# Realistic track appearance?



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Is there a practical reason why O scale track still looks like toy train track after all these decades after its appearance on the market?

I see smaller scales with track that looks like real railroad track, but O scale seems to be the lone holdout.

Why?


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

O scale [and somewhat S scale] both use [in most cases] a three rail track, which is rather limited usage in the prototype, and also use track that is not shaped the same as the prototype, and is made of hollow steel ...
where as models from Z to HO are slowly going to track sections not only is the shape of the prototype, but also of solid nickel & zinc enhanced brass, there is no silver in it


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

But even with the third rail, Märklin seems to be able to pull off a prototype look.

Can't O scale track be made with real rail instead of hollow tubing with the third rail embedded in the ties and a spring loaded pickup used for the third rail wiper?


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2018)

DB, speaking for myself only, I was brought up in the hobby with Lionel tubular track. It is reliable and has served the O-Gauge community longer than any other track system and today, still has the most users.

Appearance, I found Johnson roadbed in 1996 that really dresses tubular track up in a very positive way. It also has excellent sound control qualities. So I still am a happy camper with tubular track.

Take a look.

View attachment 432426


----------



## Spence (Oct 15, 2015)

Have you checked out Ross track? It looks pretty realistic to me.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. This was just something I was thinking about in passing and wondered why this track wasn't more commonly used.

I haven't have a Lionel train since I was a young lad.


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

O scale track will always look unrealistic because of that dog gone 3rd rail. The reason there has been so much Lionel tubular track for so long is because Lionel didn't bother to change the looks of its decades-old track until recently, when it came out with Fastrack.

Although noisey, due to the resonance off the hard plastic roadbed, it looks far better than the old 3-rail tubular track. Fastrack has more realistic looking ties, compared to the toy-like wider ties that are spaced way too far apart on tubular track. It also has flat rail tops compared to the unrealistic looking rounded rail tops tubular track has. At least Fastrack offers an improvement in appearance over the old tubular track. 

But Gargraves and Ross switches have the best-looking track IMHO.


----------



## Ace (Mar 30, 2016)

3-rail track is stuck on an old toy-trains tradition with grossly oversized wheel treads and flanges. I like it for the toy-train heritage but the lack of clear standards with newer 3-rail equipment sometimes creates operating reliability problems, with switches in particular.

I do my scale modelling with HO. The O-gauge/O-scale niche is unfortunately factionalized with "traditional" 3-rail, 3RS, 2-rail scale, proto-scale, etc.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

It looks realistic enough for me, at least Atlas with ballast, etc, and the blacked out inner rail.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Atlas track, at least IMO, is the best track, and it looks good as well. Too bad that the Atlas switches are so pathetic, I'd recommend Ross switches with the Atlas track.


----------



## Rocky Mountaineer (Sep 19, 2015)

The biggest impediment to truly "scale" O-Gauge track is the complete lack of STANDARDS in this corner of our hobby.  

True... the width of the track is set across the board. No issue there. 

However, beyond that... when you get into rail profile and rail heights, all bets are off. Take for example MTH's Scaletrax. That's about as "realistic" as we can get in terms of scale appearance these days. But my Lionel TMCC crane cars have pieces of plastic (near the center of the crane car) that extend low enough over the outside rails, that those pieces rub against MTH Scaletrax switch machines. And those switch machines are pretty low profile as you can get (aside from using undertable Tortoise equipment). Yet the TMCC crane cars still make contact with the tops of the ScaleTrax switch machines. It's not enough to derail the train, but it's a bit unnerving knowing something like that is happening.

Thus far, that's the only significant "issue" I've tripped across in this regard. But I'm sure something else will rear its ugly head some time down the road... hopefully nothing major like an expensive locomotive or a set of low profile skirted passenger cars.

Given the lack of standards, it's amazing we don't run into more incompatibilities between track systems and offerings from various importers of toy trains these days. 

Just sayin'.....

David


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

3R track is one of the main reasons I left 'hi-rail'. 

