Kato staging mixed with NMRA track standards

[TinyTurner]

I might be able to get a Kato track bargain soon to use in my future staging area, realizing now that it's code 80.
Planning on NMRA fine N standards to build the visable plain track.
Option to use code 55 and code 40 for main or secondary accordingly with custom turnouts. Already have some some Atlas code 55 turnouts. 
Majority of cars are mostly (an ever growing ) collection of Micro trains and Atlas.  I can change wheel sets if needed.  Need to change the old ones anyway.

Nothing is set in stone yet, there are options.
I could still go with Peco code 55 for staging.

Are kato turnouts going to run well with a mix of standards?

 

[robert3985]

I might be able to get a Kato track bargain soon to use in my future staging area, realizing now that it's code 80.
Planning on NMRA fine N standards to build the visable plain track.
Option to use code 55 and code 40 for main or secondary accordingly with custom turnouts. Already have some some Atlas code 55 turnouts. 
Majority of cars are mostly (an ever growing ) collection of Micro trains and Atlas.  I can change wheel sets if needed.  Need to change the old ones anyway.

Nothing is set in stone yet, there are options.
I could still go with Peco code 55 for staging.

Are kato turnouts going to run well with a mix of standards?

Soooo...what's the reason again for going with Kato Unitrack or Peco55 for your staging yard? 

If it's that you can get a helluva good deal on either, then I sorta understand. Sorta. 

On the other hand, since you're planning on perhaps using Code40 track for some of your non-mainline trackage, you're going to have to learn to make your Code40 turnouts since they're not commercially available.  And, if you're gonna build all of your Code40 turnouts, be aware that Code55 turnouts are built nearly exactly the same way.  AND, if you know how to build turnouts, then why buy any commercial RTR turnouts?

Since you're wanting to build your visible trackwork to NMRA "Fine Standards" (the NMRA calls this standard "Fine:N"),  then why are you buying Atlas55 turnouts, which are grossly out of proportion and are nowhere near to Fine:N Standards??  Maybe you didn't know that, but yup...all Atlas55 turnouts are much too short between the point of the frog and the closure rail toes down at the throwbar...so short, in fact, that their #5's are about a #4.25...and engines that will go through a properly proportioned #5 turnout will often derail on the Atlas55 "#5" turnouts because the effective diverging radius is much smaller than it should be.  The Atlas55 #7 is much closer to a #6, with the properly proportioned Micro Engineering #6 turnout being almost exactly the same length as the much too short Atlas #7.  Atlas55 #10's also suffer from being much too short...and I'm not talking about being just a little too short...all of them are WAY too short.

And I'm not even talking about the mystery metal plating on the frog, guard rails & closure point rails...which wears off after a while.

The only RTR turnouts I would consider for anything close to NMRA Fine:N Standards would be Micro Engineering #6's...which are properly proportioned, have ties the right length and spacing, and all of the rails are real nickel silver.  Problem is, they might be hard to find right now.

So, if you're gonna learn to build your turnouts, since properly hand-built turnouts, as compared to any commercially available turnouts (with the sole exception being Micro Engineering's #6's), will be properly proportioned (if built to scaled-down prototype turnout proportions), will look exponentially better since all the rails will be nickel silver rail, the turnout ties will be positioned in the right places and be the correct lengths, all the turnout hardware (guard rails, frogs, point rails) will be made from nickel silver rail, and if you choose to go with separate hinged point rails instead of the one-piece monolithic closure rail/point rail protocol, your turnouts will look and function better than ANY commercial RTR turnout made...and be more durable, and much easier to repair if you ever need to do that.

Additionally, if you learn to build your turnouts using printable paper templates instead of machined aluminum jigs, your turnouts will be quite a bit cheaper than RTR turnouts, with much less initial monetary outlay.

Since I build all of my Code55 and Code40 turnouts, and I used to make Code70 turnouts for my Ntrak modules' Code70 mainlines, I haven't bought an RTR turnout for use on any of my modules or layout for over 40 years, and I've saved literally thousands of dollars by rolling my own turnouts.  And, I have trackwork that could never have been done using only turnout sizes and styles that manufacturers think I should use.

"Standards" for my turnouts are a combination of "tight" NMRA clearances...meaning where my NMRA Standards Gage has slots or tabs to establish track clearances and gauge, the clearances are all an "interference fit"...meaning I have to lightly force the NMRA Gage through them...AND, I've established my own standards for point rail lengths and guard rail lengths...being scaled-down from prototype lengths instead of what the NMRA recommends.  I also have smaller than NMRA Standards point rail toe clearance since my tight standards means everything I run must be perfectly gauged, so I don't permit cars and locomotives that have widely spaced, out-of-gauge wheelsets to run on my layout.

