The layout in my previous home which I moved out of 20 years ago was DC on code 100 (HO) track. That's old school.
My current layout is DCC with code 83 track and about 2/3 of my locos have sound. That's new school.
This isn't intended to be a scientific poll but I'm curious as to who is still doing things the old school way and who is new school. DCC is available in all scales of course. I'm less knowledgeable about track codes in other scales but I'm guessing there are choices there as well.
Another old school/new school choice is couplers. In HO, I think most people are now using some sort of knuckle couplers but is there anybody out there still using the old hornhooks. Back in the 1980s, that was the standard coupler almost all equipment came with and KDs were what you converted to if you wanted knuckle couplers. I think it was sometime in the 1990s that other brands of knuckle couplers became available and new equipment came with both types of couplers. Are the different coupler choices in N scale as well?
So what are the choices you have made for your layout?
Ok.
A. Switched to Atlas Code 83 years back. Switch turnouts Atlas and Peco.
B. Locos and cars equipped with traditional Kadees. Gradually switching over to KD "Whisker" type.
C. New locomotive purchases: Unless equipped, preference is for DCC ready so that I can install either LokSound or TCS sound setups. For non-sound units: TCS decoders. Currently have a fleet of "Old School" P2K E-units that are being gradually upgraded to DCC Sound.
D. DCC - preference for NCE control.
E. Freight Rolling stock: Large number of "old school" 70's production Athearn BB units being updated & detailed. Also have 90's-early 2000's production Bowser and P2K cars. All traditional type (#5) KD coupler equipped.
F. Passenger fleet: Batch of 80's production Rivarossi's. Large batch of 90's-early 2000's production Walthers light weights. Five Rapido lightweights. All knuckle coupler equipped. Gradually being switched to "Whiskers".
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
John-NYBW DC on code 100 (HO) track.
Russell
The old, recentlty dismantled layout was mostly "new school" DCC but still used Code 100 with Atlas switch machines, hard wired control panels. Most engines sound equipped with upgraded freight and passenger equipment - but still quite a few "blue box" freight cars and Riverrossi passenger cars, all equipped with Kadees and metal wheelsets. The new layout (yet to be constructed in the new house) will be 100% "new school" from a technical standpoint (Peco 83 and 70 track, loco sound, DCC with computer interface for turnout control etc.).
However, from a different perspective - the focus of the new layout will be "old school" in some way - with an emphesis on craftsman and scratch built structures.
Old school DC blocks with New school PECO code 55 Uni-Frog and Micro-Trains knuckle trucks.
Old school Lone Wolf is only coordinated enough to run two trains at a time. Extra expense makes no sense for me.
TF
Old skool, in part because it's readily available for low dough.
Old school definitely.
DC, Two wires connected to track each for two controllers. So simple to operate. Grandchildren have been 'in control' since they were three years of age.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
New school. Last layout was new school except for no DCC but had Train Engineer. Only reason went DCC is sound, it became cheap and is getting cheaper. New stuff coming out next year that is under $200 and has better sound.
I used code 83 back in the 80's.
DCC NCE Powercab
KD couplers. I started using those in the 80's and a I had a couple cars with horn hook on one side and KD on the other. I got rid of those. My layout is still under construction so I have not gotten rid of knuckle couplers that are on new purchases to replace them with KD's.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
A combination of old & new school...
There's nothing wrong with either approach or a combination of them in various degrees. It just depends on your desires and what you are trying to accomplish with your layout. I can appreciate either approach.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Some of each:
Track - new school - code 83, mostly Atlas, some Walthers and some hand built turnouts. Track glued down with adhesive caulk.
Roadbed - old school - homasote roadbed on plywood/wood subroadbed.
Benchwork/scenery - old school - open grid and table top, strong enough to climb on, wire screen an plaster open below - no stacks of foam - no foam anywhere.
Control system - advanced old school with some newer tech - DC advanced cab control with wireless throttles, detection and signaling, CTC, automatic train control, walkaround and tower control options.
Layout design - mostly old school - continious loop double track mainline, lots of hidden staging, addtional continious run display loop cutoffs.
Scenery design - old school - visually deep scenery, most areas 3-4 feet deep, some areas as deep as 10 feet with rear access and popup access.
