I have done some checking on Kato unitrack and I have to admit that I might have been too hasty on dismissing those “built-in roadbed” track systems. The Unitrack seems to be a ‘real’ system with feeder wires and built-in switch machines (on all but 2 turnouts), etc. The roadbed actually ‘looks’ like real roadbed. I’m very impressed.
Why would I want to fool around with all the roadbed work and wiring when there seems to be a realistic built-in roadbed track with feeder wires, options on some turnouts for powered or non-powered frogs and real good looking roadbed?
Anybody have first hand experience with Unitrack? Is it code 83 or code 100 (looks like 83 in pics)? What is the pitfall I am missing here or is this really a dream come true for us track laying haters? I started this project wanting atlas code 83, then the peco code 83 caught my eye, but this Kato Unitrack looks like a real good option.
Please chime in with your thoughts everyone. This seems too good to be true (which means it probably is).
I have a 4x6 loop of it for testing engines and rolling stock. The connections are solid with little lateral play. It’s the best looking of all the track/roadbed systems available. Having said that, here’s the bad news - it’s expensive, especially the switches, there’s no option for flex-track, and in my opinion, it doesn’t look as good as conventionally laid/ballasted track. But I have heard of people spinkling a thin layer of ballast on top of it to improve the looks.
Bottom line - it’s the best of the track/roadbed systems and if someone needed a layout built quickly and money was not a consideration, it’s not a bad way to go.
js - I have been doing some calculations on cost and for me it may actually be cost effective. I was originally going to use the new peco 83 line with tortoise switches and hare decoders. When you add it up it is quite pricey (about $55-60/ turnout). The Kato turnouts have the motors installed with power routing switches built-in for $35. I have some 34-36 turnouts to consider and this seems like a great option. Digitrax even has a stationary decoder specifically designed for the Kato turnouts.
I am normally a die-hard detail man but the Kato track is just detailed enough and seems so much easier to use that I like the trade-off. I was going to lay a fine layer of ballast after I had set the track plan in place on the layout (as you said some people do).
Anybody else have thoughts on this? Has anyone done a whole layout in Unitrack?
NCE also has a specific decoder with contacts for signals. Digitrax has 2 types a single and the DS52 which will control 2 seperate switches or up to 4 when 1 signal runs 2 switches (like in a crossover).
The day that I can lay a proper spiral easement with Kato Unitrack or any other sectional track, I’ll consider it. Until then, I’ll stick to flex and hand-laid.
You can effect a sort of easment by using a larger radius section for the lead-in/lead-out of a curve than the base radius of the curve.
By the time you add up the cost of the roadbed, the ballast, your time, the switch motors, the fabrication, your time, etc. Unitrack becomes relatively cost-competitive. Did I mention how much time you invest in regular sectional and flex track? [:)]
Paint the rails Rail Brown and give it a wash of Engine Black and it’s darned decent looking stuff. You can always marry in sections of flex-track if you can’t help yourself and want to save some money on long, straight runs.
None of the systems with simulated roadbed look as good as well-done glued-down gravel ballast. Emphasis on well-done, frankly most of what I see in real-world layouts is rather sloppy. However, I hate ballasting and doing it well is VERY time-consuming. I have experience with Kato and with the Fleischmann Profitrack, and for me personally, both offer decent-looking, viable alternatives to hour after hour of ballasting. The Fleischmann ballast is more realistic in appearance than the Kato and the Fleischmann system offers an intriguing (and effective) flex track option. This flex option is essential because unlike Kato, Fleischmann does not offer large-radius sectional track. On the other hand, the Kato track connectors are AWESOME, and the Kato rail, which is Code 83, looks more realistic than the Fleischmann. The Kato roadbed is a “rubbery” type of plastic and has outstanding sound insulation versus the Fleischmann which is a “hard” plastic. For mainline track, the Fleischmann, which has a very low ballast profile, will still need to be raised a bit and given a shoulder but this is much easier than ballasting between the sleepers, and Fleischmann even offers bags of matching ballast material. BOth systems benefit greatly in appearance from a thin black wa***hat brings out the detail in the bllast molding.
As for transitions - IMHO if using a 32" radius track section is not a sufficient transition, then you are a perfectionist way beyond my own abilities. I have never had any operating problems due to lack of a transition track.
