"THE OLD SCHOOL"

[daan]

We all do that Odd-d, but the animal has to have a name otherwise it won't come when you call for it, so therefore we have "old school" and "new school".. I'm FORCED to do oldschool, simply because "new school" doesn't excist here. I bet there are lots of others too who got a trainset from someone else, or found them in the basement and are pleased with the tubular-thingy till the "big boss" (wife [:D]) gives way for the railroad to buy new tracks..
In my case I prefer engines first, then rolling stock and last of the list are tracks, simply because I can easily built them myself if necessary and tubular 0-27 and 0-32 is being used by marklin and heaps of other brands around WWII. So those tracks are not scarse around here. I can also use PECO rail and add a third rail from copper wire or something like it.
To be short, I'm an old schooler, but only untill I get my hands on something more fancy. (wooden ties and tubular rail?)

[Anonymous]

I just used an Atlas switch as an example. I used old reclaimed Gargraves for my two rail trolley line. I yanked the thirdrail out and pulled off half the ties. It worked OK for the most part but was not flexible enough to make as tight a curve as I wanted on one return loop. I decided to try O scale flextrack from Pecos River Brass for the even tighter return loop at the other end of the line. Great! But how do I attach the solid rail flextrack to the hollow rail Gargraves? After some thought I hit on the idea of soldering the Gargraves track pins to the outside surfaces of the rails......definitely not "old school" but it worked. Solving little problems like this provide much of the fun and interest in this hobby for me. Old school-new school.......SCHOOL'S OUT! Do as you please......it's YOUR pike. Odd-d

[Dave Farquhar]

Odd-d, I agree that people should run what they like, but I think the labels have more to do with what you like than with some mind-set. I wouldn't buy an Atlas switch, but not because of that two-word label. I won't buy it because Marx and pre-war American Flyer locomotives won't run through it, and I want to be able to run anything I want on my layout. That pretty much limits me to prewar Marx switches, Lionel 1121s, and Sakais.

Cost has something to do with it too. An Atlas switch costs almost as much as some vintage locomotives. For my money, I'd rather have the locomotive, or some rare rolling stock, or a whole fleet of common rolling stock.

If there were a modern switch that all of the vintage locomotives would run through, I'd think about it. But it's a matter of priorities. I'm more confident of selection and prices for Atlas switches (or something similar) holding steady for the next 20 years than I am of pre-war Ives/Flyer/Lionel or postwar Lionel.

Don't get me wrong, I like your attitude that it's your hobby and you'll do it how you like, not how someone else tells you. I build my own buildings and even my own rolling stock sometimes, something that's more frequently associated with scale modelers than with toy train operators. I agree that's the great thing about this hobby--we've got lots of choices.

[Anonymous]

Odd-d___ [#ditto]

[FJ and G]

Odd-d,

a bunch of people mix/match like you do. If you look at the feature layout in latest OGR, the Santa Fe layout, you'll see Gargraves and tubular, and ScaleTrax. I'm handlaying my track but on my helix I'll probably just run tubes with metal ties; nothing fancy.

You seem to have a healthy philosophy, Odd-d.

[Anonymous]

I usually use whatever comes to hand. That's what the real rrs do. Personally I use new Gargraves where I have to make curves, old used Gargraves where I need either straight track or short pieces cut to fit. On my electrified commuter line I use tubular track cut to fit and each section hardwired to the next. I am not "old school" or "new school" or any other category. It's MY hobby and I will set the categories I want to fit in. There is just too much running with the pack me-tooism in the hobby. Putting yourself in some arbitrary category set up by somebody else is self limiting. What happens if one of you "old school" types happen to need an Atlas switch? Do you just say, "Oh, no...I can't use an Atlas switch because I am Old School." ? I never lead and I never follow....I just AM. Odd-d

[Anonymous]

My next layout will be Gargraves flex track & Ross Custom Switches. They have wood ties & a more prototypical rail shape, though the rails are hollow.

I don't care if the third rail is shiny, black, or chartreuse.

Tony

[FJ and G]

I do both. I use traditional tubular track, some traditional accessories, Williams trains.

Also, hi-rail scenery DCS and all the other rivet counter stuff.

Why force yourself to choose? I don't.

dav

[Buckeye Riveter]

The old Christmas layout was the old school. When we decided to build the new layout, I visited Davis Trains and took their short course in TMCC. I wired the layout as per their recommendations and I have never had a problem with any of my TMCC. (I thought I did once, but I forgot to turn on the power.)

[ChiefEagles]

Daan, you are right about tubular track. You don't have to be fancy to have fun. On the wooden ties, you can make them or there are places here in the US that sell them. They will fit under the tubular track between the metal ties.

[daan]

If it is "old school", okay but to me it's a new way of life. I actually have a modelrailway in which you don't have to help the trains running by hand because of some bad contact. that's quite new to me. I have found out that tubular track has some very good pro's compared to the "model track" and therfore I'll stick with the railshape (though I read something about wooden ties, I wanna have that too!!)
Besides that, my layout is too small to have any huge automasation..

[cnw1995]

Oliver, that's funny about plastic. Frank Ellison is a personal hero of mine. I just love his attitude. I wish I could find his book or some of his articles. Who was it that had the 'good enough' concept or the '3 ft. rule' - if you can't see if from 3 ft. away, I'm not modelling it. You should see the comments I get when I mention I use 'twisty ties' to connect some of my rolling stock with latch couplers to the more modern stuff. Not meaning to be me vs. them, the hobby's big enough for all of us, and I admire their scale work...

[Anonymous]

Well, 'trainbud', since no-one chimed in on your reference to Frank Ellison, I will. Dad bought his book and I wore ou-, nay..., devoured his copy...these were the words of the Master himself!.
Found another copy years ago and have Darn near worn it out (the pages are taped in).
Frank was the consummate showman and pressed home that point on every page...Model Railroading is Theater in Miniature and Realism is the Goal. And, he had a Puckish sense of humor, and that legacy lives on to this day.

I like to have some sly fun with folks on other forums who whine about the nosiness of their layouts (track on plastic foam on 1/4" plywood) by suggesting they try a thicker, more stable 'base of operations'..such as 1" thick Southern Pine as Frank Ellison used...and getting a "Wha-? Who..?!" in response.

Even more fun can be had with folks moaning about the terribly unprototypical appearance and operation of their KD's by suggesting that they use the same trouble-free couplers and uncoupling system that Frank Ellison used so successfully on his layout...and then clamming up.

By the way (to change the subject slightly), on the subject (very dear to my heart) of durability, reliability and respirability of modern trains (or anything, for that matter)...Think Long and Hard on the Following Truth:

"Plastic never stops shrinking."

No, it does not...some may shrink more than others, but all plastics shrink.

Oliver T.
Bronzewurks, NB

[Anonymous]

Switched from scale HO to traditional Lionel toy last September. I believe I wil stay "Old School" as my son and I get a big kick out of flipping the switches and pulling the throlle handle. O-31 tubular track looks "right" to me for the traditional non-scale rolling stock I prefer. Yep, I'm "old School".

Steve

[guilfordrr]

I've also been kept back in the "old school". Postwar Lionel, Williams, tubular track, and postwar transformers. I have never even laid finger on a command control.......uh, control. [:D]

[Anonymous]

I am "schizoid" (I.E., split personality). I run both TMCC and conventional. Often times, I just crank up the old KW, and run all the PW stuff. Ozone gives me a great buzz![;)][;)][;)]

[Anonymous]

This discussion has given me a vision for the future. We may be moving in the next year or two and I thought I would take an opportunity to make a bigger more dramatic change to our layout.

I think I will use our current O-31 layout to run my traditional Williams and Lionel engines and the ones I will inherit from my Dad, and set up a separate loop for the TMCC and add DCS. I know that you can run conventional and command on the same loop, but this seems like a good approach to keep things simple.

Anybody else taking this approach, besides KeithL, or does everyone run their conventional and command on the same track.

[Anonymous]

I am with the old school as well. My new layout is limited by the den and is only 13x10x3 in a "around the walls" style. I prefer the old KW's and the control panel with block controls. I can see everything well, and my little boys love playing with all the switches. I am considering making the switch to TMCC at a later date since my plan is to replace all locos and cars for Atlas O models.

Regards,
Tom

[johnsgg1]

I was "old School". When I first saw TMCC advertised I just brushed it off. No way-no how. I liked the K's, Z's, L's and so on. And tubular was OK with me. I had a ton of it.

My wife bought me a Cab-1 and Powermaster for Christmas '95. She ordered from Ro, we were stationed in Hawaii. She twisted my arm, so to speak. The best gift she ever got me. I've never looked back.

I still have tubular, and all my Lionel PRR from 1946 on, but now it all operates using the Cab-1.

A new ZW sits alongside on old ZW , KW , "K" and others and powers Lionel "0" gauge track. It's all compatible and a ball to operate.

I even service my trains in a room 30+ feet and around corners and thru doorways from the Command Base. My engines pick up the command signal and I use a Cab-1 to execute functions.

So I guess I'm "old school" that got hooked on "new school" and I don't look back.

[RI Jim]

I was part of the "Old School" until I tried TMCC and was blown away with the ease of use and the flexibility Command Control offers. I have both DCS and TMCC and have had no trouble with wiring them or using them both. Howver, there is something satisfying about grabbing the throttle of an old ZW and running conventional, so I can understand why some folks still stick to what they know and enjoy best. I just think it's great now that folks have a choice. Enjoy your trains, that's what the hobby's all about!

[Anonymous]

I can't afford the Lionel, MTH or Williams so I've purposely stayed really old school. I know some say they aren't real trains but I run all Marx. I have three loops on an L-shaped, 17' x 7' x 4' board. The outside and inside are separate loops with the middle loop dumping into four spurs - all Marx switches. I use all Marx power too - two 100w and one 50w on mostly K Line (042) & Marx (034) track.

I'd love to "play" with the computer control stuff sometime just to try it out. And who knows, maybe I'll try to convert a Marx diesel to DCC someday, but for now I love the smell & sound of the old Marx engines running over tubular track!

~Q

[KeithL]

I have both.

My 6' x 10' layout is conventional. It has three loops: one O27, one Super O, and one O54. On this layout, I run postwar Lionel, as well as Williams, K-Line and MTH PS1.

My other layout, which I'm still completing, runs around the walls of my train room. The track is Lionel O72 tubular, but operation is 100% TMCC. Track power is from a Lionel PowerHouse 180, and a Lionel SC-2 controls the switches and some of the accessories. I run three Lionel TMCC engines on this layout. I still have three blocks so I can "park" trains.

I enjoy the unique aspects of both "old school" and command-controlled trains.

Keith

[Frank in Steam]

Since this is my first post, I'd like to introduce myself. I am an admitted train gourmand - I like it if its a train. But I do have my preferences: obviously from my name - steam locomotives, the NYC & DL&W are my faves, scale dimensioned toy trains, pushing & pulling a transformer handle for control.
Frank Dz

[Anonymous]

My layout at home is conventional, but the club layout that is at the Oak Ridge Mall runs both conventional and TMCC. I have not purchased the hand held unit for TMCC. I like to run conventional trains from the mid 30's up to new stuff that Williams and MTH sells that is not electronic.

[nitroboy]

I will say I'm "Old School". I do not own anything newer than 1976 in my collection. For two reasons. One - I like simple things to unwind with. I don't want to spend hours trying to 'lash-up' loco's and get so upset I just want to cry. Two - I can't afford the new stuff. E-bay is a wonderful place to get old stuff in poor shape cheap. I'm pretty good at fixing stuff, so the worse off, the better.

Dave

[Anonymous]

I crossed over last year and got TMCC . It has it's up's and downs as does most things.
I still have plenty of conv. to run as well.
Keith

[Dr. John]

I am very much "old school!" Tubular track, post-war and Williams, with a KW for power.

Now if I just had a layout for all this stuff! [;)]

[brianel027]

"No relays, no blocks, no insulated loops. Just pure 18v running everywhere and ONE wire to the Command Base!"

I gotta admit Jon, that's one thing that is kind of a turn on to using TMCC. I have wires going all over the place under my layout. Sure, it's fun (?) in it's own way. But when I think about avoiding all that wiring, all those switches, etc. that's one area where "control" becomes a tempting idea.

[johnnyc]

Still use an old ZW , it's very reliable . All locos are new conventional models .

johnnyc