By "stick track" I assume you mean sectional track. If not, let me know.
K-Line 54 uses 6 pieces to a semi-circle. The rubber roadbed is made by Johnson. They advertise in CTT. I have this track and it plugs directly into Flyer track with no modification. Pin size is identical. The only apparent evidence that the track was not made by Gilbert is the K-Line name stamped unobtrusively into one tie. The track that does not have the same pin size is Gargraves. I have a very early piece of Gargraves that is actually gauged too narrow to plug into Flyer. How it was released into the marketplace I have no idea. In 0 gauge, Gargraves is big medicine. It has been powerfully supported by Ross Custom Switches, an outfit that makes Gargraves style switches, crossovers and incredibly complex interlocking devices that are just beautiful. They keep promising to move into S, but cannot spring for the re-tooling and heavy inventory commitments for a gauge that does not embrace Gargraves as it's gold standard. The development of competing track systems actually works against us. If we all standardized on one system, that manufacturer would be able to expand into a variety of radii, switches and other track devices. Other manufacturers would also be able to tool up to make specialized accessories for that standard without having to commit to building a complete system. This strategy is what made the old IBM PC standard the most widespread computer system in use today, where Apple is a better machine with fewer users because it all had to come from one manufacturer. The same is true for our trains. As S-gauge hi-railers (our majority), we have equipment made as "AF compatible", a gauge and coupler standard, by several manufacturers. We successfully mix them (with some adjustments) on our layouts. We have a high degree of backward compatibiliy and can run 50 year old trains with the new. Our track is not on the same page as our trains. It is bizarre and really unacceptable that SHS and AM are manufacturing two competing and essentially incompatible track systems. While SHS track looks good, it requires a substantial investment to switch over to the system. It reminds me a little of Marklin's old HO system. AM track looks like scaler track, plain and simple. It's just regauged HO, really, with hi-rail flange clearance. The Gargraves is more toylike, but it can be blended with original Flyer more easily. The pins are thinner, true, but that can be overcome. There is a height difference that is also easily surmounted. It comes in regular and stainless. Also, there are 36" flex curves as well as fixed sectional curves. Gargraves switches have a weird long frog that works well but will never be mistaken for a scale model of reality. Other people have made switches for this system. I have a switch with an elegant dual throw point system. I have no idea where I got it, but it's a beauty. Then, there is Ross. I had hoped at one time, before SHS and AM track hit the market, that we would win over Ross. I am afraid that that possibility has faded from view as a result of the competing systems. It's a small and finite market that cannot really support 4 track systems. A.C. Value Lines was the fifth, but he's gone belly-up, and his product was Flyer/Gargraves compatible. SHS is taking a leadership position in the new track market. The big question now is, will Don be able to tool up enough varieties of turnout and add complexity in the form of yard ladders, crossovers, Y's, curve switches, and a selection of radii on the ballast base he offers? If he does, he will dominate the market and spur fence sitters to convert, reducing the value of original Flyer track to ten cents a section. The problem of the limited market remains, however, and his investments in tooling need to pay off. It is no accident that SHS track is offered in sizes and radii identical to Flyer. I laughed heartily when I read Neil Besougloff's editorial in the most recent CTT. He spoke about making layouts flexible and modular so that they can be torn out and redone every couple of years. That might be the way it is in his world, but every big layout I visit is built into the room like it was a permanent part of the house. Mountains are made of plaster and sometimes concrete! People are not big on change. I think his concept is a good one. I plan to incorporate some of those ideas in my work. But guys who have been building Flyer are married to those curves. Broader curves mean bigger layout tables and (horrors!) changing the scenery. Varying switch numbers mean nothing to someone who plans to exactly replace his Flyer switches. Most people want what they know. Too many choices moves us away from toy and toward scale. It's a kind of hobby inertia imbued with an irrational reverance for what has gone before. It is why, after all these years and all this development, we can't get scale length passenger cars. We are still trying to stay compatible with tight curves and huge switch machines manufactured 50 years ago. Some of the defenders of the old even get nasty about it, just ask Ron Bashista what happened to the CZ project. This track thing has got to be solved. We must adopt one unified system and then expand it. It must serve the needs of the most hopelessly reactionary Flyer fan as well as open new vistas for the experimental hi-railer. Track, for us as it was for the Union and Central Pacific railroads 140 years ago, is the path to our future and the obstacle in our way. Chris Zizzo S-Trains list sponsor: http://www.americanflyertrains.com All the Flyer you desire...books and accessories too! To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