Buying scale equipment to run on grossly out of size rail profile didn't make sense to me. Plus, equipment I wanted wasn't available in 3R but 2R and vice versa.

I found most 3R stuff runs fine on 2R track. Use N scale rail as the center rail. The problem is turn outs. Couldn't prevent electrical shorts. Eventually gave up on the idea. It's easier to have a loop of Gargraves for 3R and 2R track for my two rail equipment.


----------



## Traindiesel (Sep 8, 2015)

Remember, O Gauge _(not O "Scale")_ for a hundred years were basically, and still are considered 'toy trains'. Thus the toy like three rail track. It's only been the last 25 years or so that O Gauge trains have taken on a closer-to-scale build. But after all those years of three rail track and all the trains made for O Gauge, it was too late and not feasible to change up the track at this point. 

The best we can do is better looking three rail track. Atlas O 21st Century Track System and MTH ScaleTrax are the only track systems that have solid rails. The solid rail is best for conductivity through the rail. I believe older MTH ReakTrax had solid rails but a few years ago they changed to hollow rail. All the rest are hollow tin plate rails.

They all work equally well, but to me the Atlas O is a more solid and realistic looking track system. The ScaleTrax looks good but to me was a bit less sturdy, and I'm not sure since I haven't used it, the in rail power connectors may be an issue if you had to cut and make a track shorter. As I said I haven't used ScaleTrax, so maybe someone who has can expound on the connections.


----------



## Booly15 (Aug 16, 2017)

I think this is a perfect example of "what works for me" in our hobby. I completely understand those who desire 2 rail operation, be it in O scale or any other, I enjoy photos or the ability to see these pikes in operation first hand. However I will stick to my 3 rails and my postwar gear, I will use my Gargraves with the black center rail and add black ballast to help it blend just a bit more. Doesn't make me right or better, simply it "just works for me".


----------



## Wood (Jun 9, 2015)

Michael, You make a good point. Others have answered your question, my belief is simply that it is an historical factor. 3 Rail is 3 rail, Lionel and Marx were the dominate players and there is tons of track available at very low cost.

Most of you have stated a choice of which track you like. Would you please post a picture of your most realistic rendition of your choice.

To start, here are pictures of my Lionel O27 profile track. This track is very inexpensive, has incredible conductivity, strength and a low profile. I mixed the track with Gargraves switches because the Lionel O27 switches are junk.


----------



## Chugman (Jun 17, 2015)

I am a big fan of Atlas track and switches. I love the looks, electrical conductivity of solid rail, prototypical appearance, and quietness of it. I have had issues with the switches and switch machines, but so far I feel that they have been worth it for the attributes listed above. 

It all comes down to what is important to you regarding track. I look at track as the stage that you are presenting your production on. It isn't and shouldn't be the center of attention and compete with the stars (the trains), but nor should it be so poor that is a distraction from that standpoint either. 

Another analogy is would you take an expensive work of art and put it in a cheap, poor looking frame? The track and ballast are the frame for our expensive engines and cars and should be given the same attention to detail in my view.

Art


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2018)

I use FasTrack. It looks realistic enough for me. I'm not really into prototype modeling. My layout is a toy train layout with O36 curves on the main and O31 on the upper loop.


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

Passenger Train Collector said:


> DB, speaking for myself only, I was brought up in the hobby with Lionel tubular track. . . . and today, still has the most users.


Yes Brian, there are still some holdouts like you who swear that the old Lionel O scale tubular track is the best. But whether or not it still has the most users today is debatable.

I used it on my 1988 California layout, in which these photos also appear in another section and thread on this forum. But that was 30 years ago and the track hardly looks realistic.

















Fast forward 30 years and consider all of the starter sets Lionel has sold with Fastrack over the past several years, including the Polar Express sets, along with O scalers with permanent layouts who prefer Fastrack, and that's a lot of Fastrack out there in recent years. Then factor in the Atlas, Gargraves, and MTH track users and I think the old Lionel tubular track is way back there.

