Three responses after mine and all they are in regards to is my fast typing. Just the type of responses I would have expected.
I am not defending any track system and I only buy Lionel products so I can't speak about any of that other "copy cat" equipment. I am just generally tired of the O guage hobby working backwards and people giving others incorrect information (there maybe 28 post but hundreds have read). All it does is send a wrong message to the younger crowd comming in (that older things are better). Younger people are geared torwards the lastest items. New video games for 2006 (not Pac-Man from 1981).
There is nothing wrong when some one is passionate about old Lionel equipment or it's operation. Do not get me wrong as most of my equipment is postwar and MPC.
I can't believe the only response to my actual post is that "it's easy to cut". Cutting track because it is fun has absolutely nothing to do with operation of a train running over a rail and neither does noise or $ and are all poor excuses. I am interested in running safely and reliably Hudsons, F3s, and Js. Not out in the cold garage cutting pieces with a Dremel tool. I don't cut pieces any way so that never mattered to me. Also if you buy intelligently from mail order houses FT is not that much more than O gauge. $2.30 vs $1.49. Thats $.81! Not $500.00 like everyone makes it out to be. Most of us here and people who operate do it usually no larger than 8x8 which is an affordably sized pike. I'll work a coupler hours of OT to get the extra $.81 and better hassle free operation. I have been running O gauge for years. The amount of noise it gives off is about the same. The FT has a more hollow noise. People who use the it's louder excuse make it sound like the difference is walking from a library to a KISS concert.
Also I thought that the goal of this thread was about operation. About 99.9% operate here. So forget about my comments on the look.
A post stating I prefer to operate tubular and not FT because it reminds me of memories and it's what I had as a kid would have made me not even write my first post.
John
When you write like you are the authority & your way is the only way, I believe you can expect responses like that. I was also into R/C helis & planes for over 30 yrs. & when I see writings like that, it reminds me why I quit R/C & went back to trains again. My buddy & I were just saying how much we always like the other guys layouts, or the trains they have or the track they use. We don't believe one is better than another. I had a layout before with traditional track & Gargraves. Now only Gargraves & will put traditional track on the lower level later on. Same with Postwar & MPC & modern, I like it all till I see a writing like that.
And don't send me a nasty email like some one else did once ....
"A post stating I prefer to operate tubular and not FT because it reminds me of memories and it's what I had as a kid would have made me not even write my first post."
aye yi yi.
Top reason I prefer tubular?
It reminds me of memories of building the Christmas layout with my Dad every year.
Personally, I don't know that the fact that I consider tubular to be my track of choice for nostalgic reasons makes me a bad guy. I'm in this hobby, not so much because I am attracted to today's trains, but more so because it has fond memories for me. WhIch is why I only run post war Lionel trains. I grew up with tubular, and for a number of reasons, I like it better.
First reason - stated above.
Another reason - price. I have boxes and boxes of tubular track and switches. I bought some new - mostly o42,, o54 and o72 switches for my layout in progress, because all we had as a kid was o31. I have hundreds of feet of tubular track and I have added to it with new tubular which was made 60 years later - sonofagun - they fit like a glove. I'm not going to spend $100.00 on a fast track switch.
Another reason - tubular is considerably more foregiving than fast track. If you need to cheat a bit on a fit - tubular is your friend.
Another reason - fast track is considerably bulkier. Lots less space to work with when you use fast track.
Another reason - I like the sound of tubular. I like to hear my old steamers click clack over tubular track - personal preference.
As for protrounding lockons on tubular, just solder the wires into the track crease from underneath and you'll never see a lockon.
Fasttrack "ballast" is molded plastic. If you ballast tubular track correctly it looks better - but again - that is just my opinion.
Fast track appears high, which strikes me as needing to build up to it.
All in all, I'm sticking with tubular:
LS1Heli wrote: (that older things are better).
Blueberryhill RR wrote:Yep, that's about it. Tubular is my choice too. Lasts a long time. Has memories. Easy to put together, time after time. No roadbed to distract from it's looks. Runs quiet on carpet. Looks good around the Christmas tree. AND makes fantastic layouts.
I totally agree with, and fully endorse, this post.
I'm the guy that made the original observation LS1Heli, so let me elaborate at the risk of annoying someone!
I knew nothing about Lionel a year ago, except the name and reputation. My son gave me a set for last Christmas or was it the one before? However I had had Hornby O gauge clockwork as a child but most of my previous train experience was with a large OO layout(s).
Anyway I loved the track that came with it and when it came to buy a switch I bought a FastTrack one and would have kept on buying a piece or two as funds permitted BUT (they didnt) I found a box full of tubular for $5 so I bought a transition piece and said "I'll just use this old stuff for a siding".
Well it wasn't long before I switched to laying down the tubular first and then finishing off with the FastTrack because running on an uneven floor full of furniture it was much easier to wiggle around chair and table legs and so on, to get the track where I wanted it rather than it making me conform to where it would prefer to go. Out with hacksaw and pliers and away you go, shorter piece? No problem! Insulated section? Ditto.
Another thing too, the steel in the tubular is much more solid, the rails are probably going to last longer, get FastTrack wet and it rusts like the dickens but funnily enough what I like about tubular is the sound it makes, it sounds like rails should complete with 'clicketty-clack' over the joins.
However as I said in my original post FastTrack looks great, it goes together without lacerating you, the switches are a marvel and if I had loads of money to spare I'd definitely go for it and then of course I'd also have a proper layout on benchwork too. That aint happening, its carpet central for the foreseeable future.
