What’s the guy in this picture doing?
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/28/hm.tandem.cycling/story.schwinn.jpg)
Backpeddling!
Marvin, nothing to do with backpeddling, just patiently explaining how I justify calling the PIKO track geometry “TOY-LIKE”. I don’t need to buy boxes of it, I can just try it out with CADrail. 
There are design features that categorize certain makes into specific camps. You would know if only you would have had the courage to look beyond LGB (and now PIKO).
Hmmmmmmmm perhaps we need a thread in the “Tracks and Trestles” section that lists the various makes in the different categories. 
Actually, ALL sectional track is “toy-like”, from the turnouts to the non-eased curves.
Real trains as a general rule do not hit a set curvature all at once, rather they “ease” into it.
To simulate this, lay out your 1500 curves, with straights to make a large box-secion.
Now, insert a 1600 (and remove appropriate 1500’s) at the point each straight section joins a curved section.
Close.
david wenrich said:I hope I'm not going to regret jumping into this, but I think you've misunderstood what he said. He said the "geometry" of the track was toylike, not the system. As I understand it, geometry refers to the shape of the rail's cross-section. This would include things like the width of the base in relation to the height of the rail, etc.
What is your reasoning for calling Piko's track system toylike?
Heck, Code 332 is pretty toy-like regardless of cross-section, in that it scales out to something ridiculous. Which is why some folks prefer to use smaller rail. Others, myself included, accept this as just one of the compromises which are sometimes needed in an outdoor environment.
I would also agree with TOC that sectional track is not terribly prototypical due to the lack of transistions into the curves. Again, sometimes one must accept such compromise. In my case I would much rather have used flex track not only for the eased curves but also to reduce the number of joins (potential electrical failure points). But the would have been vastly more difficult to design and build my layout.
Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts on the subject.
I suspect that some people just don’t like having the “toy” label attached to the track system they use because they think it reflects on them personally…Life is too short people…
Sectional track systems have to have a geometrical system and this means a greater or lesser compromise compared to prototype. PIKO’s geometry system is clever but is still a long way from prototype and therefore the description of the geometry system as “toylike” is a fair one.
At the other end of the scale there are track manufacturers who sell flexitrack by the metre and switches which are very close to prototype.
On a slightly different note, I would expect LGBoA’s remaining stocks of LGB product to wind up at Trainworld, sooner or later, though it is debateable whether the elves will be so lucky. I guess they will hang onto the spares until they can sell them to whoever will be handling repairs and warrantees in future.
Les
“Hi, My name is Paul, and I’m a toy railroader”. 35 years ago when I got into HO scale, I thought I was a “model railroader”. Now my wife has convinced me to acknowledge that they are just toys, and I have a toy addiction. I feel much better now. (Seriously, I really do have a toy addiction. I use my five year old daughter as an excuse for the neighbors, but my wife knows better.)
I started out thinking of building a prototype model railroad. Then I started thinking of the cost and scope of building scale miles of railroad around several acres of my property. I quickly realized that would never happen, and settled for a whimsical garden railroad I can build, tinker, and yes, play with. At least until I get around to that 7 1/2" guage live steam train that I can ride on. 
HJ, thanks for the PIKO link. Some very interesting combinations there. Perhaps we should just call sectional track “non-prototypical” for those of us who have not accepted their “toy addiction” yet. I just received a couple boxes of PIKO straight track. I have some pallets in the yard I lay out different types of track on to compare side by side and see how they weather. I look forward to adding the PIKO track to that test. I’ll let you know in about a year…
Paul
I beleive I read a post that said if your trains run they are toys and if they are just displayed, they are models. Interesting perspective. I dont mind the toylike label, either, but I do mind it when Piko’s new track system is being downgraded when it is nealy identical to all types of track being manufactured.
Ray,
I did not realize he was talking about the code/ shape. I dodnt think anyone can deny that the crosssection is way out of scale. But unless you are creating a diaroma or something, the more material the better.
Cur,
You hit the nail on the head.
-David
david wenrich said:
.............I did not realize he was talking about the code/ shape. I dodnt think anyone can deny that the crosssection is way out of scale. But unless you are creating a diaroma or something, the more material the better.
…
-David
David,
I wasn’t talking about the shape of the rail profile; Code 332 is, IMO, not worth starting a discussion. I was talking about track geometry!
I think the “The more material the better” certainly applies if you live in a neighbourhood that features elephants and other large wild life which may invade your GRR.
First of all, I’m not a “Gentleman.” I served as enlisted, and retired as a Chief Petty Officer, hardly the definition of a “Gentleman.”
Secondly, perhaps there might be some use in arriving at a definition of what is “Toy-like geometry” when speaking of track, and what more closely fits the definition of “Model-like geometry.”
Third, reading this thread is more fun than watching three monkeys try to impregnate a football. :lol:
Steve, please let us know when the video comes out (Three monkeys and a Football!). :lol: :lol:
I’ll be sure to do that. Now to find three monkeys!
I bet the Bach-man appreciates this break!
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Ok, I guess I misunderstood. I always thought the terms "track geometry" and "rail profile" both referred to the same thing.
I wasn't talking about the shape of the rail profile; Code 332 is, IMO, not worth starting a discussion. I was talking about track geometry!
Quote:Or if you have grandkids or other visitors who aren't always as careful as they should be. Heck, I have to step on the track myself sometimes, and while I'm not exactly elephantine, I'm no lightweight either.
I think the "The more material the better" certainly applies if you live in a neighbourhood that features elephants and other large wild life which may invade your GRR. ;) :) ;)