Here's a shot taken just now of a section of my Fastrack layout. No, Fastrack isn't perfect, but at least looks a little more realistic than tubular track.









Just sayin'.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Thanks for all the input fellas. I donÄt work in this scale, but still the question had me wondering. I guess I strive for as much realism as possible and consider it a challenge to replicate the real world as best as my skills and material will allow.


----------



## njrailer93 (Nov 28, 2011)

this is gargraves track on our modular layout. this and atlas is most likely the most prototypical you will get


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

That looks very good. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

Yellowstone Special said:


> Yes Brian, there are still some holdouts like you who swear that the old Lionel O scale tubular track is the best. But whether or not it still has the most users today is debatable.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> A few years ago, I would have agreed with you that tubular track was no longer all that popular, but I was surprised at the results of this pole.
> ...


----------



## Yellowstone Special (Jun 23, 2015)

Bob, thanks for proving my point. 

That survey on this forum 2 years ago (of which I was a respondent) merely shows that of the 117 who responded, only 39 of them or one-third, use tubular track, while the other 78 or two-thirds, use something other than tubular track.


----------



## Rocky Mountaineer (Sep 19, 2015)

njrailer93 said:


> this is gargraves track on our modular layout. this and atlas is most likely the most prototypical you will get
> ....


Actually, I think good scenery techniques are a big part of the ultra-realistic appearance more so than the actual brand of track. Here's an amazingly realistic look achieved with MTH ScaleTrax on Rich Battista's _Black Diamond Rwy_. It's become my "reference standard" for the ultimate in O-Gauge 3-Rail realism. 










I chose MTH ScaleTrax for my new Dunham Studios layout also. But for cost reasons, I opted to go with cork roadbed treated with textured paint. If Dunham Studios were to create the "look and feel" of Rich Battista's Black Diamond Rwy, it was gonna send the project way, way, WAY over budget!  So perhaps someday down the road, I'll add ballast to the layout as a DIY project. But for now, I'm having a blast with the layout as it was delivered. It's "realistic enough" so that my brain fills in the ballast details that are "suggested" by the textured roadbed paint and surrounding scenic details. Works for me (for now), anyway. 

David


----------



## njrailer93 (Nov 28, 2011)

Rocky Mountaineer said:


> Actually, I think good scenery techniques are a big part of the ultra-realistic appearance more so than the actual brand of track. Here's an amazingly realistic look achieved with MTH ScaleTrax on Rich Battista's _Black Diamond Rwy_. It's become my "reference standard" for the ultimate in O-Gauge 3-Rail realism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Until the scale tracks ruins all
Your rollers than yes
Same reason Lionel ditched the super O back in the day. I should or rephrased. Reliability wise gargraves atlas’ rail ties are more to scale the gargraves are much bigger


----------



## Rocky Mountaineer (Sep 19, 2015)

njrailer93 said:


> Until the scale tracks ruins all
> Your rollers than yes
> Same reason Lionel ditched the super O back in the day. ....


I spoke to Rich Battista at length about this very issue when I met him at York a couple of years ago. He started construction of his _Black Diamond Rwy_ in 2004 and completed what was featured in the first DVD he produced in 2007. So roughly 10+ years he's been running trains with no noticeable grooves in his locomotive or rolling stock rollers due to the relatively thin center rail in MTH ScaleTrax (as compared to other O-Gauge track offerings).

Obviously, this could be a case of YMMV. But if it worked for Rich and the frequency with which he runs a mix of trains on his layout all those years, then I certainly felt comfortable to move forward with MTH ScaleTrax on my layout. 

Now if somebody were to run ONE and ONLY ONE locomotive with the same rolling stock 8 hours a day... EVERY day... for 10+ years... I guess anything is possible. But since that's not my world, I'm not even the very least concerned with roller wear. 

