I bought a bunch of Lionel Fast Track when it first came out thinking it would be a nice change from the old tubular track. After using it for a while I quickly found myself longing for the tubular again. I didnt like the noise/sound of the fast track or the "U" shape of the rails. I have what I consider a "toy train layout" but I actually feel the tubular is better looking and even more realistic in some ways. The tubular has a kinda "T" shape to it that the fastrack lacks and even though I have a toy train layout I add the rubber ties to it and it looks geat! I love the look and sound and it seems like my engines run a lot smoother too. Ive also had Hi rail layouts in the past and used tubular and painted it to look rusty and weathered adn added ballast and iit looked really good. Anyone else still love their old tubular tracks or am I nuts?? LOL !
You're not crazy. This is certainly a hobby that accepts all kinds of preferences. I've stayed with the 027 track that came in my first train set. I like its height and 'traditional' curves given that I run very small engines. I've nothing against Fastrack except I find it expensive and a bit loud.
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
I agree with both of you about Fast Track. I like it best for around a Christmas tree. I like the look of tubular track.
John
I kind of agree. While I like the look of FasTrack it's way too noisy and expensive to use for the entire layout. I did one small section and the price was almost $60.
My vote is for Good Old Tubular Track. I have the traditional Lionel O Gauge Track on my layout. I have been cutting wooden ties and painting them black to place under the rails. For inspiration see the fantastic pictures posted here by Frank53 of his super detailed layout. I also like the look of layouts using Gargraves Track and Ross Switches. I have seen some layouts here using Fast Track that have landscaped the plastic road bed so that you don't see the plastic base. But - Hey, this is a hobby where we do what works for us. So have Fun.
Steve
I never liked the fastrac or mth version either. I presently building a layout using gargraves for 3 outer loops then lionel Super O track and finally O gauge figure 8 in the center which will be a fancy 8 which will run 2 trains alternatively. My layout takes up 8' x 16' I'm now at the stage to start the planning as I go stage lol I know you should make a plan ahead of time I like to do things as I go.
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
I've never been a fan of fasttrack. It just seemed like an attempt at something than ran out of funding half-way through the design process. Lionel goes to the trouble of developing a track system with a realistic plastic roadbed and then slaps on polished chrome box-rails instead of a real shape like on MTH RealTrax. Something always seemed amiss to me.
But it's also important for me to say I have no great love for any kind of track. If budget didn't get in the way, I'd use several types simultaneously. I'd use tubular for all trains built before 1986 and MTH ScaleTrax, Gargraves or Atlas 21st Century for anything built after 1986. I try to let the age of the trains vs. their level of realism decide what kind of rail to operate them on. I've always thought a shiny new MTH/LCT Standard Gauge 400E looks dorky running on MTH RealTrax. But at the same time, my Lionel 259 from 1929 runs best on RealTrax since it reeeeeeaaaaalllyyy needs to be rewheeled! ( Something about the square vs. round of the rail keeps the loco from flopping over.) So it's possible (though not probable) to theorize that maybe Lionel designers took that phenomenon into account while designing FastTrack and wanted to keep those oldest trains running no matter how badly out of alignment their wheels are. But I doubt it.
Becky
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
I ran the plastic track when I was running "n" scale. Never did like the cheapness or sound of it. Something about the tubular track just feels right running old or new. All I have ran is Lionel but I'm thinking my next engine may be Williams brand.
I started out with tubular and found that it came apart too easily or didn't fit well. I was working with temporary layouts that was a problem. I purchased a goodly amount of Fastrack and find that for temporary layouts and such, it is a high quality product that I can use time and again without a problem.
I have a ton of Atlas O 21st Century track which I have fallen in love with. I came into it when the LHS I worked for closed and they were going to trash it as it was on a demo layout. Its easy to assemble and work with looks great but for temporary layouts it does have a tendency to come apart. I'm going to, at some point, try to ballast it on a diorama just to see how it looks.
I have bunch of tubular I'm saving for another project. I like it because it reminds me of the layouts my Dad made for us, which I still have.
