Devon Sinsley said:
But its ugly
Function before form.
Devon; Just to put a positive note on the subject of the Gargraves Track.
Gargraves track has been in business for years, as a “More realistic alternative” for Lionel “O” gauge track. The original, and still made, Lionel track was just “Tinplate” and over time, even indoors, tended to rust (A lot of older members of the Lionel train modellers, had their layouts in damp cellars, and basements). The track had few “Ties”, and all were again in a black tinplate, with insulated third rail in the centre.
Gargraves was developed to provide a more realistic track, which it was, with dark stained Basswood ties, and in “3 foot lengths”, and bendable, to feature less joints. The switches work well for those Lionel people, and all of the Gargraves track products, can be used (Interchangeable) with Lionel track products.
Stainless steel rail was a later feature, as the original rail, if I remember correctly was tinplate.
When Large Scale, on #1 gauge track became popular; Gargraves saw a possible market for their product. They may have, or still produce track for the old “Standard Gauge” tinplate line of “Toy” trains, which is still produced, mostly for the “Reproduction Collectors’ Market”.
About the only “Modernization” they have made to their products, is plastic ties for the “0” gauge track, and a plastic base for their switches.I understand that the original “Tooling” for the production of their track, is still in use. (Woodworking machines for producing wood ties, a machine for inserting the rails into the ties, and a machine for bending the strips of metal into a tubular style rail)
The name “Gargraves” comes from the names of the two founders, Gardner, and Graves. I think they both live(d) in upper New York State, near Rochester. (Corrections and updates to this information are most welcome)
Gardner, and Graves were/are true “Pioneers” in the Model Railroad hobby supply industry, and are basically a cottage industry.
Fred Mills
While I agree that function should be over form, form does have to play a part at some point. We are “modeling” after all, which means making some scale representation of the real thing. If all we care about is modeling the locomotive and rolling stock then fine but to me at least l want to model railroads not just trains. I am with David on this one if there are two systems both reliable and one looks better I will side with that one. Even if the other is somewhat more functional.
While I side with what looks most close to the real thing, I tend towards the idea that if it won’t OPERATE without frustration and high maintenance, then it’s just plain NO FUN.
Everyone looks at this hobby, in whatever way brings the most pleasure…pleasure spent by the individual, by him/herself, or sharing with others.
To speak for my pleasure: I find that as I grow older, it isn’t just my pleasure that counts, but the PLEASURE I get seeing others having, with what I and other guys provide on a Saturday morning.
Fred Mills
I would agree with that as well Fred,
I have considered others ability to share my layout in as much as my space will provide. Grade, curve radius, crossover height, even how people will be able to move within the layout. So having track and especially turnouts that work will be a high priority. But still if that can be achieved and look “right” I believe it should. I think you and everyone else here wold agree with that. If a switch looks great but doesn’t work well then it isn’t the right thing. But if a great looking switch works well most all of the time with only minor maintenance well that is acceptable, at least to me. I haven’t been to a layout yet where the turnouts made it to where people weren’t having fun.
I think there needs to be a balance between function and form that works reliably as well a look good. In my limited experience and with what I have read here I thin the industry has that without the need to go to a very un-prototypical turnout.
I appreciate all the input I get on here. It helps me have the “experience” albeit borrowed from others to make informed choices. Even though I think most have chimed in with a negative opinion of Gargraves track for use on G scale outdoor layout the discussion evolved to make me think about my purchases and what will suit all my needs both aesthetic and functional.
Gargraves 45mm track was clearly (as Fred said) NOT designed to compete with the scale model railroad track, it was an easy extension to their existing product line.
I don’t see the logic in giving them a bad rap because it does not look as good as other “G” scale track.
It’s a different product and different market, designed to be a step up from “toy train” track.
Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
Gargraves 45mm track was clearly (as Fred said) NOT designed to compete with the scale model railroad track, it was an easy extension to their existing product line.
I don’t see the logic in giving them a bad rap because it does not look as good as other “G” scale track.
It’s a different product and different market, designed to be a step up from “toy train” track.
Greg
I think you hit the nail on the head Greg. Fred pointed out well that it was an improvement to what was available in three rail O and then they expanded to fit another market in the same type of G scale people. So far no one has said it doesn’t work well and that’s great. In the discussion I have confirmed my suspicions that I won’t be happy with it for prototypical reason; but someone wanting an inexpensive product to run a toy train it is certainly a viable and flexible product.
Yeah, one interesting thing I learned was about the ties, that they are using (apparently) the same tie fabrication equipment forever, which has 2 ramifications, the ties are too short for the G track, and the factory fabrication equipment cannot deal with wood better suited to outdoors.
It could be a really inexpensive alternative outdoors if they handled these 2 issues. Also, while the switches “look” weird, I’ll bet they are super troublefree, no frogs, no gaps in the rail, etc.
Properly addressed, I believe the POTENTIAL is there for them, but we still don’t have a handle on how well the rails would stay “stuck” in the ties with the climate changes outdoors.
Regards, Greg
Greg Elmassian said:
Yeah, one interesting thing I learned was about the ties, that they are using (apparently) the same tie fabrication equipment forever, which has 2 ramifications, the ties are too short for the G track, and the factory fabrication equipment cannot deal with wood better suited to outdoors.