Operational concept - new school - layout models only one "city" and trackage a few miles either side, most trains start in staging and end in staging, industrial switching mostly off the mainline on a belt line.
Turnout control - old school - hidden Tortise motors on mainline and hidden yards, visable yards and industrial trackage home made ground throws.
Sound - old school - no onboard loco sounds, plans to experiment with some layout based sound effects.
Couplers/wheels - old school - I use Kadee couplers, but only the original standard head, NO semi scale couplers and no semi scale code 88 wheels.
Rolling stock - old school - wide variety, 60 year old VARNEY and Athearn, kits of every difficulty, modern RTR, both mid and high end. It only has to look reasonably correct, every rivet perfect is not required.
Sheldon
I still had a lot from my teenage layout. I'm 74 now so it's aged, but I've taken care of it so most of that rolling stock looks pretty good. It's mostly Athearn with some Tyco. Everything now has Kadees, and all the plastic wheelsets have been replaced with metal. I've added a lot of newer rolling stock from Walthers, Bowser, Atlas and others.
I didn't lay down the old brass track, going first with Code 100 NS, and then switching to Code 83 as my layout expanded.
My old engines didn't work well anymore. I gradually acquired a few DC locomotives, but I switched over to DCC very early. Now most of them have sound.
My old Lionel layout from the fifties was plywood on 2x4s, sitting on the floor with no legs. When I went to HO I built sawhorses and used a homosote subroadbed. My grown-up layout has real legs, a real frame and is on pink foam.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
BothMy layout is HO scale and was designed for DC with blocks, kept it that way.I bought a DCC controller and a few decoders in 2005 and I operate in both modes, one or the other.I went with code 83 track (1989) were it was viewable and code 100 for hidden track.One of my things is restoring clunker locomotives, over 60 and all wired for DCC. I only have 5 locomotives that were bought new.I still run mostly DC, DCC when I want to hear my locomotives or show off to visitors.I guess one would say I’m mostly old school, don’t much care for new goings on, I prefer the 1950s my growing up era.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 in July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
Both.
My layout is sorta like Mel's, I can run DC or DCC.
I don't really think of it as "old school vs new school", it's whatever you want to run.
My track is all code 100. I like it that way.
I'm not a huge fan of sound.
I've watch too many videos of sound equiped trains, with every other loco on the layout having sound on, and to me it's annoying. Too much noise.
I like to be track side, and no sound decoder can capture that.
Mike.
My You Tube
Old School
DC in blocks
Lone wolf operator
Code 100 Atlas track on cork
Blue Point and Tortoise Switches
For couplers I have my late Father's stock which has horn hook couplers. For new stock that I am buying I am using what it came with but in the process of converting to kaddee's for all the stock that is giving me a hard time.
Layout is 1" foam on 1/2" plywood. The frame was built in sections and then bolted together.
I am using scultamold to create a textured ground and for the outside of a mountain that was created with stacked foam board glued together.
charles
I don't consider it "old school vs. new school" so much as minimum acceptable standards:
I switched to code 83 track with the new layout when I started construction in 2003 after seeing code 83 on a friend's layout. I like the look of it over code 100.
I'm still running DC instead of DCC. While DCC has come a long way over the years, I've got about 25 locomotives active on my roster. Three are Athearn SDP40Fs while the rest are a mix of DC Athearn, Atlas, and Spectrum from the early 80s to 1997. Converting or replacing them would be too much work/cost for me at the moment.
A few years ago, I did replace all of my old horn hook couplers with Kadees, which has improved operations.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
When I built my layout, I received a donation of code 100 flex track. So I used it. If you paint the sides of the shiny nickel silver rail with rail brown, the rail looks a good deal smaller. I am the only operator on my home layout so I only want to run a single train at a time. So I run plain DC and have a bunch of toggle switches to apply or remove power to sidings. I use Kadees everywhere and the magnetic uncoupling devices. I have rolling stock going back to my college days. I believe in the two foot rule, if it looks good at two feet, it is good enough.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Went from DC on the 1st layout to DCC on the 2nd (current)
Code 83 track on both layouts regardless
Are duck-unders old school? I had that on my 1st layout and went without (no complaints!)