I am the monster in your head...And I thought you'd learn by now, It seems you haven't yet.I am the venom in your skin --- Breaking Benjamin
Penny TrainsI've never been a fan of fasttrack. It just seemed like an attempt at something than ran out of funding half-way through the design process...
The FasTrack Story From Mike Spanier:
Let me thank Richard for his efforts in sharing the FasTrack Story with us. The FasTrack Yahoo Group is fortunate to have amongst its members, Richard Webster, who designed Lionel FasTrack. I have requested of Richard that he tell the FasTrack story and he graciously has agreed. Here is the 5th and final chapter. The development of FasTrack is quite a story and lets listen to Richard as the story unfolds. Mike Spanier List Owner & Moderator Lionel_FasTrack_System Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lionel_FasTrack_System/ ############################################################## ============================================================== Chapter 1- The FasTrack Story ============================================================== Mike has asked me to tell the group how FasTrack originated and to tell the story of its development, so here goes. During the summer of 1999, whilst on holiday in England, my home, I was contacted by Dick Maddox who had just been appointed President of Lionel. In my previous capacity I was in charge of the Kader factory in mainland China manufacturing all Bachmann model products, and he asked me if I would like to help him restructure the Lionel company. Lionel was already having diecast locomotives built in Korea and with my Chinese experience, production of all other items could be moved to China. The marketplace was requesting more separately applied details and complicated decorations, so it was not cost effective any more to produce in the USA. I also established a Chinese design team to prepare new designs using 3D software and one of the first projects was some new scale rolling stock items. One thing that had always bugged me with the rolling stock was the thumbtack coupler, which was used by all manufactures. I delved into the archives and after studying some old Lionel freight cars; I noticed the couplers did not have this device to make them operate. The engineers under JLC were very smart. I took the design made a couple of modifications and this new `thumbtackless' coupler is now found on all Lionel scale freight and passenger cars, unfortunately I did not pattern the design improvement so other manufacturers like MTH have copied this device. Perhaps, I should point out that I have been involved in trains for most of my life, I have a great passion for this business and love trains whether prototype or model, and what gives me the most pleasure is to design products that make modellers and toy train operators happy. Track is the most important part of a model railroad because without it nothing can operate. During the 80's and early 90's, I had manufactured many track and switch plastic injection mould tools for PECO, the largest supplier of track to the model railway industry, covering all gauges from `Z' to `G', the most complicated tool I made was a complete scissors crossover in `N' gauge using code 55 rail. Towards the end of 2000, Dick asked me to prepare some designs for a new track system to include a roadbed for train set items, so where to begin? Well, I researched all the designs made by Lionel since the company started, perusing old drawings filed away for years, and searching the archives for samples of the different styles. Truetrack was about the closest Lionel had come to offering this type of track during the 1980's?, but it was not successful for various reasons, I also checked out the competition, the only other roadbed track available was Realtrax by MTH, however I did get samples of all others including Atlas, Gargreaves & K-Line to inspect mechanical and electrical connections. Eventually I had track parts covering all areas of my office and it was now time to sort out the different styles and look at where improvements needed to be made to provide a user-friendly product for the toy train market. Assembly seemed a good place to start improvements. The regular Lionel tubular and 027 could be hard on the hands when assembling several pieces together and having to remove or fit pins for orientating the track sections was definitely not on. To overcome the orientation issue, I designed a half pin, which had a slight taper so when opposing track sections were assembled both pins now had an interference fit giving good power conductivity. The mechanical connection is basically a copy of Lionel's Super `0', which was well proven and accepted as a good connection. The rails were to be stamped tinplate to save costs, but to improve conductivity the shape was changed to an inverted `U' to allow rectangular pins to be used. The electrical connection between sections for the ground was a modified tubular pin. With the inverted `U' shaped stamped rail a rectangular pin could now be used with a foot to engage in the roadbed prohibiting movement of the pin back and forth. A bonding strip underneath the roadbed connected both rails so improving the ground for magnetraction locomotives. So, to the roadbed itself. It seemed that at least with this part of the system a reasonable representation of the prototype could be followed by modelling scale sized ties with woodgrain at correct intervals, spiking plates and spikes, and the foot of the rail was also included, in fact if one paints the running rails with rust colour then this part of the roadbed moulding should also be painted giving a slightly better look. Ballast with a good representation of the stones was also now possible. This was the beginning of FasTrack, but there was still a long way to go before a complete system would be available. To be continued............ ================================================================ Chapter 2 - The FasTrack Story ================================================================ Now we had the assembly design concept finished, it was time to look at how to build a complete system of straights, curves, switches and special sections. The different radii available for regular 0-31 tubular track was not consistent, what I mean is the diameter position varied from the outside rail to inside rail, or even the edges of the ties, I do not remember the details of where the individual curves were measured from, but this was definitely not going to be used with the new FasTrack. Super 0 used a diameter of 36" measured from the centre of the power rail and so I decided the dimension of all the different curve sections of FasTrack would be taken from the centre rail. Also using 0-36 (36" diameter) instead of 0-31 or 0-27 gave several advantages. Firstly an oval layout would still fit on the 8 x 4 board. Secondly trains could run at a faster speed with out derailing and look more realistic on the larger curve; also larger locomotives could be operated. The big advantage for the marketing department was "Lionel FasTrack runs circles around the competition with its 40" x 60" oval dwarfing the competitions small circle layout" What length to make the different track sections? Atlas had been making 0 gauge 3-rail track for several years, and standardised on four straight sections plus a long 40" piece, so taking a leaf out of their book, I decided on four standard lengths of 10", 5", 4.5", 1.75" and a 30" straight. However before these dimensions could be confirmed it would be necessary to prepare switch and crossing geometry, in order to provide track centres and then the different radii possible. Train set operators in order to extend the standard oval to provide more operational fun with sidings and passing loops would use the 0-36 switch, so this would need designing first. The extra width of the roadbed makes the fitting of switches to themselves and other sections more complex when trying to maintain the closest possible track centres, and it soon became clear that the 4.5" centre that I wanted to use would not be possible. It took a few days to find the best possible set up, which was having an exit angle on the curved side of the switch of 33.75 degrees, and a straight length of 11". By making an 11.25 degree curve (quarter curve) the switch would now be a direct replacement for an 0-36 full curve (45 degrees), and by using two 4.5" sections (9" total) then the straight side would equal 20" and fit perfectly in the standard oval, the two 10" sections replaced could now be used for a siding or passing loop. Unfortunately sales wanted the straight section to be 10" long (a direct replacement for a 10"straight section), so in order to make different pieces connect, the roadbed had to be cut away, giving a rather unpleasant appearance to the ballast, also the small 11.25 degree curved section had its corners cut away to make fitting of other sections possible. This gave a track centre distance of 6" when two 0-36 switches were placed as a crossover, and so this dimension became the standard for all other geometric pieces. Curved sections could now go up in 12" increments, offering 0-48, 0-60 and 0-72 curved sections The 90-degree crossing is 6" long in both directions, so when two are placed together a track centre of 6" is also formed. Also by adding four 5" sections and four full 0-36 curves a figure 8 was now possible. However before this dimension could be 100% confirmed it was necessary to look at the larger radius switches of 0-72 to ensure this track centre distance would work. After many hours of adjusting AutoCAD drawings, the 6" dimension could be confirmed, so now we had a complete system to offer. SLA's or 3D models were prepared to check the fit and function and at last tooling could begin. To be continued------------ ======================================================================= Chapter 3 - The FasTrack Story ======================================================================= It was now time to look at the 0-36 switch in more detail. Manual Operation I had a large test track in my office (some people thought I just liked playing with trains), sure I do, but it was essential to get first hand operating experience to discover possible issues. One of the most annoying things I experienced was the return spring design of other manufacturer's switchblades. If a train was approaching from the frog (crossing vee) end and the blades were set for the opposite route, after each wheel passed, the blades would be forced back to the wrong route. However if one stopped with the train in the middle of the switch and