Taking the T-Trak Plunge

[ednadolski]

This pic may not look like much, but I'm thinking of this as my first purchase toward getting started in the realm of T-Trak modeling in N scale.   Our local Boulder model railroad club now has a group that are building some modules and looking to display them together, so along with being a newly-minted retiree this seems like a great way to get in on the fun and explore an aspect of modeling world that is new to me.  It also gives me a way to make use of some of my N scale fleet which has been mostly idling of late.  Importantly too, I've noticed the enthusiasm for modular modeling here on the good ole forum and I hope to learn a lot at the (virtual) feet of the online experts about this brave new world  

I'm thinking to start by putting together a pair of quad modules that I can set up into a basic oval circuit off at one end of the basement (once I get it cleared out sufficiently... I don't think I could get away for very long with a setup on top of the new pool table, lol).  More track is on the way! 
 


Cheers,
Ed

[Dave V]

Hell yeah, brother!

[N Scale Train Boy]

Welcome to the club! You're going to have fun, I guarantee it!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Hell yeah.

[ednadolski]

@Ed Kapuscinski  IIUC you've come up with some sort of adapter/converter for connecting Unitrak to flextrack in a T-Trak compliant manner?   Do you have some pointers that I could look over?  I do like the idea of reducing the number of track joints compared to sectional Unitrack.

Does anyone hand-build turnouts for T-Trak modules?   or are Kato Unitrack turnouts pretty much the only game in town?

One of my initial thoughts is to come up with a set of several multi-track yard modules that also are extensible. I suppose it could be entirely self contained and need only be T-Track compliant at the module ends and the power connections.  Something I can use both at home and at exhibitions.

Ed

[Dave V]

@Ed Kapuscinski  IIUC you've come up with some sort of adapter/converter for connecting Unitrak to flextrack in a T-Trak compliant manner?   Do you have some pointers that I could look over?  I do like the idea of reducing the number of track joints compared to sectional Unitrack.

Does anyone hand-build turnouts for T-Trak modules?   or are Kato Unitrack turnouts pretty much the only game in town?

One of my initial thoughts is to come up with a set of several multi-track yard modules that also are extensible. I suppose it could be entirely self contained and need only be T-Track compliant at the module ends and the power connections.  Something I can use both at home and at exhibitions.

Ed

I think you can use any turnouts you want as long as they accommodate pizza cutters... So no Atlas code 55, no handlaid code 40. But otherwise, Peco 55 & 80, Atlas 80, handlaid 55 and up, those should all work.

[robert3985]

I think you can use any turnouts you want as long as they accommodate pizza cutters... So no Atlas code 55, no handlaid code 40. But otherwise, Peco 55 & 80, Atlas 80, handlaid 55 and up, those should all work.

Actually, handlaid Code40 PCB trackage accommodates pizza cutters quite well.  I had handlaid Code40 trackage on one of my NTRAK module setups years ago before lo-profile wheelsets were in common use and had zero problems with anything club members would run on it.

The only example of "pizza cutter" wheelsets that I have on hand are the original rib-backed Kadee/MTL three-piece wheelsets, which were what inspired the term "pizza cutter", and their flanges are 0.031" 0.0365" tall.  "Code40" rail is rarely 0.040" tall, all of my Micro Engineering Code40 rail being right at 0.044" tall, as well as my roll of Code40 I got from The 2mm Society in England.

This leaves 0,013" 0.0075" of clearance between the flange and the PCB tie surface the railfoot is soldered to as well as any wood/Styrene ties glued to the railfoot...PLENTY of room close, but still a little over a scale inch of clearance for pizza-cutters to role unobstructed...just be careful with ballasting to not get any on top of the ties near the railfoot.

However, this applies ONLY to "handlaid" Code40 trackage soldered to PCB ties...not Micro Engineering Code40 flex, which has molded-on spikeheads which don't offer sufficient clearance for deep-flanged engines and cars.

Meaning that ALL Code40 trackage must be handlaid PCB trackage...no ME Code40 flex between handlaid Code40 PCB turnouts.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

(EDIT: Edited after taking more precise measurements on 07/23/2026 )

[Dave V]

Yeah, fair enough. All of that to say that Kato Unitrack is far from your only choice! 

