Decision time – which code?
I’ve spent a while this afternoon looking over the two different codes of track I’m likely to use.
There’s two options I’m considering – Peco Code 80, and Peco Code 55. When I modelled in OO, I used the bog-standard Hornby stuff (or Peco equivalents). Whenever I saw other layouts, I was always struck by the fact their track looked so much better. I often put that down to the fact they had probably hand-built a lot of it. I never appreciated the fact there were different scales to chose from.
I’ve been reading up some differences, and the consensus seems to be that if you want something to Just Work, go for Code 80. If, however, you want it to look more realistic, go for Code 55.
At present I’ve not got a lot of track. I’ve got the Peco starter set, and the oval that came with the Graham Farish set I bought, and some sections of flexitrack. Naturally, that’s all Code 80, so not entirely compatible. Some people said to use Code 80 in hidden sections. It’s cheaper, so that’s a fair use for it.
There’s pros and cons for both:
Code 80
| Pros | Cons |
| Cheap | Less realistic |
| Easy to lay | |
| More compact (shorter, tighter points) |
Code 55
| Pros | Cons |
| More realistic | No catch point available (that I can find) |
| More flexible (flexitrack being the only option for straights) | |
| More points available |
Having mulled it over, I think I might go with the Code 55. Given that my layout is pretty small, I can use the shortest points, but balance that with using flexitrack everywhere. I can cut it to exactly the size I want, and also use it to make my curves at the end of the layout. This way I can have them at some fairly tight radii, and get more in behind the scenes, where I can use the Code 80 stuff. Well, hopefully anyway!
I’m going to go have a look at some more track tomorrow, and decide. I might change my mind and go for Code 80, but it would be nice to use the finer stuff, just to make things look really nice!