Now that I've actually got my hands on some new concrete-tie Unitrack, here's a comparison. (The section at the top has been weathered; the one below it is mint.)
This is simply a 1000% improvement. The older ties are too widely spaced and too short. (They're still marginally better than Atlas flex, in my view.) The newer ties are more closely spaced and longer. For comparison, here's a section of prototype concrete tie track:
The Kato track simply needs some weathering. Here's the recent concrete-tie single crossover:
The discussions I've seen say these are based on Japanese practice of making switch ties out of some kind of resin material, because the stresses in a switch would be bad for concrete ties, and because the custom lengths don't lend themselves to concrete tie production. Switch ties in the US are often (though not exclusively) wood in otherwise concrete-tie track. The color difference between resin and wood is close enough. Here's a US prototype crossover with wood ties in concrete track:
In bright sun and with some weathering, the difference is hard to distinguish. Here's a Kato crossover from a similar angle:
Well, with some weathering and work to kill the shiny rails, this won't be bad at all.
Notice the switch machines, which don't come (the detail, not the model feature, which does) with the Kato Unitrack. I'll be fixing this.
In the US, concrete tie track is mostly used on UP and BNSF main lines, on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, and some commuter operators. BNSF went to concrete ties in my area in the mid to late 1990s. UP changed about 10 years later. NS, CSX, CN, and CP seem to be holdouts for wood ties.
I'll probably be using the concrete-tie T-trak modules primarily with Metra, Metrolink, and Amtrak equipment.
No comments:
Post a Comment