I have used Peco Code 55 for 20 years and love it for ease of use, ruggedness,reliability and the outstanding spring for the tie bar. I am now using the ME Code 55 switches and track for my big yard tracks. They switches look much prettier but all locomotive wheels need to be rigorously checked and corrected for correct NMRA back-to-back measurement. Also, they need a Tortoise motor to switch the tie bar and live frog which means that they take much longer to install than Peco Code 55.
It's Unitrack for me... for many of the same reasons that others have stated. Fuss-free set-up and can be permanent or temporary. There are drawbacks to the appearance and the inflexibility of track-in-roadbed systems... but... there is a significant segment of current model railroaders which want less time 'invested' in the track laying and detailing of the track. I was surprised to see that Atlas Tru-Track has NO users. Atlas has made a run at Kato with a product which overcomes some of the visual drawbacks to Unitrack. If I were starting today... I might just opt for Atlas Tru-Track as an alternative to Unitrack.
I'm currently using Unitrack, and I think it is a really good choice for just about any scenario. Knocks would be looks, both from the tie-spacing and rail height perspective and the sectional nature. Why they do the double-full-width-ties at the ends I'll never understand. Half them and it is a much easier disguise. But at the end of the day there are still too many rail joiners to hide. I still use it, and still love it, but there's an asterisk. It is my personal preference/opinion that to really "push the envelope" (again, my definition of that) requires--at a minimum--some type of Code 55 track in N-scale. I have built layouts using Atlas C55, ME C55, and Peco C55. I would guess that my next layout will strive to push the envelope and will be either Peco or a combination of Atlas/ME. I believe the tradeoffs between Peco and the others is it's absolute toughness and reliability and operating characteristics....it is simply more forgiving and less troublesome--generally speaking--than Atlas/ME. As I get more into the ops side of things, this becomes more important, and at this time I really don't know which way I will go. Atlas hands down looks better and it's not close. And I'm not saying that Atlas/ME cannot be crafted to be reliable and trouble-free. It just takes a little more effort and planning and TLC. If Peco would do their North American line in N, (as they have in HO) there would be no decision.
The only other issue with Unitrak is the lack of a long flexible length. Still, given that I have built and rebuilt the GandG at least 7 times with the same track? I'm happy.
If it doesn't cost an arm and a leg, plus all the blood of my firstborn, looks reasonable and has a good selection of turnouts in a number of radiuses,, wyes, crossovers, etc. then it is for me. Most important do they have some decent flex track. So I have a mix of Atlas and Peco.
Wow, this is a surprising poll. I would have thought that Atlas C55 would be way ahead. I'm a Peco C55 myself for all new and redone work even if the historic work is mostly C80. I've still got enough legacy equipment - along with about 95% MT PC wheels - that the visual difference just isn't worth the fight. In dark ballast, the tie spacing and dimensions just isn't noticeable enough. I think I'd feel different if I was modeling a railroad that used gray or white limestone, but in dark brown/black volcanic basalt, the entire ROW sort of blends together. And on the logging railroad, it's all buried in dirt anyway. And I've tried Unitrack for my son's small layout and some display tracks, and I'm very impressed with it. It definitely has better adhesion and pickup characteristics than typical rail.
With the non-availablity of Atlas C55 in the last 5 years...it looks like a bunch of modelers jumped ship and are using Unitrack...and seem quite happy with it.
Peco 55, I love the switches and the durability of the track I built my new layout with track that was on my old layout no problem
Well I like Atlas Code 55 track but not the turnouts. I like the Peco turnouts but their C55 is too expensive. ME has only one turnout even though their track is good but expensive. My vote goes for Model Power flex which I hope MRC will continue production. MP flex (code 80) has a higher nickle content than Atlas C80 and thus does not need cleaning as often, if ever at all. The higher nickle content results in a harder rail and imparts a springiness to the track so that once curved it wants to spring back to its original shape. That, to me, is a minor problem compared to the hours needed to clean Atlas C80 track.
Unitrack, really is the best track for n scale. Easy set up modular, and can be easily customized to custom length and curve.
Micro Engineering code 55 flex on the least visible portions, and old RailCraft code 55 near the front of my layout. All turnouts are hand-built at the bench. Both hand-laid code 40 on branchlines and ME/Railcraft code 40 flex (with hand-built turnout) for the mainline sidings and spurs. Hand building all of my turnouts on the bench has saved me literally thousands of dollars over the last 30 years I've been doing this. Micro Engineering's flex by far represents the most prototypical looking North American N-scale track. A distant second is Atlas 55, of which I have one piece of flex, bought to compare to ME and Railcraft flex. Although I like the tie shapes better on Atlas 55 than on ME flex, the grossly large "spikeheads" kill its desirability for me. I don't even consider the other "toy-like" brands built to mimic the initial toy track made at the introduction of N-gauge train sets back in the 1960's. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
"The best?" For many of us, yes. For everyone? no. There is a lot to be said for all of the other track options. I would hand lay my own track if I could.
I use Unitrack and I really like it, just need to get some larger radius pieces since I now have some passenger equipment now.
I have decided to use ME code 55 flex track on the mains, and in the yards and branches will be ME code 40 hand laid track. All turnouts are hand laid.
I really like Atlas code 65 True Track. It looks far better than Unitrack, and the joints aren't susceptible to the vertical miss-alignment that you can sometimes get with Unijoiners. True Track's rail joiners won't withstand repeated dis-assembly and re-assembly without replacement like Unijoiners will, so Unitrack works better for temporary layouts, but I find True Track easier to work with for a permanent layout. The problem with True Track is there is not enough variety of pieces, especially turnouts. The only turnouts they have are a toy-like 12.5" radius, which is a deal breaker for me. You can't even make a siding or crossover without a horrible reverse curve and too-wide track spacing. I am currently using Unitrack for my semi-sceniced staging yard and Atlas code 55 for the rest. I currently have too much invested to change now, but if I were starting from scratch AND there was enough variety of pieces in the True Track line, I would definitely use it for my staging yard and even consider it for the rest of the layout.
I shouldn't be, but am surprised at the lead of Kato Unitrack. Looking at MR, NS, and NSR or reading here, you might presume most of the layouts built are striving for magazine covers. It gives a good look at the real state of N scale and maybe model railroading in general, where reliability and maybe portability are kings.
