N Scale Flex Track Comparison Guide

track1Here is a breakdown of the main N scale flex track options available. I personally use Micro-Engineering code 55, not because it is perfect but because it has the most features I want relative to what is available. I’d probably use Peco code 55 if the tie spacing was prototypical for the United States. Atlas code 55 is nice but the spikes cause issues with some of my older locomotives. The ideal track for me would be code 40 Peco style track (where the rail is actually code 80 but half of it is embedded in the ties) with prototypical US tie spacing, prototypical tie width, and small spikes. (Update: there is a new track product “Central Valley N 3001 Code 55 Curvable Mainline Ties” that looks promising. I’ll add it to this list once I have used it.)

 

Micro-Engineering code 55

Pros:

  • Long 36”
  • Small spikes
  • Prototypical US tie spacing and tie width (close enough anyway)

Cons:

  • Somewhat hard to bend into smooth curves
  • Plastic flashing is somewhat common
  • Somewhat fragile

 

Atlas code 55

Pros:

  • Easy to bend into smooth curves
  • Prototypical US tie spacing and tie width

Cons:

  • Short 30”
  • Spikes are too big and interfere with wheel flanges on older equipment. But not really an issue if you just have newer equipment made in the last decade or so.

 

Atlas code 80

Pros:

  • Cheapest
  • Easiest to find
  • Easy to bend into smooth curves

Cons:

  • Not prototypical US tie spacing or spikes
  • Short 30”

 

Peco code 55

Pros:

  • Long 36”
  • Uses code 80 rail embedded in the ties…making it sturdy

Cons:

  • Not prototypical US tie spacing or spikes

Peco code 55 track can be used to make transition tracks from code 55 to code 80. All that is required is a file.

Peco flex track code 55 80 transition N scale flex track 55 80