Code 80 vs Code 55... Why?

Primavw Aug 15, 2013

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Joe D'Amato

    Joe D'Amato TrainBoard Member

    1,749
    352
    38
    I guess that puts the arguement in perspective :eek:) Beautiful work!
     
  2. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    619
    264
    18
    Bob is right, but I think I can put it in a more concise way: How realistic do you want your layout to look? Just like the real thing, or as realistic as Lionel? How much experience do you have? New to the hobby or changing scales? And note the ultimate realism is to use code 40 (with smaller codes for sidings), but you need to have a little experience to build your own turnouts (degree of difficulty is highly overplayed.).
     
  3. JB Stoker

    JB Stoker TrainBoard Member

    132
    0
    7
    I would add to the previous post "How good are your eyes?" Most of the visual difference in rail sizes, especially N scale, are not going to be noticeable to the average guy in this hobby who likely has a hard time seeing the rail at all let alone having bionic vision capable of discerning a hundredth of an inch difference in rail heights. In extreme close-up photos with a good size reference you can see the difference sometimes , but for the average MRR layout and modeler the visual difference between code sizes is not much of a factor IMO.
     
  4. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    BALDERDASH!!!! If I had to chose between the C55'ers, the DCC'ers and some TV evangelist as to whose conversion stories I would least like to hear, the competion would be between the DCC'ers and the C55'ers. I would rather hear the TV Evangelist. I have used C80 ever since I started in N Scale some 4 decades ago. Since then I looked at C55, bought some and tried it on my home layout. But I also run Ntrak and Atlas C55 does not meet Ntrak standards. I have yet to have someone viewing a Ntrak setup say that the rail was too high let alone "way too high". The simple truth is that C80 is only
    .025" higher than C55. That folks is only 2.5% of an inch. The vast majority of people will need magnification aids to see the difference. C80 looks fine all by itself. In fact C80 combined with Peco C55 turnouts is as bullet proof as you can get. Atlas C55 switches have problems and create problems especially with steam engines whose wheel gauge cannot be adjusted without causing other problems, like binding. As far as C80 being toylike but C55 is modellike let me remind those people that N scale C55 is the equivalent of HO scale C100 track. Do the math. N scale is 54% of HO [87/160 = .54 = 54%] HO just switched over to C83 which more approximates prototype rail. C100 approximated very heavy rail in the 152-155 lb range. Such rail was used on only one railroad and that was the Pennsy. So unless you are modelling the Pennsy your C55 is toylike too. You need to get down to C45 to approximate the 137 lb rail used on the majority of class 1 railroads.

    And now a word from our Kato Unitrack users. . . . . . . . . .
     
  5. dexterdog62

    dexterdog62 TrainBoard Member

    166
    1
    8
    Hear hear... <cue applause>
     
  6. Joe D'Amato

    Joe D'Amato TrainBoard Member

    1,749
    352
    38
    We need to avoid the tyranny of scale as much as possible and as Bill noted, it's up to the individual what is ok for their pike and what's not. Folks, well meaning for sure, tend to want to impose their standards on others, but in the end, what you enjoy is what is important and I for one appreciate seeing what can be done with Code 80, Piko and other track systems that may or may not meet prototypical scale. I also appreciate the folks who model rail with the passion others model engines and rolling stock, we get a lot of inspiration and motivation by seeing all that hard work.
     
  7. TetsuUma

    TetsuUma TrainBoard Member

    1,247
    14
    20
    Here is the Model Railroad rail "Code" size chart for anyone that is interested.

    Scale Rail Sizes
     
  8. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,558
    22,733
    653
    Fact- Virtually all model railroad track, (except such as Peco "Crazy Track"), regardless of rail code, looks unprototypical. The perfectly uniform tie spacing, might be best suited to only a few super maintained main lines, especially today, but to little else. Anyone who models wooden ties, and a few decades back, should have noticed that even with rail anchors, ties creep and move. Spacing becomes uneven, and they slide more on one rail than the other, giving an angled appearance.

    I would suggest that everyone simply go with whatever they feel works best for them. Just go have fun. Let the rest waste their time in relentless critiquing.
     
