More concrete tie NA appropriate Unitrak announced including #6’s (Kato Japan)

[Dave V]

What paint are you using?

Vallejo Leather Brown (two versions for some reason), Vajello concrete (for the occasional silvered tie) and the occasional Raw Umber and Burnt Umber craft paint (though the craft paint doesn't cover on the first coat).

[robert3985]

Are the ties still not USA proportioned?

I'm betting @robert3985 has the dimensional data you're after. I've been painting concrete ties for a week and it ain't for those who have a short attention span! But they do look much closer to North American standards than the standard "wood tie" Unitrack.

Tie "proportions" is not a simple topic prototypically.  However, from an N-scale modeler's viewpoint, we are greatly limited to our choices if we want to pursue precise prototype measurements, even with something as seemingly basic as tie appearance (meaning length, height, width, spacing and rail attachment hardware).

Since I don't have a piece of Kato Unitrack in its new, or old concrete tie configuration to look at and measure, and since my interest is for Union Pacific track laid after 1941, until 1956...which means rail in 39' lengths (no continuous welded rail), and wood ties, with tieplates & spikeheads, my information deals with those parameters.

Keeping that in mind, here's a UP drawing that shows what Union Pacific tie dimensions are (length, height, width) for various types of track used system-wide on the UP.  You can figure it out for yourself if Kato Unitrack in concrete tie configuration looks close enough to satisfy your modeling needs.

Photo (1) -UP Tie Spacing Standards as of May 10, 1974:


Hope this adds some information to your knowledge base, if not more confusion as to what "...USA proportioned..." N-scale tie proportions and spacing should actually look like.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[crrcoal]

Thank you!

Vallejo Leather Brown (two versions for some reason), Vajello concrete (for the occasional silvered tie) and the occasional Raw Umber and Burnt Umber craft paint (though the craft paint doesn't cover on the first coat).

[Point353]

Tie "proportions" is not a simple topic prototypically.  However, from an N-scale modeler's viewpoint, we are greatly limited to our choices if we want to pursue precise prototype measurements, even with something as seemingly basic as tie appearance (meaning length, height, width, spacing and rail attachment hardware).

Since I don't have a piece of Kato Unitrack in its new, or old concrete tie configuration to look at and measure, and since my interest is for Union Pacific track laid after 1941, until 1956...which means rail in 39' lengths (no continuous welded rail), and wood ties, with tieplates & spikeheads, my information deals with those parameters.

Keeping that in mind, here's a UP drawing that shows what Union Pacific tie dimensions are (length, height, width) for various types of track used system-wide on the UP.  You can figure it out for yourself if Kato Unitrack in concrete tie configuration looks close enough to satisfy your modeling needs.

Photo (1) -UP Tie Spacing Standards as of May 10, 1974:


Hope this adds some information to your knowledge base, if not more confusion as to what "...USA proportioned..." N-scale tie proportions and spacing should actually look like.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Hypothetically, supposing that you were a Unitrack user and were modeling a prototype (and in a timeframe) that used wood ties, which one would you choose: the wood tie version that has simulated wood grain molded in, even though the ties are less prototypically correct in size - or- the concrete tie version (without wood grain), which has ties with closer to prototype dimensions?

[ednadolski]

Welp, think they noticed the sudden proliferation of 3D printed NA tie beds in the last few months.

Wish they would notice some of the Code 40 stuff.... 

Ed

[Maletrain]

Looking at the original Kato wood tie track, I get a bit less than 15 ties in 39 scale feet of track, and the tie widths scale to 12".

Dave V, what measurements are you getting for the tie spacing and width on the new Kato concrete tie track?

[Dave V]

Looking at the original Kato wood tie track, I get a bit less than 15 ties in 39 scale feet of track, and the tie widths scale to 12".

Dave V, what measurements are you getting for the tie spacing and width on the new Kato concrete tie track?

1.5 mm tie width, 2.5 mm space between ties. Tie width is a scale 9.45" and distance between ties a scale 15.75."

So we get a roughly 25.2" center-to-center spacing. Not as tight as Bob's UP diagram but in the right direction.

[robert3985]

1.5 mm tie width, 2.5 mm space between ties. Tie width is a scale 9.45" and distance between ties a scale 15.75."

So we get a roughly 25.2" center-to-center spacing. Not as tight as Bob's UP diagram but in the right direction.

