Skip to main content

Hoping for some fun discussion.  I have garage space for an 8x16 layout. Assuming you were starting with what is available today, what track system would you choose?  I have a mix of Gilbert, Legacy, TMCC, AM, SHS, FLYERCHIEF locos and would stick with AC power.  I have used AF tinplate, Gargraves, AM, S-Trax, Lionel Fastrack before in various small Christmas style layouts.  One concern is my desire to use wider than 20" radius curves and include turnouts.  Inputs welcome!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Me personally, I would either use std AF tinplate track or go with Gargraves for the wider radius stuff.  I was put off by the noise and expense of switching to Fastrack in the past. I was able to purchase a huge pile of  used Fastrac for a good price but still would have needed switches which are the main cost.  I had boxes of 022 and 711 switches and once I ran on the fastrac a while and got tired of the noise the choice became easy for me..  I kept some for around the tree and sold the rest.  Now having said that, there is no wrong answer especially when you can get and use the Flyer rubber roadbed under the standard sectional track.  That is a win win to me.

It depends on what is important to you (prototypical appearance, ease of assembly, etc.).  I built my S hirail layout using AM code 148 track and turnouts, which in my opinion is the most realistic looking track system you can use with traditional Gilbert AF.  The supply of AM products has been stable for 40 years, which you can't say for a lot of track systems that have come and gone.  AM track is available in sections which can be easily assembled and are offered in wide radius sizes.  The same goes for Lionel Fast Track, which is also realistic looking and has integrated roadbed/ballast.  However, I think Fast Track can be pretty expensive compared to other alternatives.  Finally, Gargraves track looks nice (a little less realistic with the taller rail) and integrates well with Gilbert AF switches, however the Gilbert switches are only available in 20" diameter.

When the criteria includes high rail rather than scale and wide radius turnouts there are only two choices. Lionel S gauge FasTrack with built in roadbed, or American Models without built in roadbed. AM include flex track in addition to sectional, FasTrack does not. S gauge FasTrack, unlike O gauge, is silent. It uses solid NS rail with a differently designed base. If you are willing to live with 20"R turnouts then GarGraves is an option. All other track systems are out of production and I would not want to be scrounging around trying to find left over or used pieces.

There is more Gilbert track easily available than any other system but the 27"R K-Line curves are getting harder and expensive to find. Forget about finding a lot of the Johnson 27" rubber roadbed curves.

If want to wait two or so years Scale Trains may start production of the old SHS/MTH track system with wider radius turnouts, or they may not. There is currently no code138 NS flex track in production, Fox Valley may have some this year. AM flex, like their sectional track, is code 148 but it looks good.

All that said, if I were in your position and cost was a consideration I would use GarGraves with Gilbert turnouts and live with the 20"R through the turnout curve. That will preclude operating the AM full scale coaches. If money was not a consideration at all just use all FasTrack, it is pricey. In the middle is GarGraves flex with FasTrack 27"R turnouts. There are 5" adapter pieces to mate the FasTrack to Gilbert/GarGraves track.

There are other permutations depending on how much time you want to spend laying track. Not mentioned is what I did. We bought up all the MTH flex we could find (its still out there but can take some scrounging), used it for the track plus stripped out a lot of the rail and paid to have it handlaid into numbered turnouts. The result was outstanding but so was the cost. I would not recommend it to others.

Below is a link to my former 8'x16' S-gauge layout as presented by the NYCSHS in the Q3 2017 edition of their online magazine.   It was all S-Helper modular S-Trax with 30" and 24" radius curves except for the turnouts b/c they only made one size of TO's and those were 20" radius.  Today my layout it's a combination of postwar AF 20" radius track and HO nickel-silver since I sold off my S-Trax track and diversified into HO and S.  

http://www.precisionflyerrepai...lmodeler_2017_3q.pdf

Last edited by Sgaugian

My next layout or layout expansion will have similar criteria, accommodate high rail but have wider minimum radii than 20".  The Flyer FasTrack turnouts in this category are 27", but I want larger than that. That leaves me with effectively one option, code 138 flex track (from either FVM, SHS or MTH), which I have been stocking up on for the last couple of years, FVM turnouts which I am constantly on the lookout for ( I have snagged 6 so far), and turnouts that I will make myself using Fast Tracks (not Lionel FasTrack) jigs because I have lost all hope that FVM will ever produce more.

Chuck, My #5, 6 & 8 Turnouts were made on Fast Track jigs using MTH rail. The jigs require some modification to use the .138 rail rather than Code 100. #6 and #8 turnouts require powered frogs, there are a number of new Lionel engines that stall on dead frogs. Its how I discovered that four of my turnouts had dead frogs even though they had wires connected. My guess is a cold solder joint. It was easy to fix w/o removing the turnout.

Based on experience I advise against using MTH rail for the turnouts if you have SHS or FVM rail available. The reason was surprising to us. When the MTH rail was pulled out of the ties it twisted in three dimensions. It bent up, sideways and twisted, and not a small amount. It was a real PITA to work with, adding significant time to the process and I was paying by the hour. The SHS rail did not do this. Apparently, even though it looks the same, MTH either changed the metallurgy specs (made it cheaper) or the eliminated any QC of the manufacturing process.

When the layout was designed and built I wanted 36" minimum radius but the only way we could make the track plan work was with 30" minimum radius. I have easements but they are only about 8" long. They prevent an appearance of lurching but are too short to minimize excessive car end offset. Freight cars, no problem. Full length passenger cars, specifically an 80' coupled to a 70' will not work with bodymounts. At 30"R the easement needs to be at least the length of the car, about 16". I stayed with truck mounts, no problem.

Here is one of each fresh off the Fast Track jigs.



561023A0-56D9-41E4-8B7F-7E5746E120AC

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 561023A0-56D9-41E4-8B7F-7E5746E120AC
Last edited by AmFlyer
@AmFlyer posted:

Dave, thanks for that link, very interesting reading and pictures.

You're welcome.  I'm glad you and if anyone else found it interesting.  I started to build it in 2005 with the dawning of S-gauge TMCC trains.  It evolved from there.  Sorry 'bout the low res photos.  Classic Toy Trains also did an article with photos of it in their Feb 2017 edition in case you have a copy.  I had some great fun with that layout, especially when fellow W&OD S-gauge club members would come over and we'd run trains for get togethers, club anniversaries, and meetings.  

Nicely done layout, especially for its size.   Love how you worked the operating accessories in among the buildings and those are some sharp looking buildings.  

Good luck with your expansion plans.  I once had a 5'x7' AF layout.  I called it my "5x7 Slice of Heaven".  When our kids were little we had some good times running postwar Flyer together on that.  I attached a few photos  (off a website, http://sgaugers.org/WOD/WOD_mem.html, so not sure how well they show up here).  

DC HO and n-scale is potentially cheaper, but I'd say not the majority of modelers anymore.  DCC is prevalent and you can rack up some pretty sizable bills with it, especially when locos, decent rolling stock, command stations, throttles, boosters, etc. get factored in.  But it is tons of fun and the variety of products to choose from is virtually endless and continuously evolving and expanding.  Easier -- ?  Single-loco DC layouts OK, but multiple-loco used to require incredibly ingenious block controls and the like in order to work.  In that sense, DCC has helped simplify a few things.  

The best part of this hobby remains -- there's no wrong way to enjoy it.  As long as you're having fun is what matters.  

Attachments

Images (3)
  • David_Horn_9
  • David_Horn_1
  • David_Horn_4

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×