My permanent layout is still on the drawing table. I have read quite a few pros and cons on Lionel FasTrack. My permanent layout will have operating accessories. Most of them will be trackside. Given the ballast profile of FasTrack, how well to post-war accessories play with it ?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Dan, just say no to Fastrack. It's so expensive on a per foot basis. There are so many other better choices. If you still feel like spending the money go Atlas. If you are budget minded GarGraves is the answer. Just my opinion.
If you are building a traditional layout I would go with tubular track,there is plenty of it available.
Mikey
I would look at GarGraves track. I have Lionel Fastrack layout and some of the post war accessories will work but the track blast will creat problems. If planning on using a lot of the post war accessories GraGraves my be your best choice.
You simply gotta go with your gut. If you like fastrack then buy it. Many advantages if you are adding Lionel items however, you’ll get as many pros as cons. If you are not venturing into command control then advantages aren’t that prominent.
The cons outweigh the pros for me with FasTrack, but I only have a couple of set loops and can’t speak for their switches. Overpriced it seems, and a real drop in production cost over metal/tubular I’d imagine. Also, the rail profile is rectangular not rail-shaped, and I’m not sure how they came up with the tie size/spacing. I’m building with 0-27 profile so I’m not a stickler by any means. FasTrack just rubs me the wrong way. Just my $0.02 or less.
I agree with "go with your gut" and get what appeals and you like. FastTrack is an easy system to use, it's generally reliable, it's readily available and it has an OK look (compared to comparable track).
For my permanent layout, I use Atlas track & switches and have for 18 years. No problems. At all.
I do have many feet of FasTrack for easy set-up at Christmas and quick living room layouts. UNBEATABLE for those applications.
Dan,
I admit it. I use FasTrack. However, I don't use trackside postwar accessories (yet) so I can't speak to that part of your question.
I do want to step in and say something positive about FasTrack though. I started in this hobby a year ago and I wanted some kind of layout immediately. My layout had to be built in our basement storage room with the area underneath still used for household storage (not trains). And we're going to move sometime in the next couple years. So I didn't want to get too committed to a scale-type layout with ballasted track, etc. Therefore, FasTrack really works for me for now. I needed to get in the game!
That said, here are the pros to FasTrack as I see them:
Cons
That's FasTrack for me. It does the job. It got me going with an O layout quick.
Dan Padova posted:My permanent layout is still on the drawing table. I have read quite a few pros and cons on Lionel FasTrack. My permanent layout will have operating accessories. Most of them will be trackside. Given the ballast profile of FasTrack, how well to post-war accessories play with it ?
The FasTrack plays well with PW accessories. For the few that need close to the rail spacing, the activator track has removable roadbed.
Having said that and looking at the "big layout" track plan from 11/17, I would say use the traditional O or Ross for the fancier look and both with Midwest cork roadbed.
The Ross will be a direct replacement in the plan.
The O27 plan doesn't have a switch replacement in any other system.
Fastrack has done well for me on my small operating layout. The Operating Track sides can be removed which is beneficial for some trackside accessories. Another option is to use a tubular/Fastrack transition piece where a tubular track is a necessity.
Pros are it's easy and widely available. There's a large secondary market. Switches are solid. There's some wide curves, not so wide curves but only o72 is the most lax switch. The connection points wear over time, the became weak with repeated disassembly. It's easy to break the metal tines on the ends, especially the longer 30" track. There's lots of little straight pieces. But favor the 30" if possible. The track looks meh to me. And it's noisy. I sold all mine off because of the noise. But this was not something I noticed right away.
I switched principally at first to atlas. There was a dramatic improvement in the noise level. Then I switched all my straights and kept the curves and switches fastrack. This was a huge pain in the butt and I do not recommend it. The conversion piece doesn't work well.
I then replaced the curves and finally switches but went mainly with Ross. There's some gargraves and some atlas.
