I had kind of a curious thought today while reading the Atlas TT vs Kato Unitrack thread. If Kato introduced USA prototype Unitrack, how many of us would replace our existing stock of Japan Proto Unitrack with USA proto Unitrack? I know I would, thought it would have to be over a period of time given I'm a poor student right now. I think if we find a majority of us would replace our existing Unitrack with USA proto Unitrack, that would be a major selling point for Kato to actually make some! Guaranteed sales right there. So.. would you?
Unfortunately Mark, U.S sales of Kato products presents a very small total of Kato sales worldwide. Most of Kato track is sold to Asian customers since model railroading in Japan is a very large market. It's a good thought though. In answer to your question, if kato announced today they would produce the track you suggested, I wouldn't at this point change all the Unitrack (almost 750 pieces and sixty five turnouts) I'm using on the "New" JJJ&E for any new design of Kato N Scale Unitrack. If I was just starting a layout and didn't have any Unitrack, I would buy the new track. By the way, nothing in life is "guaranteed".
I keep reading this response lately. But in reality, I dont think it makes a difference at all. That doesn't stop them from producing the Daylight, Broadway Limited, SD70Ace, El Capitan, California Zephyr, ect, ect, ect, all which are American prototypes. Perhaps this overall assumption is why we haven't seen any yet. I'm not saying to stop producing Japan proto unitrack, that would be absurd. But supplement it with an American version for... the American market! We may be a smaller market, but we're approaching that billion dollar mark for yearly sales. (I think we were just under 700mill in 2005, and been growing since if I'm not mistaken) It would be pretty unwise to ignore us. It's not a highly detailed mold, and it requires minimal assembly, it could be a simple weekend project for the skilled guys at Kato. I'd still bet a pretty penny that a US modeler would choose US proto track over Japan proto. And dont forget about death and taxes.
As Powersteamguy1790 indicated... not a likely scenario. However... now that Atlas has entered the fray with their more prototypical looking track... it's hard to say whether Kato would feel their American marketshare would be seriously challenged. If so... they might just produce more a prototypical American looking Unitrack. It would be a stretch... afterall... why tool a competing track to their own Unitrack? I don't think Kato would compete against itself... that would be a lose-lose proposition. As for me... I've got a lot of Unitrack. It would be a close call whether I'd sell-off my existing pieces. If Kato did make a more prototypical American track... the existing Unitrack would be rendered obsolete and not worth a whole lot in the open market. The new track would likely be much more expensive... and... as we've seen with Atlas... the pieces would have to be tooled over a period of years.
Tracks Ahead went to the Kato factory on a recent episode. They had a huge layout that anyone could use for 15 minutes at a time if they brought in their own models, or of course run anything they had just purchased. There were all kinds of American roads and locos in the piece. Can someone explain to me what the difference would be if they did produce USA type track?
Good point, I never considered that. However, why do auto manufacturers produce so many models of cars? It increases their market share. If unitrack was made in a US proto look, I think many of those guys who went the US proto flex track route soley because of the look would convert, therfore increasing their customers, not just spreading their sales across their own products. The difference would be purely the look. The operation and "bulletproof" qualities would remain the same. Here's a picture TrainGuy posted in the Unitrack vs True-Track thread that shows the visual difference between Japan Prototype Unitrack (Left) and US Prototype True-Track (Right). It all pretty much boils down to the tie spacing.
Doesn't one of the Other Japanese companies make a section track similar to kato that has smaller rail?? R
I have wished for some time that Kato would produce Unitrack with US tie spacing. If they would also use a slightly smaller rail size, like code 60, that would be even better. In fact, this to me would be the ideal track to use. Their new concrete tie track looks very nice. I'm hoping that they will expand this line to include as many pieces as their wooden tie style Unitrack.
