# Kato HO Unitrack -- my experience and tips



## J.Albert1949

Kato HO Unitrack -- my experience and tips

I put this in the "beginners" topic area because it may help newcomers interested in sectional track.

After a long break from model trains (40 years!), much of that time spent working on "the big trains", I decided to put together a small layout for something to do.

I had old cars and structures that I'd built from kits for my last layout, but that was back in the 1970's! I still had old, salvaged flex track and switches, but the parts hadn't come through the years all that well and I really wanted something "easier" at this stage of life.

After investigating the several brands of sectional track available, I decided on Kato Unitrack due to its clean appearance.

I wanted something more than just a 4x8 "loop", but I didn't have too much space to work with. Although I originally passed over the "Black River Junction" plan that Model Railroader built a few years' back, I found myself coming back to it, as it afforded the potential of 2 engines running at once, or even 3.

I found a few of the internet dealers selling a pre-boxed version of the BRJ, so I was able to pick one up at a decent price. I was able to pretty much put it together "per the plans", with small changes here and there.

I did want more tracks on the "extension", so I purposely built that a few inches wider than the plans called for.

I set it up with dcc (first experience with that, things sure changed "while I was away"), using the Roco z21 (little "z") controller and an old Samsung Galaxy player running an old version of Android. Amazingly, it worked. (very well, this kind of control brings dcc into the 21st century).

But the real purpose of this topic is to give my review of which components of the Unitrack system to use.

The BRJ "boxed kit" came with powered #4 switches (along with 2 powered #6 switches).

The powered #4 switches work ok, but they're definitely not as nice as the manual #4 switches (which have a slightly sharper turnout radius). The powered #4 point assemblies are designed differently, slightly less "realistic" in appearance. Also, the powered #4 switches are "power routing" only -- I don't believe this can be changed without doing surgery on the switch, not something I would want to do.

I find that equipment can "grate and grind" a little when running through the #4 powered switches. The switches work, but not "the smoothest experience". I also found that if the running gear on freight cars is just a bit "on the marginal side", they can derail when backing through the #4 powereds. Not all the time, but if you've got a "weak car", the #4 switches may find it!

The manual #4 switches look and work better. They can be set to power routing or non-power routing by moving 2 screws easily accessible on the bottom of the switch.
They can also be converted to powered operation by buying the corresponding switch machine and installing it (very easy procedure). The switch machine adds a "rectangular mass" to the straight side of the turnout, but it's ballasted to match the roadbed. Even though it looks a little "clunkier" than the powered version I prefer it, again for the construction, appearance and performance of the switch.

The powered #6 switches resemble the manual #6 switches. They're pretty good but they utilize small "triangular" trim pieces that can be knocked out of place. They use a slightly different connector for the control cable that is removable. They also have slightly different geometry than the manual #6's.

The manual #6 switches are the best of all, but they're also "the longest". Equipment rolls through them very smoothly, almost as if they weren't there. These have selectable power routing via the 2 screw arrangement.

If I was going to do it all over again, I'd stick with the #4 and #6 manual switches and add the switch motors where necessary. The cost is about the same as it would be to buy the powered switches, but the manual #4 turnouts look and work better. With the #6 switches it's "a wash", but again, the #6 manual turnout is the smoothest of them all.

For track wiring, I used the "terminal unijoiners". These work very well, and you can completely hide the wiring by drilling a hole underneath the track.
TIP: Don't drill the hole _-directly underneath-_ the terminal unijoiners! Instead, drill it 1.5-2.0 inches away (in either direction). Then attach the unijoiners to the track end with the leads pointing towards the hole.

Also -- before you use the terminal unijoiners, I suggest you use an xacto blade to cut through the small black "band" near the joiners themselves. Then pull the blue and white wires gently apart, so that they become "single strands" for about 2-3 inches. You want to do this so that if at some point you need to pull apart two track sections where these are used, you won't pull the wires off their connection with the joiners. I found this out the very first time I tried it !

TIP about running your wiring under the table/track.
You do not need a hole large enough to pass the unijoiner/turnout Tamiya connecting plug through. Doing that will leave a large hole that looks unsightly.

