I have a (hopefully) quick question: Atlas code 55 vs. Kato unitrack vs. peco? I understand that kato is oranges to my apples to apples question, but.... I have been fooling around with some track planning software and I can never get the unitrack at the end of run to connect up (off by a few mm.). I know that atlas has flex track that could help in that situation. But is there enough sectional options with atlas? I used peco with my last layout and I like it but the few areas of derailment are part of the reason I left the hobby a year or two ago. I don't think I have the patience for and entire "flex track empire". So I know that Kato unitrack is bulletproof but I cannot get some ends to meet without some sort of flextrack. Atlas has the best of both worlds sectional and flextrack, but is there ehough variety. And finally peco, I don't want to make the entire layout of flextrack. Thanks to all that post!
Unitrack can flex a bit The problem with using track planning software for Unitrack plans is it's too exact! Unitrack's rail joiners (Unijoiners) can flex up to a degree, or maybe 2, without causing derailments or electrical contact problems. For example, I just finished laying out the track on a TRIPLE-track helix, using the 19" radius curved track. The track looks great; tracking is 100% reliable. Here are some more tricks I've discovered: Get a bunch of 64mm straight track sections (20-032). If you find a pesky gap of a few mm, take out one of the 186 or 248mm sections and gang up a bunch of these until you've closed it. Get a couple of short track assortments (29mm and 45.5mm). For some reason, you often wind up with gaps that these fill up exactly. I think the Kato engineers came up with some sort of calculation that predicted this. Build easements into your curves for prototypical-looking operation. For example, use a section of 781mm (28 1/4" R) to start and end a 19" R curve. See Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation (Kalmbach) for an explanation of easements. If all else fails, you can use the 20-050 expansion track (78-148mm). I bought one but I've never used it thanks to the 64mm trick described above. Advance planning is wise, but the best way to develop a Unitrack layout is to mess around with the track. After all, it's designed to be assembled and disassembled repeatedly -- in Japan, people rarely have room for trains, so the layout has to be taken apart after operation and put away. You can then run some trains to see whether the track plan works. You'll see immediately where changes need to be made.
Dr. J: The JJJ&E uses Unitrack. Most dimensions can be worked out. Unitrack sections can be cut with a razor back saw to meet odd dimensions that you might encounter. I've used it on the JJJ&E for almost seven years and the perofrmance of the trains on Unitrack is outstanding. I've also weathered, painted and ballasted all the Unitrack on the JJJ&E. Stay cool and run steam.......
That's going to depend on how familiar you are with what railroad track actually looks like. Atlas Code 55 is the only one on your list that somewhat matches real life (Micro Engineering is similar and has advantages and drawbacks. It's a tie with Atlas 55). Each can be made to work well I suppose. From my experience, the longer you are in N Scale as a hobby, the more you will wish you chose Atlas 55 from the git go. That said, even code 55 rail is way too big. If I had the time I'd handlay Code 40...
I am currently using Unitrack and love it, but I'm now toying with the idea of replacing it with Atlas Code 55. I originally planned on using Unitrack permanently, hoping to weather it, but the code 55 products look really nice. If I do replace my Unitrack, I can do so at my leisure, doing a section at a time since many of the curve radii match or I would use c55 flex. Unitrack allowed me to get my trains running quickly and while it's expensive as a temporary solution, I could probably keep much of it for staging, layout expansion, new layout or sell it second-hand. Now if only Atlas would release a double crossover to match Kato's. ~Tim
Oh...one more point about Unitrack. There is a special adjustable straight section you can buy that slides between 78 and 108mm. I have one, but given that I was within a few mm, I didn't need it. ~Tim
Note: I have no experience with Unitrack. Dr. J: It's not that hard to use flex-track, infact, in many ways its the best possible choice. The electrical conductivity is better, and the trackwork is usually smoother. You can always use a template for smoother flextrack curves. I'd say use Micro-Engineering Code 55 flextrack, more realistic than Code 80 or Atlas or Peco C55, and allows for equipment with deeper flanges than Atlas Code 55. I had a layout with Atlas Code 80 sectional track, and boy was it an electrical nightmare, always something wrong electrically. And this was on a 4'x5' piece of plywood! mg: So if you're looking at anything besides Unitrack, (which is Code 80, I believe), that's my opinion on Code 55 and 80 stuff. Of course, there's always Micro Engineering and Shinohara Code 70 track, which is only prototypical for modern heavily-trafficked mains.
I have just finished a 3 1/2 x 7 modified Scenic Ridge layout using XtrkCad and Unitrak... I ended up adding the 20-091 misc track pieces (45.5mm and 29mm) to the design library and those pieces helped all my closures along with mixing in a few 15deg pieces of different radius in some of the curves... Others have already talked about the "give" in the joints and other adjustment methods... I also found joint alignment very forgiving w/o causing derailments... A link to my "revised" kato UniTrak library is at http://home.comcast.net/~pasayten/kato-n.xtp I also have this file posted over at the nscale.net site under their downloads/software section. Happy RR! pasayten
Bob has convinced me to go with Unitrack for my expansion. I am tired of ripping up ill laid track and connection breaks.
That's the great thing about Unitrack... I've spent something like six months laying track (and then ripping it out and starting over) in an attempt to model the Rio Grande's nifty yard at Helper, Utah: The prototype track plans are helpful, and I've wound up reproducing much of the prototype trackage because, darn it, there is a very good reason why certain tracks or turnouts, etc., are located where they are. However, I have to cut the plan down to something that's feasible for a model railroad, and as a result my plan departs from the prototype (there's no upper yard, for example). Some of the changes I wound up making didn't become obvious until I tried to run trains and do some switching. I had a crossover backwards -- dyslexia, apparently -- and had to redo it; thanks to Unitrack this took five minutes. I do understand the sentiments of those who prefer the look of Code 55 (or Code 40!) track. I also understand that Unitrack doesn't look very prototypical and I'm never going to see my layout in Model Railroader. I'm just not willing to give up the ability to play around with the layout design at such low cost. (I've torn out the yard and started over from scratch maybe 3 times so far.) Part of the reason I got into N scale was to get out of the exact scale prototype fixation that I found to be characteristic of HO -- I want to run trains. And that's what I'm doing, and I love it. I do respect and understand why others would choose differently. --Bryan
Bryan: I don't have any plans to build a new layout to replace the JJJ&E. Stay cool and run steam.....
Hello One thing that I have realised, that has not been mentioned before. With Unitrack you can start opperations as soon as your bench work is done (before, if you use the floor). This is my layout (a 3 x7 modified Scenic Ridge) after putting a coat of paint over the plaster. BEFORE This is the same area this morning. I took the track out so I could lay ground foam, and paint the rocks. Track is getting weathered as well. AFTER It takes me about 20 minutes now to re-lay my layout. I have had it running since the first foamboard was down, and have taken the track down and put it back (and tweaked the track-plan) a half dozen times at least Another before and after: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/554/Manistee_River_pre_water_.jpg http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/554/2005_0607Image0126.JPG Yolev
Before I ever lay track, I put the entire plan into XTrkCAD. It's a slam dunk to use, and I can run trains on it to see if the plans works. Check out the latest module set for oNeTrak: http://www.burnhamshops.com/wp/portola.pdf
I wish I could use XTrkCAD but I'm a Mac person and it doesn't support it. Also I think I will make my decision between Kato unitrack and Atlas code 55. Right now I am leaning towards code 55 but the "bulletproofness" of Kato is winning me over!
