See My Reply: Wouldn't make a difference to me, it'll still be Code 80 track. That said, I'd be happy for the modelers who would buy it, though Unitrack isn't for me.
I like the Atlas True-Track for appearance. I am planning to use the True-Track for yards and the Kato Unitrack for main line. I have already experimented with this concept during the process of dismantling my home layout in preparation for moving. Despite the slight difference in rail height, the True-Track and Unitrack are compatible. Joining True-Track to Unitrack requires, cutting off the tips of the mechanical rail joiner and removing the Unitrack joiner and substituting a True-Track joiner. I found in an experiment with True-Track on the mainline that it required more patience to align and connect, also once connected the sections were not quite as "bullet proof" as Unitrack. Overall for appearance, True-Track is a very nice in my humble opinion. I plan to combine the two types in my next home layout, when and if this move occurs. I have already decided to adhere the True-Track sections together for improved alignment. I plan to use 2" extruded styrene foam as I did on the prior layout. Otherwise I do not plan to fix the Unitrack to the foam or to use straight pins through the roadbed in a few locations. My limited attempt on the main line.
Of all the sectional track-with-roadbed available, Atlas TRU-TRAK has the best appearance. Atlas has a reputation for reliable track. The one thing that has kept me from using it is the lack of an adapter piece to transition from the Code 70 (is that what it is, or is it Code 65?) to the Code 80 track. They are missing some other sections, as well, but I would assume that those simply have yet to be produced.
Jerry Britton might disagree with that comment. As I recall, he was an early adopter of Atlas code 55 track who ended up scrapping his N scale PRR layout because of trouble with the turnouts/switches.
Another view of combining Unitrack and True-track. More of the combo After this experiment with True-Track, I returned to putting the Kato Unitrack back in place. However, limiting True-Track to the yard was a satisfactory experiment; I still used the Kato turnouts and then connected straight sections of the True-Track. For a more permanent layout, I would file the intersection joint to match rail height of the two types.
Here's what he posted to the old Atlas forum: "It was due to a 25% and increasing failure rate of Atlas code 55 turnouts. With over 160 turnouts installed, and about another 50 to be installed, I made the decision not to continue with the on-going liability of turnout failure. I was building a layout to enjoy, not maintain."
I have no experience with the code 55. Still, I do recall that complaint. I have not read many others. Perhaps Atlas has made some improvements. My experience with the Atlas track is strictly code 80. As that experience is good, I am not unwilling to take a chance on the TRU-TRAK. If they would simply produce the adapter, I would at least try more of it.
Micro-Engineering has various rail joiners that transition between different code/height of rail. One transitions code 55 to code 80 while another transitions code 70 to code 83. Since True-Track uses code 65 rail, you could experiment with both to see if either one provides an acceptable solution.
Just because commercial turnouts in your rail code aren't up to snuff is hardly a reason to switch to another scale in my book. I started using ME code 70 track on my Ntrak modules long ago, and Shinohara was the only RTR alternative for turnouts with matching rail heights. However, the toylike tie dimensions and spacing as compared to the ME (actually RailCraft at the time) track, wasn't something I was willing to tolerate, so I decided to build my own turnouts...and there wasn't anything like Fast Tracks jigs & fixtures or even build information out there in the early 80's (except for Gordy Odegard's MR article on how he built N-scale code 40 turnouts). I just did my research, bought my tools and started makin' 'em at my workbench, which has saved me many thousands of dollars over the decades since then, and supplied me with totally reliable and good-looking turnouts after I switched to code 55 and code 40 when I decided I didn't want to be limited in my model railroading by Ntrak's lowest-common-denominator rules any more. But, there's no way I was going to switch scales. N-scale is IT for me, and the effort was worth it, and still is. As for Kato manufacturing US prototype sectional track...even though their US sales is small compared to their Asian sales, part of that is that they make a lot more Japanese stuff than they do US stuff. Of course their sales are going to be more if they cater to the home market. On the other hand, the total population of the U.S. and Canada is around 350,000,000 as opposed to the total population of Japan, which is 127,000,000. I'm assuming that the N-scale train market in the USA and Canada is at least as big as Japan's...possibly bigger...much bigger, so if they created a track product that catered to the North American market, I would bet it would be a very successful move...with code 55 or slighly smaller rail, North American spec tie dimensions and spacing, smaller but sturdy "spikeheads" and "tieplates", a more realistic looking ballast texture and profile, turnouts that were properly proportioned and retaining their bullet-proof reputation...why wouldn't that be sucessful? I'd also suggest they produce flextrack to add versatility, with flexible roadbed to match their new ballast profile, texture and color. It'd take the North American market by storm and cause several other manufacturers to re-think their decades old track tooling and track design philosophies, which have lagged so far behind HO and larger scales. Of course, I could be totally wrong... Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
I am old school, I guess. Essentially everything on my layout is Atlas C-55. You are going to have to drag me kicking and screaming into the 21st Century!
I used to be old school Paul, but now maybe I'm just old.... When I was young and foolish and just wanted to run trains, I used Unitrack. Then I became more sophisticated, boxed up the Unitrack, and went all in with Atlas C-55. It is really great stuff. The appearance is great, the "springy" flex is a vast improvement over ME, and the #10 turnouts are a crowning accomplishment for those who want to move as far away as possible from the Lionel approach. Unfortunately, time marches on, and eyesight, dexterity and patience don't keep up. Fortunately, I never got rid of those boxes of Unitrack. Oh, and to the topic of this ancient thread, I would rather Kato invest in more track options that match the current line than to divert those resources to replicating what we have but with that "US" appearance.
I would only change if I had to take a do over, and if I had to take a do over I would leave N Scale.
fwiw...in my thinking as it pertains to my wishes and whims: 1. they would have to make broader sets of double or single track radius curves (something to go with the ~28" for double main would be ok) 2. they would have to make #10 turnout 3. they would have to reduce the rail to ~60 code at most, with flange space sufficient for older locomotives 4. they would have to provide more variety of degree of curve sections then, I would consider using it for mainlines and other places on a layout I currently planning of unitrak in helix for ease of installing and what I hope will be less need for maintenance kind regards Gary
We are forgetting that Kato make track for the Japanese market and sell it in other countries as a sideline. If American based track manfacturers like Atlas and Micro Engineering can't either make a full range of U.S. prototype track or keep it in stock I can't see Kato doing it.
I don't consider this old school. I also prefer cork with code 55/40 and real rock ballast. It doesn't matter to me what Kato does with the unitrack, it still has plastic ballast. I know they sell the loose rock to fill in around it, but that just doesn't work for my taste.
It has always been a philosophical issue with track... do you want the quick and easy way to get trains running... or do you want highly detailed and prototypical track that takes time and patience to install. I'm the type that prefers quick set-up because I do not have the patience to do all of the laying out of roadbed... laying the track carefully on the roadbed... and finally ballasting the track. For many... these are what makes it fun for them... to me its a chore I prefer to avoid... because I've done it before and hated it. There is no doubt that the appearance of Unitrack is far inferior to well done hand laid or other type of trackwork. Time spent on trackwork is usually very beneficial to overall enjoyment of the hobby... poorly laid trackwork will be a source of constant aggravation... Unitrack strongest draw is its performance and dependability. It most glaring drawback is the appearance due mainly to the tie spacing... and then... the inflexibility inherent with most sectional track. Fixing the tie spacing would greatly enhance Unitrack's appeal for those like me... who's interest lies mainly on getting trains running reliably. Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH Fierce using Tapatalk
