I was wondering if anyone can help. I have been looking at Kato easy trak system. Is this a good way to go or should it be a different type of track as far as looking real. Thanks for any in put on this
Bruce all depends on how real you want your layout to look, i do HO scale and the best results, for me is using cork roadbed and flex track, less expensive, and you can do alot more with it.
Kato Unitrack is a nice product. Pretty much bulletproof. However, it’s also pretty expensive. People have used it to build their layouts, but most will go with flextrack. Atlas code 80 & 55, and Peco code 55 seem to be the most popular. Micro Engineering makes a line too, but I’m not that familiar with it. I’ve also heard it’s rather finicky to work with (but looks great).
I used Atlas code 80, which is probably the most widely available (and cheapest). It’s been around a long time and will have no compatibility issues with loco & rolling stock flanges.
I’m sure others will have differing opinions. It really depends on what type of layout you want.
I’m the same way as ac4400. I’m using a combination of Atlas and Micro Engineering flex track, and Atlas and Peco switches. Roadbed is cork in the layover area and WS foam elsewhere. But then again, I designed my layout without any reference to ready-made curves, used a lot of easements and “appearance curves.”
Aside from my own decisions, there are a lot of people out here who like UniTrak. All I can say is if Kato’s track is the same quality as their locomotives, you’ll have nothing to worry about.
I am running Kato N scale Unitrack on a temporary table top layout for convenience.
The pros are ease of assembly. Because it snap locks together, it stays together without having to fasten it down has great electrical continuity, and is very reliable. The ballast is realistic but the ballast base does have a rather high profile.
The cons are it is expensive. It is also difficult to cut and fit becaue you have to carve out a trench under the rail ends for joiners… Because the bulk of curve diameters only come in 15 or 45 degree sections, it is tricky to make transition curves or terminate at a custom angle. The switches are limited to #4 and #6.
Unitrack was designed as a simple plug-n-play track system. For a permanent layout, you are better off with conventional flex track and/or sectional track such as Atlas snap track or Peco. There is a much greater variety, it can more realistic, and is less costly.
I also have some Life Like power lock track. It is similar in appearance but the ties are unpainted and it only comes in 8 3/4" radius, 5" straights, and switches that template the curve and straight. What I love about Power Lock is it does not use joiners that detract the look of Kato. The ultimate table top track system would be LL Powerlock design but Kato’s painted ties and paint spotted ballast.
Gentleman quarterly did a recent survey and found that 9 out of 10 women prefer the look and feel of Kato Unitrack over Atlas snap track.
Kato track is expensive, but you don’t have to buy cork roadbed, or ballast (well, not as much ballast, but that’s another story.), so you don’t have those expenses. I really like the stuff. It looks pretty good, and goes together real good.
m
Agree that UniTrack is a great product (and expensive). It all depends on what you wi***o accomplish with your layout. You may face some limitations regarding the pre-fab radii and #4 / #6 switches. Flex track, Atlas, Peco, ME, etc. products provide a great deal of flexibility.
HTH
–Ed
I use UNITRACK as a portable test loop. I wound up with it when I bought a couple of their F-3 sets some time back. It is allright for that.
I have heard that there are some electrical problems with the #4 turnouts that cause locomotives to stall on them.
I was considering UNITRACK for the nineteenth century pike that I had planned, but if the #4s have problems, I will try different track. The nice thing about nineteenth century equipment is that since it is smaller, you can get away with sharper curves and turnouts, so I had planned to use #4s on the nineteenth century pike.