then reversed, because now the blades are the wrong route cars that had cleared the switch blades would now take the opposite path, jack knife, and eventually derail. To avoid this problem occurring with the new FasTrack switches, I changed the design of the spring action, so if a train was approaching as above, then when the first wheels of the train pressed against the switch blades, this pressure was enough to pass the over centre mark for the spring to then take over and press the blades hard over to the same direction of travel. Now if for some reason the train stopped and was reversed, no derailment took place, as all the cars would return in their same path. Because the manual switch was designed for train sets, the standard set 4-4-2 locomotive had to throw the blades, however the bogie wheels are quite light and it took some time to find the correct amount of tension in the spring wire to ensure satisfactory results. One of the rather nice things that this new feature now offered was that if the switch was on a reverse loop, the next time the train entered it would go around in the opposite direction. The other feature was how to manually operate the switch. Well, why not use a scaled down prototypical switch stand. The railroads used different shaped targets, the most common being the disc, but to allow more fun the target could be made removable and other styles offered. Unfortunately the target was actually too small a component, and so for safety reasons it was decided to have the target permanently attached. (Small children might think the red disc was a sweet). It was also essential for the complete switch stand with its ballast base to be easily changed over from side to side of the switch proper, so one could operate from the preferred side. One of the major advantages of incorporating a roadbed is the ability to conceal mechanical and electrical operating components within, so providing a pleasing appearance with a clean ballast edge. Now that the operating mechanism had been designed, and hidden under the roadbed, it was time to check for the best electrical performance. With TMCC came the ability to run locos and trains at a slower speed, so it was essential to ensure good electrical power and grounding, especially when passing through the frog area. On previous Lionel and other manufacturers switches the frog was made of plastic or metal but it was dead. So I decided to liven things up a bit by adding a ground strap to the frog, and then one to the check rails (this rail prevents the wheel taking the wrong route at the frog) this new feature provided top performance as locomotives would not hesitate at the slower speeds. The frog was made in two parts, die-casting for the vee rails and plastic for the guardrails, which prevented the possibility of wide power rollers shorting out. This design was to be used for all new switches, no matter what the radius. To complete the initial train set offerings we needed a bumper for the siding. When searching through magazines it is quite amazing to find there are so many different types of stops used by the real railroads. One that caught my eye was the pile of dirt with a few ties set vertically. Fortunately the marketing department agreed and so to make it `just like the real thing' we used real wood for the ties. Now Lionel could offer the following: 1. Train set oval 2. Figure of eight add on 3. Passing loops 4. Siding add on The first phase of FasTrack was complete, now the fun and enjoyment could begin. To be continued......... ########################################################################## The FasTrack Story - Chapter 4 ########################################################################## With the main train set components now available a remote 036 switch was to be the next product Electrical operation. Manual switches are fine but it is more fun to operate them remotely, even more so if they are hard to reach by hand. I don't believe anyone realised how much design and development went into making these new switches as foolproof as possible. Whilst running the Kader factory in Mainland China designing and manufacturing all Bachmann products, I was asked to extend the HO E-Z track roadbed system with some new switches and larger radius curves. One of the things I realised with having a roadbed was the ability to install and hide motors and electrical/mechanical components within so providing a clean ballast edge like the prototype. The usual means of operation is by solenoids; in fact MTH and ATLAS still use them. When designing the LIONEL FasTrack switches I looked at other methods of operation, as I never liked the noise and power consumption the solenoids used, normally 12 volts was needed to work them, however I wanted the switches to operate at or below 5 volts; so on a train set layout even if a locomotive was running slowly, track power would be sufficient to operate the switch, without the need for extra wiring, after all to encourage customers to extend their layouts, products had to be designed to be user friendly and easy to set up. I found a small 3-volt motor that would fulfil these requirements and modified the mechanical switching mechanism by using a quadrant gear, with a spur gear attached to the motor. We also fixed two limit switches to cut off power to the