Which rail type for beginners?

[railfan]

At first I wasn't sure if code 80 or code 55 track would be the better choice starting out with my first N-scale layout. I knew I'd like the look and added increment of realism of code 55.......but some of it costs a bit more if one is on a budget like me. You really need to be fairly fussy about scale detail to notice much visual difference between these two types....and I've always liked the little bit of extra resolution in modeling.

In case other beginners like me need to know......the difference is the height of a cross section of the rail profile. Code 80 is slightly taller and works for older locomotives and rolling stock with larger wheels flanges. Code 80 I would guess is the "legacy" type used more in the earlier years of N-scale. Although there've been many other variations of track from then until (and including) now, for most of us...the choice today is between code 80 and code 55.

The Code 55 rail height profile is lower and more accurate to scale in terms of having more ties or "sleepers" per length of track. I've heard it said "everything about code 55 is more precise" which I gather also means tighter clearances everywhere including on switches and crossings which can be good AND bad. The most common issue with code 55 is older equipment with larger wheel flanges (pizza cutter) end up riding on top of the ties instead of on the rails.

I decided to start with code 80 since I could get some of it used for very little money. This turned out to be the right choice since I also ended up buying many many older used rail cars for a great price. Later on I can build another layout module with code 55 and connect it to the first one. The two code types can be used on the same layout as long as you're running newer locos and rolling stock with the newer smaller code 55 compatible wheels.

If money is no object and you're commited to ultra scale realism and don't mind a bit of tweaking to get the minor bugs worked out (there's always minor bugs in scale this small) then by all means go for code 55 right from the beginning.

Mike

 

[SilverBlade]

I went with Code 80 because it's easier to get it "off the shelf". Local shops are more likely to have it in stock. And secondly, while it may only be my perception, but I have the expectation that I'll have less trouble with derailments for the height reason you mentioned above. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. Most derailments are caused by switches or crossovers or lose rail joints anyway.

The best argument for using code 55 IMO is that you have more variety of track geometries. Atlas, for example, offers 12 different turn radii from 10" to over 30" in sectional track compared to only 3 in code 80. This is less of a concern if you're using flex track, although Code 55 has more variety of turn outs as well which is pretty important. Peco also has a few geometries only available in Code 55. I'm not too familiar with the rest.

As for the realism - it's a model train. There are far more glaring examples of unrealistic features on the table without trying to scrutinize the difference of 25 thousanths of an inch in hieght between the two. If I had it to do over again I would take a closer look at Code 55 for the greater variety of turnouts. But I don't lose sleep over it either way.

I am curious if the old timers have any opinions on wether one is more reliable than the other in terms of derailments when using newer equipment (<10 years old).

 

[railfan]

I wasn't much aware of the greater variety of turnouts and curve radii in code 55, but that's good news and it makes sense. If all goes as planned....probably will eventually build a second door module and use code 55 on that one to keep things interesting.