I suppose my turnouts are pretty close to NMRA Fine:N Standards, although I haven't checked them for compliance.

So, since I am dedicated to modeling my track as accurately as my knowledge and hard-learned skills permit, and since I learned early on that hand-laying my own turnouts isn't rocket science, and I chose to build my turnouts to a more prototypical standard than any RTR N-scale turnout...I would NEVER have Kato Unitrack, Bachmann E Z Track, Peco55, Atlas80, Atlas55 turnouts anywhere on my layout....even if I could get them for free...even if somebody PAID me to take them.

If Atlas flex didn't have its grossly oversized, unprototypical appearing blobs that hold the rails to the ties, which interfere with engines that might have deep flanges, it would be my second choice for best-looking N-scale track because of its real Code55 rail and its tie proportions and spacing.  But, it does have both appearance and functionality problems, so I don't recommend it.

I recommend Micro Engineering Code55 Unweathered Flex as the go-to for the very best N-scale mainline track. Its flange clearance (because of the small spikehead details) will allow even pizza cutters to run on it, each stick is actually 36" long, and I like it because it's stiff, and I can bend it to an exact centerline and it will stay put...allowing me to solder on my feeders to the bottoms of the rails and thread them through their respective holes before gluing it down.  Many curves on my layout have spiral easements, and those are easy to accomplish using non-floppy ME Flex Track.

For Code40 trackage, Micro Engineering Code40 Flex's spikeheads are too high to run anything but true low-profile flanges on it, so some engines won't run on it.  Every car you have can be converted to true low-profile flanged metal wheelsets, and they will run on it, but it's a lot more difficult to convert motive power wheelsets/drivers to low-profile flanges.  Knowing this, years ago I chose to hand-lay my Code40 trackage, using a PCB tie every 5th tie which Code40 rails gets soldered to, with wooden or Styrene ties in-between.  This combination will run even the grossest pizza-cutter wheelsets without any interference.  But, I miss not having tie-plates and spikeheads, so on my next layout section/module, my Code40 industrial spur at Devil's Slide will have 3D printed tie-strips with scale-sized tie-plates and ultra small (but visible) spikeheads...much better looking than ME Code40 flex or PCB hand-laid trackage.  I'll see if the 3D printed tie strips really make a noticeable difference in appearance.

In my hand-laid turnout and track experience, when I started doing it Fast Tracks didn't exist with all their tools, materials, information and how-to videos, no internet to download free turnout templates from...just a couple of articles in Model Railroader Magazine, so I had to learn it mostly from scratch and invent my own methods, and take credit for my initial failures and/or things I didn't like about my turnouts.  Over the 40+ years I've been doing it, I've found solutions to common problems with N-scale turnouts, solutions to make them look better and solutions to make them more durable...so some of my turnouts look better than the older ones, and are more durable than my earlier versions, particularly at the throwbar and point rail heels.

To answer your question (finally), Yes, just about any combination of rail sizes, types, brands can be adapted so that they run okay with each other...but, since your visible trackage is going to be NMRA Fine:N Standards, and I assume you're going to be using either Atlas55 or Micro Engineering Code55 mainline trackage and Code40 lightly trafficked track, and your attitude seems to lean towards more prototypical looking trackage, why would you want anything to do with the worst looking N-gauge toy track made (Kato Unitrack)???  I guarantee you that if you spend a bit of time learning to make your own turnouts properly, which you've implied is an option for you, they will be cheaper, more durable, and better operationally than any commercial turnouts.

Photo (1) - Echo Junction with Code55 mainlines & Hand-laid Code40 PCB Branchline Trackage & Hand-laid Turnouts:


Photo (2) - Code40 Hand-laid PCB Branchline with PCB Ties Every 5th Tie, Wood Ties In-Between, Rail Craft (ME) Code55 Mainlines at Echo Curve:


Photo (3) - Code40 Hand-laid Park City Yard Throat & Code55 Rail Craft West-Bound Mainline At Echo Coaling Tower Trackage:


Photo (4) - Code55 Monolithic #4 Wye, #6, #8 - Center Siding Entrance/Exit Under Construction On The Bench:


Although this might look complicated, it really isn't since the techniques and methods for each turnout are virtually identical.  All that blue tape is holding everything securely in position on my tabletop while I cut, file, position and solder...and check again with my NMRA Standards Gage before progressing to the next portion.  Each step gets checked with the "Gage", then I roll a truck over it to check for smoothness.  This means that both construction and quality control are done progressively in steps, so when my turnouts are finished and ready to install, I am confident they're properly constructed and have the correct clearances to be ultra reliable and allow dependable, smooth running.

