I'm not Doug, but no, it's not acceptable for me. The rail height is obviously disproportionately tall, the ties are noticeably shorter than North American prototype ties, they're also way too far apart for mainline trackage. When I first look at it, my brain computes that it's a larger scale's narrow gauge track...but I think that about every other manufacturer's track other than Atlas 55 and Micro Engineering 70/55/40. However, it's a pretty good job of ballasting over the funky cast-on plastic Kato representation of ballast and definitely DOES improve the pure-stock appearance. Here's what's generally acceptable for me: That's RailCraft code 55 on the superelevated mainlines in the background, with custom-mixed real-rock ballast screened to the right size, and hand-laid code 40 PCB/wooden tie track in the foreground on the the Park City Branchline. I get together with my good friend Nate every Thursday to work on his layout which is exclusively Atlas 80 flex with Peco turnouts. I've laid a lot of track for him, and although I wouldn't have it on my layout, we still have a helluva good time...as do the others in the operating crew when we get together to run trains or just shoot the bull. Everybody has their own tastes as to what's important for them in this hobby, which is one of the really interesting and good things about it. I enjoy the discussion here about what some people find important as far as track is concerned and what a divergent group we are. I think it's good for the hobby to have a friendly discussion like we're having here. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
I have to say I am surprised by the number of people using Kato Unitrack. I was expecting a higher number of people using Peco Code 55 too and was surprised to see as many Atlas Code 80 people when all I ever see are people complaining about the rail height. For this reason I expected Peco Code 55 to be higher since it used code 80 rail but buried in the ties to code 55 height making the Peco Code 55 tough as nails. John
IMO...I think people are going for the reliabilty of Unitrack. When there are so many complaints all over the place about problems with turnouts in particular in most other brands...regardless of code...Unitrack wins hands down. Some will argue about handlaying their own turnouts and thus the reliabilty is in their hands. Remember however that there are more people that dont have nor want to attempt those skills. Manufactures skills trumps even handlaying to most.
One other thing you have to remember about code 80 vs code 55 is there are a lot of years of rolling stock out there that still have pizza cutter wheels that don't play well with Atlas code 55 track. How many thousands of Kadee/Microtrains collections still run on their original pizza cutter wheels? I am also using Kato Unitrack because my entire layout will be T-Trak modules. I am converting all of my rolling stock to the new standard flange wheels or FVM metal wheels because it looks better than the pizza cuter wheel sets.I also don't have a lot of rolling stock right now since I just got back into N Scale about 6 months ago. If I ever do build a permanent layout it will be with ME code 55 flex and I will try my hand at some hand laid turnouts hboy:
I'm not as fussy as Bob so I think that looks OK, Mike, but then I think, "Why use track with integral ballast if you are going to cover it anyway?" It's pretty expensive. I think the drawback with Peco track is the tie spacing and cost. It is very well-made but most people see the cost difference between Atlas and Peco and the decision is swayed. Doug
I wasn't arguing one way or the other. I was just saying that those two factors may be the reason more Peco use is not indicated in the poll. John expressed surprise at that. Doug
I can remember this same debate from 10 years ago when I was first looking for track for the original GandG. It has not changed one iota since then. I chose Unitrack because of its ease of use. I'm glad I did. Seems there is something for everyone.
Right now, I can't have a permanent layout. So, I chose Unitrack for its reliability. Frankly, I think it looks better than most of the direct competitors' sectional tracks, too. But, when I get the chance, I want a highly landscaped and detailed layout. I just don't feel like making that effort only to have Unitrack running through it. I can paint rails and ties and ballast over sectional gaps, but the tie spacing and rail height don't look close enough for me to feel right about them in the rest of the scene. So, I am reading polls like this to see what my various C55 options involve. I understand that the Peco C55 track has the rigidity of C80 rail due to the trick of buring part of the rail in the ties. But, I read in another thread about Peco turnouts having unusually wide flangeways that caused some fine-scale wheels on pilot trucks to repeatedly derail. So, I am wondering about the reliability of Peco turnouts. Any explanatory comments? But, one thing that sticks out from this type of survey is how dominant Unitrack is and what about it is driving some people to NOT use it. If Kato chose to build a line of Unitrack with C55 rail, used North American tie length and spacing, and added a visually compatible flex track and curved turnouts, they would take just about all of the n-scale track business in the U.S. And, many of us that have their exisiting C80 track sections would be back in the market buying that new C55 Unitrack. Hopefully, somebody in Japan will see the business opportunity just waiting here, and fulfill my wish.
ME code 70 pre-weathered. Looks great, and even though the flex track is a bit of a pain to bend and get the ties spaced right, once it is bent it stays that way until you adjust it. Makes transitioning to some of the old Atlas code 80 turnouts no big deal. And code 70 allows me to run older locos and rolling stock!
This has been interesting! I have stock piled a bunch of ME 55 flex track for the future NPBH. On the test layout I have used a combination of switches and have been impressed with the Peco the most. positive point movement and contact, so the engines don't hesitate or skip a beat. The others I have are a combination of Atlas, Shinohara, ME and older Life-Like stuff. The Shinohara 80 work well as do the ME's. I have worked thru the bad LL stuff and eliminated problem children as necessary. I can definitely see the advantages of the Kato if you want a portable layout tho. A friend here in town has used Bachman EZ track and hasn't had any troubles yet, and he loves the power routing switches. Mike- your track looks awesome. Robert- wow! That track looks awesome too, but definitely more work involved in it. To all- my RR, my rules and tastes. Hope you are as happy with your trains as I am with mine!!
I've used RailCraft (Micro Engineering) code 70 track quite extensively when I was involved with Ntrak years ago. I agree that transitioning to code 80 was "no big deal" and it looked exponentially better than any code 80 track out there. I decided at that point to learn how to build my own code 70 turnouts and code 55 turnouts as my extensive Ideal Concrete Plant industrial sidings were all RailCraft code 55. One thing that became evident very quickly was that it's not the height of the rail that makes the biggest difference in the appearance of track...it's the ties. Yup. It's all about the ties. I had groups of Ntrakers stopping at my 12' of dedicated modules asking me what I'd done to make the track look so realistic. It was quite revolutionary for Ntrak in the 1980's, and not a single remark was about the rail height. Additionally, it also became quite clear that RailCraft flex and code 55 hand-laid turnouts would also run pizza-cutter wheelsets...which were normal wheelsets at the time...without any interference. Here's a photo of a section of those old Ntrak modules which some of you have seen before. Code 70 RailCraft flex...but when I look at it, I don't notice the high rail...it's all about the ties: Micro Engineering flex and turnouts in code 55 also do not have flange interference problems nowadays, as opposed to Atlas 55...so Tim, your older locos and rolling stock will run just fine on ME code 55 and ME #6 turnouts. If you want them to run on Atlas 55 turnouts, just sand down the inside spikeheads a bit. Works like a charm. As to those who may be considering using ME code 40 for sidings along with their ME code 55 for mainlines, be aware that only true low-pros will run on it. For common locomotives, such as Kato, Atlas, Life-Like, Bachmann...which don't have pizza cutter wheelsets, but don't have true low-profile wheelsets, they will NOT RUN on ME code 40 track...unless you take the time to sand down the inside spikeheads..a lot. I decided to use ME code 40 for my UP-style center sidings on my double-tracked mainlines, and I'm sanding down the spikeheads. Gotta be careful, as you don't want to sand them down to the point they just flake off (don't ask me how I know this). When done properly with a small sanding block (I use the NWSL "Sander Stick"s which work great), I think it actually improves the appearance of the track. Here's a photo of ME code 40 (sanded) between RailCraft code 55 mainlines at my Emory Siding LDE: Yup. Lots of work, but if you enjoy workin' on the railroad, it's not a problem Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
It does appear that the major rail size difference isn't that noticeable until you get a closeup photo. Hmm. But the tie sizing is very noticeable even at a distance. Food for thought there. Have been planning and saving to get a Fast Tracks set to try building switches, and will have to definitely use more proto sized ties there! Thanks Bob!
The first thing I ALWAYS notice about N-Scale is the tie spacing. Although Peco code 55 is my current choice for the project I am about to start I am still a bit uneasy with decision due to the ties. I have ruled out Kato even though it is so popular for one simple reason: Why would I want to use Kato and then ballast over it? Seems like a monumental waste of money for a fixed layout and you still end up with code 80 rails with non-American prototypical ties. I do see the advantage for certain types of modeling though. I just can't make up my mind...
The thing is...you DONT have to ballast Unitrack...its just that some people do. With the flex track stuff you DO have to ballast it and the cork it sets on....just to make it look almost good. JMO :closedmouth:
When I reach the time to start my next layout, I will build upon what I learned on the last. If there are no other changes, I will use ME code 55 on the main and code 40 on sidings. If there is a change in the alignment of the planets, I will use ME code 40 on the mains and code 30 on sidings. in all cases, all turnouts will be handlaid. And all will be balllasted by me, cause I don't see how it could look any worse than the fake ballast on unitrack. But I am a glutton for punishment.
I'm afraid that if I hadnt decided to use Unitrack and was thinking about flex track again...my layout would still look like this..... 2 1/2 years later....LOL... ;-)