David


----------



## pennwest (Sep 21, 2015)

Some of the old Lionel postwar rollers were very soft. I've seen a set of #2344 NYC F-3's with the rollers nearly cut in half by Lionel O-gauge tubular center rails. The groove matched the width of the tubular center rail and had a definite inverted "U" profile. I've seen several other examples from the Lionel wide roller era with the same problem but less extreme.

I believe that the Super O roller groove horror stories were the result of people running their late 40's-early 50's trains with soft rollers on the new track.

The rollers on modern 3-rail locomotives are much harder and I doubt that Super O or ScaleTrax will cause grooves in them.

I use a mix of Gargraves and Ross track with Ross switches on my layout and it's realistic enough for me.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

I don't worry about rollers wearing out. They're cheap and easy to replace.


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

Yellowstone Special said:


> Bob, thanks for proving my point.
> 
> That survey on this forum 2 years ago (of which I was a respondent) merely shows that of the 117 who responded, only 39 of them or one-third, use tubular track, while the other 78 or two-thirds, use something other than tubular track.


The poll doesn’t prove you point. On the contrary, the poll results showed that tubular does have the most users, more than any other type of O gauge track.


----------



## Rocky Mountaineer (Sep 19, 2015)

pennwest said:


> ....
> I use a mix of Gargraves and Ross track with Ross switches on my layout and it's realistic enough for me.
> 
> ....


Beautiful scenes, Bob. Love the color!!! 


BTW folks, I think what we're seeing here pretty much confirms my earlier thoughts... namely, great scenery *techniques* can be used to achieve "realistic" results -- regardless of the track system. Well, almost.... 

David


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I've seen quite a few rollers with deep grooves in them, but they've been stuff that's "well run", I don't think this is a significant issue overall.


----------



## njrailer93 (Nov 28, 2011)

Rocky Mountaineer said:


> Beautiful scenes, Bob. Love the color!!!
> 
> 
> BTW folks, I think what we're seeing here pretty much confirms my earlier thoughts... namely, great scenery *techniques* can be used to achieve "realistic" results -- regardless of the track system. Well, almost....
> ...


Agreed. You can make tubular track very realistic with the right technique


----------



## Wood (Jun 9, 2015)

Chugman said:


> It all comes down to what is important to you regarding track. I look at track as the stage that you are presenting your production on. It isn't and shouldn't be the center of attention and compete with the stars (the trains), but nor should it be so poor that is a distraction from that standpoint either.
> 
> Another analogy is would you take an expensive work of art and put it in a cheap, poor looking frame? The track and ballast are the frame for our expensive engines and cars and should be given the same attention to detail in my view.
> 
> Art


Art - This is the best answer given in this thread. Nicely said.

Nice pictures of different track, located here, and the effort put into making it look awesome.


----------



## Bryan Moran (Jan 15, 2017)

All of you old timers. I still don't have my 1st layout done. My perspective is from that newbie side. So, I go into the LHS and do some research and was guided to Fastrack. 

Fastrack to me is clearly not authentic, but as some have noted, it should not be the primary focus of a layout. For me, I wanted reliable track, easy to fasten and change and snap together. 

I don't care about the 3rd rail aspect "ruining" anything. Cost benefit analysis has to take place. 

What I plan to do is add ballast to the sides. The Fastrack ballast has never changed. It is hopelessly unauthentic in it's consistent shape, color and obvious plastic y nature. 

Each wooden section is black or dark slate? I hope to paint some of these and as mentioned - add bagged ballast to mess it up a bit.


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

To be honest , I have a lot of old trains, I only saw significant groves in rollers on my neighbors super o. As for the track, they do make two rail stuff but it's more expensive. .besides we all know, grew up with and use 3 rail because it works.


----------



## Larry Sr. (Sep 7, 2015)

I have always been a toy train type. I fooled with fastrack trying many different methods to make it look like what I wanted. 

I like it. It's been good to me so far.

I used Ink , paint pens, all kinds of different ballast color. 

It's just plain personal preference I think anyway.

