Imho there are quite a few missing C-tracks.

First the very short approx 33-mm straight. This is needed when constructing very tight layouts with complicated turnout-placement and mixing various radi on the curves as well as using the short X-crossing 24649.

Its possible to DIY this pice with a saw, glue and some reinforcement but it should really be aruond.

The long slim curved turnouts and double slips, 24771-24772 and 24724.

I don't understand why Märklin simply can't let the "OLD STUFF COMPABILITY" overboard here. Scrap the old modells or learn that they are old and simply need old trackwork to function (or maybe the standard C-gleis).

The long curved turnouts could be constructed with micro-switches that turn on or off current in the critical spots.
The crossing rails could serve as current-conductor for the pick-up-shoe in the middle after the tounge. This is what all 2-rail-modell-railroaders have to live with in the "electro-frog" turnout-world. It also means that you cant drive into the opposite direction without setting the turnout accordingly. I guess the same concept could go for the slim double slip, you have to set the track-route between in and out and it is then only possible to travel along 2 directions, very much like it is in the real world of double slips.

Short bits of the R3-R4-R5, possibly just the 7.5°(degrees) will be enough since they are so long anyway but 6° will work fine as well since you only break geometry with 1 degree.

The ultrabig radi-curve, something like 2 or 3-4-metre-radius-curve, in bits of 5° or 6°(degrees) or maybe 3° for the really big radi, this in combination with 24224 or 24206/24207 and the 33-mm-track allows for almost any big radius to be constructed, and merely "breaking geometry" just a little. This long curve is simply used when building a curve for looks or when getting a station to curve slightly and not for use in building a full 90-degree.

The "hosen-träger" bit for the slim turnouts, a full long 24° crossing with straigth trackwork on the sides to fit between 4 slim turnouts. This bit has already been DIY by several but it still odd its not around.

Amen.
It I would suggest 5 or 10 degrees of R3,R4 and R5 as my first choice.
/Lars

I agree with all of the above, of course.

I would add :

- Wye turnouts.
- More R9 rails.
- New R8 series of rail.

By the way, welcome to this forum, Leo !

Pierre.

Welcome Leo, I agree with all above!

My $0.02 (adjusted for USD-Euro conversion: probably closer to $0.005):

I wish they would certainly expand the C-track program. I know that a bunch of people prefer K-track, but people such as I really think the C-track offering is awesome. I say expand it to meet a broader range of hobbyists' needs.

2 comments/questions:

1) How the hell would you make flexible C-track? I see it mentioned all the time here, but for the life of me I can figure out how to accomplish it. Enlighten me.

2) I would gladly endorse an revival / expansion of the hobby line. Not to hijack this thread on C-track with a discussion of locos and rolling stock, but I would enjoy having more lower cost alternatives to fully mfx/fx-compliant locs. A bunch of people here also think the deltas were substandard- I like 'em. They give me digital operation and are relatively cheap. I don't need a lot of sounds / bells / whistles. That's just me.

Hi all,



Well my .00000000000000005 sense,er cents,...
C-track is a marvel,no question,(this coming from a former K-track user) and it must be a success for Mother M,however for the life of me I can not understand the -gaps- in the program that everyone has pointed out!These -gaps- IMHO are not only holding customers back,they are holding Marklin back,...eeeshhh! I am sure that you folks would not only send your Euro's M's way,but the are other who are nodding their heads also,....
Wye's,...rare in Germany and maybe all of Europe(?) good for a point to point branchline,if they did not have an 'Armstrong' TT,..

Flex-track,C-style. I have been hinking about that.
Problems: 1) making a foam/synthetic road bed to match the current one(you know folks if you start weathering stuff,it will all look good!LOL!)
2)The rails(all 3) will have to flex one way or another.
3)Tools,you'll need 'em to fit a flex section into a layout,and this goes against the plug-n-play reason behind *almost* what C(or old M) track is all about.
Thank Crom you can either do this with K,or build your own K-track.

Dr Dirt(thinking 2-rail)[:0]

Regarding the C-FLEX-track, it does not really have to flex below say 500 or 600 mm radius since smaller radies may be achieved with the regular program of fixed tracks.

I'm quite convinced there are rubber-type or plastic-foam materials that will do perfect as a roadbed for a C-FLEX-track. Colour wont be a problem, infact rubber will likely be less shiny than the plastic, hence more realistic.

One could considder having short (10mm) straigt joints at the end of the FLEX-track that are made of the plastic to get a perfect fit. Those short straight joints wont be noticed in a long curve of +500 mm radius, at least not for beeing straight, trust me on this. I strongly agree with Armondos point about using flex-track isn't intended so much for the beginner, but rather the more serious railroader. However a sort of quite stiff lightversion of a flexitrack, say 720mm fixed length with fixed ends possible to bend to minimum 600 mm radius will also provide great joy for the less seasoned floor-players. Even more to the serious builder if its possible to remove the end and cut the middle to desired length.


