Changes

[Dave V]

It makes no sense to me to use UNITRAK, then try to mate up Atlas C55 flex .. if the tie spacing / rail height don't bother you, then just go with the C80 flex ..

I can understand the desire to use what's on hand, but I agree, there's no way to combine Unitrack and Atlas 55 in a way that looks good.  One or the other will look glaringly wrong, and it ain't gonna be the code 55.

I think you either have to go with one or the other.  Using both is just going to be a hassle and probably lead to regret.

I would personally go with code 55 because of the appearance factor.  I'm not convinced Atlas code 55 is that much cheaper than Unitrack once you take ballast, roadbed, switch machines, etc. into account based on so many other threads on the subject, but appearance-wise, code 55 wins hands-down. 

Unitrack is quick, fun, and reliable, but that's it.  The rigid geometry is something I'm running across building a Unitrack layout for my 8-year-old.  It's not too big a problem, but free-floing flextrack and a curved turnout would certainly look more natural and railroad-y.

But I don't need to validate my own choices by forcing them on others...   ;D

[Brakie]

a single piece of Midwest cork with Atlas C55 is not the same height as a piece of Unitrak.  Film at 11.

I'm confused. ???

I reread my replies and no where did I mention joining Unitrack with C55.

Did I miss the train?

[TiVoPrince]

Since  
this is not your ultimate and forever layout.  Use Unitrak to do some experimenting and find your own joy.  Make use of what you have on hand to create switching areas to see if you like them for future reference.  Unitrak has one shining advantage that it can be recombined in so many different ways if your first attempt falls short of perfection, as it most always will.  Unitrak is the ultimate tool for wafflers.  Its certainly a wonder that I don't own thousands of Unitrak bits, yet..