Mine may be disliked by many but for me I'm happy happy happy. lol

Have fun with your trains.
Larry


----------



## Wood (Jun 9, 2015)

Larry, that looks fantastic. Great job with the Fastrack. Along with the mountains, scenery and water scene. The track appears on elevated berms, just like it is supposed to look.


----------



## Pebo (Sep 27, 2015)

Atlas track on the River City 3 Railers modular pike.....

























....and we use Ross switches....

Peter


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

I like when Larry said " toy train" . Lol as much as people want 100 percent realism it's just that, a toy. Ages 3 and up😁


----------



## Rocky Mountaineer (Sep 19, 2015)

Peter, those modular layout photos look terrific.

And Larry, your Fastrack layout looks fabulous! I too am puzzled by the "anti-Fastrack" sentiments among many modelers. I understand it can be noise-prone. But there are ways around that for folks who really like it. I've seen some really cool TW Trainworx layouts done with Fastrack, including the one in NYC's Grand Central Terminal around Christmastime. With the proper scenic treatment, any layout can be made to look superb! 

David


----------



## laz57 (Sep 19, 2015)

WOW all nicely done.:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## balidas (Jun 3, 2011)

Chugman said:


> It all comes down to what is important to you regarding track. I look at track as the stage that you are presenting your production on. It isn't and shouldn't be the center of attention and compete with the stars (the trains), but nor should it be so poor that is a distraction from that standpoint either.
> 
> Another analogy is would you take an expensive work of art and put it in a cheap, poor looking frame? The track and ballast are the frame for our expensive engines and cars and should be given the same attention to detail in my view.
> 
> Art


I agree. Altho I liked the size of S gauge when I was a kid, I could never get into it since I hated the look of the track. I grew up on 027 so when I got back into the hobby that's what I went for. Over the years since I've bought & sold all the other track systems just to get my hands on them & have a look for myself but I could never get away from 027 or Super O. 

If I could run my beloved pre & postwar locomotives on 2 rail I would.


----------



## bluecomet400 (Sep 13, 2015)

I've heard that Atlas track isn't as DCS-friendly as tubular track. Being a DCS rookie, there's still a lot I have to learn, but so far with my Lionel traditional tubular track, the DCS track signal has never been less than a 10. 

Tubular track may look a little odd to some, but bottom line it works very well, it's easy to custom-cut, extremely durable, and it has stood the test of time.


----------



## Wood (Jun 9, 2015)

bluecomet400 said:


> Lionel traditional tubular track, the DCS track signal has never been less than a 10.
> 
> Tubular track may look a little odd to some, but bottom line it works very well, it's easy to custom-cut, extremely durable, and it has stood the test of time.



John, I could not agree more!!!


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I can't imagine why Atlas track would have any additional issues with DCS. The one difference that can make a difference is if you don't have both the outside rails common, that can affect DCS signal quality. However, that issue would also apply to many other track types like Gargraves, Ross, and MTH Scaltrax.


----------



## Traindiesel (Sep 8, 2015)

Being a solid rail, the DCS signal travels a little better with Atlas O track. But it’s not the track itself that causes issues. It’s the connection between each track section is where you will have issues with signal strength. But that’s the same for any type of track. The Atlas track weakness is the rail joiners. They look great but with a lot of handling they can have loose connections, thus interrupting the signal. 

Wiring for DCS isn’t as complicated as some would have us believe. I’ve had better success with bus wiring than the recommended ‘star’ pattern wiring.


----------



## gnnpnut (Oct 19, 2016)

Traindiesel said:


> Being a solid rail, the DCS signal travels a little better with Atlas O track. But it’s not the track itself that causes issues. It’s the connection between each track section is where you will have issues with signal strength. But that’s the same for any type of track. The Atlas track weakness is the rail joiners. They look great but with a lot of handling they can have loose connections, thus interrupting the signal.
> 
> Wiring for DCS isn’t as complicated as some would have us believe. I’ve had better success with bus wiring than the recommended ‘star’ pattern wiring.