Instead, get one of these:
https://www.evike.com/products/26956/
This is a Tamiya connector plug pin removal tool, and you can use it to pop out the wires from the plug. (You want the "small" connector tool)
Then, you can use a smaller-sized drill to drill the hole and then run the wires through.
I used a 3/8" drill.
Also, you need to take the "pin ends" of the wire, and slightly "pull them apart" so that the two wires are separated into "single strands". Then you can push them through the hole one-at-a-time.

Then, re-insert the pins into the Tamiya connectors, taking note of the proper orientation:
Black or blue wire --> square side
White or red wire --> round side

Since my layout wasn't large, I used the Kato 24-827 3-way extension cords to connect all my feeders together. Very handy as things just snap together.

I found that for separating track sections and for removing the unijoiners, what works best is a very small flat-blade screwdriver, probably as small as you have around. The Unitrack snaps together very closely and it takes a thin blade to get between them!

Again, if I had it to do over, I would not use the powered #4 switches -- I'd use the manual ones instead.. Because the "geometry" of the manual switches is different, if you're going to do the BRJ plan, you'll have to modify it slightly to line everything up. I've seen an "alternate" plan here:
https://www.prestoimages.net/store30/rd159/159_page86934.jpg

I hope this is useful to anyone thinking of using the HO scale Unitrack... !


----------



## Guest

Thanks for the excellent review. I was into N scale for at least 10 years and used Unitrack. I found it to be flawless. I don't recall ever having the track, other than the #4 switches, cause a derailment. The few derailments that I remember were either caused by me or the #4 switches. The #6 switches and double crossovers were perfect. The #4 switches needed some tinkering to make them reliable. N scale got too small for me and I changed to O, but I had considered going with HO and would have used Unitrack if I had gone HO instead of O.


----------



## Gramps

I'm using Unitrack on my HO shelf layout with #4 manual turnouts and have had no problems.:thumbsup:


----------



## mholiver

*Thank You*

Thank You for this post and advice & expression of experience.
This is very close to what I'm considering to do with my first HO home layout. Kato Track, Black River layout, and adding track to make a double main. I really want to be able to run multiple trains: 2 or 3. I can put a 8x8 size of plyout in my back room.


----------



## dlaloum

*Piers and Bridges for HO Unitrack*

Hi folks,

unlike N Unitrack HO does not have a Kato made set of piers/trestles and bridges.

Anyone have advice on what pre-built kit can handle unitrack? (if any...)

thanks


----------



## CTValleyRR

With a little work, Kato track can be made to mate with any bridge with the same gauge and code of rail.

Piers can be made of just about any solid object, preferably one that can be cut and shaped (wood, styrofoam, etc.). Any commercial pier set will work, but it will look a little funny. Bachmann makes a pier set for their EZTrack which is designed especially for roadbed track. That should work without too much trouble.


----------



## dlaloum

Hi,
Thanks for the response - yes I know, and particularly if I use the same profile rails etc...

But part of the reason for going unitrack HO, is to enable my 6yo, to run it on carpet...

Hence my search for robust and simple, pre built, resin or plastic piers and bridges...


----------



## Grzldvt

I know this is an older post but have to THANK the OP. I am moving from HO to N and found a lot of people prefer Unitrack. A bit surprised but it seems to work for many. The OP's post is incredibly helpful for me.


----------



## vette-kid

Grzldvt said:


> I know this is an older post but have to THANK the OP. I am moving from HO to N and found a lot of people prefer Unitrack. A bit surprised but it seems to work for many. The OP's post is incredibly helpful for me.


Why surprised? Kato is one of the top brands in either scale for track, locomotives and, well, just about anything they make. Unitrack works exceptionally well. No fussing required. You can disconnect and reconnect as much as you like with no degradation of the connections and the rail is smooth across connections. I've used regular sectional track and flex trackbefore.. never again. I'll stick with unitrack in either scale from now on. Restoring old locos is fun, fussing with track is not!

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

As long as you can accept the geometric limitations imposed by the finite number of pieces available, that's fine. I, for one, am willing to accept the additional effort and patience (not fussiness) required to install flex track to get exactly the geometry I want, rather than having to work with what sectional track (no matter what the quality) gives me.


