O and O27 track is also a lot more forgiving than fastrack. You can kinda weedle the old tubular track to make up for little inconsistencies in the path you want the track to take. Fastrack seems to be very definative in how it goes together.
As for which takes more room - no doubt it's fastrack by quite a lot. You can easily build a multi-track layout with a lot of action and room for scenery, sidings and operating accessories on a 4x8 with o27. With fastrack, you would probably be relegated to a single outside loop with interior sidings.
Perhaps some day Lionel will come out with 027 Fastrak.
I guy can dream can't he?
Jim H
Another thing about Fastrac is that it can not be cut to size like tubular track, like 031 or 027 or GarGraves which has flextrac for O gauge. Some guys say that you can cut Fastrac but from what I have seen of it in the stores Fastrac will give you a headache or better to cut it to fit unless for an end piece of track.
Some people like the looks of Fastrac and how easy it connects together, supposed to have better electrical connections than tubular track, also Fastrac is more expensive to buy than regular O gauge track.
Know the abilities of the track system before buying it, there are many track systems in O gauge today.
Lee F.
Bob Nelson
lionel2986 wrote:I may be doing something wrong with my 0-27 track, but I also have O track. It seems the O track offers longer periods of reliable running with fewer derailing trains compared to the 0-27 track. I have derailings with the 0-27 profile and it seems as im building my layout that the 0-27 requires more "tuning" and testing before finally screwing it in to be sure there will be no derailments. The O I just lay down and have no derailing problems. I also think the O switchs derail less than the O27. I could be doing something wrong, some people use 0-27 and have no problems.
It makes sense. O gauge track is bigger, and the larger the track, the less derailments you'll have. (I've dealt with N scale trains and they are very hard to keep on the tracks!) My complete tubular track collection is all O27, and since I never had a permanent table to put it on, I constantly had trouble with derailing, because the pins would come apart so easily. I fixed this by tying them up with rubber bands, but of course, that looks pretty bad. I have looked at O scale track in hobby stores and it looks much more well-built than O27. FasTrack is full O scale track, not O27, and it stays together very well due to the fact it's got roadbed and the half-pin so you don't have to pull them out and bang them back in constantly. On my permanent layout, I'm going to use FasTrack, because it looks the most realistic, and the trains run MUCH better on it. Though I still use the tubular track from time to time.
Back in the days before FasTrack was introduced, I always preferred the lower profile of O27 track to the humongous rails of tubular O gauge.
My first layout (back when I was a kid in the 50s) was professionally built by a hobby shop owner and his sons as a birthday gift from my dad. It had O gauge track, and I never really did get used to that larger rail size, although I liked the switches.
When I got back into the O guge segment of the hobby, I started out with a lot of O gauge tubular, but rather quickly changed over to Gargraves for some layouts and O27 tubular for others. Stayed with that until Atlas introduced their new track system, and now Atlas track ranks #1 with me.
I still have a lot of O27 track left over from, including three-foot sections, switches, isolated sections, remote control sections, etc., and I'll hold onto that inventory until such time as I construct an all-tinplate layout for my New Marx collection. I've convinced my brother-in-law to provide the platform for that relatively small layout since I want it to look like fine furniture in terms of the legs, framing, stain, etc. He has a complete woodworking shop, so he'll attend to that sometime during the current year. I told him it would make a very nice Christmas gift for me next time around.
I figure I'll retain my stash of O27 now because I'm not at all sure how much longer Lionel will be offering those components. There will always be used stuff around, I imagine, but I'm very finnicky about my track and prefer new components that I can keep looking like new (or darn close to it).
The times I've used O27 over the years, I never had trouble with operations, aside from the fact that longer locomotives and cars don't like Lionel's O27 switch machine housings. That has never really been a problem for me though because I have long preferred smaller motive power and rolling stock.
One circle of Fastrack is 40 inches in diameter counting the roadbed.
One circle of O27 is 27 inches in diameter counting the ties.
One circle of O31 is 31 inches in diameter counting the ties.
Fastrack is a great track system. With that said, though, I have never made a large scale switch because tubular(standard O, in my case) is so much less expensive. I often pick up used sections in good, useable condition for $.75-1.00 each. I can have enough to build a pretty nice layout for the cost of just a simple oval for Fastrack.
Hogjaw wrote: I may have the cart before the horse, but I have fast track. Is the O, 0-27, more friendly user as far as trying to get the max amount of track on my 4' x 8' table.
I may have the cart before the horse, but I have fast track.
Is the O, 0-27, more friendly user as far as trying to get the max amount of track on my 4' x 8' table.
O/O-27 tubular is ALWAYS the better choice. It is ALOT cheaper seein as the difference in the cost of the amount of O guage tubular equal to the amount of FasTrack that is shipped with Lionel's current trains sets is $30. $16.68 for the same amount of O guage (not O-27) verses the $46.68 for the amount of track shipped with Lionel's current sets.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Interesting but not so difficult...;-) The area needed for an O27 circle is pi/4 times the square of the diameter, or 573 square inches. The area needed for a 36-inch diameter Fast Track circle is about 1257 square inches. (Remember that Lionel doesn't count the Fast Track roadbed in the 36 inches, which I'm taking to be 4 inches.)
lionelsoni wrote: A substantial gain in space--about twice the area for a circle of track compared to O27. And why not try to pack as much track as possible on a layout? There'll always be leftover space for accessories and scenery even though your pike looks like a spaghetti bowl of track.
A substantial gain in space--about twice the area for a circle of track compared to O27.
And why not try to pack as much track as possible on a layout? There'll always be leftover space for accessories and scenery even though your pike looks like a spaghetti bowl of track.
Interesting math...O36 twice the size of O27?
True, however, about "spaghetti" layouts having space for scenics...and the few trees you will need to fill that space won't cost much Joe
For me, it depends on what era of trains I want to run.
For traditional 027 toy trains (postwar and modern made postwar lookalikes) 027 would be my choice. It is more user friendly in the sense you can cut it, it is cheaper, and you can get a busier plan in a given space. You can find used 027 track dirt cheap. You will be limited to running 027 trains. Or you can use 027 profile 042 curves for larger equipment. With 042, your plan will be limited to maybe an oval with a passing track and a couple spurs.
For modern made scale detailed trains, my choice would be Fastrack 036 because like the trains, it is more realistic and plasticy. It is easier to assemble than 027 but is more difficult to cut and is more expensive than 027. Accessory tracks in particular. Like with 042, your plan will be limited but you can run larger stuff.
Both make noise and need sound absorbing material.
If 027 were more suited to my needs, I would put the horse in the closet and save it for floor running under the XMAS tree.
Another way of looking at it (with apologies to Allan):
A substantial gain in space--about twice the area for a circle of track compared to O27. Even if you're using FasTrack now, I would suggest making the change. O27 will handle most postwar locomotives and some others with modification; has simpler, non-electronic switches; and it's just an all-around better track system for a toy train layout, in my opinion.
Better, in my view, to switch track, if possible, than struggle to expand the table. And why not try to pack as much track as possible on a layout? There'll always be leftover space for accessories and scenery even though your pike looks like a spaghetti bowl of track.
Only a modest gain in space--not enough to worry about. If you're using FasTrack now, I would suggest sticking with it. It will handle somewhat larger locomotives on those slightly larger curves; has better quality switches; and it's just an all-around better track system for a toy train layout, in my opinion.
Better, in my view, to expand the table a bit, if possible, than to switch track. And why try to pack as much track as possible on a layout? Leave ample space for accessories and scenery so your pike looks like something more than a spaghetti bowl of track.
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