He does some really great stuff in HOn3.
That said.........I hate to be that guy, but the rendering artifacts on the track are really obvious in N scale.
Yeah, the layer lines are obvious. However, I'm pretty sure that Roy designed these to be ballasted, so the layer lines are irrelevant.
I would also bury the roadbed in ballast...but the ties have a cross-hatched texture that would still be visible.
Try as I might, I couldn't see "...a cross-hatched texture..." on the ties in the photos published here. Dave, are you looking at different photos from another site?? For myself, the extra-large thingies holding the rails to the ties would be more objectionable...since they are very obvious in the photos published here, when I can't see the "cross-hatched texture" on the ties.
However, I can see the slab-sided Atlas80 rail on Roy's product, which is very close (if not identical) to Kato Unitracks's rail profile. This is one of the main objections I have to Kato Unitrack, and Atlas80 also. I don't see any mechanical advantage to this rail profile over a more scale-looking profile used on every other current brand of N-gauge trackage. So, why did Kato and Atlas do this??...Just to be ugly??
The two features (as far as appearance is concerned) that solve Kato Unitrack's main visual problem is Roy's more-correct tie spacing and more-correct tie dimensions. Since I don't have Roy's product in my possession, I can't take my digital calipers to it to check actual dimensions and spacing, but, it certainly looks much better than Unitrack...OBVIOUSLY better.
I still like my solution better: using Micro Engineering on top of road bed that does the Unitrack bits.
I have to agree with Ed. Although through my experience laying different "codes" and brands of N-scale and N-gauge track, it's the tie size and spacing that makes the most obvious difference between toy-like trackage and prototype-looking trackage. Of course, painting, ballasting (with correctly-sized ballast rocks) and weathering, makes a huge difference in the appearance of toy-like trackage, but, in the end, painting, ballasting and weathering only makes the underlying toy-like trackage's objectionable features less blatantly obvious...underneath, it's still a sow's ear, and it's still obvious to those who choose to actually "look".
Micro Engineering's N-scale trackage is the most prototypical appearing flextrack available...period. It has its faults, such as the slightly rounded ends of the ties, a too-acute draft angle on the vertical surfaces of the ties, although having the only molded-on spike head representations available on their ties, these are still much too large, while their molded-on tie plate representation is too small, the tie-spacing is almost correct for UP Standard No. 2 (one too few ties per 39' length), almost correct for UP Standard No. 3 (one too many ties per 39' length), but not for UP Standard No. 1 (three too few ties per 39' length), while their tie length is correct at exactly a scale 9' for UP Standard #1 (Mainline main trackage)...so, the tie spacing (close for branchline main, ore & coal lines and heavy yards) doesn't match the tie length (perfect length for UP Standard No. 1 - mainline main and derrick track).
Everything is relative, so even though Micro Engineering flex isn't "perfect" for either mainline main or branchline main trackage, it very clearly and noticeably looks more prototypical than Kato Unitrack's tie spacing.
So, what about rail profile? For me, the slab-sided rail profile of Unitrack and Atlas80 is very obvious and is one of the reasons if I were forced to use Code80 flex, I would choose Peco since it has (at least) a more prototypical rail profile than Kato or Atlas80. The slab-sidedness of Unitrack just emphasizes the excessive Code80 rail height, as does Atlas80.
From a mechanical aspect, would ME Code70 rail be more compatible with Kato Code80 rails? Will that 0.010" rail height difference make a big difference mechanically and operationally? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not...but I would bet on "not". Is the base of ME Code70 rail similar enough to Kato Code80 rails so that Kato rail joiners will make reliable electrical contact? Again, I don't know. With electrical feeders to each piece of current carrying rail, electrical conductivity at the rail joiners isn't necessary, so maybe the question about rail joiner compatibility is moot for T-TRAK.
Although I prefer Code55 rail for my mainline main trackage, when I got permission to use different trackage than Atlas80 on my first NTRAK modules waaaay back when, the powers-that-be specified I could use Rail Craft flex only if it was the Code70 version. They were worried about compatibility at the Code80 connecting tracks. After painting, ballasting and weathering, I was quite surprised that I didn't notice the additional 0.015" of rail height between Code70 and Code55 rail...even in close-up photos, and the 0.010" difference between my module trackage and the NTRAK Code80 connecting tracks had absolutely zero effect on operational reliability.
So, from ease of design for the printed roadbed providing "..the Unitrack bits...", probably designing it for ME Code70 flex would be easiest, functionally.
For the best "look" designing it for ME Code55 flex would provide the best prototype look for a T-TRAK module and still be fully compatible with pizza cutter wheelsets that other T-TRAK members might be using. However, I'm pretty sure that designing the T-TRAK/Unitrack compatible track ends would maybe be more difficult.
My interest in this is not because I am interested in T-TRAK (I don't like T-TRAK's modular philosophy... "small trains in small spaces", which negates one of the main advantages of N-scale...its scenery-to-track ratio), but, I am intensely interested in N-scale track, and I celebrate even incremental improvements such as Roy's much better-looking T-TRAK ties/roadbed. I would be much more celebratory if it incorporated ME Code70 rails, held on with much smaller, but robust enough spikehead/tieplate representations.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
