I am just starting out in O gauge, and I was wondering what track I should go for, I have a few pieces of lionel fast/snap track which I love for its simplicity, but I don’t think it fits my tastes looks wise. I want something more realistic in 3rd rail.
I like the appearance of MTH’s version of fast track because the middle rail is black which hides it, but I have heard it isn’t the best for taking apart and then assembling again because the joiners tend to warp more easily than lionel.
What about scale trax or Atlas O? Are these reliable? Advantages, disadvantages?
Again, don’t get me wrong, Lionel’s fast track is truly amazing, I am very impressed with it, but is there anything better that can be used in a more permanent setting? Atlas O looks very appealing, but I am afraid it might get too complicated, I don’t want to have to solder anything, thats one of the reasons I am branching out into O gauge and leaving some of my HO stuff behind for now.
Of the three rail track systems out there, Atlas O is probably the most “realistic” and easiest to work with. They even make flex sections. The switches are not as well made as Ross Custom but the track system will work with Ross. ScaleTrax has a very odd tie spacing and is difficult to mix with other systems and has a limited selection of switches compared to Ross or Atlas.
Me I use Gargrave Flex but if I went to something else It would probably be FasTrack. You can doctor it up by painting the base. That would help and their switchs are better, or so I have read several times…realtrax if you get old peices make sure you scrub the black off the top of the center rail as it will come off on the p/u rollers. Atlas is good once down and working but they have some switch issues too.
rjake, as sir james and chuck already sort of indicated, none of the 3-rail track systems are without their liabilities. What system is “best” really is a personal thing and hinges upon what you are looking for, how much space you have and how much money you wish to invest.
Depending on the effort you wish to put into it, even tradtional tubular track can be made to look more realistic by adding ties and ballast. For smaller layouts and budget restrictions, tubular track is the way to go. Because it has been around for so long, it’s certainly possible to find good condition used track and switches. And in more recent years, both tubular 0 and 027 have been made in a variety of other diameters, making it possible to run some of the bigger more modern train locos and rolling stock.
From the many comments I’ve read over the years on the train forums, the MTH track looks nice but many have problems with their switches and the coating used to blacken the center rail. I’ve never heard of such complaints with Gargraves Phantom track as I have with MTH track. As a footnote here, Lionel FasTrack was originally offered with a blackened center rail, which as quickly dropped by Lionel in favor of just a normal center rail.
Gargraves has also been around a long time. Maybe a decade ago the switches were improved, so I haven’t heard as many complaints about them. And Gargraves is one of the few train products still made right here in the US if that’s a consideration. Given the cost factor, Gargraves certainly has advantages, and there are also mating pins to connect it to other track types.
FasTrack and the Atlas Industrial Rail track have both gotten good review from many. I believe CTT in a review preferred the IR track for the ease of snapping it together. The Lionel FasTrack switches have had good things said of them. BUT any of the track systems with a premade road bed will take up a good deal of space on a s
Thanks for all the input guys. I guess I will stay away from MTH’s stuff for now, yikes, I don’t want black stuff going on the rollers.
Painting rails is off limits for me, had too many problems doing that in HO, caused the trains to stall much of the time. I think I’ll stick to lionel and atlas pre-made stuff.
The other thing I like about MTH is the color of their road bed, its more of a dark gray, but compromises must be made, I can live with the lionel color.
i don’t really want to throw a wet blanket on the MTH track … don’t want to start a war … but if you really look around on most forums … their switches seem to have alot of problems the others don’t . Good luck … and if the switches don’t work well you’ll be pulling your hair out … LOL . I don’t know how familiar you are with " washes " as they are called … but you can apply it to the roadbed and it really gives a great - natural look . Look up weathering / washes … and it’s simple and quick .
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 feet of MTH RealTrax with 14 switches on my layout. See layout using the link below.
I would not use MTH RealTrax again for a layout. Search this forum and you will find out how I had to “re-engineer” expensive O-72 MTH RealTrax switches.
If I would rebuilt, it would be anything but RealTrax.
My personal preference for a permanent layout would be the Atlas track. The turnouts do have a history of continuity issues and not sure if they have been addressed in newer stock. We have had it on the club’s layout for 5+ years and it has really held-up well, believe me we probably put in more runtime in less than a month then most home layouts see in a year.
If, like me, you have reservations about doing a lot of soldering of rail joints there is a “conductive” epoxy, copper or silver based, which is said to be very effective although quite pricey.
Doug fails to mention that the club’s layout is at San Diego’s Balboa park and the trains are ran hard, day after day after day, year after year. I would say that a recommendation from a museum layout would be a good recomendation. Spankybird and the crew in NE Ohio are putting down Gargraves track in their museum and from all accounts it appears to be handling the load.
rjake - Before I would offer you any track advice, I would ask you how big a layout you are envisioning; what types of trains will you be running; and how sophisticated did you want to get?