I don't really want to argue about the 360-mm track. I dont see a need for it, unless it will be much cheaper per metre than the 188.3mm-track. For some reason the 236-mm isn't as cheap per mm as the 188 nor the 171!


The wide curved turnouts are also for more seasoned builders as well as the entire slim-line of turnouts. Serious MR will often have rolling stock (coaches, locos) from other manufacturer, and they might not like the 360mm-radius at all so a serious alternative around R4-R5 would be appreciated. R4 is 579 mm and R5 is 643 mm radi and that should be sufficient for almost everyone.


biotechee has a good point about wanting Märklin to expand the HOBBY-line. However electronics is constantly getting cheaper. I'd say there is really just need for one type of decoder, maybe with some added for sounds. Most units could be done integrated and in huge series, hence cutting the price more than if Märklin were to produce a whole range of different decoders. Then the differences might instead be programmed into the decoder instead. Then make sufficient connections if needed out from the cirquitboard to Bells or whistles, horns or headlights or what ever fun you can think of...

Keeping the Hobby-line in fair price helps attract new (young) people to MR.

Hi Leo,

although this decoder stuff is just on the side-line of this thread, I'll give you some response to it: Opposed to the years/time before, Märklin has now managed to reduce its decoder variety to basically three types:
- "simple" pfx decoder
- normal mfx decoder
- mfx sound decoder

In addition, there are now so called "standard" interface pcb's which contain both, all usual wiring connections within the model and the decoder connector, as well as special pcb's for certain dedicated models; may it be due to space/shape or other functional conditions. You can almost choose whatever you think you'll need.

PS: I'm looking with a VERY smiling face at this C-track discussion; especially when seeing all those items assumed to be DESPERATELY needed by EVERYONE using this track system. Frankly speaking - if this would REALLY be the case, nothing would stop Märklin to deliver it immediate!

However, I can see (just) a few of the suggestions be realistic from their overall customer demand scale - and by this business wise suitable and maybe profitable.

I think Leo has the right idea on the C flex. I think a workable solution would be to have short (about 25mm) adapter pieces (C on one end, K-style on the other) and then flexible sections of code 90 flex track similar to the old Roco Line flex with sliding outer ballast slopes. As an alternative, you could use a Fleischmann-style flex and then a separate roadbed. The rail would probably need to be nickel silver so that a hobbyist could cut it, but there's no reason this couldn't work. The flex sections could join with each other without adapters to permit smoother curves. I don't see a simple way to have a one-piece flex section because of the need to cut the rail.
I'd also like to see a mid-sized turnout and perhaps an R3 curved turnout, but a flex track would be a great start.
T.

Wide turnouts are needed for Trix otherwise they can forget about the track system. C track should be completed very soon.

Since I'm running also some old English model train, I know that there are wide turnouts for Trix.
It would be nice if they produce the crossings too.

The short straight (172) is the match to the short end of the normal turnouts. SO there is a purpose.

A.

There was a reason for it:

Hi Lutz, So, what is the current position of Märklin on this subject

Has Märklin made a statement saying the C-tracks (and K-tracks) will get no further development, or what

Please tell us (sorry, if you have pointed it out before, but I can't remember [:I]).

Simple, you can't make a 8 mm piece in C track. To solve this, they created a 180+8 (=188) mm and a 180-8 (=172) mm C track.
I agree with Zora, they should produce the 360 (2*180) mm C track, certainly when you own a digital layout.

I would agree with Zora - but I have an addition:

R1 Turnouts! Anything similar to the venerable 5117's!

AARGH! I have small layout set up which uses R1 exclusively (yeah, Armando, go gripe about it) due to space limitations - its rolls under the kiddo's bed. We got a starter set at Christmas and I'd like to go all C-track for that layout but am finding it very frustrating getting as complex a layout in the same amount of space.

Sorry... just had to vent.

Why not?

All right ... It seems that this stupid debate is alight again ! [:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]

We should be happy that Märklin offers a so wide range of radii both in C-Track and K-Track. We have R1/R2 for those of us with space constraints, we have R4/R5/R9 for those with plenty of space, and we can mix both if we want to manage available space. So why this endless dispute ?

Pierre.

I definitively agree with this.

Pierre.

Is someone overreacting here?

Ron : I am with you on the circuit board. What a terrible way to join coaches.

Getting back to C track a really long straight would suit me and save joining all those small parts when there is room for a long run.

David

With the exception of flex track and a long crossing, what does C-track lack that is in K track? Seems to me that it is more or less the same. In fact K track lacks R3 altogether but it is available in C. There is not much more M needs to develop on C to make it as flexible (pun intended) as K track.