What scale is Lionel's FasTrack?

[Bruette]

I wanted to calculate how many scale miles of track I used for my Christmas layout. Then I thought "what scale is Lionel's FasTrack?"

When I first got deep into the hobby in late 2012 O was usually referred to as O gauge unlike HO, N and others that are referred to as HO scale, N scale etc.. The reason is Lionel being the leader in O referred to O as O gauge and often still does. Lionel does that because most of what they make is traditional scale or O27, not true 1:48 scale.

In recent years they have focused more on what they use to call Standard O which was often close to true scale and sometimes was true scale. As far as that goes sometimes traditional O was close to scale. The Lionel GP9 of the 70s was one, although not very prototypical, it's size is very close to 1:48 scale. Now the are making high-end Legacy and top of the class, Vision Line equipment both of which are what Lionel calls Scale O, true 1:48 scale.

Traditional scale is still Lionel's best selling equipment. As it is with all O gauge manufacturers. Williams by Bachmann calls it semi-scale. MTH makes Rail King which is traditional scale even though I have never seen them say it is actually smaller then true scale. Put an MTH Rail King boxcar for example next to a Lionel traditional scale boxcar and or a Williams by Bachmann semi-scale boxcar and you will see they are all about the same size.

I'm coming to my point, thanks for sticking with me.

Lionel's FasTrack pre-dates Lionel's Scale O, even though they have been making standard O since the 1970s. That brings me to my question, what scale is FasTrack? It comes with Ready to Run (RTR) traditional scale sets and it's the only track Lionel now makes. Don't worry traditionalists, you can still buy new, "old school" all metal 3-rail track from several different makers.

So there is my question; What scale is FasTrack? Traditional scale, true 1:48 scale or something else?

 

[Iron Horseman]

So there is my question; What scale is FasTrack? Traditional scale, true 1:48 scale or something else?

First you don't need that to calculate the scale miles of your Christmas layout. The length of the track is O-scale regardless. Take 5280 feet divided by 48 is 110 feet for a scale mile. So if your loop is 11 real feet that would be one tenth (0.1) a smile.

All Lionel's and the other vendor's talk about standard, scale, semi-scale, true scale, etc. has meaning only to them and what their marketing departments have defined those things to be. Regardless of the size of the bodies of all those cars and locomotives they are proportioned to 1:48 even if they have selective compression, they will run on O-gauge track. Even normal two rail locomotives called O-scale really run on O-Gauge track. Everything in a brass O-scale locomotive might be exactly 1:48 EXCEPT the wheel width. O-Gauge track is 5' between the rails not 4' 8 1/2". Hence why it is commonly called O-Gauge. Why? ??? I assume, back in the day, they found it easier to design and make track that was one and a quarter inch wide, instead calculating the correct width. Just called it good enough. ???

The only real true O-scale is what NMRA calls PROTO-48. That means everything is scaled 1:48 to real life. Proto-48 runs on track that is a scale 4' 8.5" between the rails.

So I guess the real answer to the FasTrack question is that it isn't a scale it is O-gauge.

 

[Bruette]

Thank you Iron Horsemen! I was hoping you would save me from scratching my head.

You not only answered my question you enlightened me further, very cool!

Now I have a follow up question.

My infinite "creativity" came up with this for my Christmas layout in my train room/playpen.
O96 oblong oval, 37.6 feet of track.
O84 oblong oval, 34.5 feet of track.
O72 oblong oval, 31.35 feet of track
O60 oblong oval, 28.2 feet of track
O48 oblong oval 25 feet of track
O36 extended figure 8 with 2 sidings. 27.7 feet of track.
For a total of about 184.4 feet of track for 6 trains and cars on the sidings.
I think I calculated that correctly. I'll try to post my track plan from AnyRail 6.0

My follow up question is this. I did not measure the curves. For each oblong oval I used exactly the number of curved pieces it would take to create a circle. I calculated the circumference and added the length of straight pieces. Would that work?

As always, thank you for answering my questions. You are the best!

 

[Iron Horseman]

My follow up question is this. I did not measure the curves. For each oblong oval I used exactly the number of curved pieces it would take to create a circle. I calculated the circumference and added the length of straight pieces. Would that work?

Yes, exactly. 1 circle circumference + length of straight tracks = length of the oval. Except the figure 8 of course because it has more than a circle of track.

 

[tootnkumin]

I assume, back in the day, they found it easier to design and make track that was one and a quarter inch wide, instead calculating the correct width. Just called it good enough. ???

That sums it up, it started with the toy train makers as a convenient manufacturing measurement for the equipment used to make it, generally tinplate.

