A survey

[Deputy]

Best...the full scale S2 turbines with all the electronic goodies on them. No surprise there for anyone that knows how much I like the S2

Worst...I don't really have a specific item I don't like. I don't buy MPC locos, but other stuff like boxcars is pretty decent. 

Dep

[phillyreading]

No I am not referring to the 8030!  Like you said it was made 37 years ago, the one I am referring to was made in the 1990's and is not an MPC make loco.

Please READ the year made!!!

Lee F.

[Kooljock1]

Lee,

I don't think anybody is misreading your post, but rather that there was no Illinois Central Geep cataloged in that time-frame. That's not to say that they didn't make one though. They do uncatloged stuff all the time, and it causes great confusion.

I just went through all my 1989 Toy Fair through 1999 Christmas catalogs and didn't see an Illinois Central Geep. I did see an Illinois Central SD-40 with twin PullMors and MagneTraction and a real cheapie Illinois Central light Industrial Switcher. Maybe yours was a department store special? There certainly were some really crappy geeps being pumped out at that time in New York Central and US Army paint!

Jon

[Warburton]

I beliebve the common problem with the CW-80 is that a circuit breaker (or some such), er, "breaks" permanently and fixing it requires disassembling the entire transformer. My dealer said that inside, the transformer is well built except for this one often-defective part which can ruin it.

So, I suspect that Lionel has already fixed the problem and newer models SHOULD perform OK. Anyone have experience with older vs. newer CW-80's so we can compare them??

[phillyreading]

Jon,

I don't know for sure if it was uncataloged or what but I bought the GP-7 in Stuart FL at a small hobby shop, so it was not a department store special but it sure performed like a "D" store special!

A little more info about the GP-7 Illinois Central, I bought it when I lived in Stuart FL between Sept. 95 and March 02.  On the bottom where two switches, one for direction and the other for the horn to be turned on or off, it was a single motor unit, not sure if it had tire drive or not. Sold the GP-7 on ebay and used the money, plus a few dollars, to buy a new Williams GP-9 and I am very happy with that sale and purchase, may have lost a few dollars but gained a lot of experiance in the new locomotive purchasing department.

To power it I was using a post war 275 watt ZW, control handle A, so I had enough power to the loco to make it move but it just did not pull much of anything.

Lee F.

[phillyreading]

I beliebve the common problem with the CW-80 is that a circuit breaker (or some such), er, "breaks" permanently and fixing it requires disassembling the entire transformer. My dealer said that inside, the transformer is well built except for this one often-defective part which can ruin it.

So, I suspect that Lionel has already fixed the problem and newer models SHOULD perform OK. Anyone have experience with older vs. newer CW-80's so we can compare them??

From what I know about the CW-80 either it works or it don't work.  For the CW-80 that don't work I would cut the cord off and use it as a paper weight.   a.k.a. Can't Work-80.

Lee F.

[Kooljock1]

Lee,

It gets curiouser and curiouser! Certainly sounds like a modern era unit with those switches. Was it black or orange? Can motor or PullMor?

Jon

[rtraincollector]

 

The worst Lionel product has to be FasTrack (at one time it was the CW-80, but it takes back seat to FasTrack).

You get my vote as the biggest *** on this forum. Joe

My view you need to look in a mirror don't get me wrong fast track is fine for those who don't want the art of cutting track to size and don't mind being limited to what you can do. But to really model I prefer to use gargraves so I can cut to the size I want and not have to go out and buy another $6.00 + piece to make it work or maybe 2 and 2 different sizes. It just depends on which you prefer to do but before you call someone the biggest *** think where they maybe coming from I see your point and I see his.

[palallin]

Lee,

It gets curiouser and curiouser! Certainly sounds like a modern era unit with those switches. Was it black or orange? Can motor or PullMor?

Jon

 

And what was its number (if you can remember)?

[phillyreading]

Lee,

It gets curiouser and curiouser! Certainly sounds like a modern era unit with those switches. Was it black or orange? Can motor or PullMor?

Jon

Jon,

It was orange with black lettering, and had 6- another five numbers on the box it came in, don't know about can motor or pullmor but it must have been a can motor as it didn't pull that much maybe four quad hoppers at full open throttle on my ZW.  In my estimate you would have to put three together to pull ten empty quad hoppers Lionel post war # 6436 or 643625.

Lee F.

 

[hopper]

Best  Super O track. Worst giraff car

[Dave45681]

 

The worst Lionel product has to be FasTrack (at one time it was the CW-80, but it takes back seat to FasTrack).

You get my vote as the biggest *** on this forum. Joe

My view you need to look in a mirror don't get me wrong fast track is fine for those who don't want the art of cutting track to size and don't mind being limited to what you can do. But to really model I prefer to use gargraves so I can cut to the size I want and not have to go out and buy another $6.00 + piece to make it work or maybe 2 and 2 different sizes. It just depends on which you prefer to do but before you call someone the biggest *** think where they maybe coming from I see your point and I see his.

I agree with rtraincollector.

While I am trying to like FasTrack, the geometric (or lack thereof) considerations of it's design leave something to be desired IMHO.  It would seem from all the praise FT gets though, that those of us with these concerns are certainly in the minority.

Agreed, FT is excellent for making temporary floor layouts, and it's not bad if you have no problem with just fidgeting to get your track plan to work.  (meaning either: a) using many of the small fitter sections, or b) fudging it by forcing something not geometrically correct to fit together)  I try to make layouts that have as little tension in the track as possible.  I do not like to "fudge" the alignment, as that causes (small, mind you, but not insignificant) anomalies in the connections

Cutting 

I know some people claim that cutting FT is no big deal, but I respectfully disagree.  Perhaps I expect too much from my finished product.  I always attempt for a cut piece of track to have as much structural integrity as a fresh piece.  With tubular, this is doable, if you don't crush the track in a vice, or mangle the rail when trying to crimp a detent to hold the pin.

FT either forces you to bend the tabs under the roadbed to  release the pins you will need after cutting(and of course bending them back so that the rail is still solid to the balast - and of course new holes in the balast too if you go this route), or you must cut out a middle section and then glue the 2 pieces back together somehow.  To me, this leaves way too much room for anomalies in the resultant product, leading to chewing up of traction tires, or at the very least, more likely derailments.

Geometry

For all the good points of FT, the geometry issues make it harder to say that choosing FT is the best option.

The O72 and O60 switch "fitters" are on top of the list.  Any switch that is labeled as a "O-xx"  switch should be a direct drop in replacement for an "O-xx" curve section.  The addition of the straight section makes the curve less "pure".  

Example:  Lets build an O84 loop with an O72 passing loop inside it.  I started with a circle of O84, put a switch on each side at the mid points of the circle, then tried to figure out the straight track combinations to get it to connect in the middle. (half a circle of O72, less the 2 pieces that the switches contribute was also used, or course)

I ended up with an O84 circle with (2) 4.5" straight sections (on the edges of the loop perpindicular to the O72 switches) on each edge, and the O72 part of the loop had  a 10", 5", 1.75" (2) and 1.375" (at the time only available with the switches!) to finish out the loop.  Way too many straight pieces, IMO to create this simple plan.   Perhaps if I made some trigonometry Excel spreadsheets, I might find better solutions by using straights in between the curves, but I have not yet gone down that path. (ie, at say 22 1/2 degrees, 45 or 67 1/2 for an O72 quarter circle, rather than only on the pieces at 0 or 90 degrees)

 

I am even OK with cutting the balast on a curve section to correct this, but it certainly won't help the straight section problem, as Lionel certainly did not plan for people to do this. 

This is without even going into what an O72 wye might actually be.  It may start as O72, but it is 1) not a full section, 2) not  even necessarily a true curve if you don't use the straight fitter pieces, as it looks like a good portion of the end of the wye is very straight.  (Looks to be maybe 7 ties worth of straight, counting on the outside rail, no fitter included)

I would call FT both the best and worst product, depending on which side you look at.

In fairness, I have not tried to analyze the geometry of other similar track fomr other companies, perhaps they may have such problems (even if not identical ones) as well.

  

[phillyreading]

It is not just Fastrac but any track system with a plastic roadbed added in that is extremely difficult to almost impossible to custom fit to a layout.  That is why tubular track won't die! Tubular track can be custom fitted even on curves!

Lee F.

[johnsgg1]

For me the best product so far is the great PRR Y-3.  I've got all the Postwar PRR items but this Y-3 is spectacular.  The J-1 had topped the list but the Y beats it out.  All the great GG1s (both shortened and scale) are not far behind.

The poorest item has to be the Handcars (operationally), not appearance.  They just don't run reliably on anything but the cleanest track.  For the price, they could use an upgrade.