motor once the blades were fully pressed against the relevant stock rail. The electronics department came up with the board and necessary components, which were quite complicated to ensure the switches, would be as bullet proof as possible. The board included circuitry to prevent motor burn out if there was something preventing the switchblades from complete closure like a screw. The non-derailing feature was also very important so this circuitry had to be incorporated into the PCB. The other major issue was the problem previously encountered with the existing 031/072 switches of light bulbs overheating and melting the indicator lanterns. Obviously LED's would be perfect for this function, but how to direct the light through 90 degrees. After much experimenting we came up with the following. The LED was mounted vertically into the roadbed and a small-electroplated prism was inserted into the almost scale lantern to reflect the light out horizontally. After some initial testing with hand made samples all was looking good, now it was time to design the controller. We gave the new controller a more pleasing aesthetic appearance, a little retro with similarities to the real lever frame in a switch tower. One feature that I wanted to incorporate was an easy means of identifying switch number and position of the route set. Here we killed two birds with one stone and designed an interchangeable number insert in transparent material with either a red or a green light showing through. Also a catch was added so that multiple controllers could be snapped together. The design was complete so tool making could now commence, and it was time to look at other switches and the missing curve sections. We had already set a track centre distance of 6", so the new curves and switches would be 48, 60 and 72 diameter as already mentioned in part 2. It became clear whilst during our designing stage that the 0-60 and 0-72 switches would not be drop in replacements for a standard 22.5 degree curve section, like the 0-36, but I wanted the 0-48 to be a drop-in as this would be an option for the train sets, so the exit angle was set at 30 degrees. Initially an 0-48 30 degree curve would be introduced with a half curve (15 degree) and a quarter curve (7.5 degree) to be offered later so enabling 22.5 degree and 45 degree curves to be assembled which would match the other diameter curves available These were designed in 2004, the year I left however to date I notice they are still not available, which I find is amazing as this diameter has so much going for it. Apart from a few articulated types 0-54 is the minimum curve for locomotives, in fact the majority of locomotives will negotiate 0-48 curves, so this would become very useful, taking up a lot less space than the 0-60 curves (the next available). In part 5 we shall look at the quality testing of the 0-36 remote switch and the design of the other switches and crossings, plus a couple of accessories Richard Webster ################################################################# The FasTrack Story - Chapter 5 ################################################################# I was in the envious position of not only being in charge of engineering development but also quality assurance to Lionel's customers, which meant that I could ensure new products, would be well proven before hitting the market place. The remote switches were a very important part of the FasTrack system and would not be a one off purchase, so it was essential for thorough testing to be performed which would put the company in good stead for many years to come, however finance was pushing me for the remote switches to be released, but I knew the pitfalls of putting new products into the market without sufficient testing, as failure of the product in the long run can be detrimental and damage the companies credibility. With the help of one of my quality engineers we set up a stringent testing procedure, using two test rigs. The first one was to evaluate the number of consistent switching movements that could be performed before failure. With the first samples received we were only getting a couple of thousand or so of operations before something failed. On researching the failure it was found that the limit switches to halt the motor were failing and were not of the manufacture as requested by Lionel electronic department. I sent out a memo to the Orient stating that `under no circumstances electrical components were to be substituted with out the prior written approval of Lionel' The next batch of samples performed extremely well, working for thousands of operations. The second rig was quite sophisticated and checked all movements with a locomotive running automatically through the switch from all directions using Lionel's TMCC. We used an ASC (accessory switch controller) and an ARC (action recorder controller) to get it all working 24/7. I must admit it was a real joy to arrive in the morning, go down to the QA accessory testing room and see the locomotive moving smoothly through the switch. This rig also tested the non-derailing feature. This was the operation sequence:- The switch blades were set to the straight route and the locomotive started from siding A (curved route) and proceeded towards the switch activating the non-derailing feature so the locomotive could