Track Brands... Discussion Please

Hi JC, sorry but that's not necessarily true. Indeed as said earlier Marklin gave birth to a 35-year+ tradition and it's especially true here in Europe, someone wanting to start with Z scale is 95% likely to start with a Marklin starter set or even separate items from this manufacturer (furthermore few LHS sell any MTL stuff compared with Marklin).

But if you consider closely Marklin track, you come to the conclusion that tie spacing is too broad, even for average european track. A few days ago I was in Paris' underground and looking closely at tie spacing I came to the conclusion that ties are about 50 - 60 centimeters apart. If you closely watch Marklin's track tie spacing is close to a 90 - 100 scale centimeter apart. In my opinion, the only prototype track here in Europe that could match Marklin's brand should be old spurs, rusted and close to be totally unused anymore.... That's why more and more euro prototype modellers finally choose MTL's track. Rob Allbritton and his superb Gotthard Pass is a good example of that.

Dom

 

I am confused.

I have read and reread the post that started this thread ( below ), and do not see anything about having any "intent on taking it apart and setting it back up again" - only that unless Marklin track is soldered it seams to come apart easier.

I'd like to hear people's perspectives on the relative merits of Marklin's Z scale track VS. MicroTrains Z scale track with the integrated roadbed. Am I correct in the impression that Marklin has more turn radii and a greater selection of turnouts? My little experience with Marklin track is that, unless soldered it comes apart too easliy... ie. while cleaning. How does MicroTrains track hold together?


​

Could someone clarify as to where " intent to take apart and putting it back together " came from?

 

Greg, By the very nature of MTL Micro Track it is easy to take apart and put back together. Marklin track pieces will eventually show wear and tear. I think the comment was made because many purchased Micro Track and use it as a 'test' oval for warming up locos before putting them on their layouts. The Micro Track oval can be used for testing locos, or simply as an excuse to 'run' trains. Best part is that after use the oval can be taken apart an put away until the next time. In fact you can put it away without taking it apart if you have the storage space. Go back to the original question and then my answer. I think it answered the question originally asked. Cheers, Jim CCRR/Socalz44

 

No doubt that some have just used the Märklin starter as a test track, and for purposes of repeated set up and then put away situation the MTL would stand out as the better choice, but I have to then ask, " How many people are going to set up and then tear down? "

I bought the Märklin starter, not as something to set up and then tear down, but to incorporate into the larger layout, not to be taken apart time and again.

If one is building at least a semi permanent layout ( what layout doesn't change over time ), then why do we need the ability to set up and tear down repeatedly?

To me, in many ways, the ability to set up and tear down many times is the mark of a cheep kids toy - not something that is going to go into a semi permanent layout, where the lousy looking has to then be hidden, and if it's going to be hidden, what is the use of preinstalled ballast - they may as well just leave it as plain plastic and save the cost and effort of molding in the "Ballast" look.

The original poster said nothing about needing the ability to repeatedly set up and tear down, and in this light, I wonder why many people that have responded seam to think that it is even a factor.

It wasn't until Socalz44, talked about someone pulling out the Märklin starter circle and placing it on the kitchen table for a few hours ( as a comparison to serious model railroaders who build a dedicated semipermanent layout ), that the issue of being able to set up and tear down repeatedly came up.

A Märklin starter set is just that - a starter set to be added on to and expanded upon over an expanded period of time, rather than put away after a few hours, and for that there is no need to have the ability to be torn down repeatedly.

So in light of being about to be set up and torn down repeatedly what benefit does MTL have over Märklin - price? Possibly, but look at the shipping distances involved - add in the effort expended upon to get the so called ballast on the MTL to look nice, and I am left wondering where the best efficient use of time and money is.

Is there a place for the track with preinstalled roadbed/ballast that isn't going to come apart?

Sure - in places where performance is going to come before looks ( like in a tunnel ) or where the track is being put away after a few hours of use.

