Code 55 versus Code 80

[Dave V]

My recent "Enola Yard" expansion project uses Atlas N scale code 55 track.  I often wish I'd used code 55 on the original HCD layout, but I didn't.  Nevertheless, the code 80 track only really bothered me in close-up photos.  It always looked just fine to my naked eye...  until now.

The joint below is a "brute force" joint, i.e., I crushed code 80 joiners and soldered the 55 on top.  You can see where my heat sink slipped and I melted a bit of tie.  Code 80 (left) and code 55 (right):





The difference is profound.  Profound enough that I'm now bothered by the original layout.  Two more pictures illustrate the difference (code 55 first then code 80)...  First are the arrival/departure tracks for Enola:



Second is the east end of Lewisport:



I make no judgements as to others' choices of track, but I am clearly committed now to Atlas code 55.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

It's interesting. The 80 doesn't look so bad from the higher perspective (the general perspective we usually have), but when you look at it from the lower angle, it really does start to look rough.

I had never thought about the angle vs perception issue before.

[Dave V]

Honestly, it becomes a dangerous game.  Now, as I look at cars in my half-finished yard, ride-height and truck-mounted couplers look out of place now that the track is more to scale!

Argh!

Maybe I should switch to HO... ;D

Naaaah..

[ChrisNH]

I have a friend with a double deck HO layout. He had a lot of code 100 track he got dirt cheap.. so he did the bottom deck with code 100 and the top deck with code 83. The angle looking down on the lower deck makes it really hard to notice the out sized rail compared to the top deck. The top deck, being eye level, really benefits from the small rail.

Personally, the biggest issues I have with over sized rail are that they make the track gauge look narrower then it is (to me, anyway) and locomotives lose that "huge machine on a ribbon of steel" look. Neither of these is an issue looking down.

I plan to experiment with code 40 to see how it looks and how much of a hassle it is to put down. It more closely resembles the 112 lb rail of my prototype.

Chris

[tom mann]

There is a post on atlas about this too.

[Dave V]

Yep, I posted it on a couple of forums.  I'm feeling like sharing my belated epiphany about code 55.

[Iain]

My problem is that for all the railroads I like, even code 40 is too big.

[Ian MacMillan]

Hands down why I only use C80 for the hidden staging yard...

After seeing a very well detailed C80 years ago still could not get past the track looking outta place after seeing C55. For me its C55 all the way...until someone does RTR C40 that is!

[davefoxx]

For me its C55 all the way...until someone does RTR C40 that is!

This is what I believe, too!  If someone ever offered good quality Code 40 trackwork with a line of products that's equivalent to the offerings in the Atlas Code 55 line, I would scarf it up and never look back.  I wouldn't even mind if I were required to replace the wheelsets on my diesel locomotives.  Fox Valley wheelsets, I presume, would not be a problem, and I already use those.

Code 80 has always bothered me, because although as Ed noticed, one is generally looking down on it, the problem is with photographs from track level, as pictures often are.  A still shot also allows the viewer to focus more on the subject, with, to me, the Code 80 just screaming at you.  That's my opinion, anyway, but I don't mean to denigrate anyone who has used it or enjoys it.  I mean, c'mon, as Red Green says, "We're all in this together."

Dave

[TiVoPrince]

Code80
misses the mark in two profound ways when placed near Code55.

From a low angle the physical rail height spoils the scene.

From high above the oversized ties ruin the effects.

Code80 is a scene destroyer if better track is present.  There is nothing wrong with Code80 but its best placement is in areas without scenery like staging...

Disclaimer:
This post contains my personal opinion and it is provided freely but without warranty of any kind.  I have not been compensated by The League of Code55 Users or Coalition to Stamp out Code80 nor do I endorse or condone thier actions...

[asciibaron]

Honestly, it becomes a dangerous game.  Now, as I look at cars in my half-finished yard, ride-height and truck-mounted couplers look out of place now that the track is more to scale!

do you now understand my frustrations?

[Dave V]

Honestly, it becomes a dangerous game.  Now, as I look at cars in my half-finished yard, ride-height and truck-mounted couplers look out of place now that the track is more to scale!

do you now understand my frustrations?

LOL!  You took my bait! ;D

Steve, I don't actually disagree that there are many shortcomings in N scale relative to HO.  You're quite correct in observing N scale as still having legacy compromises so ingrained that it continues to hold the scale back (truck-mounted couplers being a big one). 

BUT...  at the moment I'm willing to accept them because all of the other reasons I'm in N scale (room, portability, etc.) outweigh the compromises.

[asciibaron]

BUT...  at the moment I'm willing to accept them because all of the other reasons I'm in N scale (room, portability, etc.) outweigh the compromises.

but they are eating at you. mhuahahaha

[Zox]

The difference is profound.

Honestly, I looked at these two pictures and thought "the difference is almost unnoticeable."

And now I'm sure I'm about to be "educated" by everyone else...

[Dave V]

Zox,

The rail height is less obvious than the tie size and spacing in all but close-up shots at track level.  The tie spacing alone makes a big difference to the naked eye.  The rail height not quite so much.