I just discovered what you guys already know most likely...
You can use Code 55 rail joiners on Code 80 track. They seem to grip tightly, and are almost unseen on the rails.
Does anyone have any experience using them? Good or bad reviews?
That sounds like a great tip, thanks! I'll have to use this one...
Dave
I made a transition track piece tonight allowing me to go from Code 80 down to Code 55, and using the Code 55 rail joiners.
It was easy...all I did was snip away enough of the Code 80 track to match the 55 height, then file the edges and inside of the rails smooth. Using the Code 55 joiners, the two tracks fit together well and conducted electricity without problems. I will probably go back and re-file down the grade change so the transition from 80 to 55 is more gradual. But my three "problem" cars went over the transition area without problems...so a gentler grade change should only make it better and nicer to view.
Overall, I can see why so many people like the Code 55 track. It looks great, lower profile than the Code 80 and works fine. (But I've got a whole layout done in Code 80 so I doubt I'll be switching the track over to 55 anytime soon.) I used the "test" piece of flex track as a spur off a passing track that leads behind a factory. Since it is lower than the Code 80, it already gives the appearance of being "on grade" with the ground and infrequently used...which is the point of that spur anyway.
Hi Herc,
A picture is worth a few dozen words...
[
attachment=2576]
Yes, you can often use smaller rail code joiners for a snug fit on larger rails. In fact, many rail joiners will list several sizes of rail that they will fit.
You can also buy ready made transition rail joiners that are kinked so that they fit between different rail codes and keep the tops of the rails aligned.
It depends on the Manufacturer. I use PECO track, and the code 80 and code 55 rail can both be joined with the same fishplates. Interestingly you dont need transition rail, or joiners for PECO stuff either as both can be joined together (the code 55 needs a thin bet of card under it to do that due to the height of the Code 80 sleeperes.)
Thanks for the info! I'm mulling over taking out about five sections of 30" flex track and two RH turnouts and replacing them with Code 55 - just because the stuff looks so good. As much as I hate to purchase extra track that I won't use, as well as two turnouts that would probably go unused as well, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth it in the long run to see an absolute difference between the Code 80 mainline tracks and Code 55 short line tracks. Hmmmmmmm.
Be careful Herc. That could be an excuse to rebuild the whole layout
Loren
D'oh! Now you've said it. And I haven't even remotely finished the "new" layout yet.
Nope...I'm already in a cost-overrun condition, can't go before the board and ask for more funding to complete the layout. So far, costs have skyrocketed with new equipment purchases, excursion rail equipment purchases, track and turnout costs. The industries that are along the new route are complaining that they're loosing revenue due to the lengthy delay in construction. The LPP city council send memos almost daily about the state of the layout, construction delays and overruns. All the major railroads that are trying to serve the city and industries are threatening to pull their service if I don't get it completed. So I'll have to keep the tracks I have down, go with the plan, and finish this thing.
But, after it's done, there's always the MoW agreements to replace old or worn track...so maybe after a while, a slow replacement of Code 80 with Code 55 where needed, will take place.