Mixing them is also a pain. Apparently I did not learn my lesson. The Ross and gargraves use end pin connectors. The atlas the more traditional joiner. They can be made to interconnect.
I'm underwhelmed by the z stuff switch motors and atlas motors are large. I haven't had any specific problems yet but people post issue with atlas all the time.
It's on my list to add command control to it all but that's not there yet. The used market is smaller for these others than fastrack.
beachhead2 posted:
- ease of use
- ubiquitous
- good conductivity (I have 150+ feet and 11 switches all under track power from a single terminal)
- stable - my track isn't fastened anywhere (not one screw or nail holding it down)
- easy to break down and move eventually
- I have 11 switches and they're bulletproof, never an issue
Cons
- expensive- but if your layout isn't huge, I don't see this being a big deal
- noise can be an issue- I have carpet pad underneath turf-carpeting so there's very little noise for me but it is a concern
- appearances - if you ever want a scale type layout, it's not going to give you that look
That's FasTrack for me. It does the job. It got me going with an O layout quick.
Nice layout - by the way, I have been using sill sealer from home construction. About $ 8 for a 75 foot roll. It's a bit wider than fastrack but easily be trimmed.
I've used FasTrack for 14 years, but my layout is only 5x8, with 2 loops and a siding. My operating freight cars use 2 different "operating" sections, and other things (crossing gates, signals, crossing shack operating) use two Lionel 153IR infrared controllers. There is NOTHING on my layout that is attached to the base, so I can move things around, or pack up the entire layout within 12 hours.
I think the operational or installation issues can b e overcome for the most part. I tried it out a few years ago, but I bought some used lots off fleabay to save costs. There was no issue with the used, it did save me a ton. I did notice there were a few design iterations and as you would expect the design changes were to improve the product. My main annoyances at the time were noise and the looming cost of new switches since I was not seeing any or many used switches. I had a boat load of 711's and 022's so that salted it for me, I stayed tubular and sold most of the Fastrack. I kept some that came in few sets for under the tree.
One other comment I would remind you of is that it is stiff enough that you don't have any wiggle or stretch room. You will have to cut to fit exact versus just about with tube or Gargraves.
Still a great system, I have no issues with it. For me it was Noise, cost, and I guess really a bit of nostalga in how I wanted my layout to look as well since I run a LOT of prewar tinplate.
If cost is not an issue, and you like it, I would not hesitate to say go Fastrack. I'd think a grimy wash on the ballast would make it look really good too.
To answer the original question. There is no issue with PW accessories and Fastrack. They have sections that have removable sides and also it is plastic and you can trim anything you want if needed.
I don't buy the cost argument. Ross switches are not cheap and do not include the switch motors or remote control that you then have to add and also wire up. Fastrack switches are all in one and Command control for a very good price when you compare total costs to do the same with other manufacturers.
You can ballast and weather Fastrack and it will look great.
I like it because it keeps everything in one ecosystem. Everything is command, LCS system, sensor tracks, etc. It is all just easy and works together.
Here is my video of just accessories running, all with Fastrack. Notice many are PW.
Really nice layout Sean. It looks like lots of fun. This video should put to rest some of the concerns the OP had with accessories with Fastrack.
The one thing I've not seen mentioned yet in this thread is the geometry situation. It's different than the way tubular was designed.
Specifically, a turnout is not a "geometrically pure" replacement for a curve section labeled as the same diameter curve. If your layout is large enough that you have some play in the alignment, it might be OK, but it can be an issue. The turnouts have a small "fitter" section (with ballast removed for one edge where it mates to the turnout) that is required on the diverging ends, unless you surgically modify a full size mating curve track to remove some ballast (thereby making the fitter piece that comes with the turnout unnecessary).
This becomes obvious if you do a simple setup like a circle to start and try to drop in a turnout for a simple spur track. The circle won't really be a circle anymore, while it would for tubular. Another example, if you have an oval and try to add turnouts in the straight sections to create an interior passing siding, you will not have a simple drop in solution of all the same curves and straights as those that make up the exterior of the oval. At the least you will need some different fitter sections for the length, and the angle really isn't correct either.