[dem34]

Hell, these days I shred junk Atlas and Bachmann Code 80 and slide the rails into 3D printed tie beds that are both Unijoiner compatible and have North American tie spacing.

[ednadolski]

Thanks guys!   Another question re: the unitrack:  looks like one of the commonly used curves on modules is Kato's 13.75 inch radius section.   How well does long rolling stock with body-mount couplers (autoracks, centerbeams, passenger) negotiate these curves -- IOW are those curves too tight for those cars?    I'd think that since there are no grades, then long freight trains (say 30-40 cars) should be feasible on such curves with little stringlining risk. Are 3-4 locos in a lead consist enough for such trains?

My thinking for my very first modules (that need not even be scenicked) should be a set of 4 90-degree curve modules, so that I can JFRTM while building the next module(s).

BTW -- has anyone ever seen modules constructed from gatorfoam or corrugated cardboard?

Ed

[N Scale Train Boy]

Re:Curves

I have personally not seen many issues with long rolling stock (70-80' Passenger cars, Autoracks, TOFC flats, Well cars, etc) on "standard" corners, except when "S" curves are introduced, but the cars do look somewhat silly going around radii that sharp. Many people upgrade to wider radius corners though, and simply eat the extra space that needs.

[arbomambo]

Thanks guys!   Another question re: the unitrack:  looks like one of the commonly used curves on modules is Kato's 13.75 inch radius section.   How well does long rolling stock with body-mount couplers (autoracks, centerbeams, passenger) negotiate these curves -- IOW are those curves too tight for those cars?    I'd think that since there are no grades, then long freight trains (say 30-40 cars) should be feasible on such curves with little stringlining risk. Are 3-4 locos in a lead consist enough for such trains?

My thinking for my very first modules (that need not even be scenicked) should be a set of 4 90-degree curve modules, so that I can JFRTM while building the next module(s).

BTW -- has anyone ever seen modules constructed from gatorfoam or corrugated cardboard?

Ed

Long cars with body mount couplers will not track on the older 12.75” radius corners, endcaps, and junctions.
We, in the greater Southeastern region, are moving to large radius corners, endcaps, and junctions to allow all equipment to operate well and look good doing it.
We always double our tables on our numerous setups (except for stretches of layout made up of single rows of modules)

[Dave V]

Once we have a new basement, I plan to do the same... Expand my corners to a more reasonable radius. For now, everything's on an 8' x 30" table, so I'm stuck with the 11" and 12 3/8" curves. So far the only cars that are giving me trouble are the Bachmann Fleet of Modernism cars. Everything else works, albeit while looking goofy.

[Point353]

What I've done for the (non-standard) endcap modules that I use at home is to add easements to the 180-degree curves.

On both tracks, each end starts with one section of R718 (28") curved track, followed by one section of R481 (19") curved track.
The rest of the 180-degrees is completed with R381 (15") curves.
To maintain parallel spacing, the outer track has a 33mm straight section inserted at each end of the 180-degree curve.

[ednadolski]

For the question of building the long crossovers turnouts I am thinking of revisiting this project from a few years back:  https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=34762.0

This is for a #12 turnout on a photo-etched fret using ME code 55 rail, with soldered PCB ties in places.  If I don't install individual spikes, then this should have a flange clearance of about 0.050". The tieplate details are half-etch, so rise 0.005" above the base of the rail. From searching, I found that the largest pizza cutter flanges ever used were something like 0.0355"   (with MTLs clocking in at like 0.033" which is enough to chatter on ME C40 flex and Atlas C55 flex).   So this should have no problem accommodating anything that the Kato flextrack can handle.   Does anyone know of any n scale flanges larger than 0.0355"?    (paging  @robert3985)

The only other thing I would consider adding to the fret is a template to hold the ties in place during construction, and a couple of extra individual tieplates to be hand-placed where needed.

I plan to try to join this to the unitrack by cutting away the unitrack trackbed where needed, and filing the unitrack rail from the top down by 0.055", leaving a flat little 'tongue' that the ME rail can solder to.

Thoughts?

Ed