|
Post by ugeesta on Oct 22, 2020 19:56:49 GMT -5
I’m thinking about building a second layout. My current layout uses Marklin track and pretty much uses all of my track. I see many layouts on this site that use the Roukahn (sp) Track so maybe that is the track to use? There is Atlas track as well.
The thing I don’t like about the Marklin track is that the ties shrink and the rails shift leaving gaps and/or lengthening the tracks resulting in an out of square layout. Are the other two track products that much better? What about cost and flexibility? At least with the Marklin track I can custom cut a track length if I need to.
|
|
|
Post by zscalehobo on Oct 22, 2020 20:02:19 GMT -5
Are you mounting directly to wood?
|
|
|
Post by ugeesta on Oct 23, 2020 3:24:18 GMT -5
Yes. More than likely the track will be on wood.
|
|
|
Post by ztrack on Oct 24, 2020 8:45:46 GMT -5
I would go with Rokuhan. Yes I am their US representative, but there are just so many pros The line is far more extensive than any other line on the market. For example the offer a 90 degree crossing, the double cross over, and larger sectional curves than Marklin (245mm and 270mm) and the choice between concrete and wood ties. Their turnouts are excellent and can handle equipment from all manufacturers. Plus the turnouts look better since the mechanism is hidden in the roadbed. Their plug and play system is simple to use. And their controllers have built in short protection.
Also if you are laying right on work, then then having the roadbed track is a real plus.
Here is a tip, I use Rokuhan for my T-Trak-Z modules. These are tacked right to the modules using a product call Liquid Nails - Projects. I just put a small drop on end end of the track to secure it. These way I can pull it up later if need be. Plus the Liquid Nails is almost rubber based, which helps with sound insulation against wood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 10:39:12 GMT -5
I built my whole layout (about 24 m of track) with Rokuhan sectional track and their turnouts (8 have been used). The tracks are fixed to poplar plywood with 1.4 mm screws ; these have been "camouflaged" with Tamiya XF23 (light blue), look here. Don't use the screws on 440 mm straight tracks, because the holes are ON the ties, and they will be more visible ...
|
|
|
Post by ugeesta on Oct 24, 2020 19:21:45 GMT -5
Good info, thanks.
Haven't really decided what I want to do but will likely do an L shaped table with some switching. Not planning to landscape or elevate the track.
Regarding power to the Rokuhan track, does it need a power feed every 36" +/- ? I did that with my Marklin layout and it runs a lot better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2020 1:30:23 GMT -5
For myself I soldered feeders at EACH piece of track (excepted turnouts), but I don't know if it really needed.
|
|
|
Post by pcbpoppy on Oct 25, 2020 7:20:53 GMT -5
Good info, thanks.
Haven't really decided what I want to do but will likely do an L shaped table with some switching. Not planning to landscape or elevate the track.
Regarding power to the Rokuhan track, does it need a power feed every 36" +/- ? I did that with my Marklin layout and it runs a lot better.
My recommendation is also to go with Rokuhan track because of a vast array of track as opposed to other manufacturers, reliability (like Kato is in N Scale) and turnouts are excellent and reliable also. As with any method you use in Z your track work needs to be solid. Take the time to make sure your track is laid properly and you will have many enjoyable moments.
As far as layout design, as always it's a matter of preference and what you want to achieve. In my case I went with an "L" shaped layout for home use using T-TRAK-Z modules sitting on top of (2) 30" x 72" banquet tables. Image of track plan is attached.
EDIT: As for power feeds, that is up to you. In my plan I have two lines operating with separate controllers. I have only one power feed for each line on the back side of the layout and only one on each line on the front and I don't have any issues with only (2) feeders for each line. As they say, "your mileage may vary".
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by husafreak on Oct 26, 2020 10:36:36 GMT -5
To me it seems there are two kinds of modelers, those that do prototypical track and those who don't. The realism afforded by the Atlas type of track ballasted and painted is undeniable. I chose Rokuhan as a way to "keep it simple" and not to be drawn in to all that. Great track, great selection, good turnouts, but it's never going to blow your mind like a layout by Robert, Jeff, or Kuhlmann!
|
|
|
Post by ProgressRail on Oct 26, 2020 10:37:18 GMT -5
I believe the real question you're asking here is do you want to model railroad track or just simulate track? Once you establish the difference between those two...only you will know which track you want.