The layout I am guessing will be around 20 x 10, very basic for O gauge, although I would like to make an interlocking junction with lots of signals.
The engines I plan to run are mostly large steamers, specifically the lionel prr s1 duplex and the j1. Granted, these engines are huge so they would basically just be going around loops in the limited space I have, but its more of a display layout. Besides the basic track plan, I want it to look realistic in the manner that hi railers do.
There will not be any grades on this layout.
One other question too, if I was using lionel’s fastrack temporarily because of its simplicity, would I run into complications trying to hook up atlas signal systems? I am not a big fan of lionel accessories, they don’t look that realistic IMHO. If possible, I would like to avoid wiring complications, I want the layout to look somewhat realistic, but the work involved in building it really shouldn’t be all that complicated, if that makes any sense. I will be the only one building it for the most part, my brother might help a little, but he has just as little experience as me.
Here is a good example. I want my track to look like this.
I assume they used atlas O, you can see that the center rail is not blackened, yet it still looks great. It looks even better this way, adding more depth. I love their ballasting job too, because it seems to be under the track, not going all over the
I’m not sure about the Atlas signals, probably the primary issue for them is power & control. Power & control thru tracks or isolated from the track using IR devices and independant power source.
The Atlas track is excellent for the big engines as is the Fastrack. How much of the Fastrack do you already have ? It will take a bit more work as far as noise reduction is concerned but if you can meet your needs without a significant requirement of additional Fastrack why start from scratch with a different track.
Once you have settled on a plan try doing a cost analysis comparing new track costs to the cost of adding more Fastrack. Not to mention there is, in my opinion a new plus although costly in Fastrack, the tournouts that have built in TMCC control. No additional accessory or switch controllers.
Also , try to go with the largest radius curves that your design & space will allow. Just because an engine will operate on for example an 031 curve doesn’t mean it will look right on an 031 curve.
Check out some of the photos & videos of the club layout. It’s all Atlas but I am also a big fan of Fastrack.
Like Doug said, if you already have FASTRAK, why not just expand? I have a very winding trackplan with pretty good grades, that pretty much mandated the flexability of tubular track (KLine). However, if you’re keeping it simple with big steamers on hand, go FASTRAK. It’s a handsome system.
Thanks guys, I think I will stick to fastrak for now, it really is nice and simple, and it doesn’t look bad either. My brother loves it and so do I.
But a few more questions.
1)I was at the store today and I saw K-line track, tubular, but with regular railroad ties, no blackened middle rail. The stuff looked nice and was relatively cheap, but should I purchase K-line to run scale lionel engines? Or will it not make any difference? Are there any problems with the K-line brand that I should be aware of?
2)If in the future, I decide to go Atlas O, will the factory painted middle rail cause problems for the rollers, like the MTH scale trax type does? And is it possible to remove the black stuff from the middle rail? How would I go about doing this?
Also, I think the solution for me right now is to place ballast between fastrak lines. What kind of ballast do people most use in O gauge? Would woodland scenics medium do the trick? Or should I go for the coarse stuff?
What is the major difference between 0-27 track and lionel’s 0? Both are tubular, would it matter if I ran large engines on straight sections of 0-27 or would there be more derailments? Obviously, the diameter for curves is different, but what about the track itself, is it less durable, not suitable to run scale engines on?
O, or as it is called nowadays, O31 or O30, is a heavier-duty track. The rails, ties, and pins are larger and the sections are a little longer. Both O31 and O27 are out of scale; but O27 is less so. On a layout, the robustness of O31 is of little use; and O27 is a little more realistic, which is why I use it.
O31 is based on a straight section that is exactly 10 inches long. The radius is selected so that a simple passing siding can be made with standard pieces. It is 10 inches times the square-root of 2, or 14.142 inches (to the center rail). With the 2 1/4-inch tie length, this makes the overall diameter 30.534 inches, which is rounded up to 31 (or down to 30) for the nominal diameter.
O27 is constructed on the same principle, but starting with a radius of exactly 12 1/2 inches. With the 2-inch ties, this gives a diameter of just 27 inches. The straight section is 12 1/2 divided by the square-root of 2, or 8.839 inches. Actual straight sections vary quite a bit among manufacturers, who probably don’t understand where the length comes from.
Anything that will run on straight sections of one kind of track will undoubtedly run on the other. Only the curvature and the location of the switch machines are concerns.
My favorite way of adding ties to O27 is to place 2-inch pieces of “popsicle” sticks (painted or stained black or dark brown) under the track between the metal ties. The O27 ties are 1/2-inch wide and the sticks are 3/8. But the difference is not very obvious; and the narrower ties create an overall impression of narrowness, even though they are still twice as wide as 9x7-inch prototype ties.
All O ties and modern O27 ties have upwardly curved edges that make the ties appear even wider than they are. However, it is easy to cover that feature with ballast.