Question Did I pick the right track?

If you've seen my other posts, you'll know I'm just getting started in Z.

This question is whether I have picked the right manufacturer for track. In other scales, there are often clear choices on the track manufacturer for quality and options. In Z, I really didn't get that impression from what I've read so I went with Micro Trains thus far. I'm just wondering if that was the right decision.

I looked at Rokuhan, Micro Trains, and of course, Marklin. In the past I have not been a fan of track that has the bed included but the Micro Trains obviously has this and it has been ok. What I haven't seen from Micro Trains are the various options that I might get from possibly another manufacturer. Things like crossings, double turnouts, curved turnouts, 1" and 2 3/16" sections, etc.

So I'm just wondering if I have made the right choice with Micro Trains track or if, perhaps, I might be better off switching before I'm too invested.

Thanks!

 

Zookie, you are correct. Micro-Trains a.k.a. (MTL) has only the limited track you see (195 & 200mm curves, 110 & 220mm straight and, the Left & Right turnouts. Rokuhan's roadbed track has nearly all of what Märklin has in sectional. Rokuhan has only a Left & Right turnout but like their roadbed track, a lot of different radii. However, some (U.S. do not like the tie spacing or the ballasting. That said, Märklin's tie spacing is large too, compared to MTL's but not quite as wide as Rokuhan. However, even though the rails from everone are Code 55 (o.055" high), the rail head (the part were the wheels roll) is much narrower and more protoypical (and photogenic on the MTL track.

So what are you going to do with your track ? Make some sort of an oval, maybe a siding or spur or two? MTL's more prototypical track may be the solution. Your post read like you want more, like curved turnout (be careful !), crossings, etc. In this case, Rokuhan's roadbed track may be the better choice. Or, if you want to ballast your own, you could use Märklin's sectional track (and use a Rokuhan and/or MTL turnout as needed to eliminate the large 'thing' hanging off the side of the Märklin turnouts).

We all start somewhere. If you change, you can always use that MTL track on another layout, maybe a portable, or trade it for something else. Just post and ask here

 

Zookie,

Jeff is right on the money. You need to determine the size and complexity of your track plan before deciding on the track. MTL's track system is limited and missing a few very basic, yet essential, track pieces. Marklin and Rokuhan offer extensive track options, but visually, the tie spacing may not be too your liking. Marklin can also be used with Peco flex, but you will have to do your own road bed and ballasting.

You can use the MTL and Rokuhan ballasted track sections together. The rail heights are near identical. But the tie spacing will be noticeable.

If you are planning to go with a large, complex track plan, and definitely want the ballasted track, then Rokuhan may be the better option. Rokuhan track also gets my nod for operations. I like Jeff's idea of keeping the MTL track for a small layout, or test loop. You can't go wrong there.

Do you have a copy of your track plan? Maybe we can take a look at it and see what will work best for you.

Rob

 

basic question is what are you looking for with your track. Are you trying to create a prototypical rail line with rail and ballast on a fully sceniced layout, or are looking for track, primarily to run trains on.

laying flex track or sectional with tie base from any manufacturer and then adding ballast is time consuming and requires a certain degree of skill to get to the point you can run trains on it reliably. The roadbed track provides one with the ability to set up an run trains on a table top then take it down and put it away. and play with various track plans until you find one that fits your space and your operating aspirations. For this roadbed track is the answer as it provides a very fast way to get your trains running, and gives you away to run trains when you still do not have a layout. Either micro trains or Rokuhan will meet that criteria. Rokuhan has the greater selection of track pieces available including two different sizes of turnouts and both have their motor concealed in the road bed and they can be operated either manually or remotely. The major difference between the two at first look is the tie spacingof the track as mentioned by others. Rokuhan offers both wooden ties and concrete ties typical of high speed rail but the ties spacing is closer to Marklin than prototypical North American rail. In fact for prototype it is probably closer to N-scale narrow gauge rather than Z scale standard gauge. The most prototypically correct look will come from Micro Trains Flex that has been laid and ballasted. but the difference is like frozen dinners ready in seconds from the micro wave, and the old fashioned kind that has to be prepared cooked and takes an hour or two to prepare, anyway you get the idea. If you plan to take your layout to shows then I suggest you use the roadbed track and take your time in putting it down as if it were flex because then you will have a layout that runs well from the get go and is not a constant hassle to put derailed trains and cars back on the track. The other major difference with Rokuhan versus Micro trains is Micro Trains is typical Z scale electrical with power everywhere and exposed turnout motors and track wiring terminals while Rokuhan can be either older style power routing turnouts or non power routing turnouts with the use of two screws supplied to make the change. Rokuhan, is also plug and play electrical from controller to track and turnouts, controllers can be power from internal batteries or from a wall transformer and they also have a manually operated reverse loop controller, so no wires to fasten to screw terminals. both Micro Trains and Rokuhan power-every-where (non power routing) turnouts are DCC ready when you want to make the step up to DCC from DC power. So if you have Micro Trains you have a start on road bed track and it can with a bit of fiddling be combined with Rokuhan with a few tips and pointers, but to the uneducated they do not go to-gether easily at first try and forcing the connection can break the track. After using Micro trains for awhile if you find it suits what you want from your track then try a similar loop of a Rokuhan and then you can decide which one to use.

