I have a question for anyone that can provide an answer, I was on the Kato site and clicked on their layouts for tha size i have 36"x72", one layout is the Scenic Ridge, now is this the same Scenic Ridge as Woodland Scenics has or am i confused, which lately is probably correct...
Bruce
Yes it's the same track plan. They just adapted their track.
If you are thinking about using Kato track on an N-scale set, be careful. I have 22 switches from them and I had to physically modify about 10 of them to make them work properly. My local train store insists that it's flawless and that my trains are the main issue but it's all of my cars on the exact same switches. I know a local guy who uses it also and he has had the exact same issues with nearly half of his switches too. Kato is the biggest regret I have about my layout. If I could do it again, I'd use something else. If you intend to just set up a layout that doesn't have detailed track, it's OK. Just ay attention to the switches. Particularly the #4's. I've never had issues with the #6's. If you wan't realism look elsewhere. Ballasting it to look real is a nightmare. I can't speak for reliability in other scales.
wow, I do have the kato track, I purchased it because I was told it works really well and the ballasting is easy, on the layout it calls for the #6 switches to be used. Thanks for the info....
Kato in my experience has it's plus and minuses. Overall Im happy with them.
have been using Kato N scale track for a few years now and I have had very little problems with the track or turnouts. That includes both #4 and #6. I am in the process of building an 11'x30' layout now and will not hesitate to use the Unitrack.
Jack
njtaxland wow, I do have the kato track, I purchased it because I was told it works really well and the ballasting is easy, on the layout it calls for the #6 switches to be used. Thanks for the info....
Well the ballasting is done for you - the track comes with ballast attached!! Many folks add a little ballast on the sides so the edges aren't quite so perfect. Kato sells ballast meant to match their track, but I think Woodland Scenic fine mixed gray ballast is pretty close too.
I would also look at the new ATLAS nu-track ....It's a snap track also ,,,
I am not too concerned with Kato Ballast. I can use Bradgon (Spelling?) Weathering powders to knock it down from class 1 mainline to spur trackage and vary that uniform ballast a little. Woodland scenics has several fine ballast in grey that seems to be pretty useful for edging to vary in scenic work.
The one big change I had to make mentally with Kato is learning to count in Millimeters. A 60 mm track section is only this long. I have three of them together near a switch introducing way too many joints. So I go find a 180 mm straight track section and make it work and reduce the jointing count.
No section on my layout's kato track is more than three feet away from a feeder that is backed by a very large power supply and bus. I dont like to get too far away from the power pack because after about 8 feet, the engine slows a little bit due to resistance in the rails.
Finally but not last, I recently cut a short section of Kato Track using a mitre box and hand saw to remove the plastic ballast but left the middle of the rails and end joiners intact. I was then able to "Drop" the walthers materials conveyor unloading grate and concrete pad under neath the Kato track and make it fit with help of 1/4 inch woodland scenics foam. It wont take much to blend it all in.
As always with Kato, I try to leave a little room all the way around the track so that the joints can flex a little with the seasons. Once in a while a joint is bad producting a rail that is half a engine wheel too high or out of gauge and has to be replaced. Fortunately this is easily done.
The only possible issues or wishys I have with Kato is that they would build bridges (Not a problem now that I learned to cut kato track ballast away) or produce crossings with angles sufficient for number 4 and 6 switches. They build the bridges in N but not in HO. But again thier long 14 inch straight sections provide me with an oppertunity to build bridging in HO scale.
Normally I would go with cork and flex with walthers turnouts. But they are constantly in limited supply where I am and would be a BUILT in place with no ability to move track around. During the construction of my road, I have had to arrange and rearrange the trackwork to fight S curves, clearance problems and actually found better spots for some of the buildings. The Kato tolerated this assembly and disassembly rather well.
Finally but not last, should a piece of Kato track fail anywhere in the system, I can chop it out of the layout and drop a new replacement into place within a few moments followed by scenery work around the affected area.
I'm in Kato HO scale and have never had a single problem with turnouts. While any product has its advantages/disadvantages, I don't understand why some people bash Unitrack.
If you're planning to fully ballast the track, why would one pick Kato? That seem a waste a money. Ballasting around the edges is fine and easy to do. Applying ballast all over the track, as in a yard if you want to use cinders, is also easy to do for stretches, there's not more inherently difficult with this than with regular track. Cutting and customizing the track is also suprisingly simple, I did that to fit severral bridge track sections and a curve and it's pretty easy...just need some a fine tooth saw, super glue and some soldering, and some small pieces of styrene to fit the gap and a little ballast application after. While you wouldn't want to do it all over the place, it's not brain surgery, no more difficult that putting together, say, a structure kit. The track itself fits all standard code 83 joiners for HO.You can make all sorts of curves this way if you need to. Once I got over my reluctance to cut the track sections, I was surprised to find out how easy it was. Makes layouts much more flexible in Unitrack if you can customize a bit.
The only big downside to Unitrack is the limitations of the number of switches and specialty track, esp in HO, lack of ability to add switch stands and realistic hand throws. It's a proprietary track and electronic system, and you need to more or less play within the box. If you're happy with that, you're cool.
It may be Katos own design. However with Digitrax's DS64 working with the electric turnouts right out of the box it made it very easy for me. Never mind the fact that I think a 50 dollar decoder plus wiring and circutry is easier than a 2.00 switch stand. However just try to make that switch stand work correctly with the tiny throw rod on the side of the kato switch. Maybe it's me that is the problem LOL.
shawnee While any product has its advantages/disadvantages, I don't understand why some people bash Unitrack.
