HOx-Trak

[EB421]

Hmmm. Just spent half an hour stuck in one place with a laptop and got to overthinking HO module track.

 

Atlas makes a pre-bedded clip-together track like Kato stuff, "True-Track". Buuuut it's not great. The connectors appear to be way more fragile, which isn't great when your track sections are large, heavy boards. Also, it's code 83, so limits rolling-stock compatibility - which is more important than visual perfection on a system like this. For one thing, I couldn't run my Lima Shinkansen! And worst of all - they only do a 90' crossing; so you can't do a crossing on the hex tile, only curves, straights, tables and points (/switch/turnout).

 

Their Snap-Track Code 100 does have a 60' crossing that's equal to 3" of straight, and 3" is one of the pieces needed for a straight-across on "Solvo Mi Velico"'s diagram. So it looks like the perfect fit, except for the lack of bed. HO Hex-Track will need to account for that in any kind of standard.

 

I think the sub-hex tiles will be a lot more important to HO-scale modules than N-scale, if just for the ease of storage.

 

 

You end up with five possible pieces - a "scenery-only" triangle piece, two quadrangles (essentially a pure-straight and a pure-curve), a pentangle which fits a left or right turnout, and the full hexagon which is only needed for 60' crossings and turntables. It's obviously not as clean as always-hex like the N-scale original, but still keeps the intercompatibility of sections and actually gives a little more freedom - triangle tiles also fill gaps between hexes to make a straight edge, which means you can "pad-out" your layout with more scenery tiles that can also be mixed-and-matched to give variety. Which is great, because the dioramas and scenery are the fun part, right?

 

Definitely playing with this!

 

Edit: I'm missing the obvious solution for the trackbed, which is just to print it. That way it can easily be made to a repeatable standard, better joiners can be designed, and it should still be easily hand-replicable for those without access to a printer. Plus; using PLA it's basically carbon-neutral, which is nice when talking about using a bunch of plastic for something.

 

And doing it this way means that people can use Code 100 flexitrack to mimic the Atlas stuff if they don't have access to it - though they would still need to find 18" turnouts from somewhere.

Edited February 10 by EB421
Extra content

[gibet_b]

I played with this idea some month ago, and a good alternative of Kato Unitrack in H0 scale is the Trix C (same as Marklin C, but for 2 rails).

[EB421]

7 hours ago, gibet_b said:

I played with this idea some month ago, and a good alternative of Kato Unitrack in H0 scale is the Trix C (same as Marklin C, but for 2 rails).

 

I don't suppose you did the math on this, did you? I took a quick look at the Trix track pieces:

 

https://www.trix.de/en/products/trix-c-track/programm

 

The curves line up, including the points (5.7 + 24.3 = 30) - but they don't list the sizes of their straights so I can't work out if there's a kit to make up a perfect straight section. There's a bigger problem though (at least for me): "The cross section of the rails is only 2.1 mm / 0.083" and is the same as Code 83."

 

Most of my stock won't run on that. No 60' diamonds either. It's all the same problems as Atlas True-Track, other than the fragile clips. Pity, because obviously 437,5 mm < 457.2mm; which (again, obviously) means smaller tiles; and it's easier to get here. Still though, I'd love to know the exact height of C-track from the bottom of the road to the top of the rail. It would be neat to try and match the height of a custom printed Snap-Track roadbed so that Atlas and Trix modules could be linked cleanly.

[gibet_b]

Here you have all my research :

 

The hex is 36.1 x 36.1 cm.

[Ander88]

Sorry if I am missing something, but those are not hexagons, right?

[gibet_b]

14 minutes ago, Ander88 said:

Sorry if I am missing something, but those are not hexagons, right?

 

OMG, you're right ! Poor me 😨

[EB421]

19 minutes ago, gibet_b said:

 

OMG, you're right ! Poor me 😨

 

I mean it still works as a concept, and you can use 45' (2x22.5') turnouts instead of 60' (2x30') which means you could actually use KATO Unitrack! But it won't tesselate perfectly like Hexagons do. 🙂

 

Hmmm. I still think my Snap-Track and 3D-printed bed is the best way to go for me. For why; I'm looking at all these things though and seeing that every single one is Code 83. I kinda wanna get a piece each of HO Unitrack, HO True-Track and HO C-Track and see how the base to rail height differs.

 

If anyone has one of these and a pair of calipers and can save me 20EUR by measuring it, that would be appreciated. 😄

Edited February 11 by EB421

[EB421]

On 2/10/2025 at 8:12 AM, gibet_b said:

I played with this idea some month ago, and a good alternative of Kato Unitrack in H0 scale is the Trix C (same as Marklin C, but for 2 rails).

 

So I'm still playing with this and decided since I'm in France I should try it your way! So I have enough C-Track for four experimental 502mm HOx-Trak tiles.

 

 

Next challenge: make the tiles!