I have been looking closely at the Fast Track turnout kits. They look like a lot of fun and should operate very well if we can believe all the videos and kudos. But what about the lack of tie plates and spike heads? Isn’t that a noticable flaw?
Sure seems like it would be a “flaw” to me, but how noticeable is it once ballast is applied?
Rich
Do you notice the lack of detail? What are you comparing the Fast Tracks turnouts to? How do they compare to the turnouts you are currently using in appearance?
For the most prototypical looking turnouts, see http://www.proto87.com/. Andy has all kinds of details all the way to complete turnout kits in both NMRA and Proto87 spec. Many of his details could/can be used in conjunction with Fast Tracks turnouts, if that’s the route you wanted to take.
Central Valley turnout tie strips have very nice spike head and tie plate detail. Or you can get tie plates and spikes from Andy and add them yourself.
Personally, I model 1900, which is before tie plates were commonly used. 2 spikes per rail per tie matches up pretty nicely with prototype photos from the era. I do this up front where the detail can be seen. Further back, I normally spike every 4th or 5th tie. Coloring the ties correctly, weathering the rail appropriately, and getting the dirt/ballast the right color and shape is far more of a challenge - and is much more visible than tie plates/no tie plates. Frankly, not using PC board ties is a significant help in getting the right look. I always had trouble getting them to look like wood ties.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
The other question is, do you actually see that stuff from normal viewing angles and distances? The details on most comercial brnads of track are larger than scale to make them visible. If you look at photos of prototype track taken from something similar to the typical scale distance you’d be from your model, can you really see all that stuff? Generally not.
–Randy
I have been scratchbuilding my HO scale turnouts for some time using bare rail, PC board ties (from Fast Tracks), and strip styrene for additional ties. I have had many people visit my layout, including several with layouts of their own and nobody has ever commented on the lack of detail on my turnouts (even though the one’s with their own layouts tend to closely examine my turnouts to see how they were made). Keep in mind that although the track is painted, it has yet to be ballasted so only the paint hides the fact that the track details are missing.
Once painted and ballasted Fast Track turnouts look very nice and any lack of detail is more than made up by their quality and reliability. They are the next best thing to being bullet proof I’ve seen on a model railroad. I’ve made four and couldn’t be happier with their appearance and performance. They also happen to be one of the most professional, efficient, and competent companies I’ve seen.
Wayne
I have dozens of FT turnouts interconnected with ME flex track, all code 70. When all the track was complete I went over it with a light coat of RR Tie Brown to blend the ME track into the FT turnouts, and take the sheen off the ME ties. Now you need to look pretty close to see the difference in under-rail detail between the ME track and the FT turnouts. In all truth they blend together rather well. And as previously posted, the turnouts are rock solid reliable.
Dwayne A
I have no quarrel with those that build Fast Tracks turnouts for reliability and the flexibility of not being limited to the curvature of the divergent track provided by commercial turnouts.
But, it amuses me that the lack of detail is so easily rationalized on the one hand, while so many modelers demand extraordinary detail on their locomotives on the other hand.
Isn’t there some type of add-on detail that is available to make these hand built turnouts look a bit more realistic without having to hide them under ballast and paint and other sorts of camoflauge?
Rich
Rich,
I don’t think it is so much a matter of hiding the lack of detail with ballast and paint----when the turnouts are completed and in place it just becomes very difficult to notice any lack of detail.
As an example: if one sees a boxcar rolling by with plastic molded grab irons this lack of fine detail becomes very noticeable. However, the lack of detail on some hand built turnouts just doesn’t stand out unless one examines them up close.
Like so many other issues it is just a matter of personal preference. I don’t take a great deal of time detailing the underside of my rolling stock as I pay more attention to the more visible surfaces.
Having used both commercial turnouts and Fast Track Turnouts the latter are far more reliable and so far have given me zero problems.
Wayne
I model in N scale and use Fast Tracks jigs to build my turnouts. I find that in N scale, any missing detail on the turnout is really not an issue. As stated by other replies here, proper paint, weathering and ballast more than compensate for any lack of nuts, bolts, tieplates or spikes. I would imagine that in the larger scales this would be a more obvious omission. As modelers we often have to settle for oversize details on our models, so settling for no details sometimes is just as acceptable.
Frank B.
Dorval, Canada