One could combine the two, using one type in yards and non visible areas and the other on the rest of the layout.... Or one style on an outside loop and another on an inside loop. Some folks would hate the mixture, some would not care.
That's precisely what I did. My 9X6 layout has a Fastrack main line running around the table. There are 0-36 switches at each end with 0-48 curves. Off each switch is an 0-36 curve and a couple half sections linked by straights creating a siding running from one end of the main line to the other. The passenger station sheds sit between the two tracks with the main depot against the inside track.
On the one end, about 1/3 of the way down the table, another 0-36 switch cuts left with track across the main street of the town, joining up with a transition piece that meets a traditional 0-22 switch on the other side of the street. This is part of a roughly six and 1/2 foot interior oval of tubular track that features the aforementioned 0-22, as well as two 0-72's (I had them already) creating a line of track across the interior oval line. Off of this line of track is another 0-22, moving into a prewar 0-21 (I am affectionate toward this switch, which I bought for a dollar in 1980 or so) creating a small yard with two terminal sidings in front of my Marx Freight terminal. The oval itself is 0-31 with a half section on each curve to prevent the trains binding up. My big varnish doesn't function here - too narrow.
All of this is controlled as follows: Williams transformer and TMCC for Fastrack, PW Type R Trainmaster for the tubular interior oval. Perhaps this is more detail than you wanted, and you also asked: How does it look? The answer is that there is a clear visual difference between the two tracks, something I alleviated somewhat by ballasting the tubular with Woodland Scenics gray coarse ballast. I have come to like the different look as it clearly notes different LINES, or the suggestion of such.
I am a relative neophyte and did not use track planning software; this was trial and error. But it works for me. Hope this helped.
I use both. Fastrack is much noisier than tubular. Fastrack is much easier to assemble and much more likely to stay together than tubular. Tubular is cheaper, easier to cut to special lengths, and allows more "fudging" of track geometry. Tubular also comes in smaller radius curves which are necessary on smaller layouts. There is a fastrack section that converts to 031 tubular, 027 tubular would need a shim under the track.
For temporary layouts Fastrack is superior. For permanent layouts tubular has the edge, especially if it is on plywood without foam.
Jim H
Redneck,
This is type info I wanted.
Thanks for response.
Hog
No I only own FasTrack becuase I own some of the new trainsets. It will never see use on my layout when I start on it!
Availablility
You can get both virutally anywhere Lionel Trains are sold. Even the local hobby lobby sells Lionel track, but no the trains.
Cost
The cost of the amount of FasTrack that is shipped with sets has alone cuased an increase of at least $20 or more. Tubular track is cheaper and as far as I am concerned, complements Lionel's equipment much better than FasTrack.
Space
FasTrack is big, wide, and thus takes up much more space than standard tubular track.
Appearance
This is the part that sparks debate. There are those that feel old school is the way to, but others that insist that new is in. I am one that goes old school. Tubular track looks SOOOO much better than bulky FasTrack.
Well this is my two cents. Now that I have spoken, let the flaming (which I know will probably insue) begin.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Do any of you use both on same layout?
What are pros, cons, and appearance?'
Thanks.
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