Fun with <gasp> Unitrack!

[Dave V]

If you want any Atlas c55 flex to mess around with, I've got 10 pieces.  I'd just need them replaced when the new stock comes available.

No joiners or anything as I packed all that with the rest of the code 55 I sold.


Jason

I've found a "pusher..."    I think I'm good for now, thanks!

[BCR 570]

I have handlaid Code 40 track for the mainline on my layout, but I believe I also qualify as a Unitrack user, as our PGE-BCR Modellers Group routinely uses it for shows several times a year.  We set up our loop and sidings on cloth-covered tables and it runs all day long without any issues, then comes all apart and goes into bins until the next time.  I don't think that a show goes by without us commenting on how well it performs in such situations.  May share of the loop also serves as a temporary DC test track through Dawson Creek until the track gangs arrive.

It seems well suited for a layout like Dave's which has had to endure several moves around the country, and may yet again.  I have not seen the JD in person but if it looks as good in person as it does in photos then the height of the rail will be less critical than the overall effect of the scene(s) created and the performance during operations.  Very good job splicing in new trackwork, which is never an easy task.

The number and variety of responses to this thread only highlight in my opinion the need in our hobby for regularly available and reliable track with a good variety of turnouts.  I can see a market for a Code 55 Unitrack product range and I can see a market for a fine scale (Code 40-50) range of flex track and turnouts.

Tim

[spookshow]

I'm loving these pictures of gussied up Unitrack - it really gives me hope for the future (since I opted to go with Unitrack for my current layout). Well done! 

Cheers,
-Mark

[Theteejmiester]

I personally love unitrack, runs fantastic looks okay when dresses with some paint and ballast. a great product. however:my true love is handlaid code 40. sure no spike and tie plate detail, but damn does it look sweet and lacy like the prototype. Plus it gives a much needed sense of mass to our trains. along with low pro wheelsets and z scale couplers it makes them look much larger, more massive and to me that is worth the trouble for a home layout. But I have no hate whatsoever towards anyone who uses unitrack. trains run smooth and thats what matters
And Dave I remember seeing your layout in MR and being floored by it.one of the reasons I started dabbling in N scale again actually,and  your blending of the two products is masterful! hats off to ya

[Dave V]

As I'm building the Colorado Midland in Atlas code 55 I am reminded what a pain in the a$$ it is to wire them with the slide switches to power the frogs. 

I'm thinking once I'm done with the Midland and it's time to pay attention to the Juniata Division again, I'll be using code 80 Peco switches and flex with Unitrack in the curves for the main line and then code 55 for sidings and yard stuff on any extension I do.  I'm not a fan of the wide track center Unitrack #6 turnouts need (and I ruined more than one with glue and ballast on the old Apex layout).  Any staging would be Unitrack.  I may change part of the track configuration on the existing JD but I've moved on from any ideas of a wholesale track replacement.  I think any tracklaying I do on the JD is better spent expanding or enhancing operations than reinventing the wheel.

In the end peer pressure only pushes so hard...  When I'm in the basement running trains my first concern is reliability.  Frankly Atlas code 55 turnouts are not as reliable.

[davefoxx]

Frankly Atlas code 55 turnouts are not as reliable.

I disagree, and if I lived closer to you, I would offer to lay the track for you.  To see what you have done with Unitrack is pretty amazing, but Code 55 still looks better and can operate just as reliably.

DFF

[Dave V]

I disagree, and if I lived closer to you, I would offer to lay the track for you.  To see what you have done with Unitrack is pretty amazing, but Code 55 still looks better and can operate just as reliably.

DFF

I thought you had electrical issues with some of yours, no?

I'm debating soldering the feeder directly to the frog on the Midland switches because that little side tab apparently fails over time.

In the end, though, you're welcome to disagree with me...but as I invest in more expensive and longer-wheelbased locomotives with sound I want perfect performance in the track to include issues of gauge, vertical deflections, and electrical conductivity.  I remain skeptical that I can get there with code 55.  We'll see how well the Midland operates.

I'll make you a deal.  Help me find a way to turn down the flanges on a Tomix boxcab I have sitting waiting to be converted to a PRR FF2 and I'll reconsider code 55.  I should caveat that i don't even know how to open the damn thing up to put a decoder in it:

[davefoxx]

I thought you had electrical issues with some of yours, no?

Nope, other than unpowered frogs.  That was cured with Hex Frog Juicers, which have been flawless.   Even allows my BLI E7 with sound to run without the sound cutting out.

I'll make you a deal.  Help me find a way to turn down the flanges on a Tomix boxcab I have sitting waiting to be converted to a PRR FF2 and I'll reconsider code 55.  I should caveat that i don't even know how to open the damn thing up to put a decoder in it:

Duuuuuuuude, an FF2 would be awesome.

DFF

[chicken45]

Nope. Code 40 is close to 115 lb rail and Code 55 is close to 170 lb rail. Look for yourself: http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html

So I've had this window open for a few weeks (I have a lot of open browser tabs) and couldn't remember why I was here, but I did see the bit about code 40 rail.

If my one source from the PRR Facebook group is correct, the PRR used 155lb rail on the mainlines. So the question is, which is better? Code 40 or 55?

Again, I refer to Atlas C55 having correct tie spacing. Thoughts?

[davefoxx]

I've always heard that Code 55 was really close to N scale PRR mainline rail.  I think Code 55 would scale out to just slightly heavier than 150 lb. rail, which is darn close to the PRR 155 lb. rail.  Code 40 is too light for PRR mainline rail.

Hope this helps,
DFF

[pjm20]

So I've had this window open for a few weeks (I have a lot of open browser tabs) and couldn't remember why I was here, but I did see the bit about code 40 rail.

If my one source from the PRR Facebook group is correct, the PRR used 155lb rail on the mainlines. So the question is, which is better? Code 40 or 55?

Again, I refer to Atlas C55 having correct tie spacing. Thoughts?

Even though C55 may be a little to big, it gives the correct elusion of the mighty Broadway when compared to C40 next to it, which is what I would use for spurs, yards, etc.

[Lemosteam]

Here is a diagram for a joint bar for 152# rail.

http://prr.railfan.net/standards/standards.cgi?plan=66197-k

Dimensions show an 8" rail height, or 0.050" in N Scale.

This drawing would seem to confirm that the PRR at least had 152# rail.

[C855B]

... Dimensions show an 8" rail height, or 0.50" in N Scale. ...

Mighty tall rail.   Ah, that pesky decimal point.

Seriously... multi-scale "Code XX" tables I've run across plus other discussions came to a similar conclusion - that heavy Pennsy stuff amounts to roughly Code 55 in N.

[Lemosteam]

Mighty tall rail.   Ah, that pesky decimal point.

Seriously... multi-scale "Code XX" tables I've run across plus other discussions came to a similar conclusion - that heavy Pennsy stuff amounts to roughly Code 55 in N.

Fixed, you caught me...

[chicken45]

More developments;
Fred Monsiner said:
It depends where, when, and the level of traffic.  Mainline rail in the 20th Century ranged from 115# to 155# (per yard of rail.)  155# was only used for a few years on Horseshoe curve.  With the development of better-quality steel, even the curve got smaller 132# rail.

Interesting!