Has anyone used Peco code 80 turnouts with code 55 flextrack? I have noticed that the code 55 flextrack sits slightly higher than the code 80 turnouts when installed together. All my trains run fine over the joints but I am wondering if I should expect a problem in the future with this mismatch?
You should likely use a transition rail joiner between the Code 80 and Code 55 track sections. There is a chance of derailment when it transitions between the two.
Peco Code 55 is actually Code 80, but with a double foot, the lower of which is embedded within the tie. I usually run Code 55, but occasionally have to use a piece of Code 80, and never had a problem at the joint.
There's no difference in height, it's all above the tie. I've mixed in both Atlas and Peco C80 with Peco C55 with no issues. A little filing may be all that's necessary.
Use the standard Peco rail joiners and the tracks should line up. Any slight variation can be filed after soldering the joint.
Well, due to my OCD...…….I decided to replace all of my C55 track with C80 track. Not a big deal since I have started a new layout.
Hansel, my comment may too late, but I'll make it anyway. Peco C55 is much more robust than Peco C80. As I said earlier, Peco C55 is actually code 80 rail cross section, but with an additional foot at the C55 height for visual effect. Thus the bottom, or C80 foot, is embedded within the plastic tie strip providing a stronger bond between rail and tie. C80 track has the rail foot resting on top of the tie, secured by only weak tangs above the tie. My experience has been that the C80 rail will pop loose from the tie with the slightest mishandling. However the C55 rail will remain secured to the tie strip until the track mishandled severely, and I emphasize "severely".
"He's starting a new layout so now's a good breaking/starting point in the switch." There's always one horse running in a different direction from the herd. But I always though, "Friends don't let friends use code 70"
Agree with the above 100%. In addition, there is another tidbit that you should know about Peco C80 switches. They were originally designed to European standards which date back to the beginning of N gauge. They do not meet NMRA standards. Specifically the flange ways at the frog and guard rails are too wide and can allow engines and car flanges to hit the frog and cause a derailment. May not happen all the time but will happen. This is usually cured by inserting a .01" strip of styrene on the inside of the guard rails. Use a NMRA track gauge to check all clearances in the switch. This applies to the C80 switches only. The C55 switches conform to NMRA standards.
Thanks for all the helpful inputs. I have found that the c80 track is not as "robust" as the c55 with regards to the ties. Running through the turnouts it seems that sometimes the loco will ride high. The plastic guardrails and/or frogs look a little high as compared to the metal rails. Not a problem yet but something I might have to look in to if I ever have a problem. So far, so good! I am going to put power to most of the track, even with new turnouts the points aren't always conducting current therefore I am going to power the tracks past the divergent section of the turnout, something I couldn't do with the Electrofrogs without additional electrical switches and such.