As long as you don't have to look at it.... I prefer Atlas 80, Peco 80, Peco 55 over Kato Unitrack just because of Kato's cast on ballast bed. They all have equivalent tie dimensions and spacing, as well as cast-on tieplate and spikehead details. Here's a photo of a section of my friend Nate's layout, which I built, using Atlas 80 flex but weathering it the same as I do on my own layout, using the same materials and techniques: Not only is the spacing between mainlines going to be different than this using Unitrack, the curves are also going to be sharper. About the only thing that Kato Unitrack excels at IMO is for N-gaugers who like to build a trackplan, then build another one next week using the same components. For a permanent layout, there are much better, less expensive options. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
What did I miss? What did I miss? Just in case anyone is curious as to what I use and hasn't heard me shout out before. Here goes. I use code 80, Atlas and Peco Flex Track, Peco Insulfrog and Electrofrog SWITCHES, Unitrack #6 Switches and some sectional track in the hidden staging yard. I use code 80 because I can't find wheel replacements more appropriate to the standards I operate and I want to be able to run some of my pizza cutters. As we say on certain websites and blog. It's your railroad, you make the rules and you set the standard. Jim 157, would have me remind you that "Rule number one is to have fun". I built my layout to please myself and not you or anybody else. I suggest you do the same. And yes it matters to me...and no one else need concern themselves with my layout. Of course, always delighted when you do appreciate it. Did I get my point across... I said with a GRIN and seriousness in my eyes! Have fun! [video=youtube;53YnMjPZodo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53YnMjPZodo[/video] Thanks to Bruce Arbomambo, for making the last shots of the Santa Fe Express box cars possible. [video=youtube;ZjTxDRg5kYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjTxDRg5kYU#t=34[/video] Courtesy of John A. Thanks John, for shooting the video. A work in progress and at a dead standstill as I write. Hoping that will change as the weather temperatures climb up into the comfortable, warmer levels. Now go build the layout of your dreams...your way.
Bob, In defense of code 80 Atlas, a number of years ago, I saw a modular layout in the Minneapolis area where one module was built by Scott Seekins, who was a regular contributor to N Scale in the early days, and a remarkable prototype modeler. I ask him was that code 55, and the answer was NO, code 80. He had carefully painted it and it looked more scale than any track I've seen before or since.
Scott was truly an artist and craftsman in the early N-scale days...and is still an artist, quite popular and a cult figure in his home-city (google "finding scott seekins") of Minneapolis. When I did Nate's layout several years ago, I was quite surprised at what painting, proper ballasting and weathering could do for Atlas 80 track. If yer not into trying to make your track look semi-realistic (that's about as good as it's gonna get no matter what you do in N-scale), then it really doesn't matter...just run trains and have fun. BUT, a lot can be done with most track brands, even Kato Unitrack, with painting, weathering and yes...ballasting...and you can still run trains and have fun. Some of the work of David K. Smith with his tiny urban layouts using Kato Unitrack is phenomenal. I miss him...hope he comes back. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
As a guy with a 'primarily' existing C80 layout.... not all C80 is created equal, either. If you go WAY back, there is some particularly massive non-Atlas out there that makes even Atlas C80 look small - I think it was done by Trix. I still have some scraps and some track in my staging yard. Wow. The Atlas C80 I used on most of my layout was 'stiff', but we're talking early 80's. It has held up very well, but I also did a lot of addition of jumpers to the switches, trimming back the frogs, and grinding switchpoints sharp - as well as moving everything to under-table solenoids or Tortise machines. That's C80, but it's not out of the box C80, for sure. And it's painted, weathered, and ballasted to tie-top. For close-up shots the Peco C55 still looks nicer. But the 'springy' Atlas C80 flextrack is a different animal. That stuff can be subject to some pretty massive changes is gauge if you're soldering it in as the ties allow a lot of slop. I've seen it get tight enough on curves that it had to be cut with a disk to relieve it and regauge it. It's not the end-all for error-free operating. Peco C55 is a lot stiffer, which also means it's a lot harder to lay, and you're going to do extra work at every joint to fit in end-joint ties to make it look OK. But it's rock-solid once it's in there. For C80 on small portable layouts, I've soldered up sectional track and have had excellent results. It holds gauge well. For anything 11" or smaller, I this is the way to do it as getting flex down to that radius is really, really hard without kinking a curve or tightening gauge. All the hidden track on my current logging module is done that way, and I'm very pleased with it. I've also converted sectional track to flex or changed curve radii by cutting ties under sectional track and that works. My 'modular standard' so that my bigger layout remained portable was that every piece of flex terminated on a short piece of sectional to cross table joints - that made sure that gauge and surface held up, and it has. It was tempting to simply lay across the table joints, but I didn't and that's allowed the current layout to be relocated three times.
