Track Code

[Whammo]

When looking around I see that the available track for TT 120 is - Hornby code 80 Tillig code 83 and Peco code 55. I am a newbie and find this all rather confusing. Are these all compatible with each other or do you have to build your layout in one particular code or can you mix and match. Do the loco’s available run on all of these codes.

[P-Henny]

The Code number defines the height of a rail in 1000ths of an inch.

Code 100 is 100/1000 of an inch which equals 1/10 of an inch.

Code 83 is 83/1000 of an inch and so on.

So Code 55 would be about half the height of Code 100 rail.

So if you try plugging different code rails together, you will get a step in the height of the rail. The bigger the step then the higher the risk of derailment.

To minimise risk of issues, you need to have some form of adaptor when joining rails of different heights. These could be short adaptor tracks in the case of 00 track products OR perhaps adaptor rail joiners where the step change trying to be converted is minimal. As to what adapter parts, if any, are available for TT track brands I couldn't say. In my opinion, it would be wise to choose a track Code and stick with it, rather than 'picking & mixing'.

In the 00 world, some old Triang products had wheels with deep flanges and would only run properly on Code 100 track. But in the TT world I believe that the new Hornby TT products will run on any Code TT track down to Code 55, but this needs a TT expert to confirm.

[Fishmanoz]

But to make it more confusing:

• Peco code 55 is really code 80 with part of the rail hidden. It is compatible with Hornby code 80.
• Tillig code 83 is said to be compatible too. Have yet to see it for myself.

And yes, your locos will run on all of these tracks.

[Whammo]

Thanks for the explanation PH and thanks Fishy for that. So am I right in thinking Fishy that I could use Peco flexi track and Hornby fixed track together, it’s just that Hornby don’t appear to have flexi track at this time and obviously Peco do and it would be much easier using flexi track in long straights, long corners, but sticking with Hornby for things like points

[Fishmanoz]

My understanding is that some are using Peco flexi and Hornby points. Hornby points have the advantage they are half the price of other manufacturer’s offerings.

Then some have gone all Peco to avoid insulfrog points (read Hornby) as they are not best practice, particularly for DCC.

I have Tillig flexi on order to try out for myself. I’m in 2 minds on points. I have some Hornby on order but may also try Tillig electrofrog with the same Geometry as Hornby.

Hornby are certainly losing sales longer term by not having its full range available, particularly the flexi. People who go with other brands now are likely to stick with them.

[ntpntpntp]

But to make it more confusing:

Peco code 55 is really code 80 with part of the rail hidden.

 

 

Ah but it isn't, it's more like code 83 in total height - I've been using the stuff in N since the 90s grinning That's why you get a slight step when you join it to Peco N code 80 (and some of their older rail measures as code 78 which makes it worse!) This is well known among N modellers. The batch of Peco TT:120 track I bought recently is exactly the same code 83 (ish).

I don't have any Hornby track yet but I do have some old Tillig which comes out at around 81- 82.

So Peco joined to Tillig seems quite good with hardly any step. Have to use Tillig joiners though as the foot of the Tillig rail is too wide for Peco joiners. As I say I'm talking about older Tillig track, can't comment on the latest stuff.

We are only talking about a few thou difference, you may not notice, but I will certainly be applying wood block and hammer taps to deform the rail joiners and remove the step where necessary. I WON'T be filing the rail as that ruins the top surface.

 

 

 

 

[Clement Matchett]

The problem with mix-and-matching Hornby TT120 and Peco 120 is that though the rails match in height, the fish plates don’t match in width.

Hornby fish plates will slide onto the Peco track, but not vice versa - the Peco rail is about 0.3mm narrower at the track bed.

You might need to pinch the Hornby fishplates up a bit, but the real problem is that they aren’t available unless you take them from the set track from The Scotsman.

So if you want to mix and match, you have to do it in biggish blocks, or hope you live long enough for TT120 stuff from Hornby to come into stock.

I hope I do….

[Rallymatt]

I have gone fully Peco TT 120 but for many years they have been my track of choice, I like the longer points, UniFrog design and everything else can be made in flexi track. They are still slow at getting other track pieces out though. In the end I haven’t waited.

Im sure SK mentioned a track adapter to work with Peco’s code 55 track, although the actual metal rail is code 80, the visible part is 55 and the joiners attach in an groove rolled in the part above the hidden section in the sleepers. Hornby’s track looks good, better than the OO stuff and amazing value. If it had been available in Oct I would probably have gone that route.

Something to remember, the fishplates are only a piece of thin folded metal, with will yield to any rail with some work, but as NTPx3 wisely says, never ever file the rail head surface!

[david_watts1]

Hornby fishplates are available, I have a packet. I think I saw somewhere though that you are better using Peco N gauge ones to connect Hornby to Peco.

[Hobby11]

But to make it more confusing:

Peco code 55 is really code 80 with part of the rail hidden.

Ah but it isn't, it's more like code 83 in total height - I've been using the stuff in N since the 90s

 

 

And Peco will tell you that it is code 80! We've had this discussion before!! Peco make all their track themselves so i suppose there could be very slight differences in rail depth from different batches but they will be small, as your comment about code 78 shows, all mine, when measured have been code 80.

 

 

I've been running Roco and Tillig code 83 with Peco code 80 rails together for 40 years or so without any issues in H0e. Yes there is a slight difference but it's tiny and if you are that fussed it's easy to round off the code 83 rail to make the transition smoother. Same would apply to any code 78 if you are unlucky to get some of that.

 

 

The fishplates issue is due to the cross section of the rail, Tillig (and Roco!) have a wider "foot" than Peco and from what's been said so far it would appear that Hornby have followed Tillig in this. That means that if you connect Hornby to Peco using Hornby fishplates you'll have a loose joint on the Peco side. That will mean that you could have conductivity problems. As said it's best to use Peco fishplates for the connection, though they will have to be pushed hard to go onto the Hornby rail. Or you could crimp up the Hornby fishplate on the Peco rail to make it a tighter fit.

[Too Tall]

Hornby fishplates are available, I have a packet. I think I saw somewhere though that you are better using Peco N gauge ones to connect Hornby to Peco.

 

 

To confim Hobby's post:

I purchased some Peco TT/N/00-9 labeled fishplates, they don't fit Hornby TT.

The Hornby fishplates fit the Tillig Code 83 flex track I bought perfectly, there is a tiny height difference but it is small enough to be easily rectified. I haven't got any rolling stock yet, so cant test it to see if it needs "rectifying" or not blush

Pic below with hornby fishplate on furthest rail. (right click pic and select "open image in new tab" to see image in full size).