Moonman posted: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...
When done in "O" or O-27, however, that distance is in exact increments of one piece of straight track, and no fitter pieces are needed. Can't do that in FasTrack.
Carl,
I understand the differences quite well, thank you! 
I may have erred in my description of what I was trying to use as an example as a true "passing siding". I probably should have called it a layout with a common circle within an oval or something like that. My geometry/math skills are pretty decent.
My examples were relating specifically to O72, so O60 is not the "only" orphan. I am well aware there are no turnouts for O84 and O96, I assumed it would be understood I was talking about a same diameter (named) curve and turnout. I'll admit it's possible O36 or O48 turnouts do not suffer from this problem, as I do not have experience with those. (edit: now that I played with it in RR Track, I see O36 is not the same situation(no short fitters with removed ballast), but does require you to add a 11.25 degree curve to each turnout to make it a "drop in" for a curve since the turnout is only 33.75 degrees, instead of the 45 degrees of an O36 curve)
Here are some RR Track sketches. Note the gaps in the FasTrack for trying to make either the "circle within an oval" layout, or the gap caused by "dropping in" an O72 turnout in place of a curve. This is due to the little fitter pieces required on the end of the turnout, if you don't modify the track you want to connect to the turnout. The gap is approximately an inch. These are standard O72 curves and turnouts(with a single 10" straight on each side in the rightmost picture), with the fitter pieces to go with the turnouts. I didn't bother to show the left half of the oval so we could focus on the area of interest here(the same gap would exist there for the left drawing).
The following pic shows the same track arrangement for traditional tubular. Standard O72 curves and turnouts, again with a single 10" straight in the right hand pic (obviously no fitters). There is no overlap, nor any gaps.
This last sketch is comparing O36 FasTrack to O31 tubular. So the O36 is not as bad a situation as the O72, but you do need to add either the (2) 11.25 degree sections (or a half O36, since a regular O36 is 45 degrees). If one is just building this simple example, the single half curve would be fine(one less track joint), but if you wanted to expand on it, the (2) 11.25 degree sections might be a better option, as otherwise the track joints would be at different angles than the outer part of the track.
To your last point, while I didn't explicitly state it, yes, that is supposedly the whole issue to be aware of. Traditional Lionel O Tubular was based on "nominal circle of X diameter", while FasTrack was designed to instead result in a certain spacing between parallel lines once you go through the turnout.
-Dave
What sold me on Fastrack was the operation of the turnouts. I can't speak for the command controlled versions, but all of my remote turnouts have performed flawlessly. I've never had a derailment because of a turnout.
My only criticism is the design of the 084 and 096 sections. I understand that they were made in 11.25 degree sections for size considerations, but the cost is high for a complete circle (32 sections).
I’ve never been a fan of Fast Track, it rusts too easily in Florida’s humidity, it’s noisy, it looks bad, and the die cast joiners are too easily broken and not replaceable. MTH Track is also noisy and looks bad, but at least it’s Nickel Silver and won’t rust. The rails on Atlas Track break loose from the ties/roadbed too easily, and the rails are solid making them hard to solder. I never did like The oversized ties & rails of Gargraves and Ross Track. After working for many years in a hobby shop, the only pre-made track that I liked was LGB, and even then I wasn’t fond of it being brass. Why is it so hard for the manufacturers (in all scales) to make decent track, especially switches?
Bill in FtL
I mostly agree with Bill Nielsen. I would never build a layout with fasttrack. I can forgive the oversized appearance of Gargraves and Ross. (It's certainly no worse than Lionel Tubular.) Probably my favorite track system, but I really do wish they would make O36 switches. O36 is the new O31. If the geometry was right, Ross would sell a hunk of them, to replace all those Fasttrack switches!!
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 ?
Hey Dan,
Permanent? Guess it all depends - do you lean more towards a toy-train layout? If so, then ANY track is probably okay. FasTrack? I'd cut the darned plastic roadbed if need be, to get operating accessories closer. You're only talking a section or two or three at the most per close-fitting accessory, right?
On the other hand, if you lean more towards a little more realistic-looking side of 3-rail, I would think that GarGraves track and/or Ross switches would give you the best bang for the buck. That's the route I plan on taking in the future. Atlas and MTH Scale Trax look pretty darned good to me too, but possibly at a higher price/decreased availability?
As a relative newcomer to O-gauge, just my opinion. Yours may vary.
I'm very happy with Fastrack. 22 switches and a couple scale miles of lines on ceiling tile. Noise is not a problem. I have had to change some switch stand leds and tweak a couple of points, but the switches are almost trouble free. And just for the record, the O36 switches will replace a 10" section.
John H posted:I'm very happy with Fastrack. 22 switches and a couple scale miles of lines on ceiling tile. Noise is not a problem. I have had to change some switch stand leds and tweak a couple of points, but the switches are almost trouble free. And just for the record, the O36 switches will replace a 10" section.
That's a good point. While I was only focusing on the curve aspects in my comparison above, for the O72, there is also not a single FasTrack piece that is equivalent to an O72 turnout straight part of the route. But it is possible to come up with one that is very close with just a single fitter and a 10" straight, I believe.
Of course the same can be said for for O gauge tubular, there is no (edit: currently, at least- see Rob's post below) O72 turnout equivalent straight piece. It's of course much simpler to just take a razor saw or hack saw to make one that is that exact length (from a 40" straight), even if it's not a piece they sell. (maybe there was such a thing during post-war years? I seem to recall an entry on that infamous CTT track planning template that actually had an "O72 straight" item that was the right length to match an O72 turnout - but I truly don't know the history on why it was included)
-Dave
There are pro's and con's to every system so just get what appeals to you. My only stay away would be MTH because the spring pins are such garbage. I have junked so much of it when buying collections. Someone mentioned that fast tracks pins will sometimes break. They can but it seems to only happen with repeated connecting and disconnecting of aging track. You can replace the pins though. You can bend the tabs and pop the rail up, replace the pin, lay the rail back down, and bend back the pins. Someone else mentioned you can't make custom piece which is also not correct. I have been making them for different seasonal layouts since the system was introduced.
MCKCONRR posted:There are pro's and con's to every system so just get what appeals to you. My only stay away would be MTH because the spring pins are such garbage. I have junked so much of it when buying collections. Someone mentioned that fast tracks pins will sometimes break. They can but it seems to only happen with repeated connecting and disconnecting of aging track. You can replace the pins though. You can bend the tabs and pop the rail up, replace the pin, lay the rail back down, and bend back the pins. Someone else mentioned you can't make custom piece which is also not correct. I have been making them for different seasonal layouts since the system was introduced.
It's certainly possible, it's just a bit more work to it than cutting a piece of tubular and replacing the pins. 
-Dave
Dave45681 posted:...Of course the same can be said for for O gauge tubular, there is no O72 turnout equivalent straight piece...
The 762 Straight tracks at 14 3/8" were a cataloged item, matching exactly the 711/721 O-72 switch straights.
Now I'm jealous, Rob. Assuming those are from your collection.
Thanks for confirming that they were offered years ago.
-Dave
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