Knuckle couplers
Metal wheelsets
kasskaboose Went from DC on the 1st layout to DCC on the 2nd (current) Code 83 track on both layouts regardless Are duck-unders old school? I had that on my 1st layout and went without (no complaints!) Knuckle couplers Metal wheelsets
I don't think of duck unders as either old school or new school. I have three only layout and they are a pain. One is to get inside the hidden staging loop. One is to reach an access hatch behind the roundhouse. The third is one I have rarely used. It goes across a center peninsula near its base and was intended to allow me to get to the other side without having to walk all the way around. The peninsula is about 20 feet long. It was a nice idea but a 6 foot long duck under is too much for these old bones. I have discovered something recently and that is if I use a stool for support, it is much easier to pass through all the duck unders. It's like having a short walker. If I could find something with wheels it would be even better.
I'm new-school. Flex track. Peco switches, knuckle couplers, Digitrax DCC. I have several locomotives with sound and plan on adding sound decoders to others.
Modeling the B&M Railroad during the transition era in Lowell, MA
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
John-NYBW kasskaboose Went from DC on the 1st layout to DCC on the 2nd (current) Code 83 track on both layouts regardless Are duck-unders old school? I had that on my 1st layout and went without (no complaints!) Knuckle couplers Metal wheelsets I don't think of duck unders as either old school or new school. I have three only layout and they are a pain. One is to get inside the hidden staging loop. One is to reach an access hatch behind the roundhouse. The third is one I have rarely used. It goes across a center peninsula near its base and was intended to allow me to get to the other side without having to walk all the way around. The peninsula is about 20 feet long. It was a nice idea but a 6 foot long duck under is too much for these old bones. I have discovered something recently and that is if I use a stool for support, it is much easier to pass through all the duck unders. It's like having a short walker. If I could find something with wheels it would be even better.
My new layout will have a swing gate section to get into the room, and a lift out/duck under to get to my workshop area.
Once in the "layout", wide aisles, 3' minumum only in two short spots, most 4' and wider, will allow easy travel around the room.
There will be a service aisle behind one section, covered with removeable scenery sections, several pop hatches, and under the layout staging yards in some areas.
One of the main staging yards will be 70% visable, in my workshp area. Another will be 50% visable in the "background" of the layout.
Scenery will be deep, 3-10 feet, but visable trackage will virtually all be within 30" of the aisle.
Some hidden staging yards will actually be covered with removable structures and scenery.
After building one multi deck "shelf" layout, I decided I hated both ideas, shallow shelf scenery and multiple decks.
So back to old school layout design with "depth" that allows modeling life more than 100' from the tracks......
One other essential reason for being "inside" the loop is to maintain the operator to train relationship where left = west, and right = east. This makes it much easier for operators to quickly learn the layout, and it makes DC control systems much easier to design and operate.
I don't consider old school/new school. To me it's function, appearance, and cost. My layout is modular that started out being modules in club shows. There were standards like Code 100, Peco insulfrog turnouts, and mainline spacing.
I have stuck with code 100 even on the home modules for a couple reasons.
1. Cost. Code 100 usually runs 10 to thirty percent less expensive than 83.
2. Once painted and ballasted it's hard to tell the rail is .017 of an inch taller.
3. The wide wheel tread looks better on larger rail. I handlaid a run down industrial siding with code 55 rail and the hopper car wheels look grossly oversized on it.
I run DCC and adding more sound decoders as hobby dollars allow. I like running trains. Not track. I keep the volumes low on the sound decoders. I love the sound of a double head big steamer train struggling on the hill. And the rumble of a large bore diesel working the yard.
I have KDs on 99.9 percent of locomotives and rolling stock. When the patents expired on the KDs there was a flood of cheap plastic lookalikes. I did experiment but quickly returned to KDs. If I was starting a new. I would probably look into the Sargent couplers. I have them on the pay train and like them. The pay train is a brass 2-6-0 with a converted B60 baggage car. Both are kept clean and shiny.
I also run metal wheels on everything.
That's me. What's great about this hobby is the individuality. There's no right and wrong.
Pete.