If you want to model track, go with Atlas 2810 or MTL 599 flex; Atlas turnouts and/or Fast Tracks; cork/rubber roadbed + ballast.
If you just want to simulate track, go with MTL sectional track. You can make it look better by adding ballast along the edges and weathering, but this only goes so far in terms of appearance; think 3' rule...it kinda passes. You also mentioned switching operations; technical specifications for track & ballast differ between mainlines, yards, and industrial tracks...with sectional track it's all the same.
This of course is all related to U.S. railroad track...not European, Japanese, etc.; only then would Rokuhan [generic plug n' play] be appropriate for simulating or using it as a test_break-in/dcc programming loop. U.S. railroad equipment just looks ridiculous on Rokuhan. If you're modeling a European railroad, I would think your best bet is to just stick with Märklin or Peco.
[*not hi-jacking this man's thread but, for those doing T-Trak-Z...out of curiosity, why is Rokuhan being used on a U.S. developed standard when we have Atlas flex, turnouts, and MTL flex...and roadbed...and ballast?]
|
|
|
Post by rvn2001 on Oct 26, 2020 11:50:58 GMT -5
T-track-Z modules are designed to be held together by the track alone. The roadbed connectors, along with the rail joiners, help keep the connection tight.
|
|
|
Post by ProgressRail on Oct 26, 2020 13:16:53 GMT -5
T-track-Z modules are designed to be held together by the track alone. The roadbed connectors, along with the rail joiners, help keep the connection tight. Almost like MTL sectional track that uses a dual_joiner-system and incorporates U.S. tie-spacing huh? Almost as if Rokuhan is possibly being pushed for other reasons...or just so people's turnouts match their sectional track?
|
|
|
Post by rvn2001 on Oct 26, 2020 13:27:28 GMT -5
I'm not promoting Rokuhan track but it's more robust and comes in a wider selection of track pieces ... including wider-radius curves. T-track for N scale uses Kato track.
|
|
|
Post by Commodore on Oct 26, 2020 14:10:46 GMT -5
Dang... Lots of opinions! Dad always said: “There’s an ass for every seat,” (Meaning opinions differ...) Let’s none of us be asses...here!
|
|
|
Post by dazed on Oct 26, 2020 15:41:08 GMT -5
why is Rokuhan being used on a U.S. developed standard when we have Atlas flex, turnouts, and MTL flex...and roadbed...and ballast?
First off, who said Atlas isn't being used? Hint: it is. To answer the question "why Rokuhan", it's very simple....it functions EXTREMELY well, has consistent geometry, is durable, and is easy to install. When building modules, those are all traits that most people want. And your assessment that running NA proto on Rokuhan looks ridiculous has to be considered in context...especially in Z, function-over-form is key to ensure that locomotives operate well. Without good operation, the enjoyment of the hobby takes a deep nose dive for most. The look of the track is not as high on the priority list as it would be in HO, for example. Not everyone is trying to make the cover of Model Railroader. (which by the way has featured Kato Unitrack--suffering from the same cosmetic issues--many, many times running NA prototype equipment.) By all accounts, Micro-Trains and Marklin turnouts are disasters...why would anyone that wanted to run trains would use them if starting today is beyond me. I'll deal with Rokuhan's looks over others' (lack of) function any day. Guess it's a good thing Model railroader deals in still photos....doesn't matter if the trains run or not. And while I mostly agree that Atlas track would be the way to go, it isn't a panacea. Atlas' Code 55 line has had numerous issues over the years in N, and the Z version is relatively new and untested in many ways. You have to derive some method of powering the frog which isn't necessarily cheap or easy. The width of the railhead on Atlas track is wider than any other ready-to-run track in Z. I intend to use Atlas for visible trackage going forward, and Rokuhan for staging. But I'm darn sure gonna test out the Atlas extensively before dropping thousands of dollars on turnouts and flex. I can't comment much on Fast Tracks, other than it seems to me to be beyond the skill/patience level of most modelers in any scale, much less Z. I'm not dismissing it...I've had thoughts of trying it eventually for some more realistic looking mainline turnouts. But I think that the Venn diagram for Z-scalers using Fast Tracks and T-Trak-Z has a pretty small--daresay sliver-esque--overlap.
|
|