----------



## Marv

I used N scale Atlas track for many years, both flex and sectional on a fairly good size layout. I moved to a smaller house and due to fact I'm getting old, decided to try HO. Decided to try Kato track. Started the summer of 2020 and am pretty much finished, Used both #4, and #6 powered switches with no problems. One thing nobody seems to talk about is cutting track down to make things fit. Thanks to U-tube I have become proficient at this task. I recently decided to add another siding, the regular straight section is a tad shorter than a #6 switch, solution custom cut adjoining track to fit. I have several places where this procedure needed to be done. Its not a deal breaker but be aware it can happen. Bottom line, happy I used Kato track.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Cutting track is always an option, no matter what you are using. That's not what we mean when we say "geometric limitations. We mean that your curves need to be in one of the standard radii; you can't curve the track exactly the way you want it. That would be a deal-breaker on my layout. And once you start having to make extensive modifications like that, it's much easier just to use flex track.


----------



## Marv

CTValleyRR said:


> Cutting track is always an option, no matter what you are using. That's not what we mean when we say "geometric limitations. We mean that your curves need to be in one of the standard radii; you can't curve the track exactly the way you want it. That would be a deal-breaker on my layout. And once you start having to make extensive modifications like that, it's much easier just to use flex track.


I don't think you understood my point. When you modify Kato track you cut out a section of the roadbed. Then slide the roadbed back together. At that point each rail can be cut even with the roadbed end. The cut out has to be exact or the roadbed does not look right, and you get to try again. Its not too bad on straight sections, but curves are a more difficult. The rail joiners snap into the end of the roadbed and the rail so the ends of the track can not be modified. Track jigs don't work well with Kato straight section track, not at all with curved track. This is just a heads up for anyone who choses Kato track.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Marv said:


> I don't think you understood my point. When you modify Kato track you cut out a section of the roadbed. Then slide the roadbed back together. At that point each rail can be cut even with the roadbed end. The cut out has to be exact or the roadbed does not look right, and you get to try again. Its not too bad on straight sections, but curves are a more difficult. The rail joiners snap into the end of the roadbed and the rail so the ends of the track can not be modified. Track jigs don't work well with Kato straight section track, not at all with curved track. This is just a heads up for anyone who choses Kato track.


No, you're absolutely right. That point did not come out at all in your previous post... not even on rereading it after having seen the clarification.


----------



## Grzldvt

vette-kid said:


> Why surprised? Kato is one of the top brands in either scale for track, locomotives and, well, just about anything they make. Unitrack works exceptionally well. No fussing required. You can disconnect and reconnect as much as you like with no degradation of the connections and the rail is smooth across connections. I've used regular sectional track and flex trackbefore.. never again. I'll stick with unitrack in either scale from now on. Restoring old locos is fun, fussing with track is not!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk


Well being new at N it has me rethinking how I look at track laying, In Ho I was a flex track aficianodo so unitrack is new to me. I did try an oval of HO track equivalent for the grandkids Xmas tree train and it was OK, but to do a whole layout I was not sure, now I am and buying it up.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Grzldvt said:


> Well being new at N it has me rethinking how I look at track laying, In Ho I was a flex track aficianodo so unitrack is new to me. I did try an oval of HO track equivalent for the grandkids Xmas tree train and it was OK, but to do a whole layout I was not sure, now I am and buying it up.


Again, the issue is "can you live with the rigid geometry of the parts?" If you can, then using Unitrack or any other roadbed track is certainly an option. The other consideration is that, because each rail joiner is a potential point of failure, using longer sections (i.e. flex track) does have a slight reliability advantage. 

But no one, least of all me, is suggesting that you shouldn't use roadbed track, as long as you're not accepting a design compromise simply for the sake of avoiding flex track.


----------



## yankeejwb

I bought the World's Greatest Hobby starter pack from Kato, and was impressed with the overall look and quality - way nicer IMO than Bachman EZ. Funny thing is, not one person at the local MRR show last week thought Kato even made HO unitrack!

