Code 40 vs. code 55 - Worth the extra effort?
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 at 2:25AM Recently we have been seeing some pretty good looking commercial code 55 track in N scale. Micro Engineering and Atlas are making a pretty decent stab of things in terms of appearance but don’t have all the votes yet in terms of reliability.
Peco is improving with their line of code 55 though the ties are all wrong in just about every dimension and still look more European than American. Even if the commercial guys get it all right, the flange ways will still be oversize to make sure that every car ever released in N scale can bounce their way through the turnout. So it still seems like a good idea to be able to roll your own.
Code 40 #6 Left hand turnout - Fast Tracks jig
Code 40 corresponds to about 115 lb rail in N scale, code 55 is about 160 lb rail in N and code 80 is over 200 lb. Mainline rail is typically 139 lb so what size rail does the best job of representing prototype size mainline rail? Code 40 or code 55? I’m building this test module to see for myself.
Along the way I will weigh the pros and cons of hand laying and decide if it’s worth having both sizes of rail or if it’s viable to just go with code 55 for main and secondary track.
How can 160 lb rail represent 139lb rail?
Code 55 is a pretty good starting point for representing 139 lb mainline rail because there is very little difference in height between code 55 and code 45 which would be perfect for 139 lb mainline rail - only 10 thou. Code 55 is almost 9 scale inches high but this is not really noticable over the normal viewing distances of hundred’s of scale feet.
Code 55 is also way better than any code 80 track - forget that! Code 80 is almost twice as high as the prototype mainline rail and looks very unconvincing as a result. Our eyes will forgive a little error but not that much!
By comparison to the code 55, code 40 is a little light for mainline rail and would leave a big question regarding how to represent lighter secondary track. What size does that get laid in? Code 35? Code 40 also raises questions about having to modify some wheel flanges, particularly on older locomotives. How badly do you want accurately scaled rail?! Code 35 is really getting pretty delicate too from a building and maintenance standpoint.
Code 55 for the main, code 40 for the secondary
With code 55 as the starting point for main track, what about the secondary? Is code 40 viable (for me!).
Below is a code 40 hand laid turnout. I made it using a Fast Tracks turnout jig and it took about 2 hours to put together. I am quite happy with the appearance.
The code 40 is a lot flimsier compared to code 55 and it remains to be seen if it will stand up to normal use okay, particularly the point rails.
On the right of the picture is a code 55 #8 turnout. Not a heck of a lot of difference in appearance, at least in this photo. With the darker background, or with ballast applied, the code 55 looks quite acceptable for mainline N scale track.
I guess the real test is whether the code 40 looks noticably lighter than the code 55 and can the code 55 be painted to adequately simulate lighter track. My guess is no, and I’m really interested to know if the ligher code 40 track looks light, operates well and is worth the extra effort.
Reader Comments (10)
Great site. I'm also wrestling with the same debate over code 55 and code 40. Any further thoughts on this issue?
Will you also vary the roadbed heights?
Hi Tom,
I haven't come to a conclusion yet. I have a few projects lined up this summer on the small test layout seen in the blog to figure it out. I'll post my thoughts.
I think varying the roadbed height is essential to get track to look realistic. We spend so much time looking at track since that's where the trains are! It makes sense to have it look really good.
So varying the height is easy, varying tie spacing and condition is easy, varying the ballast from main to secondary is not too difficult, especially working from pictures, varying the paintjob and weathering on the ties and rail is easy so the open question is how much more do you get for the code 40? I hope to get my answer this summer!
- Steve
Steve,
I'd like to echo Tom's comment that this is an excellent site; very informative, thanks.
As to the code 40 vs. code 55 dilemma, my thoughts are as follows:
1. It depends a lot on the prototype and era that you are modeling. Some prototypes such as PRR used very heavy rail for their mainline and code 55 would certainly be the best choice for them. Of course, lighter rail was used during the earlier eras, so code 40 would likely be more appropriate for modeling one of them.
2. If you are modeling two types of lines (i.e., mainline and branch line), then the best choice is probably to go with code 55 for the main and code 40 for the branch. The difference in rail weight (as well as tie spacing, ballasting, track elevation, weathering, etc.) will be noticeable and I believe that the fact that the mainline is a tad “heavy” will likely go unnoticed.
3. If you are modeling only one type of rail (i.e., I’m modeling a single yard) and it isn’t one of the “heavy weights” then I believe the code 40 gives the more realistic appearance. However, if using code 40, then one has to start looking at semi-scale wheelsets (c50 or c64) otherwise the wheels will look WAY oversized (too fat). If you don’t want to fuss with the wheels, then the code 55 would likely be the better compromise.
4. Bottom line: for most modern prototypes (and most modelers) code 55 is probably the best choice. If you want that extra bit of fidelity and are willing to spend the time and money (to change wheelsets) to achieve it, then code 40 may be better.
Dave O.
Glad you enjoy the site Dave. Thanks for your comments too.
I agree 100%, it depends a lot on the prototype you are modelling (or at least aspiring to!!). I tend to spend a fair amount of time checking out the local Richmond Pacific tracks as they are on the way home for me. The RPRC runs on lighter weight track of SP lineage. Close by, I also enjoy the serious main tracks of the UP Martinez Sub and the BNSF Stockton Sub on either end of the RPRC.