I submit that someone that is serious about making a long term layout, that is going to have max eye and performance is going to opt for Märklin - if price is not an issue ( or other non preballasted track if it is ), because they are most likely to solder the track for best performance anyway - so taking it apart after a few hours of use is not an issue. The contacts on the MTL track will oxidize/corrode and reduce electrical conductivity over time ( unless they are gold plated ).

 

< shrug > I don't know.

If the layout is temporary, why try to clean it while it is assembled, when it is easier to clean it, while it is apart?

I don't know about anyone else but even my temporary layouts are held in place on the base, by thumb tacks between the rails - I can flip the base ( usually 1/4 in ply in the case of temporary layouts ) up on edge and the track is just going to sit there - so at least in my case it's still not going to come apart, until I'm ready for it to do so.

 

Greg, Not sure where you want to go with this. Like many threads, after the question is answered there is a tendency to go 'off topic'. It happens all the time and it happened here. Lownen got his answer and some extras. You didn't seem to get yours. No one really cares whether you lay your own rails on ties, uses MTL flex or MTL Micro Track, or Marklin. No one cares. It is a hobby. For whatever reasons we use certain equipment, doesn't mean that yours or anyone's is incorrect. You seem a bit defensive about the Marklin starter set. I'm betting that the majority of the posters here started out with the Marklin Walnut. I know I did. Many of us have moved on and away from Marklin because of the simple fact that the tie spacing is ridiculous. It is not Euro. It is not North American. It is plan wrong looking. It models no prototype and was probably made that way in the 70's to keep down the costs for an unknown new model railroad scale. We all appreciate Marklin taking the plunge back then and hope they will be around for another 150 years. Remember, enjoy your endeavors and use anything you want to do so. Cheers, Jim CCRR/Socalz44

 

I am confused as to how being able to repeatedly assembel and disassembel came to be an important factor.

I was reading through the thread and all of a sudden a different set of factors was being talked about, and I'm trying to understand why this factor suddenly became important, in choosing which brand of track as it related to the inital question.

I'm not saying it does matter or that one way is incorrect - only why I fail to understand the why this other factor suddenly became important.

Your mistaken about my intent.

I'm trying to understand why all of a sudden the Marklin starter has become something of negitive thing - at least that is the impression that I am being left with, after having watched this thread evolve.

I guess the way I see it, is that for good or for ill - I have not seen any other company come out with a Z scale starter set - at least not while I was shopping for a Z starter set.

How proto-typical does track have to be? If tie spacing is so important what about track hight?

If it is one thing that I have learned, about hobby of model railroading, is that if you look long enough and hard enough, sooner or later you can find a prototype of just about anything ( even flex track and wide tie spacing - the RR track used in the building of the Panama cannal used both so it could be moved from side to side without disassembeling ) - so why stress about tie spacing? For that matter, at what point do you say " that's close enough to prototypical "?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Marklin is ( or should be ) the last name or a Hooly Grail of model railroading or even Z scale - only wondering why something like being able to repeatedly assemble and disassemble a section of track suddenly bacame so important - that is the feeling that I am getting from the thread.

 

Greg, Reading through again, I can't seem to figure out much either. I'm guessing the other posters and myself, think that easy disassembly is an attribute. Nothing more. In my 10 years in Z scale I have never read or heard anyone speak negatively about the Walnut. Most of use still have ours and we run them for the most part on non Marklin track. Your statement about 'finding prototypes if you search for them long enough' is a tired worn out near cliche`. Of course it is true, however, if a company puts out tie spacing like Marklin did I would assume they think that was the way to go for all those interested even if they (the consumer) thought it looked dorky. As the hobby grew and competitors came out with "a better mouse trap" then many left Marklin track in the box and used other more prototypical brands. Like I said before, " Enjoy, and don't worry about what others do." Cheers, Jim CCRR

 

Fair enough.

Agreeable, that is why I use the Märklin track from the starter where the visual aspect of it does not matter - that way I don't have to use decent looking stuff for things like staging and tunnels.