Peco TT Code 55 track compatability (flanges and rail height)

[See See Rider]

Hi All,

I believe the Hornby TT track will have a higher rail height than the Peco Code 55 track. Any word on whether the Hornby flanges will be small enough to run on Peco? I plan to use long stretches of Peco's flexible track but am wondering whether i won't be able to use Peco's track at all with Hornby's models.

[Silver Fox 17]

I would expect them to as I did a test and old Tri-ang ran on the new Peco 55 rail without issues.

To go through Peco points I did modify the wheels and cannot think the new wheels would be as large as old Tri-ang.

Garry

[Singer33]

Given the amount of investment from both Hornby and Peco, the mind boggles that track and train might not be compatible.

Especially as I've not seen a flexible track option from Hornby yet.

Also what GWR stock is there to run with all the Peco buildings?

[HornbyKiwi]

I was quite surprised that a metre length of flexible track wasn't in the initial product offering for their track system. For those wanting to get cracking and build some good sized runs on their TT layouts it provides a lot of flexibility, pardon the pun.

Perhaps manufacturing issues have led to its deferment for now by Hornby.

HK.

[96RAF]

This disparate track height compatibility subject has been covered several times already. There will be an adapter to connect the two makes of rail.

Also hi-jacking the thread to talk about stock and buildings is considered bad form.

[ntpntpntp]

Peco TT:120 track is code 55, Hornby is code 80.

So it's exactly the same situation as with Peco N track which use the same rail codes, ie. the joiners should work to connect the two types (unless the Hornby track has a wider foot than Peco) but there will probably be a very slight step in the rail head because code 55 rail is actually code 83 total height.

Yes old Triang TT3 stock runs on Peco 55 TT:120 without grounding *but* I found I needed to open out the back-to-back measurement by about 0.5mm to get through the Peco frog/check rail clearances comfortably. That's no problem with rolling stock but a bit more work on the old Castle classs I had to hand. I did notice the old wide loco wheels shorting across the Peco V rails beyond the isolated Unifrog.

I don't expect any problems at all with the new TT:120 models on Peco track. I have no problems with my Continental TT examples.

[Singer33]

Very sorry to offend.

I haven't had the brochure through yet.

Will leave you to it and sit in silence.

[Hobby11]

Peco TT:120 track is code 55, Hornby is code 80.

So it's exactly the same situation as with Peco N track which use the same rail codes, ie. the joiners should work to connect the two types (unless the Hornby track has a wider foot than Peco) but there will probably be a very slight step in the rail head because code 55 rail is actually code 83 total height.

 

 

 

 

Peco's code "55" is a bit of a misnomer, it's actually code 80 with an extra "foot" in it to make it look like code 55, the bottom of the rail is hidden in the sleepers/webbing. As far as I know it's code 80 as well, not code 83 which is used by the Continental manufactures. If Hornby's is indeed code 80 it should be a straight fit.

[See See Rider]

Thank you all for your responses. I do appreciate that the two rail types could not be linked together without some form of adapter - it was more about how the hornby wheels would tolerate the lower Peco rail. From your responses it does indeed sound hopeful. However do I have the confidence yet to order a ton of Peco track, maybe not. I will plan a bit more first.

[Hobby11]

Very sorry to offend.

I haven't had the brochure through yet.

Will leave you to it and sit in silence.

 

 

I don't think he meant it the way you've taken it, but the problem is we are talking about one subject (in the heading) and that's an entirely new subject, it's known as "thread drift"! The problem is that useful/important information can easily be lost for future readers so it's best if you want to discuss something new/different to firstly check that there's not a thread already set up about it and if not set up a new one yourself!

 

 

Though first maybe read the catalogue, it does mention some GWR stuff in there!

 

 

Hope that helps!!

[Hobby11]

Thank you all for your responses. I do appreciate that the two rail types could not be linked together without some form of adapter - it was more about how the hornby wheels would tolerate the lower Peco rail. From your responses it does indeed sound hopeful. However do I have the confidence yet to order a ton of Peco track, maybe not. I will plan a bit more first.

 

 

It's not a "lower rail", it's the same height so there shouldn't be an issue other than the size of a joiner to couple them together. I've been mixing code 80 and code 83 for donkey's year now and never had any issues with the (very small) difference in rail height. The difference is that the 55 rail is lower in the sleeper base than the 80 so if you put the two tracks together the Peco track would be lightly lower. So you have two alternatives, buy the Hornby adaptor rail or use some plastic or card under the Peco rail to bring it up to the height where the rails align (probably cheaper that way if you are mixing a lot of them!).

 

 

I really should have taken some Peco rail with me on Sunday and compared it with the Hornby rail, we really need to put this to bed once and for all!

 

 

Here's a link to a photos showing code 80 and Peco "55" alongside each other, you can see the height of the rail is the same!

 

 

http://www.spurstow.com/daniel/images/code55-code80.jpg

[ntpntpntp]

Peco's code "55" is a bit of a misnomer, it's actually code 80 with an extra "foot" in it to make it look like code 55, the bottom of the rail is hidden in the sleepers/webbing.

As far as I know it's code 80 as well, not code 83 which is used by the Continental manufactures. If Hornby's is indeed code 80 it should be a straight fit.

 

 

I've been using Peco code 55 in N since the 90s. It is code 83 in total height (I've measured it with digital calipers) which is why you get the slight step in rail height when you join it to regular code 80. Some people don't care, some people file the top of the rail (very bad idea in my opinion as it damages the rail head). I found tapping with a hammer and block of wood to deform the rail joiner reduced the step, but generally I only interface the two types at baseboard joints (no rail joiners).

 

 

[Hobby11]

Thanks for that ntpn(!), I hadn't realised that, as I model narrow gauge and I understood that the code 55 was just code 80 with an extra foot which is what everyone else seems to say! As I said, though, I've been using code 80 and 83 for years with no issues, the difference is negligible. In this case the issue is not the rail height but the position of the rail in the sleeper base which makes the Peco code 55 lower than Hornby's where the rail is on top of the sleeper not buried in it!

[ntpntpntp]

@hobby yeah it's a common understandable misconception, indeed I thought they were both code 80 back in the 90s until I actually measured and found it to be 83 for the "55" rail. It's not a high step between the two and some folk just tolerate it (or maybe don't notice grinning ) but I don't like it so I avoid joining the two on any scenic trackwork.

(hmm I added an image to my previous reply and that post has disapppeared, maybe being moderated?)

RDS mod note: ALL images are moderated and therefore do not appear instantly.

[Hobby11]

The image has come up, it confirms my thought that the main issue will be the sleeper base rather than the rail height. My new layout features Roco H0e code 83 and Peco 009 Crazy track and H0e mainline, I can't say I've noticed the rail height when running the train TBH!

PS: I've just had a phone call back from Peco's Technical Department and they have confirmed that the rail height on their code 55 is indeed code 80 and not code 83. they said it's the same stuff as their N code 55 and they are designed so the rail is the same height and will couple together.

[Hobby11]

Shades of this (who's old enough to remember them! Super 4 to Wrenn/Hornby/Peco adaptor rail!!):

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oqwAAOSwhItjSXg2/s-l640.jpg

[ntpntpntp]

PS: I've just had a phone call back from Peco's Technical Department and they have confirmed that the rail height on their code 55 is indeed code 80 and not code 83. they said it's the same stuff as their N code 55 and they are designed so the rail is the same height and will couple together.

 

 

Empirical evidence says otherwise, and the difference is known and understood amongst N modellers who use the stuff :) Actually some of my code 80 measures at 78. Peco will naturally say it's totally compatible but the difference has always been there. Anyway it's not a major issue unless you're keen on totally smooth joints grinning

 

 

[ntpntpntp]

Shades of this (who's old enough to remember them! Super 4 to Wrenn/Hornby/Peco adaptor rail!!):

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oqwAAOSwhItjSXg2/s-l640.jpg

 

 

Yup, I knew them as Super 4 to System 6 adapters, I used a few of those back in the 70s. I liked the chunkiness of Super 4 track grinning I had some older Series 3 track too from the sets that Dad bought in the 60s.

[Graeme1]

Spoke to Simon at Gaydon and he mentioned it in the recent Q&A. Hornby TT flex track should be available summer next year.

[Silver Fox 17]

These were not originally super 4 to system 6 adapters, they came out a few years before system 6 and were origionally super 4 to Hornby Dublo when the amalgamation of Tri-ang and Hornby Dublo took place.

Later they were ideal for use when system 6 was developed.

Garry

[ukpooky]

Now people have started building their layouts, can anyone confirm if the Peco TT flexi track is compatible with the Hornby TT track?

[Silver Fox 17]

As mentioned above, the two are a direct fit without the need for any packing on either side.

[Clement Matchett]

Yes, it is. But you have to use Hornby fishplates unless you work out at the gym every morning.

I have both brands on my layout and there is no noticeable functional difference. The two DO look different, but I doubt that will be noticeable once I have weathered and ballasted the track. And in any case, nobody is saying that the whole of the British system had a consistent appearance.

[ntpntpntp]

I was playing about a bit today with the two brands (mostly to check old TT3 stock will run through the points once the back-to-back is adjusted very slightly :) ). The Hornby rail has a wider foot so you need to use the Hornby fishplates when mixing the two, not Peco fishplates.

Peco top, Hornby bottom

Very little difference in the rail top height when joined (just a thou or two at most) , which is better than when I join Peco code 80 and code 55 :)

[ntpntpntp]

No problem with flange depth or back to back. Even my old TT3 flanges don't bottom out on either brand (surprising considering their age). Back-to-back of old TT3 needs to open out by about 0.5 - 0.75mm to pass through the point frogs of either brand.