lists as their "Fine Scale".
I used Peco 80 INSULFROG before switching to Unitrack. I found that a short locomotive - 060 for example - could stall on the frog area because of the flange depth (pizza cutters again!) I didn't put shims in. I used a razor saw or an ordinary hacksaw blade, depending on what was within reach, and deepened the trough so the flange didn't ride up. Peco 55, or at least the 55 I've seen in the past, isn't ideal if you have pizza cutters for wheels. Regards, Pete
I used Peco Code 55 track everywhere save significant lengths of hidden track and Code 55 electrofrog switches everywhere. For the hidden track I used Atlas code 80 flextrack as it was less expensive. On bridges I use Micro-Engineering code 55 bridge track. Where the Peco track meets the ME track, I grind away the lower Peco flange with a Dremel and fit a Peco joiner over the remaining upper flange. Where the Atlas and Peco track meet, I use a Peco joiner - rather than an Atlas joiner because the fit is tighter - over the lower Peco flange. I have ~180 switches: 1/3rd tortoise-driven with frog/point power from the tortoise, and 2/3rds manual. Of the total I have had conductivity issues in only 1 of the manual throws. I haven't had any issues with my flanges on the code 55 and haven't taken any special efforts with either loco or car tires...just using whatever they are supplied with. I love the selection and robustness of the code55/Electrofrog. I use *a lot* of curved turnouts because I like the flow it gives to the trackwork. Once properly weathered and ballasted, I find the profile of the 55 visually ok as well...not fantastic but good enough for me. My focus is heavily operations and, as a one-person construction and maintenance team, I went for bullet proof and selection over fine profile. md
Tu Thanks all, I have an issue with 2 types of switch radius need . I need the Peco short 9" in some places and the Peco #4 short electro frog in others. The shorts 9" are only in code 80 insul frog and the electro as far as I see ??... are in code 55 electro hence the mixing I have to do.
Yes, I used the 9" curves. They are only Code 80 Insulfrog. I've never used Electrofrog or Code 55 so I can't comment on that aspect. Regards, Pete
Yes thats what I am seeing the only 9 inch are code 80 insul. If I could get the short #4 in code 80 I might then be able to go with 80 all around. If I have to mix and match then I guess it doesn;t matter how and where I do it then? Leave it as it is code 55 all around except for the 9 in turnouts I guess. Thanks T
Your problem of a short locomotive stalling was due to using insulfrogs and not electrofrog turnouts. The insulfrog is so named because it has an INSULated FROG. Electofrog have an ELECTRified FROG. The shims are needed on the C80 guardrails because the flangeways are too wide and could cause a wheel to drop into the flangeway. Has nothing to do with the depth of the flangeway.
It's ideal for me. I have both low-profile and "pizza cutters" (though I really wish people would stop calling them that).
Ahh, there are several trick questions with Peco turnouts. They're not exactly #X turnouts like US image ones -- they are continuous curve throughout as is correct for British prototype. And to complicate matters, what Peco calls 'Small' 'Medium' and 'Large' radius turnouts in the code 80 are not the same radius as the S, M & L in the code 55! The 'Small' Set Track code 80 is the one that is closest to a #4 and is only available with an insulfrog. The 'Small' in the Finescale code 55 is closest to a #6 and is identical in radius to the 'Medium' code 80! The turnout #'s listed by American vendors are made up to make sense to American customers, they are not part of Peco's own packaging. You can take one of the 'Medium' code 55's and trim the ends off as close as you can to the points and frog and get it down close to a #5. Cheers, Mo
Yes I guess they are close the Atlas to Peco but no cigar though. I have to get a few in hand and compare them. As far as I can see Atlas does not have anything close to the Peco short 9" rad. switches, I think anyway. All in the planning stages here still, have to scrape up some greenbacks for this stuff. I do see a big price difference from Atlas to Peco though !!!!!! Thanks Tony
After discovering that the smallest Peco turnout did not come with an electrofrog option, we chose to go with Atlas code 55. In tight spaces you can trim down the ends of the Atlas #5 and get close to a #4. And the Atlas ties look a lot better than the Peco sleepers. On the Peco turnouts, some of them get between 2 - 2.2mm wide, eek that gets close to a scale 14" wide.
Before I even start I am going to pick up the tightest Atlas radius I can find and compare it to the Peco. I do need however the 2 short Peco 9 in pcs. This I think I can't get away from at all. I am just wanting to go with all the same code if possible, or at least I am trying to see if it can be done anyway. Price is an issue too but,,,,,,,,,? Thanks Tony
Actually, I didn't get the problem after I'd deepened the flanges. We are talking of the Farish branch of most folks' least favourite brand here. It begins with a B! Regards, Pete
Tony, Check out my friend Richard Cook Layout TrainBoard.com TrainBoard.com for a layout with PECO code 55