Maybe this post will give you what you need to make a better informed decision in a few areas when designing your layout and planning its construction.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Skeebo]

Mixing track?     In my youth, finances sometimes drove it. Simply put, DON'T DO IT! Its been my experience it causes problems you don't need and you'll end up frustrated and re-do it. Of course if you like re-laying entire sections of your layout, have at it. Also, I find Kato switches are garbage and discerning modelers won't tolerate them. You may save some $ now, but you'll end up paying later.
            Jim Semikoski

[Rivet Miscounter]

The reason for going with Kato for staging is it just performs better.   Sure, it's cosmetically undesirable, but functionally it cannot be beat in 99% of the cases.  (and really, who cares what your staging track looks like?)  And, you can easily reconfigure your staging if things change.

Only thing I would say is...stay away from the #4 turnouts.

[Sokramiketes]

The reason for going with Kato for staging is it just performs better.   Sure, it's cosmetically undesirable, but functionally it cannot be beat in 99% of the cases.  (and really, who cares what your staging track looks like?)  And, you can easily reconfigure your staging if things change.

Only thing I would say is...stay away from the #4 turnouts.

For out of the box models, and generous NMRA specs, Unitrack does perform well.  And seems to stay clean forever.

I think the problem is mixing specs.  Once you go fine scale, Unitrack no longer performs well in the turnouts.  It's the same problem for Peco Code 55.  Once you go small flanges and proper gauging with smaller treads, well, now you'll bump through old Peco turnouts. 

Track and wheel specs must match. 

[wm3798]

Build the staging using the Unitrak if you get a good deal on it.  Once you come out of the tunnel, use your fine scale stuff.

You'll need a transition track to go from the c80 Hi Rail of the Unitrak to the fine N 55, but you can make that with a few swipes of a file.

Just keep everything consistent.
Lee

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The reason for going with Kato for staging is it just performs better.   Sure, it's cosmetically undesirable, but functionally it cannot be beat in 99% of the cases.  (and really, who cares what your staging track looks like?)  And, you can easily reconfigure your staging if things change.

Only thing I would say is...stay away from the #4 turnouts.

I did this with my old layout. But I was an even bigger deviant. I used Unitrack turnouts for the staging throat, then went over to cheapo flex track for the length of the yard. It worked perfectly fine, and meant that installing the remote controlled staging ladder took minutes instead of days.





I used an adapter joiner at the C55 / Unitrack interface, but that's pretty well trodden territory.

[dem34]

Dogpiling on, I also don't see the issue in it. I know a few of the big guys use Unitrak for helixes since  it maintains perfect radius throughout as long as 18" min is within spec. The layout I have planned for my rental (if the ceilings stop falling down on their own sometime soon) uses Unitrak staging in conjunction with Handlaid visible portions. So If I want to I can adjust staging as needed for operation and budgetary reasons.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh duh, and yeah, this exists to help with your problem too.
https://conrail1285.com/hacked-unitrack/

You might want the "blind ends" from the files.

[randgust]

I guess all I'll try to chime in with is whatever you do, before you build a massive project layout with those goals, is do at least a sample of what you're track and standards look like and operate to evaluate what you really want.   

I won't argue Robert's points particularly on geometry.  But not everybody has those skills.  They can be developed, but it's not universal.    You really should try it, just don't buy yourself a bale of Code 40 until you've actually built - and operated - some equipment and tested it.

I have many skills, but Code 40 made me hit the wall and back off.   I've even managed to make dual-gauge track and a switch just to see if I can do it.   But I'd never do a whole layout that way - my expiriment with resin-printed tie strip and holding the Code 40 rails with Pliobond was a disaster.  If I every try it again, PC ties, period.   But it sure looked good and ran fine for a couple years before it abruptly failed.

There are no perfect turnouts handmade or out of the box.   Everything has a tradeoff either in appearance, fabrication difficulty, availability, or something.    I've had to modify/reinforce every turnout I own if for no other reason than reliability, including Kato 4's with the notorious derail problem that CAN be easily fixed by adding point notches in the stock rail.  And feed jumpers to the points on all Atlas and Peco ones.   I have old Atlas C80 in my staging that has held up for wow, 40 years, but they were bulletproofed then with feeder wires and gauge corrections, as well as moving all solenoids under the roadbed for maintenance and replacement.

