Fast Tracks Turnouts - The rant

[asciibaron]

while the turnout looks nice.... here's the issue i have with the fixtures:

1 - you are basically building a sectional bit of trackwork
2 - they make building complex turnouts next to impossible
3 - it reduces building turnouts to an assembly line style of production

seems more outcome based modeling.  i guess if you don't have time for your hobby, its a way to "git r dun"

i have built several complex turnouts in HO and part of the fun was figuring out the angles and then building it in place.  to each their own i guess.

-steve

[Ian MacMillan]

while the turnout looks nice.... here's the issue i have with the fixtures:

1 - you are basically building a sectional bit of trackwork
2 - they make building complex turnouts next to impossible
3 - it reduces building turnouts to an assembly line style of production

seems more outcome based modeling.  i guess if you don't have time for your hobby, its a way to "git r dun"

i have built several complex turnouts in HO and part of the fun was figuring out the angles and then building it in place.  to each their own i guess.

-steve

Steve,

I don't think the turnouts are even close to outcome based, because they are specifically for the "common" turnout ranges so that they can be super quickly produced.

Myself, as well as Tim (the owner of FastTracks) still build complex turnouts and crossings by hand.

I'd always feared handlaying and screwed up some first attempts majorly and the FastTracks jigs helped to get me rolling the right direction. I still use the jigs quite a bit when I want #6, #8, and #10 switches as I can bang them out in about 10 min.  I do use longer sections of rail though so they flow better into track work and create nice transitions. The average leg of each switch is about 2.5 feet instead of stopping on the Quicksticks.

[asciibaron]

i'm not quite sure i understand mass producing common turnouts by hand.  hand laid track allows flexible, non cookie cutter track work like that found in many industrial and warehouse areas prior to the pad site construction formula that started in the mid 1970's.  simply cranking out common turnouts seems outcome based to me.

Tim is not using stock jigs to build the complex Bronx Terminal for a reason...

-steve

[wcfn100]

This whole arguement against the fast tracks jig is so transparent.  It's all about the $$$$.


Jason

[Dave V]

Ah, outcome-based...

I've argued both for and againts various products which could be considered outcome-based.  I've been guilty of acusing MR and many of the products it pushes as being outcome-based, perhaps without thinking about what that term means.

Can someone tell me what outcome-based means?  To me it means that the goal is in the "having" and not the "doing."  In other words, owning a locomotive is far more important than whatever transient joy one might receive by kitbashing one.

This made me think.  If I've got "outcome-based" correct, then I've been somewhat hypocritical.  The outcome to which I strive is the vision of my layout.  The projects I take on are all directly related to that outcome; whether it's a craftmsan car kit or steam kitbash or an RTR Atlas Trainman boxcar, it's all about contributing to the layout as a whole for me.  Granted, I've come to love the steam kitbashing aspect, but I do it primarily to fill a need on my layout.

Is that outcome-based, or do I have it wrong?

And if I'm right, how does Fast-Tracks become any more or less outcome-based than commercial turnouts?  Is it a matter of how much or little enjoyment one gets from making them?  Moreover, does anyone hand-lay track just for the sake of laying track, or is there an outcome (an operating layout) desired?

Someone needs to set me straight on what outcome-based really means.  Is it just "gimme now" or is it something more?

Sorry to be so philosophical about it...!

[DKS]

Sorry to be so philosophical about it...!

I do think this thread is getting a bit deep, and unnecessarily at that. But now that it's taken this new course, I must agree with Dave that "outcome-based" needs clarification; it seems to be wielded like some elitist challenge.

In this case, why does using a jig to hand-lay a turnout brand the process as "outcome-based"? Perhaps a modeler wants handlaid track--for improved appearance, the satisfaction of doing it, or whatever--but does not have the time, skill or inclination to "figure out all the angles." Does this then automatically disband them from the league of "true modelers"? Does one need to reproduce the Bronx Terminal in order to gain any respect among one's peers?

It all seems a bit like a tempest in a teapot. I regard handlaid track, however it may be done, to be admirable.

[Ryan87]

I always thought "outcome based" meant basing or changing you modeling philosophy to reflect the reality of your modeling.
for example If your track work sucks, just say you're modeling a line with poor maintenance, Paint job sucks, prototype was like that.
Weathering looks like something pulled out of the Pacific Ocean, keep a picture of a Penn Central gon from 2007 to justify it.

Basically I thought "Outcome Based" was "I meant to do it that way" 

Mind you since Tom coined the phrase (as far as I know) he'd give the best answer.

[Dave V]

Hmmm...  That makes sense too.

