Layouts and layout building

I would like to second Stix's recommendation for Unitrack.

I got back into the hobby a couple of years ago after a 45 year absence and as I only had room for a small layout and not much time to devote to it, I went with Atlas True Track. I intended to ballast but thought it would be a lot simpler to have the roadbed already in place. Anyway I wound up tearing it all up as there were serious electrical problems with the rail joiners and turnouts despite block wiring.

I went to Unitrack and DCC and found the Unitrack to be great. It is very well made.

I also like to experiment to see how something will look and the Unitrack does enable you to do this readily.

I do agree with the others in that for a larger layout, flex would be the way to go.

CN Charlie

 My LHS promotes the EZ track over Kato based on their subjective assessment of quality. Haven't purchased either but am considering for one section of double tracked 36-inch curve that has been re-installed 3 times.  B B trucks are fine but SD 75s stumble over two joints on the outer track only and derail. 

I have filed to level and smooth the joints but I still have a minor kink and height issue.  First it is hard to reach now that basic scenery is in place and soldering the rail joiners properly has eluded me in this section.

So,I have considered replacing the flex with the EZ track with the 35-inch radius.

My last layout was all Kato based on others recommendations and it was the single worst thing I've ever done. Keep in mind that mine was n-scale and not HO so my issues may or may not be relevant. I don't know why so many people like it unless they just want to snap it together and play with it on the floor or the table. The turnouts are very poorly designed and finicky at best. I had to modify half of them due to irregularities in construction that led to derailments. Others kept saying that I had wheel gauge issues. If that were true it would have only been an issue with the same cars over and over again yet my problems were with any cars only on certain pieces.

I am shooting for a high level of detail and it takes far more time to ballast Unitrack than it does any other system. I am not satified with just giving it a wash as no matter what you try, unless you ballast over it, it still looks like molded in roadbed. It is possible to make it look nice through ballast but is far too much effort.

It is also very hard to detail the turnouts. Don't even think about Caboose ground throws. While not impossible to integrate, it would definitely not be easy. I also didn't like the limited ability to use just any curve that I wanted. The turnout selection is also quite small as are crossovers. I ended up changing to Peco Code 55 after debating it vs Atlas Code 55. The Peco is the more expensive option but it has worked out very well for me.

I do have a small HO switching layout that uses Atlas Code 83 and it looks and works great. All of my old HO rolling stock works on it just fine too. The flexibility is far greater with their track than with Kato. If you want to just snap something together and aren't concerned with abolute realism and don't need a large selection of turnouts, then the Kato may work just fine. I wanted more than that though.

 Understand the scenic considerations.  My possible application is a curve in the background so the most it will have is ballast.  The scene elements are the focal points.

 hi

some remarks and questions. Do I read you well?

You seem not so sure about the trackplan; you must be able to change it later, so it has to be done with snaptrack.

BTW I do not like the trackplan at all, and I am pretty sure you will change it very soon. 

Using flextrack, and forgetting about the scenery at first, gives you the oppertunity to change your plan at low costs. You'r in good company; David Barrow is doing the very same. In the mean time you can learn a lot about track-laying. And even learn about using easements and code 83, code 70 and code 55 track.

I asume you understand the differnces between the numbered switches. We apply two different kind of switches. 

1) for a diverging route switch the curve extends through the switch, which is nice for going into a curved section of track.

2) crossover switches (the standard numbered); in a crossover the tracks form the dreadful S-curve. To avoid it the tracks curve in the points, but are straight afterwards. So using two of those switches in a crossover creates a long enough straight to avoid derailments.

In the past Roco build truncated switches, the untill the points part only and by buying the proper extension you could have the type of switch you wanted. 

My local hobby shop owner told me once he was losing a lot of clients because he was often not able to give a proper advice. Some never returned because using flextrack turned out to be to difficult, others never returned because they didn't like snaptrack, and thought they were not well advised. If you want evrything running in 15 minutes go for snaptrack. My 8 yrs old youngest does it with my old Marklin stuff, it still runs like a breeze.

Why do you want remote controled switches on your pike? Do like the prototype, switches into spurs were operated most of the time by muscle-power. For a learning experience it is a great project however.

keep smiling, have fun
Paul

fwright:

Actually, the Atlas Snap Switch is not a numbered frog.  It is a 20 degree piece of 18" radius curve set 1.5" in from the end of a 9" straight.  The frog is curved and plastic.

Here is a photo of the curved section of an Atlas Snap Switch.  It has straight lines digitally drawn close to the edges.  Notice how it is easy to see the bow in the rail.  This means the track is curved. 

Here is a photo of an Atlas Snap Switch Frog.  It has straight lines digitally drawn along the edges of the track.  Notice the track is exactly parallel to the lines.  This means the track is straight. 

All the tight curvature in an Atlas Snap-Switch happens before the frog.  The frog itself is straight.  This is done with the low resolution mode of the camera.  The higher the resolution the easier it is to see.  High resolution images are too hard to deal with on the forum.
 

