How many are using code 55 track?

[Dan Vincent]

I started in N-scale back in the mid-60's and got locked in with the larger rail.

Seems to me code-55 would make a much more realistic layout but then I couldn't run my old Atlas Steam locos.

Most of my diesels should handle code 55 so I think I'll build a test loop to see how my existing fleet handles it. Might need to add a switch to see how the wheels handle the frogs.

Anyone have any proplems using code 55?

 

[Catt]

Dan,it depends on whose code 55 you are using. I am using the PECO code 55 on my big layout.I would have used the ATLAS but got tired of waiting for it.The ME code 55 is never available when you want it.

 

[davidmbedard]

If you have a drill, you can turn down thoes old steamer flanges. Its not too hard, just take your time and use a NMRA gauge to make sure you dont go too far. Then youll have Atlass 55 AND all your locos.

David

 

[tillsbury]

If you use Peco 55, you won't have the problem. The inner pins are far smaller than their equivalents in Atlas code 55, and don't cause trouble even for quite weird old Arnold steamers and suchlike with huge flanges. It's another of the plus points to the peco offering. I haven't heard of anything that won't run on it. The story of old locos having flanges too big is not a code 55 issue, it's an Atlas code 55 issue.

Meanwhile the improvement in looks is huge from any code 80 to code 55.

Charles

 

[Zman]

What tillsbury said. I use code 55 Peco, and even old engines run great.

 

[seanm]

Am using Atlas code 55 on my entire layout and it is working fine... though I don;t have any old steamers I am using.... I am replacing all my Microtrain wheels with atlas metal wheels though.

 

[davidmbedard]

If you want looks....go with the Atlas CD 55 (It will require you to make sure all your wheels are in Gauge)....if you want ubercompatability go with the Peco CD 55 or 80.....It all depends what you want from MRing.

I run Atlas CD 55 and I find it runs flawlessly, but hey, I perfer looks and reliability in my hobby.....I dont buy into the "it has to run everything out of the box or its not for me" syndrome.

David

 

[tillsbury]

Well exactly. It's not exactly about looks -- it's about what it's trying to look like. Peco is modelling the UK/European tie spacing, Atlas the US spacing. Obviously using either one for the 'wrong' area will be a compromise... It'd be interesting to see what happens if Peco brought out a US-model code 55 -- they recently did for HO track which has made a lot of people happy, it seems...

 

[davidmbedard]

It would be interesting to see if Peco came with an American Tie Spaced CD55.......But for looks, Atlas would win hands down.

David

 

[Dan Vincent]

I think I would prefer to stick with ATLAS because they are an American company and they have shown support for many scales, for many years, not to mention they are one of very few companies to support the ERIE and Erie-Lackawanna railroads.

For years I have built my layouts with a lot of caution thrown in for running through switch-points. I started out with Aurora and Atlas back in the mid '60's when there were a lot of poor-running diesels with only 4-wheels powered.

Early steam locos had a difficult time with switches and would often pop the pony wheels off when negotiating switches. Most diesels ran through the frogs with little difficulty. The Con-Cor PA-1 was about as good as you could find.

I would like to have trackwork that is as fool-proof as possible.

Looking back at the early offerings in locos, we are really fortunate to have the present choices of quality makers and road names. Early on you had a choice of one road number on any loco. Now you have several choices and can often have three or four like diesels, all with different road numbers.

 

[acsxfan1]

If you want looks....go with the Atlas CD 55 (It will require you to make sure all your wheels are in Gauge)....if you want ubercompatability go with the Peco CD 55 or 80.....It all depends what you want from MRing.

I run Atlas CD 55 and I find it runs flawlessly, but hey, I perfer looks and reliability in my hobby.....I dont buy into the "it has to run everything out of the box or its not for me" syndrome.

David

Me neither .. I like to have good looking track .. I can always fiddle with the wheels a little

 

[tommann]

Sorry guys, I don't mind "fiddling" a little, but I'm all fiddled out on Atlas code 55. Looks great, but not worth the trouble in my opinion. I like to run trains, not look at track. Peco code 55 or Atlas? code 80 next time

Tom.

 

[SD90]

It looks like I'm the only one running code 80 here!
I don't mind the way it looks, once it is painted, weathered and ballasted, it looks fine.

 

[Tad]

I have code 80 also.

 

[K.V.Div]

My last layout used code 55 Micro Engineering, along with both Micro Engineering and hand built turnouts, My first NTrak as well as my first oNeTrak modules used Atlas code 80 while my 2nd NTrak 2 section module used Peco code 55.
My current Home layout is being built with both leftover and salvaged Micro Engineering flex as well as Atlas code 55 flex and turnouts.
I have used low profile wheels for 16 years and I body mount my couplers.
Everything seems to work well so far.