I really like the C-track beacouse it is easy to build with and the electric-leading is good track to track.

The problem is (as i see it), that you can only build a small radius railroad OR a big radius railroad - Nothing in between.

The slim turnouts and crossings is fine and the space between tracks is narrow and looks good. But to build with this peaces you need a lot of space.

Small radius turnouts (R2 24degree) is to charp and bends to mutch, and the space between tracks is to big.

Small radius curve-turnouts (R1/R1) is a real dissapointment. This peace is only good using in R1. The straight part in it also make it ugly and "wrong" to use in the middle of a curv.

Bacause the slim turnouts is to slim to be build in, in a R3/R4 railroad and the small-raidius turnoutes is way to charp i think R3 or R4 turnouts and crossings would be a nice complement. But the degree-angle shood not be as sharp as 24. Maybee 18 or 20.

An R3/R4 curve-turnout is also urgent.

Am i the only one thinking about the incomplete C-track system ?

Quite a few of us would also like to see the curved turnouts R3,R4,R5... [:p]

Ray. I know that there is more possibilities to build with the K-track compered to the C-track, and the K-track is also good looking.

But it is not so easy to build with, electric leading is'nt perfect, and out on the line you ned to put a uppbuilding roadbed under it.

On the outher hand, in station-arias and freightyards the tracks usually just lays "down to the ground" and here is the K-track the winner. At least visually

I have two layouts, one with C and one with K. I prefer the K track by a large margin. Working with K is not that hard, and putting roadbed under it is not a big task (I use cork roadbed). As to electrical connections, I run a feed every 1.5 to 2 meters of track, again not a big inconvenience. And remember, you only have to do this during construction. It doesn't add any work to running the trains once the layout is done.