N scale what track to use?

I'm just getting out of G scale (22years) It's too hot outside and I'm too lazy to keep the weeds out of the railbeds. My question is should I use Kato unitrack or Atlas track to start building my layout? I'm pretty sure there is an answer in some of the previous posts but like I said I'm too lazy to look it up. If you guys have any yacht questions I can help you with that.

Thanks,
J Giles

 

It really depends on what you want to do.

Almost any N scale track (Atlas, Kato, Peco, Micro Engineering) can work well. It all depends on what you want and expect from you track. It boils down to tie spacing or rail height issues. If none of this bothers you, Kato UniTrak would be the way to go.

 

I'm going to go the other way from the Unitrack folks and urge you to use Code 55 flextrack... probably Atlas, since it's ubiquitous. I follow this simple line of reasoning:

1) Why would you use Unitrack? It cannot be appearance or price, since these are subpar when compared to flextrack (or hand-laid, although you didn't ask about that) so it would have to be because it's quicker or 'easier.'

2A) If it's because it's quicker, what positives can be derived from speed other than running trains a few hours or days earlier? So you save a few days not soldering; you're going to spend years looking at that track. Why not go the slightly slower route and produce detailed work that you can be proud of?

2B) If it's because it's easier -- is it really? You're going to have to spend a lot of time hiding the Unitrack; burying it in the surrounding terrain, tamping the ballast so it doesn't look like your track is running along the top of a levee, etc., etc. By the time you're done with that, how much time have you really saved? And how much potential for unique trackwork (which only flextrack or hand-laying can provide) have you lost in the process?

3) For me, at the end of the day the Unitrack debate is really a broader question about why you model; and this has nothing to do with rivet-counting. Do you do your best (within reason) to accurately model a real railroad, or do you instead model just to see trains float by in a circle every 60 seconds? You're going to invest hundreds of hours of effort into this project, but when it's all over, you're building something to satisfy you, and if you cheat yourself out of a more fulfilling experience for the sake of perceived ease or speed, what is the point?

So, there you have it. In my opinion, do the job well, or don't do it at all. But that's just me.

 

I fully agree with the previous post about code 55 track. I couldn't have said it better.

 

I am not a Kato user, I just think if it is the beginning of N scale use, it is the most practical way to get started, and then work into flex track.

Not everyone is concerned with tie spacing and rail height, I found numerous issues with Atlas Code 55 and to get what I wanted I ended up with Micro Engineering Code 55 and Code 40 track. All of my turnouts are hand laid. My approach is not like most and I am not so closed minded to say that all layouts have to be like mine. I just figure that the best way to start anything is to start out easy and work towards the final solution. My first layout wasn't flex track, it was sectional because it was fast to setup and easy to work with. I also knew my first N scale layout would not be my last as well.

It is time to stop berating track, each one has it's advantages and disadvantages. Not everyone like the idea of laying down road bed, track and ballast, some folks just want to run trains and watch the trains and not the track.

Look at this layout done with UniTrak, it makes many of the flext track layouts I have seen look bad.

http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=65959

Track is not holding anyone back, it is understanding their own needs that does. So start out simple and work into what you really want and need.

 

an extreme to KaiserWilhelm's argument would be DCESharkman's. hand lay all your track with ME stuff. youll get your modeling fix that way and fully immerse yourself in the question of "why you model." KaiserWilhelm puts forth some good and tough arguments.

i like that link that DCESharkman showed. i too have seen many flex track people lay some nasty looking stuff. im no pro at this stuff (an am a unitrack user) but i can tell what isnt a good job. some ballasted unitrack looks utterly amazing. check out this thread i started with some neato photos and links: to ballast unitrack or not to ballast - TrainBoard.com

i started off with atlas code 80 sectional. found that i had to clean the track waaaay to much to really enjoy my layout, let alone enjoy my $$ locomotives. i do love the "accuracy" of atlas code 55 though. i had a LHS owner demo his ultra dirty unitrack with locos still running so smoothly and that sold me over. i mean, if you ran your finger across his track it would leave two black streaks! but then again, if i used code 55 atlas stuff, one can debate that my little 22x46 layout isnt much to clean either. but then i probably would be having trouble with my pizza cutter wheels then.

again check out that link above for mark watsons stuff (last page)...amazing looking ballasted unitrack if you ask me. rail height? tie spacing? i dont even think i care at that point.

 

I am strongly in agreement with "KaiserWilhelm". If you want to totally disregard the appearance of your track...meaning, disregard ballast style and color, tie spacing, tie size, spike head and tieplate details, rail height, rail color, rail cross section, all those pieces of sectional track you can so easily see looking down the line at your trains...and the cost, then by all means, go with Kato Unitrack. Oh, I forgot about spacing between the rail centerlines, and lower siding height.

If you want to disregard all of the above (13 points) Kato Unitrack is great...especially if you set up track configurations and then change them frequently. But, that's about the only reason I would recommend it.

If you're not going to hand lay your own turnouts, then Atlas 55 turnouts are pretty good (although not completely prototypical in their configurations...especially the #10's), but, they are reliable and readily available. However, do not discount Micro Engineering #6 code 55 turnouts. They're more prototypical appearing than the Atlas turnouts in several aspects, and equally reliable. However, they are more difficult to find, even though Micro Engineering is actually producing them again. I especially like the over-center spring on the closure points which makes a switch "motor" not necessarily essential.

However, if you want to save a LOT of money, then learning to hand lay your own is the way to go. I can build them for about two bucks a turnout, and in about an hour apiece at the bench. I don't have a single commercially manufactured turnout on my layout, which uses code 55 rail for mainlines and code 40 for branchlines and sidings.

I recommend Micro Engineering code 55 un-weathered flextrack over Atlas 55. Here are the reasons. You get more track to start out with. Each piece of Atlas 55 flex is considerably less than 3' long. ME's are exactly 3'...which almost compensates for their added cost. The track furniture details are exponentially better than on the Atlas flex. Each tie actually has a molded tieplate and multiple "spikes". When taking close-up photos, it is easy to see that Atlas 55's track furniture is grossly oversized, whereas the ME track's details don't reach out and whop you on the forehead (even though they are oversized also...just not "grossly oversized"). I also like the stiffness of the ME track much better than the Atlas. In my experience with modular model railroading with changing temperatures and humidity, it was always the Atlas track that popped and sprung when it got hot...NEVER my ME track.

If you want to make your sidings a smaller rail size, ME makes code 40 flex (but only low profile wheelsets will run on it). If you hand lay your own code 40 trackage, even pizza cutters will run just fine on it.

I've hand-laid my turnouts and my code 40 trackage for over 20 years...without Fast Tracks expensive jigs and fixtures. They're not needed, although they may make construction quicker. After half a dozen turnouts, you'll see it isn't rocket science and you can whip 'em out progressively faster. Investing in a good variable soldering iron, a small belt sander and good files is really essential.

Hand laid track components are available at Fast Tracks, Clover House, and (my favorite) Proto87 Stores (yes, they also produce N scale track components).

If you don't want to hand-lay your turnouts, then I would recommend this combination. ME code 55 flex overall, ME #6's, and Atlas every-other-turnout. The two brands actually blend quite well if you paint and weather your trackage. If you don't want your pizza cutters to buzz on the extra big "spikeheads" on the Atlas turnouts, just run a medium coarseness file over the tops of them a couple of times. That works pretty well since they're just barely high enough to "kiss" the big flanges.

I also recommend that you lay your trackage on cork...not on spongy, sticky roadbed materials. The logic is that if you clean your thin code 55 and code 40 trackage by using hand pressure and a Bright Boy, eventually you will break your solder joints with a non-supportive roadbed because your track will bend at the joiners over and over, until the solder joint eventually oxidizes and breaks. This can be really troublesome as the same thing can happen with your track feeders. So, use Midwest Products cork roadbed for the most reliable trackwork. Always sand it a bit with an 8" sanding block to make sure it's smooth before laying track.

While we're at it, add feeders to every piece of rail. NEVER rely on track joiners to carry electricity because some of them WILL eventually fail and you'll have to fix 'em.

I agree that if you're gonna do it, do it as well as you can, and use the products that make it easier to do a more scale appearing job.

I suppose that's 'nuff said.

 

The simple fact is most track works great. No one can tell you what track to use. The best layouts are built with what works for the end user. Code 55 may work for me, but might not be worth the extra work for you (especially given that you've declared yourself 'lazy' twice. )

The difference is in style and application. Here's a quick breakdown of what I consider the popular brands and types: (Code refers to the height of the rail. The larger the number, the taller the rail)

Code 80 Flex (Atlas) - Very reliable, moderate skill required to lay. Not truely prototypical in apperance. Large variety of turnouts. Roadbed sold separately.

Code 80 Snap track (Atlas) - Exactly like Code 80 Flex, only in fixed sections. Easy to lay. Large variety of curves, straights, and turnouts. Roadbed sold separately.

Code 80 Unitrack (Kato) - Very reliable, easiest to lay. Not truly prototypical in appearance (unless you're modeling Japanese railroads). Good variety of curves, straights. Two turnout options. Roadbed included.

Code 65 True-Track (Atlas) - Very reliable, easiest to lay, very accurate to prototype appearance. Small variety (though growing). Roadbed included.

Code 55 flex (Atlas, Micro Engineering, Peco) - Usually reliable, slightly more skill required than Code 80. Most accurate to prototype appearance. (Atlas Code 55 has some compatibility issues with wheel sets, but supposedly its being corrected.) Good variety of turnouts.
​

Of those, both Unitrack and True-Track have the roadbed molded into the section, so no cork or foam roadbed required.

The cost factor between the more expensive molded roadbed track (Unitrack True-Track) vs the cheaper flex track on cork/foam roadbed option is a moot point anymore. The savings in price is lost in the time of assembly and vice-versa.

Usually each manufacturers line of track can support everything needed, but there are many ways and techniques to combine them. For a list of possible dealers, check out our TrainBoard Advertisers.

I myself am using Code 55, and even Code 40 for sidings on my layout, Thunder Ridge.

I suggest you evaluate your own skill level, overall accomplishment goals, and what you want your layout to become. If you just want to run some trains, use Unitrack or True-Track. If you want to create realistic scenes, Code 55 may be what you wish to use.

The choice is yours.

 

Ballasting or hiding the appearance of Unitrack is no different than ballasting any other raw track product.

 

Many of these points are incorrect and not applicable. Just because Unitrack has molded roadbed does not mean the user has a disregard for realistic appearance. In it's raw form, code 55 is much more unrealistic in the same way that many of these points suggested against Unitrack.

Just because Unitrack includes a molded on ballast does not mean the end user must live with that ballast. Furthermore, the process of ballasting track is nearly identical for all types. The same goes for rail color and painting those rails.

A "disregard" for prototypical accuracy is NOT a disregard for realism.

 

I too am lazy.

I have to agree with Mark's postings and was composing the same response in my head. There is one area where the comparison to non-Unitrak / roadbed based is frequently overlooked.
Re-Usability
Unitrak, (and maybe other roadbed based) can easily be changed, re-changed, and changed again with 100% re-usability. Flex track and non-roadbed based sectional track - in general - cannot*.

I'm working on my 5th layout and umpteenth iteration using much of the same track which is now about 5 years old.

Cost savings? $100s and Who knows, maybe $1000+?

* Yes, I am sure there are many examples of those who have very successfully re-used portions of their non-roadbed based track many time.

 

For me Grey One hit the nail on the head, reusability. I'm getting started on my 3rd N layout with Unitrak and all the track has been recylcled, on an ever expanding layout size as time goes on and real estate access permits.

 

Thanks for making this point, I knew I was fogretting something!

I did spend several years using UniTrak until I felt comfortable moving to the ME Code 55 and Code 40. By comfortable, I mean tried lots of variations and learned what does and doesn't work with the layout designs. And I also took the plunge with hand laid turnouts because the selection in Code 55 Atlas is hideous. I also selected ME because it allows me to use the same track for both Code 55 and Code 40. But again, this was all after I was comfortable. But these were choices I made based on what I wanted.

I can admire any good layout regardless of the track used.

The point is that this is growing process, and it is always easier to start out with something that is easy and provides faster enjoyment, than to shoot for the stars and lose interest because it seems like you never get done laying and wiring track.

The poster wanted a fast and easy way to start. This is what I provided.

When it comes to my admiration, it goes to the couple of guys I know that have very large layouts and complicated layouts that were 100% hand laid with spikes and fishplates. In their view, flex track is a toy regardless of manufacturer. Is their view correct?

The whole object is to run trains, not worry about who makes the track......

All this needs is a quality reliable track like all that have been mentioned.

 

I hereby disavow anything else in this post. If quoted I will deny the whole thing.

I expect there could be at least 20+ feet of flex track used in a specially planned scenic portion of the GandG expansion. Still, if you quote me I will refuse to admit to it.

 

Welcome to TrainBoard, jgiles. As you can see, if you get two model railroaders in a room you'll get at least three opinions.

If you can tell us something of your interests in model railroading (e.g., prototypical and detailed track, snap it together and run, etc.) we might be able to give you a better answer other than just simply arguing pros and cons of different systems.

I have used Atlas code 80 sectional, Atlas code 80 flex, Kato Unitrack, Peco code 80 turnouts, and Atlas code 55, and I am looking at doing some code 40 on some sidings and spurs. I have used all of these for different purposes. I would be happy to relate my experiences with any much as I know a lot of other people would be happy to relate their experiences.

Best regards,
Adam

 

I started with Code 80 and went to Atlas 55 for my expansion. I WAS ready to order a few hundred feet of the Unitrack for the same. I decided to purchase about six feet of it including a turnout. I affixed the same to a board and hooked it up. It ran grreat. I was NOT happy with the next step which was how it took the ballast and how much touch up of the same that needed to be done to make it presentable. That was why I decided to go to Atlas Code 55. It was a lot more work per inch than with Code 55, the main time differential (for me) being on the railbed down to the base rather than between the ties. It may be just me, but I doubt it since I am just an ordinary guy without any dazzling modeling skills.

 

And ignore anything Grey One says. People from Boston have been disavowing responsibility for anything since a harbor incident whereat cargo was destroyed over two hundred years ago.

 

Maybe we should provide some good places for him to mass order track whichever route he chooses? Here's a good place for the Atlas products:...

I have no idea where to order ME or Kato stuff on the internet for fair prices. Anyone?

*Edit* And no, I am not trying to be snarky. I just don't know a good place to buy the other two brands. I'd actually like to know myself where to get the ME stuff for future reference.

 

Guys-

For those who are new around here, please read our retailer policy. For those who are not new, please adhere to it.

EVERY time there is a thread wherein a dealer is touted, there is a degeneration into a dealer smashing back and forth among members. The smartest, easiest,, least time and patience wasting path IS TO NOT MENTION A RETAILER which does not advertise here.