Not a whole lot... but we make it seem a big deal... The biggest issue is the spacing of the ties (a/k/a 'sleepers'). The Japanese prototype has a bigger space between each tie. If you put the Atlas True-Track version next to the Kato Unitrack peices... the tie spacing is very noticable. The Unitrack is a Code 80 rail... which I've been told equates to over 200 pound rail or about twice the size of prototype U.S. MAINLINE rail. The Atlas True-Track is made with code 65 rail... so its closer in size to the prototype U.S. mainline rail in height & width... but still oversized. So... here's my concern. I've been in this hobby since I was a little kid (over 40 yrs ago) and in N scale the past 26 yrs. Until someone brought up the fact that the rail was oversized and the ties were spaced too far apart... I was content with the appearance of the track... whether code 100, 80, 70... etc; as long as the trains ran well... it wasn't a big concern. Over the past 10 years we've asked for greater fidelity to prototype locomotives, rolling stock, structures and track. All of this push for the look of the 'real thing'... unfortunately... may 'price' many of us out of the hobby. Interestingly... as we make things more minute... they also can have a greater 'failure rate' because parts are too small and fragile in N scale. A prototypical code 40 rail can be done... in fact there are many N scalers who 'hand lay' track this small. While I've never done... or plan to do such a thing... I'm not sure if the effort in the end is worth the potential aggravation of track which could breakdown more quickly than the conventional 'oversized' stuff. Only some of those truely ardent model railroaders can tell us the truth about using smaller more prototypical track.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure that's a real good example given that two automakers are bankrupt and the third is on life-support. Granted... they had other concerns which are not common to model railroading.
Yes i would buy the new track if i was just starting out but not now. As far as the looks go it really don't bother me. After the ballast and scenery it looks great imo. Dave
Joe, sorry to disagree with you, but it's not just USA manufacturers that make multiple lines of cars/trucks/suv's. The foreign market does also. So I think Mark has a valid point. I don't think Kato is too scared of losing their "unihold" on the prefab track market, so until that starts to happen with (possibley) Atlas' Tru Track, we won't see any changes. But if they did make US prototype track, I'm sure it would be the best out there. And if they want to grab on to the younger generation (for future sales), they'de make it with concrete ties. -Mike
OK...Bob (Powersteamguy1790)...sit down...take a deep breath.....ready? I am a diehard C80 guy...BUT...If Unitrack looked more like US track...even I would rip up my C80 and use it !!! (Someone get Bob some smelling saltz will ya!!!...lol) My only other concern is the track spacing on parallel mains...Unitrack is way to far apart for my liking. But yea....make the wooden tie spacing/size more U.S. prototypical....even I could easily be convinced !! (Someone get Bob again...I think he fainted...twice...lmao ) .
Maybe I am in the minority but,when I am switching cars I give no notice to the tie spacing. As for the question..Nope! I would not replace my current Unitrack with the correct tie spacing Unitrack since its a no issue with me..Even after 9 1/2 years as a brakeman and a modeler for 57 years I still don't know the "correct" tie spacing..It never bother me since I am not a MOW worker. I have more issues with the height of the road bed be it cork,Unitrack or True track. .
George: Don't worry.... I can take it. BTW, I see you're a member of the N Scale Unitrack Users Group. When ever I enter that forum, I see your logo posted as having been there. That's an interesting point. You're "die hard" Code 80 yet you're in the Unitrack N Scale Group all the time....:lightning::lightning:
Myself and other club members have just starting building T-TRAK modules using Unitrack, so I'd welcome it, but I can't see it happening though. I would like to see a more realistic looking No.6 turnout that gave the same 33mm track spacing as the No.4 though.
Interesting thread. No, I would not change but my vote does not count since I really don't care about prototype accuracy.
I would like to see a product that offered code 55 rail appearance while allowing larger flanges to accommodate some older rolling stock, like Peco does, while offering US tie spacing. Perhaps one could argue that Atlas has come very close to this with their code 65 offering. If some model railroad equipment builder wanted to take this a step further, why not use the trick that Peco uses to offer a rail profile that appeared to be even smaller than code 55? Just thinking out loud here, but if Peco can offer track that looks like code 55 rail height but offers the flange clearance of code 80, would it be possible to offer an integrated track system that has the appearance of code 40, but with the same flange clearance as the current code 65 offering from Atlas? How prototypical would that look (in terms of low rail head profile)? Would that be a "game-changer"? I am not ready to buy any new N scale track right now, but if I were to build a new layout, that is what I would like to see.
Tomix is the other Japanese company that makes "Fast Track" which is very popular in Japan but it is prototypical to Japanese track ties. (It is also Kato main competitor) But Kato just announced a new Tram and Unitrack line. Here is a photo:
