I've read with interest, discussions of transitioning Code 80 to Code 55. Are there other concerns with going to Code 55, for instance are coupler hoses closer to the ties? I'm planning a new, small layout with Atlas Code 55 track. I'm new. If this has already been discussed, please direct me to it, thanks.
The distance of the airhoses will not change, as the wheels vs cars position does not change....just the size of the rail, which of course is smaller. I am using Micro Engineering and Atlas Code 55 and really like it. It looks better, and is easy to use. You may have to change some equipments wheels to low Profiles, but thats easy to do, and, makes the cars look better too.
The old code 55 debate. well, I use peco code 55 for two reasons. You dont have flange issues like some other makes and I really like their switches. If you dont have any older power with deep flanges then its not such an issue. And welcome into the light of N scale.*S*
Welcome to Trainboard! If you use the "Advanced Search" feature here on Trainboard, you can limit your search to the N scale forum. A search for "C55" or "Code 55" or even "Atlas track" should give you plenty of results from the past. You're correct that this has been discussed many times since about 2002. I can summarize the discussions with just a few words. Equipment with larger flanges, which includes all of Micro-Trains (MT) non lo-pro wheels, will not run on Atlas C55 without hitting the spikes. This is not Atlas' fault--the track is to the standards recommended by the National Model Railroad Association. MT's standard wheels, long a standard of their own, just don't match that standard, or "recommended practice." Neither do many of the older locos, regardless of manufacturer. Micro-Engineering (ME) flex track does not have this issue, but is stiffer. Some find this makes it more difficult to lay; others like it. Availability of ME products, especially switches, was questionable a few years back; that may not be the case now.
What are you going to use for switch actuation? The code 55 switches are a bit of a pain to deal with as they don't have a spring like the Peco's do. I used a small single pole switch with a semi-flexible wire to actuate the points. It also doubles as a power router to the frog and is much smaller than the caboose hobbies ground throw.
When people talk about older locos having issues, how old are we talking about. Will the Kato SD-45's for example which came out over ten years ago run on the code 55 or will I have issues with it. Joe
Joe, I don't have a specific answer. Some engines from the early 1970s have small flanges, like the Rowa 2-8-8-2 YB6 and the Con-Cor (aka Kato) 4-6-4. On the other hand, some of the more recent Life-Like models (e,g, first run CM-Liners of a few years ago) might have a problem. Most Katos after, say, 1990, don't have a problem.
I have Kato SD-45s and an old GP-50 running on Atlas C55 with no problem. My only engines that don't like it are a couple of plastic framed LL GP-38-2s. Mike
I am a convert. Atlas c55 is wonderful. just flogging a dead horse here, but unless you plan on running some 1970's era models you aren't going to have flange issues. Also there is the screw driver trick for lowering the spikes a tiny bit so that even deep flange stuff won't ride up on them. I tired it and now even my older locos don't hit the spikes.
Kind of nice to bring up a discussion like this for newer folks to the forum. I went with ME code 70 weathered track for the simple reason that the ME code 55 just wasn't compatible with a lot of my engines and rolling stock. The code 70 ME looks really great, and with it being weathered, looks just about as good as some of the other track with lower rails. I have Atlas 55 on a couple sidings currently, so it's not a real bad issue. I did mess around with some Peco track at one of the local hobby shops, and they have lower profile "spikes" on the inner rails, so most of my stuff would probably work with it. I saw some of the new Atlas True-Track with plastic roadbed - aparently that has code 65 rail because so many of us have equipment (some not really very old) that just isn't compatible with code 55. Kind of a nice compromise between the code 80 and code 55.
A few years ago--about 2003--I made a list of the engines I had that wouldn't run properly on Atlas C55. I was surprised at how short it was. I model the mid-50s PRR, so I hadn't picked up many of the taller flange diesels. My list went something like this: 2 Minitrix K4 heavy pacifics 1 Minitrix I3 (2-10-0) 1 Minitrix 0-6-0 switcher 1 Atlas 0-4-0 switcher 1 Arnold F-9 1 Arnold GG1 4 Life-Like SD7/9, which actually were just on the edge. That was it. Excpet for the Life-Likes, they were all purchased in the 70s or early 80s. I had a machinist friend turn down the flanges of one K4, but then I went to DCC, and haven't bothered with it because it doesn't run that well anyway. Now, I did have to convert about 120 cars from "normal" MTs to low-pros, and that was a pain, and a bit expensive.
I would add newer Life Like SW8's to Pete's list and the old (70's) Atlas 0-4-0. The latter by the way, is an amazing engine for its vintage. I can't believe how well that little engine pulls. It makes my $150 Walthers 0-8-0 look sick!
I LOVE this little engine! I put a small auxiliary tender behind the existing one, to help it through longer switches. I just haven't had time to think about installing a decoder. It's featured here on my Dewitt & Pittston road: I had to rework the tender to engine connection, as the two-layer metal connection broke very early on. In doing so I added the aux tender. It's probably the only engine left that I would consider for reducing the flanges. I haven't opened it up for years, but I seem to remember the hard-wired scheme would make isolating the motor very difficult. I think this is a motor that screws into the frame from the rear. At its best, it would pull three cars up a 2% grade. But it was sure fun to watch! I also have a Bachmann Docksider that still runs well, once I hung contact strips down from the bumpers front and rear. Another fun thing to watch, especially with the sparks coming off the contact strips as it waddles down the track. I didn't count the Docksider and various other mini-locos. For the most part, they were junk when they were built, and easily junked when I went with C55. Most of them were about $6.95 in the 1970s. And I don't count the Lima FP-45--a true joke at even $9.95.