 

[Sirfoldalot]

Correct me if I am wrong, but somewhere in the depths of my mind I seem to remember that the first toy trains were 2.5 inch gauge? I could be all "wet" about this.
Then Lionel chose 1.25 inch as it was 1/2 the previous size.
Right, or wrong? I cannot remember?

 

[tootnkumin]

Correct me if I am wrong, but somewhere in the depths of my mind I seem to remember that the first toy trains were 2.5 inch gauge? I could be all "wet" about this.
Then Lionel chose 1.25 inch as it was 1/2 the previous size.
Right, or wrong? I cannot remember?

I do know that the British Hornby OO 5/8" trade name "Dublo" was because it was 1/2 of O scales 1-1/4". (cause I read that in a Meccano book when I was a kid), but then gravitated to the HO 16.5mm

 

[Sirfoldalot]

Well -- I shot myself down! Lionel started with "Standard Gauge" which was 2-7/8 inches.
So how they gravitated down to the 1.25" gauge, I have no idea, but I would think that it had to do with 1/4 inch scale and they settled on a scale 5 foot track rather than 4' 8.5".

 

[tootnkumin]

Well -- I shot myself down! Lionel started with "Standard Gauge" which was 2-7/8 inches.
So how they gravitated down to the 1.25" gauge, I have no idea, but I would think that it had to do with 1/4 inch scale and they settled on a scale 5 foot track rather than 4' 8.5".

I think a lot of those early commercial models, were rule of thumb.

 

[Bruette]

Yes, exactly. 1 circle circumference + length of straight tracks = length of the oval. Except the figure 8 of course because it has more than a circle of track.

I corrected the earlier post because I miscalculated the O36 track and I forgot to add the 4 extra curves in the figure 8.

To add the 4 extra curves I took the circumference, divided it by 8 for the 8 segments of track and multiplied it by 4.

113.1/8x4=56.55 And now I realize I could have just divided the circumference by 2.

It's been way too long since I had any practice with math. I should have let my grandson do this. Math is his favorite class.

 

[Bruette]

I do know that the British Hornby OO 5/8" trade name "Dublo" was because it was 1/2 of O scales 1-1/4". (cause I read that in a Meccano book when I was a kid), but then gravitated to the HO 16.5mm

Well -- I shot myself down! Lionel started with "Standard Gauge" which was 2-7/8 inches.
So how they gravitated down to the 1.25" gauge, I have no idea, but I would think that it had to do with 1/4 inch scale and they settled on a scale 5 foot track rather than 4' 8.5".

If I am not mistaken British and or European O is 1:43 scale.

How that relates to your comments? I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there.

 

[Bruette]

So I guess the real answer to the FasTrack question is that it isn't a scale it is O-gauge.

And that gentlemen was the answer I was looking for! Once you put it like that, it seems common sense had escaped me.

Sometimes my questions might seem silly, but they are important to me.

Iron Horsemen I can't thank you enough for always sharing your vast knowledge and experience with me. Your help always enables me to enjoy my hobby even more, thank you.

 

[Bruette]

Well -- I shot myself down! Lionel started with "Standard Gauge" which was 2-7/8 inches.
So how they gravitated down to the 1.25" gauge, I have no idea, but I would think that it had to do with 1/4 inch scale and they settled on a scale 5 foot track rather than 4' 8.5".

I think a lot of those early commercial models, were rule of thumb.

Lionel's original train was not meant to be a model train. He built his first train to sell to retailers. They were used to display merchandise in store windows. He started making model trains after many customers were asking to buy the display train.

 

[Iron Horseman]

Well -- I shot myself down! Lionel started with "Standard Gauge" which was 2-7/8 inches.
So how they gravitated down to the 1.25" gauge, I have no idea, but I would think that it had to do with 1/4 inch scale and they settled on a scale 5 foot track rather than 4' 8.5".

You were close. Only a fraction of an inch. Both Lionel and Ives ran on "standard gauge". It was also used by several clockwork wind up type toy trains.

It's been way too long since I had any practice with math. I should have let my grandson do this. Math is his favorite class.

I often use model railroad situations to teach math. You could encourage him on with it. Trigonometry is your friend, and in my opinion the most useful math of all.

I hate that commercial on TV where the teacher is late for dinner so she runs out of the room and says "you will never use this stuff anyway". While it is organic chemistry shown on the chalk board of her classroom, the promoted ignorance appalls me. Of course, it would be a better world if more people understood organic chemistry too....

