If you're hand-laying your

If you're hand-laying your track, then all of the discussion about tie size and spacing of commercial track goes away.

It's going to boil down to how big are the flanges on your wheels, and how realistic do you want the track? Given that the "code" number is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch, you're looking at 0.080, 0.055, or even 0.040 rail. I don't know off-hand how those translate to "pounds per foot", the usual prototype measure of rail size, but I can tell you that 0.080 converts to 6.9680 inches tall in HO (1/87.1), 0.055 is 4.7905 inches, and 0.040 converts to 3.484 inches.

Most narrow gauge railroads used fairly light rail, so I'd think code 55 or even code 40 would be most appropriate.

In N scale

In all honesty,....

Thanks

That was the reason why I ask because to me that code 80 really looks way to
"UMMPH".  I think code 55 in HO will look really nice as a light narrow gauge rail.

I wil post here the progress of this HOn30 layout.

Thanks

You do not say where you are

You do not say where you are planning to get your rail from, but if you were thinking about Peco 'Code 55' N gauge track, you might be in for a shock. The Peco rail is actually Code 80, with two 'flat bottoms', one at the bottom, and one part way up. The lower part of the rail is buried inside the plastic sleeper base so that the upper, dummy flat bottom appears to rest on the sleepers, giving the appearance of Code 55.

Ian Morgan

Hampshire UK

See my Wiki

Nick, the reason Code 80 looks big in HO is because it represents the 120# - 140# per yard prototype. In N Scale it is off the chart!

This might help:   http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html

Atlas Code 80

I use Atlas Code 80 because it is the sturdiest. As we used to say " It is bulletproof". Once ballasted and painte, I have had visitors claim that it is code 55.

Also to Bremner it is not temperature. That causes the track problems, it is humidity swings. 

Atlas Code 80

Here is Atlas Code 80 painted and ballasted.

I used Peco code 55 on my

I used Peco code 55 on my last layout.  On my new layout, I will use Peco 55 for all visible track and for track in my nolix (modified helix) I will use Atlas 80, the reason - cheaper.

Code 80,  if it is good

Code 80,  if it is good enough for HO it should be good enough for "N" scale.  I have been using it for year and have never experienced any of those bad habits that people take about when you start to run "N" scale.  So in reality my "N" scale layout is just a narrow gauge HO

Peco Code 55

So are you guys saying the code 55 from another brand is not the same as Peco code 55 ? An example mix a Peco code 55 turnout with a ME code 55 rail .

A picture is worth a thousand words....

PECO "Code 55" rail profile...

Don't use it for laying your own track. It's really Code 80 with a double base.

Code 55

Since you are hand laying your track, I would suggest code 55. Many years ago I tried to build a small N scale layout using code 40 rail, it didn’t go well! The problem I had was with vertical dips and dents, I would be working on something and accidentally put my hand on the track, or place something like a pair of pliers on the track, this would result in a small dent or dip in the track. Due to the light weight of N scale locomotives, they would then lose contact and stall at that spot. People have done it and it looks good, but code 40 is very delicate, code 55 or 70 is a little more robust. I believe Micro Engineering is about the only source for rail, other than resorting to ripping it out of flex track.