  9. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,808
    143
    It's just a HOBBY !!!

    I admire and respect people who can actually make a silk purse out of a sows ear so to speak...when it comes to different aspects of this HOBBY. I have never played the "Keeping up with the Joneses" in any aspect of my life. I sure wont do it when it comes to a HOBBY !!

    Truth be told...I quickly lose the admiration and respect I have for some when they try to rub my nose in it just because my skill levels or finances arent as good as theirs.

    Be proud of your accomplishments but dont tell me mine are crap !

    It's just a HOBBY !!!


    * Now...I am gonna go out to the old THE RV and run my old pizza cutter locomotives and rolling stock on my C80 Unitrack...and just smile and relax....cya !
     
  10. Flash Blackman

    Flash Blackman TrainBoard Member

    13,326
    499
    149
    er...juat a little off topic here? Isn't Peco code 55 okay for NTrak modules? Thanks.
     
  11. Ike the BN Freak

    Ike the BN Freak TrainBoard Member

    1,367
    128
    30
    Only reason it doesn't meet NTrak standards is because NTrak has to be compatible to everyone's equipment. It has to be able to run all of my equipment which has low profile wheels which can run on code 40, plus someone else who hasn't bought anything new since 1972 and its 3ft tall pizza cutter flanges.

    My home layout will be code 55 for the mains, and maybe code 40 with handlayed turnouts in the yards...haven't decided yet on that ground. But code 55 will be the primary track.
     
  12. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    I wonder how many of the people who "rail" against code 80 track for being to toy like swap out all of their huge, toy like, "N-scale" couplers for closer to correct Z-scale couplers.
     
  13. SP&S #750

    SP&S #750 TrainBoard Member

    775
    67
    18
    I feel sorry for the folks who still run rapido couplers, they probably hear it up and down the wall....
     
  14. bill pearce

    bill pearce TrainBoard Member

    619
    264
    18
    I certainly haven't swapped out all my n's for z's, but I have quite a few. I can only do a couple of swaps at a time or my head explodes.
     
  15. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,558
    22,733
    653
    You have it all correct, George. Following what you are doing with your layout, you would be high up on my list of preferred people with whom I'd wish to spend my hobby time.
     
  16. mtntrainman

    mtntrainman TrainBoard Supporter

    9,982
    10,808
    143
    Thanks... That means a lot...more then ya know :cool:
     
  17. robert3985

    robert3985 TrainBoard Member

    841
    57
    14
    I agree. Use what you want. However, that doesn't belay the fact that code 80 track looks unrealistic. It's not only the track height, it's the tie size and spacing and I have long maintained that track height is the least of code 80's problems. It's also those fugly, huge thingies that hold the rail to the ties. They don't exactly look like any spikeheads I've ever seen on an American prototype.

    As for meself, I've never used code 80...period...in N-scale. Even when I was deep into Ntrak, I used Railcraft code 70 for the mainlines and code 55 for the sidings. I also learned to hand-lay my own turnouts at the same time which were totally bullet-proof and looked exponentially better than any RTR turnout made in the mid 80's and also cost waaaay less than RTR turnouts (I've saved thousands of dollars by making my own). When my Railcraft code 70 trackwork was plopped out there to be seen side-by-side with everybody else's code 80, I got many comments about how much more realistic my modules' track looked...from the guys in the club. They didn't feel like I was rubbing their noses in anything. I was just enjoying the hobby in my own way, which is just as valid as their way.

    Here's a little photo some of you may have seen before of a scene on my Wilhemina Pass/Devil's Slide modules, and that's Railcraft code 70 yer lookin' at:
    [​IMG]

    Here's some superelevated Railcraft/Micro Engineering code 55 at Echo Curve on my non-Ntrak modular layout today with the diverging Park City Branch in hand-laid code 40 to the left:
    [​IMG]

    Here's an overhead view of a bit of code 55 Railcraft/ME track at Echo Curve with my hand laid code 40 Park City Branch:
    [​IMG]

    Balderdash you say? It's plain as day which track is the better looking model. As to the rumored fragility of code 55...I've been using it on portable modules since the middle 80's and I've never had a single problem due to it being "fragile", but then again, I don't drop anvils on it. My code 40 trackage is equally robust and trouble-free.

