MR "Track Buyer's Guide" Article

[wp8thsub]

Important information is missing from the "Track buyer's guide" piece in the October, 2003 MR. While the article provides some useful data for beginners, it offers nothing concerning the scale fidelity of the various track products nor does it offer a clue as to relative reliability outside of a table showing gauge.

There's more to scale appearance than rail size. For example, Atlas code 100 doesn't look much like prototype track, but code 100 from Shinohara has comparitively fine detailing and a more realistic rail cross section. Helpful information for modelers would include such factors as scale sizes of ties and spikes. Tie thickness affects which brands of track are compatible without resorting to shimming.

Furthermore, not all track products are created equal when it comes to performance. Some turnouts have issues with electrical continuity through the point/closure rail assembly, or will nearly always require lots of tuning up before they work properly. Many will deliver very sloppy operation through the frogs (especially Peco in my experience). Although Micro Engineering turnouts look great, the quality control is questionable at best judging from those I've installed and they don't hold up especially well.

Aesthetic considerations, including smoothness of operation, are of course subjective but so are other judgments rendered during typical product reviews. No review of a locomotive would be complete without describing how close the model is to prototype dimensions, nor without data on just how well the thing runs.

Many beginners (and experienced modelers with a distaste for "elitists" who want to improve their modeling) tolerate operating qualities that others among us won't accept. Maybe these people have never operated on a layout with truly nice trackwork to see the difference up close; to know how smooth operation can get. Perhaps a follow up article could focus on comparitive quality aspects of the various track products for the hobbyists who do care.

[wp8thsub]

Important information is missing from the "Track buyer's guide" piece in the October, 2003 MR. While the article provides some useful data for beginners, it offers nothing concerning the scale fidelity of the various track products nor does it offer a clue as to relative reliability outside of a table showing gauge.

There's more to scale appearance than rail size. For example, Atlas code 100 doesn't look much like prototype track, but code 100 from Shinohara has comparitively fine detailing and a more realistic rail cross section. Helpful information for modelers would include such factors as scale sizes of ties and spikes. Tie thickness affects which brands of track are compatible without resorting to shimming.

Furthermore, not all track products are created equal when it comes to performance. Some turnouts have issues with electrical continuity through the point/closure rail assembly, or will nearly always require lots of tuning up before they work properly. Many will deliver very sloppy operation through the frogs (especially Peco in my experience). Although Micro Engineering turnouts look great, the quality control is questionable at best judging from those I've installed and they don't hold up especially well.

Aesthetic considerations, including smoothness of operation, are of course subjective but so are other judgments rendered during typical product reviews. No review of a locomotive would be complete without describing how close the model is to prototype dimensions, nor without data on just how well the thing runs.

Many beginners (and experienced modelers with a distaste for "elitists" who want to improve their modeling) tolerate operating qualities that others among us won't accept. Maybe these people have never operated on a layout with truly nice trackwork to see the difference up close; to know how smooth operation can get. Perhaps a follow up article could focus on comparitive quality aspects of the various track products for the hobbyists who do care.

[Anonymous]

I kept turning the pages expecting to see the section on rail and tie comparisons. I mean rail and ties for hand-laying. I would have liked to see a comparison and suppliers list for code 100, 83, 70, etc.

Also, an MSRP of the different products is helpful too for comparison.

It was a good article, but I wanted more.

[Anonymous]

I kept turning the pages expecting to see the section on rail and tie comparisons. I mean rail and ties for hand-laying. I would have liked to see a comparison and suppliers list for code 100, 83, 70, etc.

Also, an MSRP of the different products is helpful too for comparison.

It was a good article, but I wanted more.

[Anonymous]

Not to mention that the data for Fleischmann track is very wrong. They have the curve Diameters listed as radii (R1 track is 14.26" Radius, not 29.5"). Only #5 and #6 turnouts, but doesn't mention that the #5's do not have a moving frog, and the data for the curved turnouts has the same radii/diameter mistake. and they have the felxtrack listed as a 32" straight, rather than as flex(even if it ain't terribly flexible), the crossings are 18 degree and 36 degree, not 15, the non-roadbed track has black tes (in fact there are 2 completely different lines of Fleischmann track, Profi, with brown ties and low-profile roadbed, and Model, with black ties and no roadbed. Geometry is identical).

Oh, and Brass track has not been out of production for 20 years. I've got some that's less than 1 year old (From an IHC trainset made for Loblaws that I picked up because the set was $40 cheaper than the locomotive by itself)

[Anonymous]

Not to mention that the data for Fleischmann track is very wrong. They have the curve Diameters listed as radii (R1 track is 14.26" Radius, not 29.5"). Only #5 and #6 turnouts, but doesn't mention that the #5's do not have a moving frog, and the data for the curved turnouts has the same radii/diameter mistake. and they have the felxtrack listed as a 32" straight, rather than as flex(even if it ain't terribly flexible), the crossings are 18 degree and 36 degree, not 15, the non-roadbed track has black tes (in fact there are 2 completely different lines of Fleischmann track, Profi, with brown ties and low-profile roadbed, and Model, with black ties and no roadbed. Geometry is identical).