Why wouldn't you solder the rail joiners, especially if you are stuck with the one point of insertion in order to get DCS to work optimally? If you need to account for expansion, then cut a gap every so often, and add another feeder to that track section.

In weenie scale, I solder three 3' flex track sections together, and then leave about 0.010" gap at the rail joiner to the next section. But since I run DCC, I can run multpile feeders to each block, and not worry about signal degradation. 

Regards, 
GNNPNUT


----------



## Traindiesel (Sep 8, 2015)

You absolutely could solder the rail joiners if you’d want to. I never used a drop of solder on my layouts. To connect feeder wires to the track, I use a method explained to me by the late Kirk Mitchell from JusTrains. Inserting the feeder wire into the rail joiners then slide it onto the rail. Then attach the next track which locks the wire in place. It’s a little tedious at first but not any more than handling a hot solder iron. The connection held tight throughout the layout for 14 years before I dismantled it when we moved.

With DCS you only need one connection per block. I always had a great DCS signal doing this along with bus wires starting at the TIU.


----------



## davidone (Apr 20, 2015)

One of the best track systems IMO is SuperO developed in the 1950's. Yes the drawbacks are O36 radius and the switches. The pros of SuperO is that the rail is low profile and the center rail is very thin plus the ties are close. Plus do not believe that the center rail put grooves in the rollers. That started many years by a dealer for some unknown reason. Never happened, never will.
As far as radius goes there are ways to expand the radius to O72 and many other radius's. Switches are another matter. 

Dave


----------



## Rocky Mountaineer (Sep 19, 2015)

davidone said:


> One of the best track systems IMO is SuperO developed in the 1950's. Yes the drawbacks are O36 radius and the switches. The pros of SuperO is that the rail is low profile and the center rail is very thin plus the ties are close. ....


Dave, I know it's not quite the same, but MTH's ScaleTrax is as close to a modern-day Super-O as we're gonna see. Plus it has the broader curve sections, flex track (that bends easily), and numbered switches as well as O72, O54 and O31 switches. Tie-spacing is a bit wide, but not a deal-breaker IMHO.

David


----------



## Midnight Goat (Dec 19, 2017)

With so much tube track in my collection it's hard to justify the cost of upgrading. The track replacement I can usually convince myself on but when you add in the cost of switches it becomes a much harder pill to swallow.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

What is the average street price on each type of switch?


----------



## Midnight Goat (Dec 19, 2017)

MichaelE said:


> What is the average street price on each type of switch?


I've only priced out fasttrack switches but in general you can count on $50 - 100 depending on the type. Not the end of the world for someone building their collection from scratch but with 20+ of the tube track remote switches already in my collection it's a hard sell.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

That's a hard sell for me.


----------



## callmeIshmael2 (May 28, 2012)

Hi Michael; you can see you've really touched a nerve here. Like so many things, the mind's eye puts its own spin on what it sees, and for those brought up in mid-century, we're used to 3 rails and putting up with an unscale-like appearance in favor of enjoyment of the magic of model trains. All points of view are welcome.

Those who have other and newer points of view will also put their spin on what they see, and if all they see is in front of their eyes and unconnected to imagination and appreciation of model engineering, my guess is not much will satisfy in the 3-rail venue. 

An enthusiast realizes that there is not now, nor will ever be, a model train layout made with actual prototype curves or the kind of space for running that one finds outside their own door!


----------



## papa3rail (Oct 8, 2016)

Track boils down to what you like and what your willing to spend.There is no reason any of them will not work with the modern control systems when properly installed.I've seen great looking layouts done with every kind of track out there.I did my homework 10 years ago when I was getting back into the hobby and decided on Atlas O track and have never regretted my choice.I also use Atlas switches,yes they can be a pain but I have over 30 of them and have only ever sent one back because of problems. my best advice is do your home work and go with what you like.

No ballast yet but I'm getting there.


----------