FastTrack is a wonderful product but tubular is more flexible - quite literally - and the price is right. Bring FastTrack down to the price of tubular and I'll keep buying it.
Thor, did you know there's a difference between American and British "clicketty-clack"? American rails are 39 feet long and laid with staggered joints; so the "clicketty-clack" alternates from side to side. This also gives the cars a tendency to sway rythmically. British rails are 60 feet long and laid with the joints aligned.
Sometimes old American jointed track is taken up, ties and all, for reuse on sidings. But first the joints must be aligned by sliding the rails through the spikes, to make manageable sections. Then they are left that way.
Bob Nelson
About 90 % of the track on FEC here in Florida is 30 or 40 foot sections laid down with concrete ties & welded together, this style seems to be the newer track arrangement, not all railroads do the same thing. Sometimes on sidings there is the old wooden ties but mainline track for FEC is concrete ties, still using the old ballast method for raodbed.
Fastrac may be the newer system but would cost me a lot of money to change over to, also would have to change my layout do to the curve radius differance. Instead of 031 I would be using 036 and instead of 042 I would be using 048 curves.
I am using Lionel tubular track and GarGraves track and will stay with these for now!!
Lee F.
Would the next generation of “FasTrack” be a removable rail? If the rail/ties could be detached from the ballast and work alone, then it would seem to capture the benefits from both sides of this discussion. You could choose not to use the ballast and be able to cut track to unique lengths or you could use the ballast with the added benefit of being able to more easily paint/treat the ballast by removing the rails then reattaching them. My layout is going to be tubular, but I like much of what FasTrack has to offer. It would be nice to see Lionel try and merge the benefits of old and new into an upgraded version of Fastrack. I think the more flexibility Lionel can build into a track system, the better. Anyway, just my two cents worth on this topic.
envfocus wrote: Would the next generation of “FasTrack” be a removable rail? If the rail/ties could be detached from the ballast and work alone, then it would seem to capture the benefits from both sides of this discussion. You could choose not to use the ballast and be able to cut track to unique lengths or you could use the ballast with the added benefit of being able to more easily paint/treat the ballast by removing the rails then reattaching them. My layout is going to be tubular, but I like much of what FasTrack has to offer. It would be nice to see Lionel try and merge the benefits of old and new into an upgraded version of Fastrack. I think the more flexibility Lionel can build into a track system, the better. Anyway, just my two cents worth on this topic.
Another thing or two to make Fastrac better would be smaller radius curves like 031 and a transition piece to 027 track. For now Fastrac & Atlas's new track system share the same curve radius or so I have been told. Unsure if Fastrac & Realtrac match for curve diameter.
If you have a small layout or have only a one track main the curve size may not matter as much.
The enjoyment of toy trains is directly proportional to the ability of the trains to navigate the layout without derailments. Those of you who remember the late Ward Kimball may recall that he used no switches on his layout because of derailments. The new FasTrack switches are very well designed and derailments are a non-issue.
If you do not use switches, any track system will do. However, if you use switches, the FasTrack system is a great system to use.
Earl
Count me in with LS1Heli for the exact same reasons. I am not into nostalgia (well...at least not when it comes to track). Certainly not to the point where I will use old technology track that is nothing but headaches. I am also not a dedicated Lionel user. I use ALL O-Gauge stuff, but my track is MTH RealTrax. Most of my locos and rolling stock are MTH. If you don't want to use the ballast on RealTrax, you can use the other track MTH makes (ScaleTrax) without ballast, or use Gargraves. I suspect the RealTrax vs traditional Lionel track will be an endless controversy. I am also a bit surprised/amused by folks who want to buy/use O-Gauge trains "on the cheap". Even back in the 1950's Lionel trains were never "cheap". This is the 21st Century and O-Gauge is probably NOT the best choice for a train setup built on the cheap. Not unless you are content to buy a complete "economy" set that comes with train, transformer, track, etc. Prices have consistently gone UP on O-Gauge trains, and other than maybe G-Gauge, are probably THE most expensive train stuff you can buy. It's the old "if you wanna play, you gotta PAY".
Dep
Virginian Railroad
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
I am not loyal to one company or another but wish that track and switches were more compatible with each other. Seems like every company making a new track system uses a new type of track pin, examples; are Lionel tubular, Lionel Fastrac, MTH Realtrac, Atlas O gauge, GarGraves track. True you can get adapter pins for GarGraves to Lionel Ogauge or 027 track, but what about all the other track systems out there? I have seen the Atlas to O gauge adapter pins and you must be careful when using these pins.
Even Williams is now selling track, but have not seen any Williams track in stores to compare.
EIS2 wrote:The enjoyment of toy trains is directly proportional to the ability of the trains to navigate the layout without derailments. Those of you who remember the late Ward Kimball may recall that he used no switches on his layout because of derailments. . .Earl
The enjoyment of toy trains is directly proportional to the ability of the trains to navigate the layout without derailments. Those of you who remember the late Ward Kimball may recall that he used no switches on his layout because of derailments. . .
Modeling the Baltimore waterfront in HO scale
Bend me, shape me, anyway you want me, my vote is totally tubular. Actually, I hammer the stuff every few sections to make my trains dip, pure prototypical Penn Central style! FT is a great option, but like tubular, isn't exactly high rail material.
My 2 cents,
Rich F.
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