It could be a really inexpensive alternative outdoors if they handled these 2 issues. Also, while the switches “look” weird, I’ll bet they are super troublefree, no frogs, no gaps in the rail, etc.
Properly addressed, I believe the POTENTIAL is there for them, but we still don’t have a handle on how well the rails would stay “stuck” in the ties with the climate changes outdoors.
Regards, Greg
They are making plastic ties if I read correctly. Which should mean all they would need to do is switch to a UV resistant plastic, I would think. Wont address the size issue.
What I like is detail upfront and reliability everywhere.
Oddball here(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif) at least that selector switch works, I’m not sure the illustrator saw more than a glimpse of his subject below…
Oddball out.
Devon Sinsley said:
But its ugly
But I love it ! So who makes it ?
The Hunt track was made for mines and industries. It was actual 1:1 sectional track.
Dan Padova said:
Devon Sinsley said:
But its uglyBut I love it ! So who makes it ?
Dan I am not sure if you were serious or not in asking this question so I am venturing out on a limb that that was a serious inquiry. It is made by Gargrave.
What’s interresting is only the Gauge 1 switch is made this way. There others are more traditional
For those wishing to copy the design with prototypical rail it doesn’t look as if the design would be hard to copy. Since it doesn’t have the pesky frog you could make the diverging track curved through out as they do. This maybe a consideration when building micro layout turnouts with tight radi curves.
David Maynard said:
The Hunt track was made for mines and industries. It was actual 1:1 sectional track.
Boy that would be tempting on a micro, very tempting.
Fred Mills, BSc, BS, SD (Hons) said:
The name “Gargraves” comes from the names of the two founders, Gardner, and Graves. I think they both live(d) in upper New York State, near Rochester. (Corrections and updates to this information are most welcome)
Gardner, and Graves were/are true “Pioneers” in the Model Railroad hobby supply industry, and are basically a cottage industry.
Fred Mills
Gardner lived on Dewey Avenue in Rochester, NY. He was known as “The Train Doctor”. He had a train hobby shop in his basement.
He was my source for trains in the 50’s.
Tom
Devon Sinsley said:
Dan Padova said:
Devon Sinsley said:
But its uglyBut I love it ! So who makes it ?
Dan I am not sure if you were serious or not in asking this question so I am venturing out on a limb that that was a serious inquiry. It is made by Gargrave.
What’s interresting is only the Gauge 1 switch is made this way. There others are more traditional
Thanks. I looked at their site but didn’t look deep enough.
I’m building an entire yard out of Gargraves track, complete with a lot of switches…I’ll try to post some pictures soon and I would like some opinions on what you all think of the look of it. The yard is semi-indoors, which is to say it’s under the large back porch.
John Passaro said:
I’m building an entire yard out of Gargraves track, complete with a lot of switches…I’ll try to post some pictures soon and I would like some opinions on what you all think of the look of it. The yard is semi-indoors, which is to say it’s under the large back porch.
John,
I can see one immediate reason for choosing Gargraves for an"entire yard" with all the turnouts it would be cost effective. How do you plan to marry the Gargraves track to the traditional rail I assume your connecting it to? It does not share (from what I have learned here) a similar profile? I am genuinely curious how this turns out for you. I have not entirely written off the usefulness of this track for some uses. I see its potential merits, especially indoors. I wont likely use it only because for my micro the track is as much a part of the overall look as any other part and I want it to be prototypical. But on a large indoor layout I am thinking cost saving could be a big consideration.
One way, that I used, to join Gargraves track to “Traditional” brass rail, was to use transition rails, made by grinding the corner from the corner of the railhead, at the end of a piece of brass rail, then soldering a piece of the appropriate size of brass rod to the brass rail. You then file the solder joint, in such a way that the brass rod is inserted into the Gargraves rail, such that it cleanly meets the railhead of the brass rail.
The Gargraves track, then has to be shimmed up, under its ties, to correspond to the height of the traditional track you are using. If I’m not mistaken, the shim I used was about 1/4, or three eighths inch in thickness. I used clear Western Red Cedar for the shimstock, at the time, to try to prevent rotting. Sadly, the shim stock lasted a short while, and the Gargrave’s Basswood ties lasted even a shorter time, in spite of any wood preservative I tried.
Even with the plastic ties, that Gargraves is using, their track is much lower in height than traditional LS track, made by Aristo, LGB, Kalamazoo, B’mann, Railcraft/ME, Piko, and others.
One application, I was involved with, was a continuous loop in a restaurant. At the time, it was speculated that the Gargraves Stainless Steel rail, and its round railhead, matching the flat tread of the metal wheels on rolling stock, would result in less rail cleaning, being needed for good electrical conduction.
Oh it worked well, but the hardness of the SS rail soon took its toll on the softer metal wheels of the locomotives. The metal wheels soon developed grooves, like you wouldn’t believe…funny, but; the plastic wheels of the lighter rolling stock, lasted a bit longer… The electrical conduction was rather good, though…!!..just another one of the multitude of experiences, an average Large Scaler, can have had over 35 years of trying to find ways of avoiding frustration, and maintenence…
Fred Mills