While any product has its advantages/disadvantages, I don't understand why some people bash Unitrack.
Considering that I own it and have had tons of problems with it, I guess that gives me full right to bash it. In N-scale, the #4 turnouts are plain and simple crap. As I said, I can't speak for HO. The problems don't even exist on the #6 turnouts. It's just the #4's.If someone wants in it n-scale and doesn't care about looking real and stays away from the #4 turnouts, it's just fine.
The reason why I used it even though I wanted it to look real is because I had been out of the hobby since I was a kid. The local train store guy sold me on it claiming it was the most reliable and easy to use track around. He also said that if I wanted to really detail it to make it look real that I could pretty easily. I took him as an expert since that's all he's done all of his life. Now that I've been back in it for a few years and have learned alot, I have also learned that Unitrack is probably my biggest mistake that I've made and if I rebuild the layout or build another one sometime, I'll avoid it like the plague. I've wasted lots of money on it and have saved absolutely no time.
Mine actually looks pretty darned nice but it took quite a bit of effort. I've never liked the look of stains or washed on the molded roadbed. It still looks like stains and washes on preformed roadbed and doesn't look real at all. I've hand painted every single tie one by one, hand painted the rails, and carefully ballasted between each rail again one by one. It's tedious but looks good. UItimately it was the expensive and difficult way to do things. Even Code 55 would be less problematic and more reliable and that's the way I'd go next time.
Why do I bash it? It's quite obvious. I've wasted tons of time on it and in addition to being unreliable and poorly built, it's the single biggest waste of time and money on my layout. That's why. I'll gladly post some pictures to show what can be accomplished with some patience though should someone want to make the same n-scale mistake that I did by using it.
Wow.......
I don't see what the problem is here. My Kato unitrack layout has about 140 ft of track and I never had a derailment or any other issue. I used the Kato ballast and painted and weathered the rails and it looks good.Any type of track is going to take some work to make it look good. I think you wanted ready made ballasted and weathered track that is easy to lay but what you got was track that was easy to lay but you have to weather it and ballast it to look good too.
N Scale Diesels......I like 'em
Sounds like a labor of love, painting the ties one by one. Pictures would be welcome if you can get any.
The expense of the track at least in HO scale is easier to carry when one identifies the exact sections or switches needed and goes get the few at a time instead of the whole lot. I think in my experience once I reduce the jointing count between track sections to a minimum I would be happy.
If a train derails, the first thing I do is mark spot, then get out the track gauge tool to start checking the track then the wheels and work onwards. It's going to either be Pilot Error (Me) or something in the system either on the track or in the rolling.
shawnee I'm in Kato HO scale and have never had a single problem with turnouts. While any product has its advantages/disadvantages, I don't understand why some people bash Unitrack. If you're planning to fully ballast the track, why would one pick Kato? That seem a waste a money. Ballasting around the edges is fine and easy to do. Applying ballast all over the track, as in a yard if you want to use cinders, is also easy to do for stretches, there's not more inherently difficult with this than with regular track. Cutting and customizing the track is also suprisingly simple, I did that to fit severral bridge track sections and a curve and it's pretty easy...just need some a fine tooth saw, super glue and some soldering, and some small pieces of styrene to fit the gap and a little ballast application after. While you wouldn't want to do it all over the place, it's not brain surgery, no more difficult that putting together, say, a structure kit. The track itself fits all standard code 83 joiners for HO.You can make all sorts of curves this way if you need to. Once I got over my reluctance to cut the track sections, I was surprised to find out how easy it was. Makes layouts much more flexible in Unitrack if you can customize a bit. The only big downside to Unitrack is the limitations of the number of switches and specialty track, esp in HO, lack of ability to add switch stands and realistic hand throws. It's a proprietary track and electronic system, and you need to more or less play within the box. If you're happy with that, you're cool.
Say, may I ask you what radius you are using for your curves? I'm designing a layout around Unitrack HO, and I'm needing big radius so that the large steam I like doesn't look ridiculous. Probably going with a dogleg design to minimize space usage.
I tested my BLI 4-4-4-4 PRR T1 Duplex on the various HO scale curves and found that 31 inches is the best compromise price wise. 34 inches was even better but had way too many track joinings every 10 degrees and paid through the nose for it. 28 it will do as a minimum.
Regardless of what track you use, there is a rule in HO, Broad curves keep big equiptment and large engines happy. You can jam the same stuff through a 22 inch train set section, but only as long as it will take for you to get disgusted with it.
Many forums are filled with posts from people who discover that uber 40-340-20 wont fit through a atlast 2.00 switch.
Last Chance I tested my BLI 4-4-4-4 PRR T1 Duplex on the various HO scale curves and found that 31 inches is the best compromise price wise. 34 inches was even better but had way too many track joinings every 10 degrees and paid through the nose for it. 28 it will do as a minimum. Regardless of what track you use, there is a rule in HO, Broad curves keep big equiptment and large engines happy. You can jam the same stuff through a 22 inch train set section, but only as long as it will take for you to get disgusted with it. Many forums are filled with posts from people who discover that uber 40-340-20 wont fit through a atlast 2.00 switch.
I was leaning toward the 790 (31in.) curves myself. That and the No. 6 switches, because I want to be able to go thru those switches at prototype speed. I scored a Proto 2000 2-10-2 with DCC for $200 at Trainfest, and I have a Mallet on order. Yeah, I need big radii for sure:)