Oh, and Brass track has not been out of production for 20 years. I've got some that's less than 1 year old (From an IHC trainset made for Loblaws that I picked up because the set was $40 cheaper than the locomotive by itself)

[IRONROOSTER]

While I agree that more information would be helpful, a buyer's guide is merely a list and description of what is available. It is not a review or comparison. What would be really nice would be a table of evaluations such as Wood magazine does for tool reviews. Each manufacturer's product has a row and the columns would be such things as rail measurement. tie measurements, cost, gauge, and other facts, followed by evaluation columns which could be appearance, operation, etc where each is p - poor, f - fair, g - good, vg - very good, e - excellent. This could be followed by a short paragraph describing which is the best product (s) and which is the best value for the price (could be the same).
Enjoy
Paul

[IRONROOSTER]

While I agree that more information would be helpful, a buyer's guide is merely a list and description of what is available. It is not a review or comparison. What would be really nice would be a table of evaluations such as Wood magazine does for tool reviews. Each manufacturer's product has a row and the columns would be such things as rail measurement. tie measurements, cost, gauge, and other facts, followed by evaluation columns which could be appearance, operation, etc where each is p - poor, f - fair, g - good, vg - very good, e - excellent. This could be followed by a short paragraph describing which is the best product (s) and which is the best value for the price (could be the same).
Enjoy
Paul

[daniel1967]

I concure with most of the aforementioned... I was excited when I saw the front cover, and discusted by the time I finished leafing through the inaccuracies and completely neglected issues... like why pay 15.99 for a basic turnout when I can get a lifelike for 1.99? answer; cause the 1.99 don't work worth a dime! A buyers guide is useless without discussing the quality issues... and last time I looked at my layout , Walthers manufactured single slips, double slips, three ways and a slew of others track items not mentioned...
Dissappointed in PA, dan

[daniel1967]

I concure with most of the aforementioned... I was excited when I saw the front cover, and discusted by the time I finished leafing through the inaccuracies and completely neglected issues... like why pay 15.99 for a basic turnout when I can get a lifelike for 1.99? answer; cause the 1.99 don't work worth a dime! A buyers guide is useless without discussing the quality issues... and last time I looked at my layout , Walthers manufactured single slips, double slips, three ways and a slew of others track items not mentioned...
Dissappointed in PA, dan

[Anonymous]

My complaint is the innaccuracies, not the lack of info.

[Anonymous]

My complaint is the innaccuracies, not the lack of info.

[wp8thsub]

"While I agree that more information would be helpful, a buyer's guide is merely a list and description of what is available. It is not a review or comparison."

So called buyer's guides vary in content. Some that I like are found in publications like "Consumer Reports," giving capsule descriptions of products and at least some commentary on relative virtues of each. As far as I'm concerned, a buyer's guide that provides an insufficient basis for a prospective consumer to formulate an informed purchasing decision isn't of much use. Many such articles appear in various magazines and are just as limited in worth if they're discussing television sets or SUVs.

Part of what concerns me about the MR article is that a prospective buyer would have no idea, for example, which #6 turnout to pick for reliable operation. If I want to know who makes them I can look up that information in a catalog or on the net, seeing the same information in MR with a little photo of a turnout doesn't help me decide. Should I order one of each, install them, and see how they hold up after two years of op sessions? At least with the TV I can evaluate the picture and sound at the store, and I can test drive the SUV at the dealership. Getting an idea of how a turnout will work for me is much more challenging.

From my years in HO scale I know that I like Shinohara/Walthers for visible turnouts and the somewhat cheaper and more robust Atlas 83 elsewhere, but that Atlas has thicker ties. I know how much tuneup work was required to Make Atlas code 100 turnouts reliable in my staging yard. I know that I like Micro Engineering flextrack for its looks but that finding out how to bend it requires something akin to a secret handshake. That's from almost 30 years experience. Newcomers can get frustrated when they'e thrown into the HO section gang cold.

In presenting no commentary (other than the gauge chart) about quality or aesthetics, the buyer's guide might lead the uninformed hobbyist to infer that any of the products might be equally suitable for his or her tastes. In the past, MR has provided useful quality comparisons with such items as train sets, which hopefully helped steer beginners in the right direction. Given the volume of questions on the net (including this forum) about track, there are plenty of inquiring minds wanting to know...hmmm maybe I should submit an article?

[wp8thsub]

"While I agree that more information would be helpful, a buyer's guide is merely a list and description of what is available. It is not a review or comparison."