I found an old thread here. It started with someone asking if an O72 wye was a drop in for a curve (it's not), and we went in a bit of a deeper discussion later on in the thread (I didn't want to re-type a lot of it here 
)
-Dave
A lot of good info here. I have always used tubular track and as so, I have a boat load of it, including O22 and O72 switch tracks, both remote and manual.
So it boils down to cost. When the time comes for me to build my permanent layout, if I come into a windfall of cash, maybe I'll consider FasTrack, Atlas or Gargraves which I have used in the distant past.
One other issue with non-tubular track is Lionel's sliding shoes. I had a few K-Line O72 switches where the sliding shoes kept getting hung up. I can't recall if Gargraves switches have the same issue.
On a similar note to this subject are the Williams by Bachmann operating cars. They need no remote track sections to operate. I wrote to Bachmann and asked if more of these type cars are being considered. Unfortunately, "Not at this time" was the response.
Think how easy it would be to have your operating milk car, cattle car or any of the remotely controlled cars, operate anywhere on your layout. On straight as well as curved track. No exact positioning required !
Dan Padova posted:My permanent layout is still on the drawing table. I have read quite a few pros and cons on Lionel FasTrack. My permanent layout will have operating accessories. Most of them will be trackside. Given the ballast profile of FasTrack, how well to post-war accessories play with it ?
Personally, I regret using FasTrack. And a I regret using MTH's product. Were I to do it over, and I will someday, I will go with either Gargraves or Atlas (probably Atlas). Agnostic as to accessories, the quality of either Atlas or Gargraves outweighs the convenience of the modular systems such as FasTrack.
My two cents.
Dave45681 posted:The one thing I've not seen mentioned yet in this thread is the geometry situation. It's different than the way tubular was designed.
Specifically, a turnout is not a "geometrically pure" replacement for a curve section labeled as the same diameter curve. If your layout is large enough that you have some play in the alignment, it might be OK, but it can be an issue. The turnouts have a small "fitter" section (with ballast removed for one edge where it mates to the turnout) that is required on the diverging ends, unless you surgically modify a full size mating curve track to remove some ballast (thereby making the fitter piece that comes with the turnout unnecessary).
This becomes obvious if you do a simple setup like a circle to start and try to drop in a turnout for a simple spur track. The circle won't really be a circle anymore, while it would for tubular. Another example, if you have an oval and try to add turnouts in the straight sections to create an interior passing siding, you will not have a simple drop in solution of all the same curves and straights as those that make up the exterior of the oval. At the least you will need some different fitter sections for the length, and the angle really isn't correct either.
I found an old thread here. It started with someone asking if an O72 wye was a drop in for a curve (it's not), and we went in a bit of a deeper discussion later on in the thread (I didn't want to re-type a lot of it here
-Dave
"This becomes obvious if you do a simple setup like a circle to start and try to drop in a turnout for a simple spur track. The circle won't really be a circle anymore, while it would for tubular."
This is not completely true for FasTrack. The only orphan is O60. O84 & O96 do not have switches, so, yes those do not have a drop in switch.
Another example, if you have an oval and try to add turnouts in the straight sections to create an interior passing siding, you will not have a simple drop in solution of all the same curves and straights as those that make up the exterior of the oval. At the least you will need some different fitter sections for the length, and the angle really isn't correcteither.
Any track system requires fitting a passing siding. It is obvious the the divergent track of the turnout and the curve to bring it parallel have length that the reduce the passing siding length from the adjoining straight.
The wye geometry would not work in any track system. Again, fitment is needed.
The one point you made is true ,"It's different than the way tubular was designed". I don't think that you understand the difference. Which track systems use center rail and which use "a nominal circle of ___ diameter" ?
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