That's sorta like the tired old mantra "there's a prototype for everything" that's trotted out for every mainline taking the diverging route of a turnout, every tunnel portal through a building foundation, etc.

Then that gets to another way, way off topic pet peeve of mine, and that's modeling that requires a 5-minute backstory to explain why it just doesn't look right on its own.

But, to keep the topic on track, I'd love more explanation of why a product such as FastTracks might be outcome-based.

I think it looks like a neat product.  For my current layout which has a grand total of 11 turnouts (6 #8s and 5 #6s), it may not be economical.  But for the "big one" someday, if I'm pushing 50+ turnouts, this could actually be a big plus both financially and operationally.

[Hyperion]

Having "issue" with a jig like this, is like taking issue with someone who uses a dremel tool or a benchtop belt sander instead of a hand file.  Am I less of a modeler because I bend metal parts using an Etch-Mate rather than a couple pair of pliers?

Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's not modeling.

The outcome is exactly the same.  Freehand yields more possibilities, but if you both setout to create a #8 turnout, they should be identical when you're done.  So who cares if you get the end result using a jig rather than doing it all freehand?

[UP_Phill]

Didn't think that the thread would boil down to whether using assembly jigs is modeling or not. All I know is that the turnouts I produce using this system will be accurate and reliable every time and I have a lot of fun doing it.  ;D

[Ian MacMillan]

i'm not quite sure i understand mass producing common turnouts by hand.  hand laid track allows flexible, non cookie cutter track work like that found in many industrial and warehouse areas prior to the pad site construction formula that started in the mid 1970's.  simply cranking out common turnouts seems outcome based to me.

Tim is not using stock jigs to build the complex Bronx Terminal for a reason...

-steve

Which was the exact point of my post.... Complex arrangements are still done by hand figuring it all out. Also hand laid track is not only for flexibility, it can also be for looks, which was the main reason I went to hand laid, with flexibility being second. FastTracks has crossings but that still does not solve an "oddball" crossing that I have in the town of Mountainview on my layout, based on the actual track arrangements in Center Ossipee, NH.

FastTracks is also not marketed for non cookie cutter track work like that found in many industrial and warehouse areas prior to the pad site construction formula that started in the mid 1970's. Its marketed for trackwork that is cookie cutter, and can be found quite frequently on railroads (in retrospective scale)

I still don't think that you can consider any point of hand laying ,jigs or no jigs, outcome based because you'd really have to suck to settle for "eh" it looks like track but nothing runs on it! ;D ;D I personally think handlaying all non switch or crossing track, and then using purchased injection molded turnouts would be outcome based.

[Sokramiketes]

Yeah, well I draw my turnouts up in CAD and then machine my own FastTrack style jigs.  Is using them still outcome based?  Outcomebased seeems to imply taking the easiest way out.  And that would be pre-packaged turnouts from Peco or Atlas, right?  So how is any form of handlaying Outcome-based then?

Ascii, you do realized that the railroads used standard size turnouts most of the time, right?  And that many are built in factories and carried out to the site?  I don't know why you think prototype track flows any better than model track, besides the fact that the prototype has to be more worried about transitions and kinks than your average Joe Blow model railroader.

[lashedup]

So if I didn't build my home completely with my own hands, is it outcome based?

Sheesh, some of you guys need to lighten up a bit and get some perspective outside of your own.

[Zox]

I've never hand-laid track.

I've scratchbuilt articulated camera cars, designed lightweight yet rigid leg systems for modules, helped found the local model railroad club (and have been its president for about a decade), and wrote the N-scale module standards used by said club (which incidentally don't permit handlaid track on the mainline).

But I've never hand-laid track, so I guess I'm an outcome-based model railroader.

Some aspects of model railroading are interesting to me, and some aren't. Some are beyond my (current) skill level, and some aren't worth the effort to me.

Right now, hand-laying track is in the "not worth it" category for me. If I ever want to do something that really cries out for custom trackage, that might motivate me to try it. But for now, Peco meets my turnout needs--and I'd be hard-pressed to design and fabricate a point-holding mechanism that's as unobtrusive and as reliable as the one built into the Peco turnouts.

As for "pure" handlaying instead of using templates (or even prefabricated turnouts) for common geometries, once you know you can do it the hard way, is there any point in doing it over and over again? There's an old principle in computer science--if you have to do it once, do it; if you have to do it twice, write a program to do it.

John Armstrong had a sign hanging over the stairs at the entrance to his layout. "Model Railroading Rule #1: If at first you DO succeed, DON'T try it again!"