I can see why everyone seems to like Unitrack. I don't particularly care for it for my own layout design, but it does work good when it's used as it should be. And you guys that have posted pictures of it ballasted do make it appealing. I just like the look of code 55 better and the "flexiblity" of using flex track to suit what I want done. Unitrack also seems to cost a bit more than regular Peco code 55, and there are not as many track and turn out options either. I've got two K1 sets I've never used that came with some RDC's. Guess I'll post them on the for sale forum and see if anyone needs them.
Kato does make flextrack, but you'd need to order it from Japan, as it doesn't appear to be marketed in the US. I saw a link to a webstore with this product listed (and pictured) in a thread about turnouts and street-running on one of the forums.
When in doubt, use Unitrack. Personally, I've moved beyond that, but still have a high level of appreciation for the best entry level track system on the market. It's about running trains, and Unitrack enables that in a matter of minutes. Also, those track and crossing signals are really cool for the kids (in all of us). :thumbs_up:
Kato Flex Track I found the referenced forum: http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=37785&whichpage=2 The most telling part is a quote from an email posted by GJ. This is a response from Kato to an email he sent them. "It does not have a roadbed with it." Here is a picture: Looks like standard Atlas flex track but I could be wrong. Note: I do not spend any time at the Atlas forum and cannot in any way verify the accuracy of any of this.
Unitrack isn't for everyone, but it can be made to look quite decently good: See more at: http://home.comcast.net/~j.sing/Peavine_Layout_Overview.html The major things I would add, after nearly 4 years experience with the above layout: * The Unijoiners give surprisingly good electrical connections, but any way you do it, a joint is a joint from a electrical standpoint, and there will be current loss thru it. * Having multiple feeders to keep the current flow up is essential. Do that from the beginning, and you'll be well set for whatever you do in the future, no matter how long you have the layout. PowerSteamGuy1790 recommends a feeder set to every piece of Unitrack, and while not for everyone, I would recommend consideration of this piece of advice. Once you get your track plan set and start scenicking, it's always much harder to decide to rip out and rewire all over again, than it is to do it the first time around. * After my ballasting, since the Unitrack can no longer move at all, my experience is that I have a very slight, very slow degradation in the current flow thru the Unijoiners as time progresses. I have quite acceptable performance in my layout above, but the current flow is not perfect, even with the relatively short distances between feeders. You can see a track plan with the feeders identified, at the URL above. * That having been said, I have a local N scale friend with a rather large, fully scenicked layout, in which the Unitrack is only painted, but not ballasted. He has much more space between his feeders and gets quite acceptable performance in his DC layout, which is at least as old as my layout. Finally, one can ballast Unitrack turnouts as well: And the way I did that was to make a small thumbnail-sized 'glob' of ballast and 50/50 water-glue mixture, and then with a small screwdriver tip, carefully spoon that mixture into the appropriate places on the Kato turnout. This assures that I would not glue shut the internal Kato switch machine. Whatever you decide, enjoy!
All I have are a few overhead shots- I just started with an oval on a door and fooled around with it until I came up with something I liked. It basically is two scenes with a ridge dividing it down the middle. One side is a rural town with a few spurs and the other is the loco maintenance, interchange track and the branch line up the ridge in the center.
That is a very nice layout. I will be doing something similar now that the train room has turned into the babys room. Kevin
It pleases me no end to see all the great pics of unitrack layouts! Way more than five of us, I guess! :shade: Way to go, guys! My third layout was unitrack from the start, but my second one started with flex track. I have just this week finished taking up the flex track and replacing it with unitrack (same track plan), and repairing the scenery where it needed to be. Pictures are at my railimages in the second and third layout albums. I love the reliability. It lets me play with trains instead of fiddling with track and fixing/fiddling with turnouts. http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=688 and http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/698 Both are "door" layouts.
Love the idea and use of ridge line. You just generated an idea for a module on the GandG. Very cool.
John Your work with Unitrack and PSG's are the best that I have seen on the boards. I like the more prototypical look of the Code 55, which even if it takes an equal amount of time to carefully lay, solder, smooth, weather and ballast, will give me the results I am looking for. I may very well eat my words after a few hundred feet of Code 55 and rip it up and start over with Unitrack, but I am taking the gamble.
Guys, some of you may know me from my prior posts in HO scale discussions. I began as a kid in NY with HO. I got into N as a young man in LA and have been a member of the East Valley Lines here and later the Belmont Shore MRRC in San Pedro..I got tied of N after some 15 yrs in it and have been back in HO for about 3-4. As I am an Apt. dweller I am now getting tired of too small a RR. I was all gassed about the heftiness of HO, it's detail , availability of eguipment , and its long tradition . Now I'm getting STRONG urges to go back to N so I can have a larger RR in the same given space..I've been shopping around and have noted some great new products in N. But I must agree with Mr.F in that ,if I do return to N it will more likely be with Atlas 55 and cork..I was leaning toward the easier UniTrak idea but three aspects stood out which are a tad negative (to me) . The space between ties is wrong for US prototype. The Height of the roadbed (again,for me) is a bit too representative of high-speed passenger oriented track. And, the ends of each section ,when coupled, wind up with ties abutting under every fish plate..Too bad they tooled them up to come out this way..With my pickiness I'd wind up trying to slice some away. But that defeats the otherwise easibility of the system..Thus if I return to N ,I'd have to agree with Mr. Fotheringill above... PS. Any comments/suggestions about the Atlas 55,or what I stated above ,will be appreciated
my next (unfinished) layout is going to be done with UniTrack. I'm looking forward to it as my layout also lives in the shed, and hopefully the increased ability to withstand dirt and elements will help. I plan to wire each piece using the connector method (slipping the wire into the connector, then locking the sections together). My DC dual mainline layout (long twisted dog bone I believe) will evolve by using what Kato pieces are available. I hope to have a large yard in the center which will probably be cd 80 due to cost. Also, my modeling ability is that of unitrack. I mean, I am at that level, have been for years, will probably be that way for years to come. Just wanted to add my two cents. As noted, looking forward to starting. Hey TxRonHarris, thanks for selling me the unitrack.
TRT2 I agree on the modeling ability statement. I did Code 80 on my first layout and after rip up etc. for 6 months and swore off anything but Unitrack based upon comments here as to it being bulletproof. I used Code 80 because that was what was in the Atlas Track Plan book that I had which was published in 1970 something. I didn't even know that any other track existed. I also didn't know there was another way to switch other than the clunky attachment to the Code 80 turnout. I have read, practiced and learned. I think I now have the ability and the inclination to make my new trackwork good enough for Code 55 to work and not have to rely on using Unitrack, trading appearance for ease.
