Ya, and you would still be further along that I am. George's point should be well taken. Yes, there is a place for the 'Code 55ers. I salute you. But, for many of us we just wanty to do up scenery, track, and maybe some wiring. We won't be in any magazines but we still contribute to the hobby.
I have no qualms about anybody's track choice. I have done layouts with flex track as well as Unitrack. This argument about track is becoming the mirror image of the arguments about whether to detail locomotives and cars or not. Or who makes the better locomotives or cars can also be a mirroring. If we, the non-detailers, non-flex and non-whatever, don't buy the cars, locomotives and track etc. then there would not be the choices in the hobby that there are today. It all boils down to personal choices, and those choices should be respected. No two people see the world in the exact same way. And that is a very good thing.
I do think that one thing that will help a lot of modelers is to really step back and look at their prototype, because what is really there isn't necessarily the way you think it is. On ATSF, in the year I model, they were still really into the regionally-mined dark basalt ballast, most of it came out of the pit near Winona. It ran red/dark gray/brown. The problem with the stuff was that it broke down under load, and turned to fines.... which turned to dust. So the track structure became a rather homogenous image of ballast - you know there are ties in there...but you can't hardly see them. Here's a great example: http://productimages.goantiques.com/115054/2971081_fullsize.jpg That's my own rationale for focusing more on color than tie spacing and how I'm content with Peco. I really admire the Atlas C55 layouts I've seen firsthand, but for what I'm doing, there's just no payback. So the only thing I'd really recommend is to take a good hard look at your prototype and see what's really there, visually. On a lot of prototypes, the ballast dust takes over the main and the dirt and weeds take over everything else - particularly in the 70's. Unless you have freshly installed ties, the tie color contrast is more objectionable to me than spacing. One of the things that really stunned me when I did my own Winslow yard was the color photos I had clearly showed that the ties had bleached WHITE, and the surrounding earth was about the color of iron ore. Who ever heard of that? But that's what it looked like. So I spray-painted the ties a light gray, weathered them, and then dusted them up with the reddish earth tones, then painted the rail. The other thing that was very noticeable was a lot of contrast wherever there was fresh work - either maintenance or changes, which is something you don't see much on models. So I have sections of track and a couple of turnouts that have 'new ties', and different-colored ballast around them.
I see replies to this thread when searching for "New Posts" but the last post I can see is #65 on 4 Feb 2015. This is a test reply.
You made a wise choice using Unitrack George. Your layout has come a long way in the past 2 1/2 years. I've watched you build it from its inception and I commend you on the progress you've made. Shades
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but just bumped the Unitrack poll total up one. My last layout was Unitrack. My current layout is a combo of Atlas and ME code 55. My next layout (coming soon) will be all Unitrack. If appearance were a high priority, I would stick with code 55. That said, I have little interest in investing the extra time to go that route again. For those on the fence, I highly recommend trying both approaches. You may find that you really enjoy spending time laying, weathering, ballasting flex track. OTOH, you may find it becomes "work" after a few hours. Rule number one for me: "never let your hobby become work."
With that beautiful consist of warbonnet F units leading a combined El Capitan/Super Chief, with a Southwest desert background, who is even looking at the track????
Norseman Jack, Thanks for that post, because I am one of those guys "sitting on the fence" abour switching from Unitrack to Code 55 for appearance. You just gave more support to my speculation that Kato (or some other manufacturer) is missing a good potential by not offering Code 55 Unnitrack (or equivalent) with North American wooden ties and spacing. Steve
I just want to add a comment here too that anything I write as an opinion is exactly that and it's all in a relative context because, back in the early to mid sixties after I had Treble-O-Lectric and it appeared OOO or N scale seemed to be dying out, I never imagined it would become what it is today with all the wonderful products available... including Unitrack. I wonder what they would call Unitrack made to specs. as Steve outlined (American tie spacing, etc.). Doug
I can say this, Kato Unitrak and then Atlas C55 stay the cleanest of any track in my experience. They must use good metal in the rails. So, in that way, you won't be disappointed in the change, if you decide to use it.
Kato actually makes a more prototypical track, the concrete tie track. If the ties were brown and it was used in all the pieces, it would be a huge improvement! If only they would bury the rail into the roadbed like Peco does with their code 55..A smaller rail would be too flimsy, like True-Track, even though I love the look of it. Too bad it doesn't come in much variety. I'm using Unitrack for the mainlines, with Atlas and Peco code 80 for the yards and sidings. The Peco small radius turnouts are a real space saver, and my GP's don't mind a smaller radius flex. The Kato #4's are so expensive, and with a little ballast you don't notice the transition. I'm modeling the WV coalfields from the 70's and 80's.
I have used Kato Unitrack for about 15 years and am very satisfied with performance, easy of use, durability and general reliability. I do like Atlas True track because of the appearance. I have used it with Kato and plan to use it on a future layout especially in freight yards and some sidings. I started in 1975 with Peco turnouts and Atlas flex track, but after twenty-five years on the layout, turnouts developed problems and were the source of more time doing maintenance than running and enjoying trains. That is when I started changing to Unitrack, and have not looked back.
Started with Atlas in 1970, switches didn't hold up. Switched to Peco code 80 flex and insulfrog switches in early 1980, used up the Atlas flex in one yard. In 2004 added a 45' x 30" extension making my L shaped layout 24' x 12' x 45'. Very happy with my 100+ switches and miles of track. If I had it to do over, that's not going to happen, I would take a real hard look at Atlas code 55.