As a modeler, I like to think about the contrasts between the two types of track. I get a big kick out of seeing BNSF stack trains with 4 big dash-9's and over a mile of well-cars loaded with containers rolling down our modest local tracks as they make their way between the Siberia Lead which is all CWR and the UP Cal-P main. (Right on cue, I can hear a BNSF local with a couple of EMD units over at the Marina Bay grade crossing as I write this. As long as the trains are running regularly, I get ideas to about modeling it.).
I'm plugging away at some non RR house projects at the moment and I'm looking forward to getting 'round to finishing some RR projects I started earlier this year including the code 40/55 module as well as starting some new ones.
Send over some pics or a link to pics of your layout Dave. I'm a big fan of yard trackage.
Cheers, Coxy
Coxy,
I'm at the point of ordering the jigs from Fast Tracks, as I need a few turnouts for an industrial area. The trouble is, it will take months to re-fit enough cars (with scale wheels) to work on the new track!
I'm less concerned about my locomotives, as most of the 'runners' (those that actually run worth a hoot!) are newer and compatible; a few of the older ones can be upgraded with NWSL wheels, but a lot will be retired!
Since you experimented with Code 40, have you had any conclusive reason 'not to' and use all code 55, or is the Code 40 stuff still holding up?
Dennis
England
Hi Dennis,
It's been a slow summer I have to say and I haven't come down on either side yet. I swapped some email with Tim Warris a few months back on the subject. He likes '40 because it is easier to work with compared to '55 and he says '40 has better scale proportions (he says the base is too wide on the '55).
I'm unresolved on the main/secondary issue - I just haven't put enough ballasted and weathered track side by side to make the comparisson yet. My guess is that it'll be hard to see the difference from code in view of ballasting, painting, detailing and weathering.
My two main functional concerns at this point would be:
1) flimsy '40 point blades which may not hold up to a lot of use. In reality, there really isn't a big difference between '40 and '55 when we're talking about point blades this small; and,
2) the need to re-wheel a lot more cars for '40 compared to '55 due to flange depth problems.
The first item can be addressed by careful point forming and sturdy joints to the throwbar (or pivoted throwbars if you prefer them.)
There are more options to consider for re-wheeling - flange depth, axle length, wheel size, tread width, metal vs. plastic and just the basic cost of re-wheeling. I chucked all my non-MT wheels long ago but that was before the low profile wheels became standard from MT so I face a lot of re-wheeling anyway to get rid of the MT deep flange wheels.
Relatedly, I just got some Fox Valley Models 33" metal wheels to test. They come in packs of 12 and 100. 12-packs cost about $9. I'm interested in them more from a detection standpoint for use with resistance paint but they look very good and would have no problems on either '40 or '55 track due to nice low profile flanges.
I'd suggest you get the jig for whichever code you're most absolutely sure about and start there. Once you're comfortable with the jig and forming tools, it'll be clearer for you if the next step is to a different code.
The jigs are amazing in my view. I keep reading the Model Railroader thinking "okay, so where are the articles on handlaying in N Scale?".
Let me know how you go. Always glad to hear about handlaid track.
- Coxy
Coxy,
Thanks for the reply; I've been spending my money on wheels and such through the summer, and have to agree on the FVM wheels, they are sweet. Even in England you feel guilty about being in doors on the layout when the weather is nice.
I'm looking to order the template kits for the first round of building by the end of the month, as long as I can source rail. I planned to buy some on a recent trek to the US, but the best I could find was code 70.
Phased building should see about half a dozen #4 & #6 in the first phase, so I'll be ready to look at some custom crossings by then. Hopefully by the spring I'll have some (working) track laid!
Thanks for the confidence; it's good to see 'it can be done' instead of just talking about it.
You're the man, at least were track is concerned!
Dennis
England
Hi Dennis,
Fast Tracks will have all the Micro Engineering rail you need. Rail comes in packs of eleven rails each three feet. It sounds like a lot but you'll use around two feet of rail on a #6 turnout. If you have the shekels, I recommned the rail roller. It's like the difference between watching B&W and color TV, once I used the rail roller, I never wanted to bend by rail by hand! Mainly because the resulting bent rail is so much smoother on the roller.
On a side note, I'm off on a ten-day road trip with Marto following the Santa Fe Transcon out to New Mexico. Posts to follow!!!
- Steve
I remember the first time seeing code 55 track, I fell in love. It consumed me, N scale became "scale". Since, I have been bitten by a bug, one that is obsessive about my track. I have handlaid everything in code 40. It left me to wonder how I can replicate smaller rail. I know it is starting to get too small, but slightly undersized leads me to look at the mass of my trains. I know, mass in n scale sounds odd, but I'm starting to play with .032" T stock. It's amazing, and I'm having a blast. I'd love to show pictures, shoot me an email.
I am new to hand laying track and making turnouts from templates. I found the discussions high quality and extremely helpful.
My passion is DCC and automating railroad functions. Based on the site discussions I have decided on code 55. It sound like a really good compromise between esthetics and function.
Thanks for all the great info guys! I'll post again when I have something working.
Jim