If you weren't fine scale, the Kato switches do have one advantage (other than fixing 4's) in that they are modular, and if one fails, it's not impossible to yank, replace or repair.    You wouldn't think switches will fall apart before you will, but it happens.

You will have issues with equipment on fine scale vs. 'normal' N track standards on commercial frogs and guardrails, and I sure wouldn't assume that doing those switches in any hidden staging will improve reliability, if anything, you'll develop whole new areas to derail.   Equipment also gets into it because you better have a lathe or skills to recontour wheels not just for flange depth, but tread width and back-to-back.   Diesels aren't all that bad but some brass steam is about impossible depending on how it was soldered together.

[Maletrain]

One thing to consider is track spacing with Unitrack. 

The #4s space to 1-1/4" center-to-center, which is nice if you need to get fingers on cars that have problems while in packed parallel staging tracks.  But, it is a little wider than NMRA track spacing spec of 1-1/32".  So, if you need to pack in as many staging tracks as your space will permit, you might want to go narrower.  But, with Kato #6 turnouts, track spacing is a bit over 1-15/16".  You can cut the track+roadbed to get the 1-1/4" spacing with Kato #6s, but that is not a "snap" solution.

Another thing to keep in mind when planning staging is "clearance points" - the positions on the tracks where cars going into an adjacent track at the diverging turnout will clear a car on the track.  That is a matter of car length as well as switch frog number and track centerline spacing.  The longer the cars, the more their ends will swing out from the tracks they are on as they round curves, and the farther into the straightaway that goes before the other end of the car is off the curve.  So, if you absolutely need a certain length for a particular train you want to model, and are cramped for space (aren't we all, always), then track spacing can also give you additional useful length, to a small degree.

[robert3985]

...I won't argue Robert's points particularly on geometry.  But not everybody has those skills.  They can be developed, but it's not universal.    You really should try it, just don't buy yourself a bale of Code 40 until you've actually built - and operated - some equipment and tested it.

I started out building Code70 turnouts for my two Ntrak modules.  When I dropped out of Ntrak and built my own modules to my own standards, I used Code55 and Code40.  I was deeply surprised at how easy it was to remove metal from Code40 rails.  For me, making Code40 turnouts was much easier than either Code70 or Code55 turnouts, because not nearly as much metal needs to be removed.  I also found out that because of my non-sliding hinges on the point rails, the soldered-on throwbars on the Code40 turnouts didn't break off after a month or so of operation like they did on the Code70 and Code55 turnouts....so, my Code40 turnouts were more durable than the larger Codes too.  Filing, shaping, soldering was easier, went noticeably faster, turnouts were more durable. I'm trying to think why Code40 was so difficult for you. 

I have many skills, but Code 40 made me hit the wall and back off.   I've even managed to make dual-gauge track and a switch just to see if I can do it.   But I'd never do a whole layout that way - my expiriment with resin-printed tie strip and holding the Code 40 rails with Pliobond was a disaster.  If I every try it again, PC ties, period.   But it sure looked good and ran fine for a couple years before it abruptly failed.

Since I'm strongly considering building 3D printed tie strips for both Code50 and Code40 rails for use on my next modular/sectional Devil's Slide/Wilhemina Pass LDE's, I'd like to know what happened when yours "abruptly failed"???

There are no perfect turnouts handmade or out of the box.   Everything has a tradeoff either in appearance, fabrication difficulty, availability, or something.    I've had to modify/reinforce every turnout I own if for no other reason than reliability, including Kato 4's with the notorious derail problem that CAN be easily fixed by adding point notches in the stock rail.  And feed jumpers to the points on all Atlas and Peco ones.   I have old Atlas C80 in my staging that has held up for wow, 40 years, but they were bulletproofed then with feeder wires and gauge corrections, as well as moving all solenoids under the roadbed for maintenance and replacement.

Yup, I've never seen nor built a "perfect" turnout. BUT, Micro Engineering's Code55 #6 comes pretty close with pretty good spikehead/friction plate details, hinged point rails, cast nickel silver frog, correct tie spacing and lengths for a #6 turnout, correctly proportioned for a scaled-down N-scale #6, and a durable over-center spring mechanism at the throwbar.  But, it has oversized Code55 rails, and, there's only that single #6 that they offer. I've read about quality control issues with ME's #6's, but I've used a lot of them on friends' modules/layouts and I've never had a quality-control problem with them.