Hmmm...does this mean that Dave's digital caliper arrived???? 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Dave V]

Hmmm...does this mean that Dave's digital caliper arrived???? 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Indeed! First use! Opened it this morning.

[peteski]

Welcome  to the CCoMB (Caliper Club of Model Builders) Dave!  The benefits are endless! 

[Maletrain]

So the new Kato track has almost proper tie width and about 18.6 ties per 39 scale feet. 

That looks like Bob's UP #4 standard. 

Of course, that Kato "roadbed" looks like overkill for "industrial leads, industrial spur tracks and storage tracks".

[ski]

Does Kato concrete tie flex track have the same tie spacing as the fixed pieces? It kind of looks like it does. Not sure it's worthy of much consideration over other flex track, but it might be another option for more "flexibility" in T-trak module applications. I see that Kato also has a concrete tie unijoiner adaptor piece that rails slide into (part 20-099) that appears to match the tie spacing. The Kato concrete flex track would certainly be easier to paint/ spray bomb and ballast, but so would better looking code 55 track I guess. I wonder if the adaptor would take code 55 rail with the stock unijoiner modified somehow?

[robert3985]

Does Kato concrete tie flex track have the same tie spacing as the fixed pieces? It kind of looks like it does. Not sure it's worthy of much consideration over other flex track, but it might be another option for more "flexibility" in T-trak module applications. I see that Kato also has a concrete tie unijoiner adaptor piece that rails slide into (part 20-099) that appears to match the tie spacing. The Kato concrete flex track would certainly be easier to paint/ spray bomb and ballast, but so would better looking code 55 track I guess. I wonder if the adaptor would take code 55 rail with the stock unijoiner modified somehow?

Unless you see it actually stated in the product description, I have serious doubts that Kato Concrete Tie Flex Track rail is Code55. 

I would venture a guess that it's the very same slab-sided Code80 rail they use for their sectional track.

If I were ever going to build a TTrak module or two, I would use Micro Engineering Code70 between the Unitrack ends, which I know has very close to U.P. tie dimensions and spacing for main trackage, plus much smaller and better looking spike head detailing for timber ties.

But, if you want to only do Kato Unitrack on your TTrak modules, then their Concrete Tie Flex is certainly a valid option, allowing much more flexibility, fewer track joints, and getting rid of that cast-on roadbed...making for much easier (and better-looking) conventional ballasting techniques after painting & weathering of the flex.

The Micro Engineering flex eliminates the cosmetic problems of Unitrack, and if you might have problems with matching rail heights between Code80 and Code55, then Micro Engineering Code70 is a good option, and frankly, the rail height isn't nearly as perceptible of a problem as Kato's tie dimensions, spacing, rail profile, Code80 rail height and rail attachment castings on the ties.

Just to graphically illustrate how Micro Engineering Code70 looks after painting, weathering and ballasting, here's a photo of my U.P. mainlines on my first NTRAK module...

Photo (1) - Micro Engineering Code70 Flex Trak (actually Rail Craft Code70) showing that the tall rail height is virtually imperceptible, the tie dimensions, spacing and rail attachment hardware being the noticeable features:


Photo (2) - The same track, another view:


I think these illustrate that rail height isn't the main consideration for more prototypical-looking N-scale rail although it IS a consideration.  The main problems with most N-gauge trackage is their tie dimensions and spacing.  For close-ups, the rail attachment hardware and rail profile (slab-sided Kato and Atlas80 rail) start to jump out at you.

So, from my point of view (which may differ from yours) I would opt for Micro Engineering Code70 for my between-the-Unitrack module ends, and if I had sidings or an industrial spur, I'd do those in Micro Engineering Code55.  There's no difference between painting, weathering, laying, ballasting ME flex & Unitrack flex, so why not opt for the best-looking?

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[pmpexpress]

Unless you see it actually stated in the product description, I have serious doubts that Kato Concrete Tie Flex Track rail is Code55. 

I would venture a guess that it's the very same slab-sided Code80 rail they use for their sectional track.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

From what I've garnered from the internet, Kato 21-001 N Scale Concrete Tie Flex Track is Code 80.

[ski]

I was indeed under the assumption that Kato flex is code &0. I was wondering if the Kato ADAPTER would accept code 55 rail from code 55 flex (Atlas or ME) to make code 55 use a bit friendlier for an actual T-trak module. IE use ME flex on the module with the Kato adapter on the end for connecting to mother modules.