I have used both and had a large layout done with Micro Trains and have since switched to Rokuhan and am building again. I will say that today I have a bias towards Rokuhan because of a connection I have to that company since it arrived on the North American Continent, I have no financial interest in Rokuhan but have worked with them in the past.

 

This is all excellent information. Thank you all very much. You gave me quite a bit to look into and things to consider that I would not have otherwise. I've removed the Marklin track from the list so it is down to Micro Trains and Rokuhan.

I've looked at some images and videos online of the Rokuhan track and its just a bit difficult to tell if the tie spacing would bother me at all. I have ordered some Rokuhan pieces so I can compare and contrast. I do really like that Rokuhan has more options as a personality trait of mine is a dislike for limitations. That said, I live in the U.S. and our rail systems are what I have seen and know so I do want to make sure the tie spacing isn't going to "appear" incorrect when I look at my layout all the time.

As for layout, I'm not a pro modeler and my "planning" has always been to take a general idea, line, or layout and then expand that into my own with features I'm interested in before tacking it down. I do adhere to the math side of track sizes/radii to keep everything well connected and running smoothly. I've never really looked to see if technology has made its way to model railroading and if sites or software exist that can take the dimensions of my layout and have a catalog of the various track available to lay it out before I actually lay it out. Anyone seen any of this type of software or sites that is any good?

At the moment, I'm trying to include a lot of different elements so I intend for a couple passing lanes (or at least one), a rise, a goods yard, some sidings or perhaps an Inglenook and before I go more authentic, I would like to play with a helix and turntable since I've never had either in my layouts previously. They will probably be removed as time goes on and authenticity gets the better of me. Coming from the HO world, I am already getting ready to modify my locomotive with DCC as that brought my HO layouts to a whole new level of enjoyment without the limitations of isolation.

Thanks again everyone for helping me make the best choices for my needs. You've already saved me some headaches...and money.

 

Thanks fellas I learned alot from reading this Thread. So I'll go with MTL track since I am just going to put my layout in a Briefcase, and port it around with me.
Solved that one.
No on to the Power Pack deal??

I'll keep reading:teeth:

 

Hi all,
I would really like to see more tracks from MTL.

As I understand, about two years ago MTL had a hard time getting their track production back to the west. Yet there are some really essential track pieces missing that I believe now should have proirity compared to their rolling stock news. At one of our last meetings of the Z - Stammtisch Blomberg, we just compared MTL, Rokuhan, Marklin directly and all of us had the same opinion about what is best. ;-)

I wonder how you guys out there think about it? What about larger radii, curved turnouts, a crossing from MTL?

Cheers,
Michael

 

Well now that I've played around with the track a little.
The Mtl and the Rok track have the roadbed and modular simplicity. But in my humble opinion the Rok takes the nod with selection and fit. The ROk track just seems to fit together better and comes apart easier.
Now keep in mind that I am a Rookie but this is what I found in my short experience.

@ Michael

I take the Rok for the best for just the reasons you mention, and the fit

Glen

 

MTL Micro track is very good but limited in selection. This may be one place to insert back issues of Ztrack Magazine or further back in the archives here to show you some options in cutting MTL roadbed to make other options. With a good saw you can make some modifications. Easiest may be to notch a corner to get track to fit into turnouts.

The best use of MTL track may be in setting up your first layout until you find what track plan you like best. Makes it easy to change your mind.

 

I also tried Micro-Trains track but had some trouble with the turnouts. I have used some Rokuhan track and the turnouts seem to work better. Just my opinion based on some limited experience.

 

I thought MTL was supposed to release some new track pieces about a year ago?? What happened to that?

 

Actually that was when they resumed producing track. Although they did mention some unspecified new track pieces at the NZSC in May, haven't seen anything on them yet.

 

What I'm really dreaming of, that should be the very next Z scale item in my heart, far beyond any new locomotive style, rolling stock or structure: a power routing, non-roadbeded, non-hinged, non-powered turnout (and with US-style tie spacing). A brand that would be close to what Peter Wright delivered when he hadn't any health issue, or that would be close to what manufacturers such as Atlas or Peco deliver for N scale. I was very thrilled when I first heard that MTL was releasing turnouts some years ago but finally I'm disappointed with them as they are roadbeded, and as I have loose contact issues with some of them (hinged points) that prevent any switching operation. I should try Rokuhan but infortunately they are roadbeded as well..... It's really an issue for me and if I was due to drop Z scale that would be the first reason why.

Dom