The closest to "perfect" hand-laid N-scale turnouts I've seen were built by our own Ed Nadolski with his etched turnout frets with using (if I remember correctly) Code40 rails.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[TinyTurner]

I never heard back from the guy, don't think he was too keen on using the internet.  Shame that, it looked like a good haul but without a price who knows?
It's been very interesting to hear from you all on the different standards.  I am fortunate to have secured a bargain lathe some years ago at a show from a fellow who could no longer manage to use it.
Rejoining the NMRA BR after a lapse should help with resources, and have beforehand managed to sneak into the 2mm scale association when no one was looking to secure bundles of rail.  Getting orders from fast tracks is a serious undertaking and Atlas code 55 flex is either impossible to find or extortionate.  There are quite a lot of factors involved. 

I guess where I am heading ultimately is towards FS160, https://fs160.eu/ which is not even really NMRA, but would still like a place to at least test all the standard N scale bargains, having put many into 'the draw' for future use.  In fact I quite like finding non runners to fix up for later and makes me feel better about painting and detailing something 'cheap' rather than risk messing with high end models.   
I was never really happy with off the shelf due to the running quality of much older models and the frustration it caused, its fascinating to see how much progress has been made with all the tiny motors and DCC.   
Cost really is a factor in all this as well as conserving physical energy and managing health, so for ergonomics and economics I have invested in a table saw (at long last!) that will let me turn scraps into useful bench work. I have some experience at sawdust making for layouts and it's a natural extension to learn new skills.
I think a small cameo layout with a high level of finish will give me an idea of where I am at, I can use the same tools and materials for any standards or scale         

[robert3985]

I never heard back from the guy, don't think he was too keen on using the internet.  Shame that, it looked like a good haul but without a price who knows?
It's been very interesting to hear from you all on the different standards.  I am fortunate to have secured a bargain lathe some years ago at a show from a fellow who could no longer manage to use it.
Rejoining the NMRA BR after a lapse should help with resources, and have beforehand managed to sneak into the 2mm scale association when no one was looking to secure bundles of rail.  Getting orders from fast tracks is a serious undertaking and Atlas code 55 flex is either impossible to find or extortionate.  There are quite a lot of factors involved. 

I guess where I am heading ultimately is towards FS160, https://fs160.eu/ which is not even really NMRA, but would still like a place to at least test all the standard N scale bargains, having put many into 'the draw' for future use.  In fact I quite like finding non runners to fix up for later and makes me feel better about painting and detailing something 'cheap' rather than risk messing with high end models.   
I was never really happy with off the shelf due to the running quality of much older models and the frustration it caused, its fascinating to see how much progress has been made with all the tiny motors and DCC.   
Cost really is a factor in all this as well as conserving physical energy and managing health, so for ergonomics and economics I have invested in a table saw (at long last!) that will let me turn scraps into useful bench work. I have some experience at sawdust making for layouts and it's a natural extension to learn new skills.
I think a small cameo layout with a high level of finish will give me an idea of where I am at, I can use the same tools and materials for any standards or scale       

COOL!  Lathes are good!  Hopefully it has the tooling you need to go with it too.

Although I use my table saw for certain things, such as ripping plywood and ripping 1/8" Masonite into 1" strips for my splined Masonite subroadbed, after I bit the bullet and bought a top-of-the-line DEWALT 12-in 15-Amp Dual Bevel Sliding Compound Miter Saw and the Adjustable Saw Stand, I don't use my table saw much any more.  The big miter saw with a 90 tooth carbide tipped blade is perfect for both my modular/sectional layout's benchwork and making satin-smooth cuts in premium pine/poplar/basswood for various modeling projects such as tunnel portals or bridge piers & abutments.

Actually, both are exactly what I need for my model railroading since I can't rip with the miter saw, and I can't do repeated precise length chops on my table saw nearly as easily as I can with my miter saw.

NEXT...a vertical mill will be just what you need for milling chassis for adding DCC & speakers.  Although I learned milling on a big Clausing Mill in my teens, for my model work, and some light prototyping of other things, I've found my little Sherline mill to be just right.

I would stay away from Atlas55 flex if for nothing else than the appearance of the "spikeheads"...which are huge blobs as opposed to Micro Engineering's spikehead/tieplate detailing.  ME flex doesn't have the "floppy rail" either, so even though it's way stiffer than Atlas55, both rails are much more secure, and if you're gonna run narrow-treaded wheels, you need to make sure your track stays in gauge...and I like the idea that I have more control of my curves than with floppy Atlas flex, especially when laying my spiral easements.

Sounds like you're gonna have a lot of fun...so enjoy!!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore