There is about as many manufacture's of track and turnouts as there is roadnames, but which one is the right one.
I understand there isn't one good answer but I'm having a hard time deciding which one to choose.
As a point of reference I model the modern era, 6 axle Diesels and the like. However I am sorta a perfectionist. Since track is a model too I would like it to look good as well as operate worry free.
My new layout is a small switching layout on a shelf around the room, with a 16' staging yard off one end along an adjacent wall. I had origionally planned to use Atlas code 83 flex and turnouts but as of late I've been considering using Peco Code 83 instead.
Right now the two things I'm really stuck on are;
A) The Atlas turnouts (not the superswitch) all lack headblock's.
I had planned on using ground throws for all my turnout's and this lack of detail, call me crazy, just seams to hang me up.
B) Turnout availability is very limited.
Using mostly EMD GP and SD units, the #4 switches just seam on the small side for a modern railroad. While its not all that much different I would feel safer using a #5 for industry spurs, #6 for yard leads and service track, and #8's for mainline sidings.
Any thoughts?
I understand there are other Brands out there but with all the problems people seam to have with lining up different brands track. It just seams logical to stick with one make.
If Atlas only made the super switch in more than just a #6 I think i would have an easier time choosing their line. Granted the superswich requires some modification for practical use in yard ladders and crossovers, but it can be done.
Also as a last thought, I don't have the patience to build my own turnouts or hand lay my track, although I would love to try it someday.
Thanks In Advance
Jeremy
First, What scale? HO or N?
Second, you state you're a perfectionist, modeling modern era...OK...
What is your budget? (Rhetorical question)
Without considering cost, my opinion is that for modern railroad realism, Walthers/Shinohara code 83 switches, crossings and crossovers, Etc. look the best for mainlines(code 70 for modern sidings), weathered of course.
In your post, you are considering Atlas, so if I assume you're not the most recent lottery winner, and cost is an issue, I personally think Atlas(HO Custom Line) looks more realistic to US prototype than Peco. (Atlas SuperSwitch?-is this the N scale version of a Custom Line?)
These are my HO scale opinions, you may only agree with 1/87th of them
Opps............
Guess that is important, I model in HO scale.
I don't have a Budget, what ever I have to pay to be satisfied is the right amount. The layout is made of modules, so I can finish as much and as little as I want within the available funds.
My first goel is to finish a single loop of track, to provide display running. I find that having little successes keeps me motivated to continue further progression. Step one get a train to run in a circle, than finish the the industrial spurs.........
The layout is designed to operate as a point to point branchline, however for the sake of being lazy I've included a cut-off to allow coninuous operation. Sometimes you just want to railfan.
Thanks for the comments so far if anyone has pictures to share please feel free to link.
Cheers
My layout is a smorgasbord of Atlas, Micro Engineering, Peco, Shinohara, and, on the super-elevated curves, Precision Scale Co (PSC). I had purchased a huge batch of Atlas track from a guy who had to tear his layout down and did it carefully enough that most pieces are undamaged.
The other makes are either due to special needs (only PSC makes a prefab super-elevated curve flex track; M-E seems to be the only preweathered flex track) or special opportunities, such as being at the Walthers hobby shop on the day a huge bundle of Shinohara flex track appeared for $6 due to some slight damage to one end of the box. Living in Milwaukee does have its advantages for a model railroader!
Assuming we are talking either Code 100 or Code 83, my feeling is that the choice in HO is either Atlas, or brands other than Atlas.
Atlas's advantage is that it is sturdy, reliable, and readily available at shops that might carry no other brand. The flex track is very easily curved, but also springs back to being straight easily --- which depending on the situation can be a blessing or a curse. It is not I think the most realistic track due to the size of the ties which to me look too bulky, and the "shoeboxes" that hold the rails to the ties make even the Code 83 flex track look a bit train-set-ish.
Micro Engineering, Shinohara, and PSC are much less easy to curve, which means once cuved it holds its shape but it is something of an effort to bend it into a clean even curve especially with easements. My minimum radius is 38" so I have not tried to bend these brands of flex track as tightly as some might have to. Based on the effort to bend it to 42 inch radius curves, I cannot even imagine what it must be like to try to get it down to, say, a 24" radius curve. If I had tight curves like that, I think I'd go with Atlas almost by default.
I have not tried or even seen the Peco flex track by the way. And someone on these Forums once said that Model Power's Code 100 flex track is surprisingly good.
Due to the very different tie sizes involved I worried that it would look odd to mix all these makes of flex track. In practice once the track is laid, ballasted, and weathered the differences between PSC, M-E and Shinohara mostly disppear. They all look very good together because their tie size and spacing, while not identical, is close. Their rail cross sections are close as well.
Atlas always tends to be the outlying exception due to its more unusual way of holding the rail to the ties, the tie size, and the tie spacing -- but even then once it is all +ballasted and weathered I hardly notice where the Atlas ends and the other stuff begins. But maybe I am just not being critical enough of my own efforts: if the entire layout was Atlas I probably would not even notice the appearance issues.
So I guess I am punting on your question -- I do not think it is crucial to pick a brand and stick with it. Now turnouts may be a different matter particularly if the electrical characteristics of a particular turnout are important for your wiring. Better to learn the quirks of one brand and stick with it, so I am sticking with Peco Insulfrog (although a couple of Electrofrogs have crept into the supply , and a really nice Shinohara is looking for the right setting).
Dave Nelson
IMO if price and availability are factors, I'd go with Atlas' code 83 line. I use their wood-tie flextrack and the #505-506 no. 6 Super-track turnouts exclusively, as the RR "engineering dept" has them "in-stock" and available for the track dept.
On the other hand, if price is not a factor (and I was starting over) I would go with Peco's new code 83 line in a heartbeat. I think the fact that they used AREA plans for the turnouts and track - prototype realism - and the rock-solid engineering and operation of their turnout mechanisms surely makes this track line a winner in my book.
However, since I've got significant $$$ already invested in Atlas' code 83 - and a limited RR budget - I'm satisfied with Atlas. As it has been mentioned above, it's also much less expensive and more available than the competition. If I need a packet or railjoiners or another switch, I can run down to the LHS and pick it up. Can't really do that with Shinohara or Peco here locally.
D.M. Mitzel, Oxford, Mich. USA
Occams Razor wrote:Kato Unitrack. There's really no comparison in terms of reliability. It's not flex, but with careful planning that's not a big issue. The prefab roadbed is only ok in appearence but with ballasting done you can easily bring the appearence up to equal or greater to other brands. The biggest downside? It's expensive. Worth every penny though.
Does Kato Unitrack lend itself to proper spiral easements on curves?
Can Kato Unitrack be mixed and matched with ANY manufacturer's products?
Can you form a properly eased entrance/exit to a grade with Kato Unitrack? (Hint - there's another thread that answers this one!)
Is Kato Unitrack as reliable as turnouts hand-laid by an alleged expert combined with relatively inexpensive Atlas flex track - which can answer YES to all of the questions above?
If you are willing to settle for toy train track standards, Kato Unitrack is $plendid. If you want to model track that looks like the stuff your prototype runs on...
(Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of Kato products, and have several of their Japanese-prototype locos running on my layout. Problem is, I'm also a big fan of trackwork that looks exactly like that which I photographed back in the 1960s.)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on Atlas concrete-tie flex and handlaid turnouts)
tomikawaTT wrote:Does Kato Unitrack lend itself to proper spiral easements on curves?Can Kato Unitrack be mixed and matched with ANY manufacturer's products?Can you form a properly eased entrance/exit to a grade with Kato Unitrack? (Hint - there's another thread that answers this one!)Is Kato Unitrack as reliable as turnouts hand-laid by an alleged expert combined with relatively inexpensive Atlas flex track - which can answer YES to all of the questions above?If you are willing to settle for toy train track standards, Kato Unitrack is $plendid. If you want to model track that looks like the stuff your prototype runs on...(Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of Kato products, and have several of their Japanese-prototype locos running on my layout. Problem is, I'm also a big fan of trackwork that looks exactly like that which I photographed back in the 1960s.)Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on Atlas concrete-tie flex and handlaid turnouts)
There's no problems doing easements with Unitrack, although it is easier in N since there's more variety in curve diameter. HO not so much depending on the user, none for me since I'd want the 30" radius to be the tightest.
Why would you mix it with other track products? There are transition pieces available for those that want to do so. All non-track accessories are compatible.
In my experience with grades and Unitrack I've had no problems. This is in N scale. HO may be a different story.
No offense to anyone intended, but I would put their reliability against anything commercially or non-commercially produced.
I find that Kato Unitrack once ballasted, painted and weathered looks very realistic based on what is used in modern railroading today. It is worth noting that without some work being done to it NO track looks anywhere near prototypical. You're right, it doesn't fit your era and locale. But to say that it doesn't fit others, other than "toy like" is a huge overstatement in my opinion.
-Matt, who's being forced back into flextrack, probably Atlas for his next project due to $
What folows here is another Opinion based on my experiences, your mileage may vary.....
I value looks and reliabilty and am willing to pay for it. I would rate ME flex as the most realistic. The railhead profile is closer to prototypical than others as well as spike head size etc....I have bent it to 30" radius and it is not that hard to bend once you get the hang of it. I wouldn't let the bending issue stop me. Use the unweathered track. It is easier to solder feeders and rail joiners to it. I usually paint the rails and ties anyway....
Turnouts are a special case because it is hard to get perfect commercial turnouts. Scratchbuilding turnouts takes skill and time (in spite of what they say). They do come out well but are not "plug and Play" I would probably go with Fastracks or some similar idea if I were to start fresh. You might also check out Joe F.s ideas on customizing CV turnouts.
In commercial turnouts its' ME again. Go for DCC ready (even if you aren't using DCC, it is just plain old good switch wirirng). ME is limited to #6s. Some complain about the sturdiness of these swtiches, I have had more problems with the supposedly more robust brands (Peco, Walthers, etc). Go with Walthers/Shinohara for all the stuff that ME doesn't make (curved turnouts etc.)
I am also fond of Railway Engineering and BK Enterprises assembled turnouts that you lay on ties that you glue down yourself. These don't look as good as ME, but they do come in different geometries and are closer to handlaid in terms of running characteristics. They are made by smaller companies and often are special order or found on Ebay as NOS.
Some complain about availablity of certain brands. With the exception of BK and RE, I have never been skunked when I needed something. Even during the great "Walthers curved turnout shortage" a few years ago, I was able to find everthing I needed by calling around.
I am not as fond of Peco code 83 as others are on this forum. I have a couple of their code 83 #6's. The throwbar ties are oversize and the ties in general are a bit heavy for anything but modern US prototype. My bigger issue is the stamped points that move with a noticeable "thunk " whenever larger locos go through them on the diverging route. Given the very high quality of their Code 100 line, IMHO the code 83 line is an overpriced ($30.00 each MSRP) disappointment. Central valley turnouts are another option but will require some modifications to get them up to snuff.....Atlas has that ugly black frog whaich lets them out of the running in my book.
As for differing rail head height mis-matches, shim the bottom of the lower track. Not a huge deal. I would not try to use a unitrack system with flextrack in a situation where there will be lots of transitions between the brands. IMHO there are a lot of extra headahces here (yes, I've done it).
As for ground throw vs motors: In most instances it is motors. The main reasons for this are: I don't want operators reaching into the scene to throw switches (crunch, there goes the scratchbuilt water tank) and most ground throws are too big to look realistic. There are manual throws that work from the fascia or aisles, I haven't used these except in my staging. I use slow motion motors for visible track (hankscraft/switchmasters, some like tortoise) and coil machines in staging. The motors are smoother and eaiser on the turnout mechanism than the solenoids. Don't use the Peco under turnout machine, it is too easy to tweak the points with this set-up. I'm talking about the motor that mounts directly to the turnout and requires a large hole under the turnout to install.
Everyone has their own opinions about what is acceptable to them in terms of the price, fiddle factor/looks equation. I would suggest that you buy different track brands and turnouts (funds permitting) and try them out for yourself. Before I started my current layout, I bottom fed on Ebay and at swap meets etc. and managed to get my hands on almost one of everything for cheap. I then built a test module and tried em' out to see how they worked and looked.....This may be overkill for most but I was starting a large double decked layout and wanted to make my mistakes on a small scale first.
Take the time and spend the money to get the track right. It is worth it in the end. I am fanatical about trackwork and while it cost more and took longer; (not as long as handlaid) the railroad looks and more importantly, runs great.
There are some close up picture of the ME track on the link under my signature.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I have been reading this post with interest since I am in the same situation. Budget is always an issue (especially if my wife finds the reciept), but I am also looking for realism.
I don't know if this is a mistake or not, but I saw on the Walthers site where Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 Flex NS was 50 pieces for $100.00. Thats $2 per 3' section. Reg price is like $6+ per section. Seems like a great deal, but I do not need 150'. http://walthers.com/exec/search?quick=948-870&quicksrch_butt.x=43&quicksrch_butt.y=3
I have been most impressed with the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts and have considered using it for my layout. The price of the Turnouts is double the atlas, but, I am still interested in the opinions expressed here. Certainly the Atlas products seem to have the most bang for the buck, but is it the most realistic for the price!
So, what are your thoughts on the Walthers Shinohara products?
RGecy
rgecy wrote: I have been reading this post with interest since I am in the same situation. Budget is always an issue (especially if my wife finds the reciept), but I am also looking for realism. I don't know if this is a mistake or not, but I saw on the Walthers site where Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 Flex NS was 50 pieces for $100.00. Thats $2 per 3' section. Reg price is like $6+ per section. Seems like a great deal, but I do not need 150'. I have been most impressed with the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts and have considered using it for my layout. The price of the Turnouts is double the atlas, but, I am still interested in the opinions expressed here. Certainly the Atlas products seem to have the most bang for the buck, but is it the most realistic for the price!So, what are your thoughts on the Walthers Shinohara products?RGecy
I don't know if this is a mistake or not, but I saw on the Walthers site where Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 Flex NS was 50 pieces for $100.00. Thats $2 per 3' section. Reg price is like $6+ per section. Seems like a great deal, but I do not need 150'.
Why are you guys making this so hard?
If you want to save a buck and have great track and turnouts, go with the Atlas code 83 brown track.
If realism is your bag and you can spend a little more money (not that much more than atlas) then go with Shinohara or Microengineering.
I've got ALL 3 on my layout and they are all excellent. The Micro engineering IMHO looks more prototypical even than shinohara. I also like their "snap" action turnouts.
Well you guys have come up with a lot of good points but I'm still stuck in the same spot. Go figure.
To me harder to flex flex track is a plus, sure it maybe more difficult, but than again it will stay where you want it while you cut it too. Thats just an observation I havn't experianced but it may hold true.
I'm actualy suprised more Peco fan's didn't drop their 2 cents, I figured Atlas would out weight everything because of availability. and cost.
With all the advice I've actually leaned back toward my origional preference of the Walthers Code 83. Its a shame ME didn't come out with more than just the #6 and unfortunatly they are out of stock most places.
I have a some decissions to make, for sure, but no mater what the Local stores don't carry much of anything, even outside the relm of track.
Try finding WSOR rolling stock.
Thanks
Bighurt wrote: Try finding WSOR rolling stock.
I assume you are aware that the Wisconsin & Southern's own official company store sells some WSOR rolling stock? In years past they have had a table at the Madison WI train show in February.
And just as a reminder, as I have previously posted on the Forums, if you want any of the Scale Rail Graphics decals, including any of their WSOR decals, act fast. They are getting out of the decal business.
http://www.scalerailgraphics.com/
The only knock I can make against Walthers after using their code 83 line for almost 20 years is that the turnouts are a bit...delicate might be the right word?? Seems like after a few years use (with ground throws) they came unsoldered and the points started flopping around. Not hard to re-solder them together but kind of a nuisance. Still, was nice to see a big engine or passenger train go thru No.8 turnouts, would love to have used the No.10's they have now.
FWIW I'm just starting benchwork on a new two-deck layout, upper level will be Kato code 83 and lower level will be Bachmann E-Z Track. I wish Kato offered more switches, crossings, curve radii etc.
rgecy wrote: I have been reading this post with interest since I am in the same situation. Budget is always an issue (especially if my wife finds the reciept), but I am also looking for realism. I don't know if this is a mistake or not, but I saw on the Walthers site where Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 Flex NS was 50 pieces for $100.00. Thats $2 per 3' section. Reg price is like $6+ per section. Seems like a great deal, but I do not need 150'. http://walthers.com/exec/search?quick=948-870&quicksrch_butt.x=43&quicksrch_butt.y=3I have been most impressed with the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts and have considered using it for my layout. The price of the Turnouts is double the atlas, but, I am still interested in the opinions expressed here. Certainly the Atlas products seem to have the most bang for the buck, but is it the most realistic for the price!So, what are your thoughts on the Walthers Shinohara products?RGecy
That is just track, no ties. So if you want to lay your own track this is for you otherwise not.
Magnus
Bighurt wrote: My first goel is to finish a single loop of track, to provide display running. I find that having little successes keeps me motivated to continue further progression. Step one get a train to run in a circle, than finish the the industrial spurs.........The layout is designed to operate as a point to point branchline, however for the sake of being lazy I've included a cut-off to allow coninuous operation. Sometimes you just want to railfan.
Bh:
You say expense isn't a major consideration. I probably won't have much advice you can use, then, since I tend to stick to the shallow end of the budget pool.
I do want to say, however, that I completely agree with the thoughts quoted above. You're on the right track, I think. Don't sell yourself short, though - the cutoff isn't just a lazy thing. You can use it to add mileage between stations, or reuse stations as different towns, giving you a longer railroad than you have room for.
dknelson wrote:Atlas's advantage is that it is sturdy, reliable, and readily available at shops that might carry no other brand. The flex track is very easily curved, but also springs back to being straight easily --- which depending on the situation can be a blessing or a curse. It is not I think the most realistic track due to the size of the ties which to me look too bulky, and the "shoeboxes" that hold the rails to the ties make even the Code 83 flex track look a bit train-set-ish. Micro Engineering, Shinohara, and PSC are much less easy to curve, which means once cuved it holds its shape but it is something of an effort to bend it into a clean even curve especially with easements. My minimum radius is 38" so I have not tried to bend these brands of flex track as tightly as some might have to. Based on the effort to bend it to 42 inch radius curves, I cannot even imagine what it must be like to try to get it down to, say, a 24" radius curve. If I had tight curves like that, I think I'd go with Atlas almost by default.
Has anyone had trouble bending these brands into smaller radii? My available space is quite limited, but I think I've worked out a reasonable track plan which maintains a minimum 20" radius (HO) with easements. If I try to do this with ME or Walthers/Shinohara flex track, am I in for trouble? For that matter, will Atlas work OK?
Richard
Yes I am, and I already have a few of each.
However Scale Graphics is Sold out, Micro scale stil has a few left.
Thanks for the tip.
Bighurt wrote: Well you guys have come up with a lot of good points but I'm still stuck in the same spot. Go figure.To me harder to flex flex track is a plus, sure it maybe more difficult, but than again it will stay where you want it while you cut it too. Thats just an observation I havn't experianced but it may hold true.I'm actualy suprised more Peco fan's didn't drop their 2 cents, I figured Atlas would out weight everything because of availability. and cost. With all the advice I've actually leaned back toward my origional preference of the Walthers Code 83. Its a shame ME didn't come out with more than just the #6 and unfortunatly they are out of stock most places.I have a some decissions to make, for sure, but no mater what the Local stores don't carry much of anything, even outside the relm of track.Try finding WSOR rolling stock.ThanksJeremy
I guess I should have clarified myself. I actually use Walthers code 83 but its Shinohara track. I then buy the actual shinohara flex track for the straight sections. Most of my stuff is Walthers code 83 shinohara, but I do have some atlas brown tie turnouts and staight track along with some ME turnouts and a little flex track. Its all good man.......
Made a stop buy the LTS today and they actually had the Atlas Code 83 #6 in stock to lefts and a right. I picked one up and brought it home.
Overall its not a bad looking turnout (this thread was mainly aimed at turnout's) the detail is about right, minus the big ugly frog.
A few things I noticed besides my already mentioned missing headblocks.
-Where the points pivot the connection is simple a hole in one and a folded tang for the other, they work well but the overall electrical contact maybe skeptical overtime.
-Where the points meet the throw arm is even less reliable the same pin and hole connection appears at this end but the pin doesn't stay in the hole. This allows some drift on the inner point.
-the inner point also caught a bit on rolling stock, most likely due to the afore mentioned drift.