Weakness of both systems in my opinion is the turnouts, and I would recommend that you consider using another brand of turnout and ballasting it traditionally. I’ve done this myself and after a thin black wash, the difference in appearance is not at all jarring.
I absolutely concur with Brett that after adding up the cost of roadbed, ballast, swtich motors, and glue, the pre-ballasted track is not all that much more expensive - and that’s even befor
Great stuff guys! Rails, I thought the turnouts were one of the strong points of the kato unitrack. I like the versatility of the on/off power frog switches and the simplicity of the hook-up. I would never leave the unitrack unballasted but as someone stated (and I agree) most ballast jobs look sloppy on layouts and it seems to me it would be easy to use a fine ballast to cover the unitrack and make it look really good. Or at least use a black wash as some of you have indicated (thanks BTW, I didn’t know that).
Thanks Jack. I must be getting good because it looked like code 83 to my naked eye. I guess I am learning to become a real model railroader. The only snag bothering me is that to my eye, the Peco 83 track has an obvious better sleeper spacing than unitrack. The unitrack ties seem to be a bit farther apart but compared to my old Atlas code 100 track layout, it is a significant improvement (to me eye anyway).
I am very surprised that there are not more naysayers on the subject of unitrack. That alone tells me it is worth looking into. Don’t any of you hate unitrack? This is very interesting. Keep the comments coming - I’m truly intrigued now.
Here’s the NaySay: For me, when I considered it, I was stopped by the cost. Bottom line is that 9" of Atlas code 83 from an online store is about 60-cents. 9" of cork roadbed is about a quarter. That’s 85-cents plus a few pennies for ballast. 9" of Unitrack is just under $2. Multiplied layout-wide, it’s an expensive choice. As suggested above, you have to assign a lot of dollar value to your time to pretend that they are cost comparable.
Jack - that’s a great point. But luckily for me, my time is literally money. I run my own business and my time is valuable (not that everyone’s isn’t). And when I do look at it from a rate per hour, the simplicity of the unitrack wins in my case. I am sure that is not true for everyone. I’m going to have to go to the hobby store and check it out. I suppose after I actually see it in person, I may decide it’s not the right track for me. I’m still surprised that there aren’t more naysayers to unitrack.
I wouldn’t use it personally, but if it floats your boat…The negatives to me are the lack of flexibility, and secondarily appearance.
On a small layout, having flexibility to use the curve radius you want, adding short spiral easements, and (if you hand lay track) getting whatever configuration turnout you want makes all the difference in what will fit, operate well, and look good. If you doubt this, check out published plans for 4x8s in HO that are designed using the different track systems and see the difference flexibility provides in small spaces.
In large spaces, cost difference becomes much more significant - but I have little experence there.
But you knew all this already. There’s nothing wrong with your choice - it’s just not for me. The Unitrack has the reputation of being by far the best of the all-in-one track systems. For me - I go the opposite direction - to handlaid track for (to me) the ultimate combination of flexibility and appearance, especially for my 1900-era short line.
Thanks fred, it is a tough decision for me. I have been using xtrkcad since yesterday to re-make my layout from Atlas code 83 track to kato unitrack and I see the differences you speak of already. However, so far the track plan has actually transferred with little difference (because originally I planned it on atlas sectional track). I’ll post the comparisons when I’m done - should be interesting. The other issue I have is that if I am ultimately going to have to use regular track (on bridges and in yards) then perhaps I should just bite the bullet and go the old fashioned way. But this is all part of the fun!
I’m going to play around with the plan for a while. I think I’ll even re-do it in Peco 83 which was my choice before unitrack but I had no way of planning with Peco track. I know many people here say that track planning on paper will only get you so far but I enjoy it and I have to believe that I can avoid many pitfalls by carefully track planning ahead. Thanks for the input everyone - I’ll keep you posted on progress.
PS: One interesting development I have discovered already is that my original plan may have not had proper clearances - the sectional track of unitrack has forced me to see this. Very interesting - the new design looks less curvy and more flowing as train track should. Just an interesting observation.
One caveat, if going DCC. I’ve recently had a couple of customers who have layouts done with the Kato track (N scale) tell me they are seeing performance drop off recently. Track gets cleaned but that doesn’t seem to help. Both are starting to suspect the rail joints. One, whose has some track work not permanently in place, pulled some sections apart, cleaned the rail ends and replaced the joiners. Performance on that section was again as good as new.
Running full voltage for DCC, oxidation is going to occur faster than on a analog layout. For permanently fixed track, replacing joiners could be a painful experience.
This topic has also started to come up on 1 or 2 N scale forums, as well.
OK…here’s my 2 cents woth…I have a very large layout…after going through the hastle of laying track i went to Kato…99%…have had no problems…when we went to and upgraded DCC system ( had a basic DCC alreday ) and went to Sound equiped engines we did have lots of power issues with engines stalling, running away,etc…but we now have installed power districts, basicly following MRR example in Nov 2005 issue…and all engines run great…The track and turnouts have been flawless…Price is somthing i overcame buy purchasing new from e-bay and located a dealer who is Primarily " n " scale…but he is now carring “HO” and has given to better pricing…and he seems to be moving more and more in HO then he originaly thought he would…Only thing i wish Kato did was give the same amount of options in ho ans they do in n…they have very nice n scale bridges etc …which i wi***hey had in ho…that’s the only part of my layout taht is not Kato…we transitioned code 83 bridge track where it was necessaty…any way I LIKE it and hope you enjoy…TOM
Jim. that is odd about the power problem. I would’ve thought the nature of the connections would have been such as to improve power. I have just finished redesigning my layout for unitrack and will be posting it under my ‘layout pics’ thread. I must say the unitrack plan converted nicely and I am very pleased with it. I do believe I will give it a try for my layout - at least for all but bridge and engine facility track. Will keep everyone posted. Thanks for all the great input everyone!
I have decided to go with the Kato Unitrack on my N Scale layout. I went with it versus flex track because of durability. My layout is a seasonal, and the last 2 years I have done a HO Scale layout. Afterwards, ripping up the flex track has been a real bear and I have trashed approx 1/3 - 1/2 of the flex track each year due to removing it, cutting the fixed rail so a previous portion used on a curve could be used as a straight piece etc… I pickup the unitrack for about 25% off list, so 4 pieces = 39 inches for 6 bucks. Over the past 2 years I have had to resupply the flex track a good amount so I think in the next 2 years, the additional cost of the Kato will pay for itself. Also for me, time is a premium since I need to get the track laid in a few hours, with the layout up over an entire weekend.
Last night my son and I set up our Unitrack (HO) on our 12x10 around the wall benchwork. It is fantastic! Our last layout was Shinohara on Tru-Scale Roadbed, risers, Tortoises, DS44 Stationery decoders, etc. and while that method was a great experience and fun to build and more realistic looking, we decided to go the Unitrack route this time and have found it to enjoyable as well.
We have 19 #6 turnouts on the layout and the track is mounted on WS Foam risers and inclines. We are using the 2% grade over a 16’ distance and have found the Unitrack to be very easy to work with on this gentle transition - absolutely no kinks in the joiners. We are powering the layout with our Digitrax Super Empire Builder and have run a 12g bus under the layout with lots of power feeds all over the layout. We are driving the turnouts with DS52 decoders (each decoder will operate 2 turnouts).
As far as ordering track, try Mitch at HobbiesUSA on pricing, especially if you are going to buy a nice quantity - I saved a fortune by ordering through Mitch.
Unitrack isn’t for everyone. We like reliable operations and if track laying isn’t your thing and you are willing to sacrifice the realism of hand ballasting your track, then Unitrack is a nice option.
We did our first layout using unitrack (n-scale) becuase we already had a bunch of unitrack and I thought it would be easier to work with. What I found was it being a little harder to transfer alot of the diesigns from books\magazines to unitrack.
When we used some of the cad\track plannign software, things looked great…until we started laying track… then we found we had to use alot of those funky unitrack expand-o-track sections… which are a little flakey. I also very much hate that the #6 turnouts are power-routing only.
We ballasted\scenicked up against the unitrack, which helps with the look, but the unitrack has a slight blue cast to it… so you want to buy the Kato ballast which is reallly pricey and blend it with other stuff.
Unitrack is fantastic when we want to throw something on the dining room table to play with, but when we do the next layout, we’re probably going to try going down the atlass route.
I think if you weather the ballast - either a black wash or powdered charcoal - and paint a few ties different colors, you could have a very good looking line. I did that with some Atlas True-Track and it turned out well.
I do wish Kato offered as many choices as Bachmann’s track system, Bachmann has like 3 times as many curves, turnouts, etc.