travel past the heel end and stop. The blades were thrown to straight, and the locomotive travelled to siding B (straight route) and stopped. The blades were now thrown to the curved route, and the locomotive moved forward, as it approached the switch, the non-derailing feature kicked in and threw the blades to the straight route allowing the locomotive to pass through and stop. The blades were now thrown to the curved route and the locomotive proceeded through to the end of siding A, and the switch blades set to the straight route in preparation for repeat procedure. All this was performed automatically using the ARC. Great Stuff!! With the 0-36 remote switches performing well, production was approved, but there was still one thing left to develop. A fully compatible TMCC switch, with no extra wiring. The electrical engineers came up with an additional board that could be installed under the roadbed just forward of the main PCB. I had a sample fitted into my layout and how simple it was to programme. I had better not go into the method here as to date this is not available, suffice to say it should have been done years ago. It was now time to finalise the design of the 0-60 & 0-72 versions. As I mentioned in part 2 and part 4 it was not possible to make either of these switches a drop in replacement for a 22.5 degree curve. Although the exit angle is 22.5 degrees a straight section after the frog was necessary to allow other roadbed sections to fit. It is the extra width of the roadbed past the end of the ties that makes this system more complicated and a lot of adjustments went into the design to set the required amount of straight after the blades, and after the frog with its special ballast shape so any 0-72 or 0-60 switches can be joined together in any configuration and still maintain the 6 inch track centre. For these switches the centre power area was changed from die-cast to a stamped metal part similar to the existing tubular switch, whilst the frog used the new two-part assembly, so taking advantage of the extra grounding possible. The rest of the switch design follows on from the 0-36, which is why it was so important to perform extensive quality testing. `Y' switches are space savers as the frog is half the angle of a comparable switch. For example the 0-72 `Y' uses the 0-36 frog assembly but with curved 0-72 stock rails, so allowing the use of ALL Lionel locomotives in a similar space to an 0-36 L.H/R.H. switch. The 45-degree crossing was a no brainer, however the 22.5-degree crossing was a little more involved, with the longer gap of the centre power rails causing problems with some roller spacing. A standard was set up for all new locomotives and rolling stock products to check this issue. This crossing also will match up with either the 0-60 or 0-72 switches to maintain the 6-inch track centre distance in any formation. Operating accessory One of the beauties of three rails is the ability for the train wheels to operate accessories. I wanted simple user-friendly accessories for the beginner to install in their train set, the grade crossing with lights and bell would be a good starting place. These two features of flashing lights and ringing bell with no wiring would bring in new dimensions and fun. All that was necessary was to fit the crossing into the position required join the track sections together and run the train, and hey presto! It sounds easy but more was involved as the bell would need to operate at around 5/6 volts, so a PCB was required with some clever electronics to make this happen. Whilst driving around I observed that a lot of grade crossings were oblique, and so this feature although a little exaggerated was included. Also the crossing was designed to cover multiple tracks. By removing an approach side from two crossings a central section could be fitted so maintaining the 6-inch way, in fact this section could be used to cross multiple tracks with simple contacts, the lights and bell would sound no matter which track was being traversed. This simple addition had been drawn up but has still not be added to the line. This was the last piece I designed, although many ideas were at a beginning stage, including bridge sections and a turntable. There was one product however that I have been working on for some time, the ultimate three rail track, to be named Super 0 II. I have added a partial picture of a straight section, showing the separate roadbed. The idea is to provide a scale track with removable ballast and a transition section to FasTrack, so at a later date the ballasted roadbed could be removed and the track fitted to a cork base with real granite chippings. The ties are scale size with base plate and spike details. The running rails to be scale profile blackened drawn copper with steel inserted wheel-running faces. The centre power rail to be drawn copper. These features provide the best possible conductor of electricity. Any takers!!! THE END Moderator Note: A picture of Super O 2 can be found on the FasTrack Yahoo Group should you be interested. It is in the PHOTO section entiled "Super O 2". It has never gone into production nor is it being considered by Lionel.
Rob
OK, it didn't run out of funding half way through. But I still maintain that it looks like it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month