-Last the frog isn't true in respect to the rails, also for the diverging route the track may be slightly out of gauge (I don't have a gauge handy but it did give the test car some hop)(test car may or may not be within gauge either)
None of these problems scream abandon ship, and all can be fixed (within reason), they were just a casual observation.
Asthetically the lack of headblocks is the only concern and operationally the throws movements and resulting drift at the points would be the only 2 negative.
Funny how the ties are larger to accomidate the mating of Code 100 track.
I'm set to visit another LTS tomorrow this one possible carries a larger selection of track. I may purchase another test subject.
Lastly is the Ugly frog is shiny metal underneath, I havn't sanded this one to level the top surcface with the connecting rails. However if the top does sand shiny, that would be another asthetic plus.
My last layout was about a 50/50 mixture of Shinohara code 70 and Peco code 75. Whilst I have no experience with code 83, I would assume that the generic characteristics of each brand would still apply. So I hope my comments will be of some help.
So appearance issues aside, I would go with the Peco code 83 on the score of reliability and durability, but strongly recommend you use live frog turnouts.
Cheers, Ian from Oz.
Here's something to consider....at what point does building detail into a regular HO layout become so intense, you find yourself trying to build a museum-quality finescale (ala Proto:87) masterpiece??
If the size of throwbar ties is an issue for example, will your locos and cars have the correct size wheel flanges, brake line diameters, coupler pins, etc to compliment the railhead and other track size requirements of duplicating the prototype?
5 or 6 years ago, I got bogged down counting rivets...never moving forward to the point of having a layout with running trains. Paralysis through analysis.
Then I saw a few photos of Lou Sassi's layout and was amazed at the incredible yet simple detail. It was then I realized I wanted to play with trains and not use a magnifying glass for layout viewing.
In additon to considering the many excellent comments in this forum thread, perhaps you should flip through a few issues of Model Railroader and try to find a layout with track that looks good to you. Generally, most of the featured layouts contain a sidebar with track manufacturer, code and curve radius. That's how I found Lou's layout and it worked for me.
Believe it or not but MR seams to have changed how they run that nifty siebar. In the past and in the hey day of my magizine collection 85-96' in particular. The sidebar anwsered all the questions you had in regards to the layout. There were a few exceptions. But now its like they are revealing trade secrets.
Most of the time now it reads TRACK: Code 83.....
Gee thanks that narrows it down, I alwasy thought the intent of showing of the layout was to promote the hobby. Now you can't use product placement without approval.
Infact it is this situation that started this thread, I've been following MR's WSOR on a shelf build and they actually said "Peco Code 83". I like the trackwork, it looks great, however I also like Bruce Friedman's CSX and he uses Atlas Code 83. My favorite Layout, and freelanced at that, layout of all time is Eric Brooman's Utah Belt. I have yet to find an article mentioning anything about his trackwork.
The real sad thing is a lot of books that MR has published are comprised of articles published in the mid 80's to early 90's, and those are still on the shelves. Its 2008 people some of those manufactures aren't the same anymore. Atlas Code 83 wasn't even available, nor was Peco's streamline code 83 products. So much has changed in the hobby its really hard to read ld articles and say what would they do different today.
That's why its so important to have a great "Model railroads 200X" And to list all the pertinant info in the published work. I mean they all mention the control system why not the manfacture of track. Honestly I rather read constrcution tips and lesson's learned than boyhood memories of trainspoting.
Rant mode off
Bighurt wrote: The sidebar anwsered all the questions you had in regards to the layout. There were a few exceptions. But now its like they are revealing trade secrets.Most of the time now it reads TRACK: Code 83.....Gee thanks that narrows it down, I alwasy thought the intent of showing of the layout was to promote the hobby. Now you can't use product placement without approval.
The sidebar anwsered all the questions you had in regards to the layout. There were a few exceptions. But now its like they are revealing trade secrets.
Not that any layout I build is in any danger of making the pages of MR, but perhaps more and more modelers are, like me, mixing in so many makes of track that they wouldn't know what to say in a sidebar that lists manufacturers.
That is a very good point but I hope at least you can see mine. We've all stared at a photo within MR's pages and wondered something about the conent weather it be what type of track who made the model, what the paint technique was etc. Its just our nature and like a magician most pictures don't reveal many if at all secrets.