Texas Zepher:

fwright:

Actually, the Atlas Snap Switch is not a numbered frog.  It is a 20 degree piece of 18" radius curve set 1.5" in from the end of a 9" straight.  The frog is curved and plastic.

I have heard this many times.  I don't know where it originally came from (I presume from the dimensions of some Bachmann and other toy turnouts), but examination of an actual Atlas snap switch (which anyone can do and see for themselves) proves it is not true.

Here is a photo of the curved section of an Atlas Snap Switch.  It has straight lines digitally drawn close to the edges.  Notice how it is easy to see the bow in the rail.  This means the track is curved.

Here is a photo of an Atlas Snap Switch Frog.  It has straight lines digitally drawn along the edges of the track.  Notice the track is exactly parallel to the lines.  This means the track is straight. 

All the tight curvature in an Atlas Snap-Switch happens before the frog.  The frog itself is straight.  This is done with the low resolution mode of the camera.  The higher the resolution the easier it is to see.  High resolution images are too hard to deal with on the forum.

The information comes from Atlas's own track planning documents.  These state (paraphrased) that the Atlas Snap Switch comes with a 10 degree section of 18" radius, which when added to the curved path of the turnout is the equivalent of a full section of 18" radius.  In addition, Atlas states that the curved path of a Snap Switch can be substituted for a piece of 18" radius (when the 10 degree fitter piece is added) and the straight path for a 9" straight.  Atlas also mentions the 1.5" inch offset.

Now it could well be (and you photos would suggest) that the Snap Switch is not exactly an 18" radius but a substitute for.  If the frog is indeed not curved through the diverging path, the curved portions of the turnout are actually going to be sharper than 18".

Of course, this wouldn't be the 1st time Atlas planning information was a little off.  Their #6 turnouts are said to be 10 degree frogs (slightly less than #6) in their planning documentation, but have been measured at 9.5 degrees (actual #6) - which makes sense in light of their 19 degree crossings.  Many of the Atlas track plans using Snap Track and Custom Line turnouts have angular mismatches of 2.5 or even 7.5 degrees at joints.  The Morgan Valley is a prime example of the latter, which is why the text recommends substituting flex track where the larger mismatches occur.

A final possibility is the design has changed over the year but the substitution geometry is still within a degree or two.  And the code 83 version could be different from the code 100, too.

You have piqued my interest; I'll take a look at my code 83 Snap Switch tonight.  I specifically bought it to substitute into an 18 " radius curve.

yours in having fun

Fred W

fwright:

Texas Zepher:

fwright:

Atlas Snap Switch ... The frog is curved and plastic.

I have heard this many times... proves it is not true.

The information comes from Atlas's own track planning documents.  These state (paraphrased) that the Atlas Snap Switch comes with a 10 degree section of 18" radius, which when added to the curved path of the turnout is the equivalent of a full section of 18" radius.

You have piqued my interest; I'll take a look at my code 83 Snap Switch tonight.  I specifically bought it to substitute into an 18 " radius curve.

Texas Zepher:

The Code-83 track library has many more selections than the former code 100 did. Most notably 26" and 24" radius curves.

Texas

Where did you see 26in radius Atlas Sectional Track?  Current product listing on the Atlas site stops at 24in.  

Alan

Well, I use sectional and flex as needed. Sectional has, in my eyes, three  major disadvantages.You're limited to predetermined radii, you end up with a lot of joints, and there is no way to create easements.

Flex track has the advantage of making a proper easement and fewer joints for electrical continuity, as well as setting a curve to fill space as needed, or having buildings where you want them rather than where the track goes. Yes, once you solder up all the joints, they're equal in conductivity, but sectional requires a lot of soldering, and every joint is a potential problem.

Flex is more work if you use it for all spurs and siding, and it always seems that my leftover cuts are the wrong length for what I'm currently doing. I have a small box of "flex-sectional" track. I guess I should build a shelf time-saver with all the pieces.

On my layouts, I use as much flex as possible, resorting to sectional for spurs, sidings and bridges. I use code 55 and use Atlas and Peco almost exclusively. All dual gage is hand made. ( N and Nn3 scale)

Keep in mind, if you use flextrack, that at virtually every joining of two pieces you're going to have to trim and file at least one rail to length. It's not that easy. Yes you get better with practice but laying out cork roadbed and laying flextrack isn't well suited for someone who may change their layout a few times before coming up with the final plan. I know on my layout I've enjoyed being able to make changes and try different ideas using the Unitrack.

I've used Bachmann EZ-track and it's pretty good, I particularly like the variety of pieces (No. 4-5-6 turnouts, up to 36" radius curves) and the 36" straight tracks. Note that unlike Kato and Atlas, EZ track is designed to have ballast added after installation, the roadbed isn't mean to simulate ballast.

EZ-track is code 100, Atlas and Kato are code 83. In HO Kato Unitrack rails have a very narrow profile that are to my eye pretty close to scale, at least closer than the fairly wide Atlas code 83.

I "paint" the sides of the rails with Neo-Lube so they're a dark gray, then paint some of the individual ties with different shades of brown and gray, leaving some black. I find it looks good even before adding ballast to the sides or a final layer of weathering.