Anyway, I've got a modified dogbone trackplan that I'm putting together using the 19-3/4" radius track provided in the starter pack, and would like to also lay down a parallel outer loop on the mainline - when I hit the lottery (lol) - but am wondering which radius curve sections I should use. The loops are going to need to fit on a 48" top unless I add an extension on each end of the dogbone sections. Can I use the 21-5/8" radius track for this?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Half of 48 is 24, so in theory, that's the widest curve you could use. Except that's at the centerline, so you're really at a 22" radius, allowing for the rails and a small safety margin between the track and the edge of the table. You could still use the 19-3/4" radius curves, though. Just put a short (3" or less) straight segment at the apex of the curve. You will need about 2-1/2" of clearance between the track centerlines if trains are going to successfully pass on those curves, and you may have difficulty with that.


----------



## yankeejwb

So if I, say, added another four inches width to the table, and went with the 24" radius track, then that would give me the clearance needed with a 19-3/4" inner track, correct?


----------



## yankeejwb

CTValleyRR said:


> Just put a short (3" or less) straight segment at the apex of the curve. You will need about 2-1/2" of clearance between the track centerlines if trains are going to successfully pass on those curves, and you may have difficulty with that.


Which loop should that short segment go in, inner or outer?


----------



## prrfan

yankeejwb said:


> Which loop should that short segment go in, inner or outer?


The outer, it’s pushing your curves farther away to make room for the inner loop. Be mindful of the spacing CT Valley mentioned and also that you will still be running close to the edge on the outer curves. Some sort of guard rail is always a good idea. It’s a bad feeling to see a locomotive hit the floor.


----------



## Gramps

yankeejwb said:


> I bought the World's Greatest Hobby starter pack from Kato, and was impressed with the overall look and quality - way nicer IMO than Bachman EZ. Funny thing is, not one person at the local MRR show last week thought Kato even made HO unitrack!
> 
> Anyway, I've got a modified dogbone trackplan that I'm putting together using the 19-3/4" radius track provided in the starter pack, and would like to also lay down a parallel outer loop on the mainline - when I hit the lottery (lol) - but am wondering which radius curve sections I should use. The loops are going to need to fit on a 48" top unless I add an extension on each end of the dogbone sections. Can I use the 21-5/8" radius track for this?


I use HO unitrack and I'm surprised that people at a show did not know KATO made HO unitrack, it's been around for a number of years. I recently learned on another thread that KATO announced they are producing flextrack to fit with their unitrack, maybe that's what they were unaware of. 

I can't add to the track layout advice you received here.


----------



## J.Albert1949

The 19 3/4" and 21 5/8" curved sections work just fine on a 4x8 top.
That's what I use.

When used this way, the track spacing works fine with crossovers, etc.


----------



## JeffHurl

Outer loop would get the extra short straight piece.


----------



## J.Albert1949

jeff wrote:
_"Outer loop would get the extra short straight piece."_

No... _not needed._
Here's a pic I took when I first got the track assembled (4x8).
Curves are the 19 3/4" and 21 5/8" radius.
Fits together as it should.
Also note that the track spacing (once it gets back to the straight) works perfectly for switches/crossovers, etc.


----------



## JeffHurl

Op was asking the question in the context of using the same radius pieces for the inner and outer curve.


----------



## Gramps

Nice layout. There is a 90 degree crossing in the upper left curve of the photo but I don't see a corresponding short straight in the opposite lower right side of the photo that would seem to equalize the curves. I have not seen this layout on KATO's website track plans. How was this done?


----------



## J.Albert1949

_"There is a 90 degree crossing in the upper left curve of the photo but I don't see a corresponding short straight in the opposite lower right side of the photo that would seem to equalize the curves"_

One one end of the layout, there are 21 5/8" curves (in the foreground).
On the other end, the curved track sections are the 19 1/4" pieces. There is a #4 turnout and a _short_ straight section in there, too.

Search for the "Black River Junction" track plan. You'll see how it goes together.


----------



## Gramps

Thanks


----------



## Ken4Sports

Gramps said:


> I use HO unitrack and I'm surprised that people at a show did not know KATO made HO unitrack, it's been around for a number of years. I recently learned on another thread that KATO announced they are producing flextrack to fit with their unitrack, maybe that's what they were unaware of.
> 
> I can't add to the track layout advice you received here.


I see they have the flex track added on their N Scale page but of course not on their HO scale page.


----------