 

[Bruette]

I often use model railroad situations to teach math. You could encourage him on with it. Trigonometry is your friend, and in my opinion the most useful math of all.

I hate that commercial on TV where the teacher is late for dinner so she runs out of the room and says "you will never use this stuff anyway". While it is organic chemistry shown on the chalk board of her classroom, the promoted ignorance appalls me. Of course, it would be a better world if more people understood organic chemistry too....

I try to encourage my boys. I have two grandsons, 9 and 10. One loves math, the youngest loves language and competes in spelling bees. I encourage them both to work hard in not just what they love now, but in all things. I tell them, "You never know what will interest you next. You can never know what knowledge you will need. No one can learn everything, but we can try." I don't expect them to be perfect, but I do expect that they try to be perfect

I buy my boys all kinds of books. Some about what they find interesting and others to introduce them to new things. If it fits their reading level or a little above, I'll give it a try. Santa has several books to wrap for this Christmas. A few history books this Christmas. If they are going to play "call of duty" and "assassins creed" you should understand the context of the era.

Even that goofy game 'fortnite" has value. They were complaining "I can't win in solo battles, I have to play in teams" I watched them play and told them "You are using the wrong weapons. You have to understand the range, rate of fire and use the terrain. You can't use the same weapon in all situations because it's cool" My youngest just won his first solo battle. Not bad to beat 99 other people.

They like to sit with me and make up scary stories. They take turns telling their stories. I try to introduce them to math as I first learned it. I coach little league and both of my boys play, but they don't have the same passion for sports that I did. The man who raised me taught me basic math using baseball cards and the statistics in the newspaper. He taught me to read with the newspaper. I learned about the railroads in the paper. I thought Penn Central would be like a super hero from reading the paper. We read Baltimore's "News American". My sister was 5 years older than me, we would play school. She would be the teacher and I would be the student. She taught me what she learned in school.

I show my boys articles I find in the paper I think they will read. Yesterday their was an article in the New York Times about a young man who plays Fortnite for a living, making millions with his youtube videos. He an intelligent young man. He knows more than just video games.

Many people today think school and the teachers are solely responsible for their children's education. My oldest daughter is a teacher, a reading specialist. She is overwhelmed by the number of students that can't read at their grade level. Some parents are using video games as a babysitter. Life has to have balance. Too much of anything is no good.

Learning begins at home. Learning should be fun. I never thought to teach math with my railroad, I'll have both of my boys try to calculate the scale miles of my Christmas railroad. Yesterday I added a few more sections of track. I'll ask them to check my math.

For me the commercial you refer to is just another example of times we live in. I call it "the age of stupidity"

PS I just looked up organic chemistry. That is useful, I've encountered it myself and didn't even know it!

 

[Iron Horseman]

Many people today think school and the teachers are solely responsible for their children's education. My oldest daughter is a teacher, a reading specialist. She is overwhelmed by the number of students that can't read at their grade level.

In late high school my children realized they had been raised differently than most of their class mates. They knew things no one else knew. They knew how to reason things out. They realized the point of some of the "games" we used to play. Like road trips where I would ask, "so we are going 55 miles an hour and the sign says Atlanta is 165 miles away, how long before we get there.". They lived a constant story problem.

 

[Sirfoldalot]

Louis - Now you have me looking! I had no idea of "Organic Chemistry" and what it entails.
I just love the terms they come up with on the Star Trek series of TV programs such as Carbon based life forms - and Bags of Water!

 

[Iron Horseman]

Louis - Now you have me looking! I had no idea of "Organic Chemistry" and what it entails.
I just love the terms they come up with on the Star Trek series of TV programs such as Carbon based life forms - and Bags of Water!

Ugly bags of mostly water (The next generation - episode 17)... Actually, I like the phrase from 5th Element better - I am a meat popsicle.

Over 30 years ago I had an argument with one of my car-pool mates. They insisted that the "Pennzoil" and "Quaker State" brands were far superior to the "Sinclair", "Texaco", and "Conoco" brands because they were made from eastern oil rather than western oil. As our discussion/argument progressed I said something to the effect that, "a 12 chain carbon molecule is as 12 chain carbon molecule and it doesn't matter where it came from: eastern oil, western oil, oil shale, coal, elephant dung, or a dead whale!" They got this funny look on their face. I said impatiently, "You know, ... Chemistry 102 !?!", and even as I said and regretted the words I had the realization they had not even be exposed to simple chemistry, let alone organic chemistry. sigh. They were arguing in pure ignorance.

 

[Sirfoldalot]

sigh. They were arguing in pure ignorance.

As are most people when it comes to politics!