So called buyer's guides vary in content. Some that I like are found in publications like "Consumer Reports," giving capsule descriptions of products and at least some commentary on relative virtues of each. As far as I'm concerned, a buyer's guide that provides an insufficient basis for a prospective consumer to formulate an informed purchasing decision isn't of much use. Many such articles appear in various magazines and are just as limited in worth if they're discussing television sets or SUVs.

Part of what concerns me about the MR article is that a prospective buyer would have no idea, for example, which #6 turnout to pick for reliable operation. If I want to know who makes them I can look up that information in a catalog or on the net, seeing the same information in MR with a little photo of a turnout doesn't help me decide. Should I order one of each, install them, and see how they hold up after two years of op sessions? At least with the TV I can evaluate the picture and sound at the store, and I can test drive the SUV at the dealership. Getting an idea of how a turnout will work for me is much more challenging.

From my years in HO scale I know that I like Shinohara/Walthers for visible turnouts and the somewhat cheaper and more robust Atlas 83 elsewhere, but that Atlas has thicker ties. I know how much tuneup work was required to Make Atlas code 100 turnouts reliable in my staging yard. I know that I like Micro Engineering flextrack for its looks but that finding out how to bend it requires something akin to a secret handshake. That's from almost 30 years experience. Newcomers can get frustrated when they'e thrown into the HO section gang cold.

In presenting no commentary (other than the gauge chart) about quality or aesthetics, the buyer's guide might lead the uninformed hobbyist to infer that any of the products might be equally suitable for his or her tastes. In the past, MR has provided useful quality comparisons with such items as train sets, which hopefully helped steer beginners in the right direction. Given the volume of questions on the net (including this forum) about track, there are plenty of inquiring minds wanting to know...hmmm maybe I should submit an article?

[Anonymous]

I agree that more and more specific info on track would be nice. But can you see MR actually saying "this track is bad, this other one is great"?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot from an advertising point of view!

I don't know the solution.... other than - when buying track - caveat emptor.

I learned about the tie height differences while visiting a hobby shop - otherwise I would have purchased Code 83 Atlas Flex and Code 83 Walthers/Shinohara turnouts.

I would have been really ticked off at all the shimming required!

Rob

[Anonymous]

I agree that more and more specific info on track would be nice. But can you see MR actually saying "this track is bad, this other one is great"?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot from an advertising point of view!

I don't know the solution.... other than - when buying track - caveat emptor.

I learned about the tie height differences while visiting a hobby shop - otherwise I would have purchased Code 83 Atlas Flex and Code 83 Walthers/Shinohara turnouts.

I would have been really ticked off at all the shimming required!

Rob

[wp8thsub]

"But can you see MR actually saying "this track is bad, this other one is great"?"

Well...probably not in those terms. MR does provide feedback on dimensional discrepancies in product reviews, as well as information on kits that are difficult to assemble, have poor instructions, etc. For example, in the same issue as the track article that inspired this thread, the product reviews mentioned the following:

1. The DCC coupler setup from Tony's Train Exchange had some aesthetic concerns, required loco weight removal (with a corresponding drop in pulling power), and wouldn't work for locos with pilot details below the coupler.

2. Detail and especially paint/lettering problems were mentioned for the LBF Company N scale boxcar.

3. Some details on the Bachman heavy 4-8-2 were installed crooked, some of the casting work was rough, and the left eccentric is incorrect for prototype practice.

Such flaws, when mentioned along with other positive aspects of a model, don't necessarily mean a "gotcha!" aimed at the manufacturer nor even a recommendation not to buy. Honest commentary doesn't have to be rude. A simple table comparing tie dimensions to the prototype is an example. I don't think it would scare advertisers away if it was thoughtfully done.

[wp8thsub]

"But can you see MR actually saying "this track is bad, this other one is great"?"

Well...probably not in those terms. MR does provide feedback on dimensional discrepancies in product reviews, as well as information on kits that are difficult to assemble, have poor instructions, etc. For example, in the same issue as the track article that inspired this thread, the product reviews mentioned the following:

1. The DCC coupler setup from Tony's Train Exchange had some aesthetic concerns, required loco weight removal (with a corresponding drop in pulling power), and wouldn't work for locos with pilot details below the coupler.

2. Detail and especially paint/lettering problems were mentioned for the LBF Company N scale boxcar.

3. Some details on the Bachman heavy 4-8-2 were installed crooked, some of the casting work was rough, and the left eccentric is incorrect for prototype practice.

Such flaws, when mentioned along with other positive aspects of a model, don't necessarily mean a "gotcha!" aimed at the manufacturer nor even a recommendation not to buy. Honest commentary doesn't have to be rude. A simple table comparing tie dimensions to the prototype is an example. I don't think it would scare advertisers away if it was thoughtfully done.