    Fact...the ties and spikeheads on Micro Engineering track are not "perfectly" uniform and offer a bit of variety as to spikehead amounts and placement as well as tie differences in texture and length. Atlas 55 and Atlas 80 don't do that and the thingies that Atlas passes off as spikehead and tieplate details are from an alternate universe. I happen to model one of those "super maintained" Class 1 railroads, but even U.P.'s sidings are ill-maintained, which is easy as pie to represent by cutting the tie spacers and "jinking" the ties on ME flex used on those sidings.

    The question was asked by the OP what the "big deal" was about code 55 vs Code 80, and in order to answer that question, critiquing is entirely in order.

    I don't believe anybody here has either said or implied that code 55 track is perfect. It's .010" too tall for U.P.'s 131 lb mainline rail laid on those mainlines cleared for Big Boy in 1941. Code 40 on the other hand, is .005" too short. That's a scale 1.6" too tall for code 55, and a little less than a scale inch too short for code 40. So, for variety's sake, and for a more prototype appearance, code 55 is not unreasonable to use as mainline heavily trafficked rail, and code 40 is visibly shorter, so it's great for less-trafficked sidings and branchlines. However, code 80 is a scale 5.6" (.035") too tall for 131 lb rail, which is WAY more than a mere 1.6" too tall...3.5 times as "wrong" as code 55.

    Let's see...no pun intended...but that difference is definitely visible to the naked eye from normal viewing distances. Here's an interesting little photo I put together years ago that illustrates what the different N-scale rail heights look like in comparison to each other:
    [​IMG]

    I hope it's abundantly clear to the OP what the differences in trackage are now. Now you can make a choice based on what your eyes tell you vs your modeling preferences and it's no skin off my forehead what your choice is...just have fun.

    As an added point, I work on my friend Nate's layout on a regular basis, and he decided long ago to use Atlas 80. I give it the exact same treatment as I give my trackage on my own layout. Here's a photo of his Riverside scene...the mainlines being Atlas 80. Doesn't look too bad eh? Frankly, when I did it, and saw the results, I was a bit chagrined since I am such a proponent of using code 55 and 40. I can still see all the faults of it, but...they don't jump out and clobber me over the head nearly as much as "raw" Atlas 80 trackage does. Ah well...live and learn eh?
    [​IMG]

    Cheerio!
    Bob Gilmore

    PS...I've converted about 3/4 of my engines and rolling stock to Z-scale couplers, cut the dongles off 'em and added BLMA Styrene brake hoses. Yup...I'm one of THEM!:cool:
     
  18. DrMb

    DrMb TrainBoard Member

    580
    56
    13
  19. dave n

    dave n TrainBoard Supporter

    2,107
    230
    35
    Robert -
    Those are some mighty fine looking scenes and photos there. They would probably still look outstanding even with code 100! "Realism" is the complete scene, and you've nailed it, your landforms and cuts/fills are very convincing. Outstanding work there!

    And yeah, your buddie's layout doesn't look so bad with code 80 either :)!
     
  20. bumthum

    bumthum TrainBoard Member

    304
    14
    16
    Well, clearly this is going to be one of those topics where no one convinces anyone else. I have seen a lot of C55 proponents state repeatedly that C55 looks more realistic, and C80 is impossibly out of scale. I am not sure that people who have advocated C80 have denied that C55 "looks more realistic" or is closer to scale. What we have said is that C80 looks good enough and fulfills our needs for operation. Typically C80 is less expensive and easier to find and frankly, what looks better, is in the eye of the beholder. It bothers rivet counters when grab irons are placed in the wrong location, or not at all as in the recent Bachmann GP7, but to many (perhaps most) people those things don't bother them and it doesn't make their hobby any less valid or enjoyable. It certainly doesn't reduce their layouts to the level of "toy" or equivalent to Lionel in the scale department, I reserve that critique for very early N scale with moving pilots, etc..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page