I'm pretty much old school...when I started in HO it was Atlas code 100 brass track on fibre ties, and the turnouts were kits. I did have Kadee couplers right from my start in 1956, but they were the ones with mechanical uncoupling rather than magnetic.I've been using code 83 nickel silver track for well over 30 years, but still run some rolling stock from the early-to-mid-'50s, and have at least one steam loco from the very late '40s or very early '50s.
While I've operated on the layouts of friends with DCC, I have absolutely no interest in it for myself...I have no need, nor desire, for running multiple trains at the same time, and absolutely no interest in sound, and no interest in lights in structures or in locos or cars, and definitely not for "night" operations. (I do, however, appreciate the talent of others who are into those things.)I've modified pretty-well all of my locomotives and rolling stock, and have, I think, only a couple of factory-painted and lettered freight cars.I've also scratchbuilt several cars, and the majority of on-layout structures are either scratchbuilt or highly modified kitbashes.
I have also done a couple of DCC loco installations for friends, but my knowledge of it otherwise is limited.
Wayne
I did not use traditional benchwork, but the pink insulation foam sheets are the table top upon which my layout is built (over basic wood framing). I stacked foam insulation pieces and covered them with lighweight plaster as needed to build scenery.
Since I absolutely despise ballasting (my dad and I did do it on our home layout when I was a kid, and it caused more problems than it was worth), I opted for all HO Kato unitrack with Kato #8 turnouts (for the few that I have). The layout is supposed to represent open rural spaces, so that I can railfan my own trains...
I have no blocks. The Kato turnouts are power routing. Sidings are double ended, and by placement of feeder wires the power flows through whichever tracks are aligned.
There is a DPDT toggle switch to toggle between plain dc and dcc power as needed. There were only 3 pairs of feeder wires, so the average run is about 27' between power feeds (much longer than some people recommend for dcc operation, but it was built before dcc was common). It seems to be adequate for dcc operation with diesels. The trains work adequately well. I never have more than two units on a train and am able to run long trains above 50 cars whenever desired.
Almost all motive power is now dcc with sound. One plain dc Genesis IT GP38-2 remains and will likely get a decoder installed.
John
Mostly old in approach, but not hard core. ME Code 70, 55, Atlas 100 in staging. Hand laid switches, mechanically thrown using dpdt sliders to hold points and polarize frogs. DC. (Tech 2!)
Motive power: BB (geared), Atlas austria & Japan, P2K, MDC, Roco, Rivarossi, Keystone (NWSL Innards) and some ancient brands of motive power. BB, P2K, AHM (ore cars), MDC, Bowser and other medium end freight cars, but not train set stuff. KD exclusively, and all metal wheelsets.
Structures mostly scratchbuilt, but a couple kit based ones. Aren't yet, but plan to be lighted
Vehicles, a sub-hobby, are across the board, CMW, & Athearn mostly, a few WS, Leetown & other kits. Some nice newer plastic ones though. None lit. Many heavily 'bashed.
Scenery is old school glueshell with plaster rock castings, Home made trees using published techniques. Lotsa real dirt and sifted gravel from my yard & driveway. Static grass and Superleaves aren't so old school though. There is some foam based scenery too.
Since it's wired "twin cab" I reserve the possibility of adding DCC, while keeping some DC locos on the rails. Dan
I guess I'm a bit of both.
On the old school side:
New school side:
Probably forgot a few other things on either side but that's my take.
I am curious about the choice of HO track with codes smaller than 83. Does it improve appearance that much and is there any trade off with performance. I was never bothered by the appearance of code 100 until I started using 83 and now when I look at 100, it looks huge.
All my track is either flex track or commercial turnouts. The turnouts are various brands depending on availability of what was needed. When I started, my current layout, Atlas didn't make a #8 so I went with Walthers/Shinora. I recently installed a couple Peco curved turnouts. Commercial track looks just fine to me especially if it is painted and weathered. I've never been tempted to even try to handlay track. When I look at a section of track with hundreds of ties, I'm not going to focus in on individual ties. That's true of both model and prototype track. All the ties look the same to me.
I'm new school (code 83/DCC) using old school methods to install track (track nails and cork roadbed on wood).
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983