Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline Breitenfurt  
#1 Posted : 23 July 2009 01:02:40(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Dear Friends,

I have just purchased a Marklin HO train and now need to buy some track. As far as I can see, there are three kinds, P, C and K (whatever that means) and am wondering which type would be best for a small rural railway. Any advice gratefully received.

With best wishes,
Chris.
Offline pab  
#2 Posted : 23 July 2009 01:22:13(UTC)
pab

Netherlands   
Joined: 03/11/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:Originally posted by Chris Manvell
<br />Dear Friends,

I have just purchased a Marklin HO train and now need to buy some track. As far as I can see, there are three kinds, P, C and K (whatever that means) and am wondering which type would be best for a small rural railway. Any advice gratefully received.

With best wishes,
Chris.


It's M, C and K.
M is old, not produced anymore. For vintage lay-outs. No so good for digital.
K is for permanent lay-outs only, no trackbed
C is the latest development, has a trackbed and nice tracks. Suitable fo temporary lay-outs, but also used for permanent lay-outs.
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but couldn't find the topic so quick.
Hope this helps.
Offline davemr  
#3 Posted : 23 July 2009 01:40:35(UTC)
davemr


Joined: 09/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 983
Location: ,
C will give great running and point motors are placed under the trackbed. If you want to ballast by hand then K would be suitable.
Why not order some C track and try it and if you decide to change to K you can join them together with a special track supplied by Marklin.
davemr
Offline Breitenfurt  
#4 Posted : 23 July 2009 01:45:02(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Thanks Pab.

I managed to find an old catalogue in English. As far as I can see, C looks like being easier to use (and available second hand) and looks rather toy-like, whereas K looks a lot better but would be more expensive and seems to required extra bits if one wand to use powered pointwork etc. Also, K looks a lot flimsier (not a problem really as I want a very simple permanent layout.

eBay seems to be good for C.

Best wishes,
Chris.
Offline drstapes  
#5 Posted : 23 July 2009 02:26:29(UTC)
drstapes

United Kingdom   
Joined: 23/08/2004(UTC)
Posts: 764
Location: Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk
As someone that has only used the old M track I think it has the major advantage that it is easily found on ebay and is cheap even for signals and points. If it goes wrong ,chuck it away and buy another bit.
However if you can afford it the new C track is very reliable and is certainly the future and is readily available,if expensive.
Regards

Geoff (UK)

marklin HO from the 50's and 60's
Offline Breitenfurt  
#6 Posted : 23 July 2009 02:46:16(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Hi Dave and Pab.

Prompted by your comments, I have decided to go for C. The old M track appears to be on a printed tinplate base, which I don't want. I thought the C base was the same but find that it is, in fact, much more realistic. There is also the very old 3-rail track (which is what I thought was P).

My earlier comments about eBay being good for C were incorrect, nearly all the stuff there is M, or looks like it, as Geoff points out. However, I have found a good supplier in the Netherlands.

Once again, thank guys.

Chris.
Offline applor  
#7 Posted : 23 July 2009 10:41:07(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Theres still a lot of C track on ebay. A lot of people split starter sets and u can buy the track new and cheap just without boxes.
I'd recommend K track if you wanted a permanent layout and the best realism you can get. The wide radius turns, hand ballasting and narrow track spacing can't be matched with C track. The C track is a lot better now that it has wide radius turnouts though.
Second hand K track is rare.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline Bigdaddynz  
#8 Posted : 23 July 2009 11:03:06(UTC)
Bigdaddynz

New Zealand   
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18,120
Location: New Zealand
In addition to what the others say I would add that with K track you have the added option of the 900mm pieces of flexi track which you can use to make whatever curves you desire. Of course it is possible to start off with C track, then if you want to build a permanent layout, you can use both C track and the K flex track together.

I myself use M track, but I'm thinking about extending my layout, which will be with C track.
Offline davemr  
#9 Posted : 23 July 2009 14:29:10(UTC)
davemr


Joined: 09/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 983
Location: ,
Chris. I buy my C track from Lokshop in Germany. The price is quite good and they have good stocks. Well packed as well.
C track is also great for connecting wires underneath for various projects as it is hidden and runs the length of your rails.
If you have a dealer in Netherlands who is good please let us know.
You can still use matching ballast between the tracks in station areas to make the appearance better.

dave
davemr
Offline mjrallare  
#10 Posted : 23 July 2009 16:46:16(UTC)
mjrallare


Joined: 14/11/2007(UTC)
Posts: 558
Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:Originally posted by Bigdaddynz
<br />In addition to what the others say I would add that with K track you have the added option of the 900mm pieces of flexi track which you can use to make whatever curves you desire. Of course it is possible to start off with C track, then if you want to build a permanent layout, you can use both C track and the K flex track together.
...

For a small rural layout I would have choosen C-track...

But David is absolutely correct about the flexi-track. For a middle sized layout (and bigger) I think it would be hard to do without the flexi-track. I bought a lot of C-track some month ago and I think it looks and works great. BUT it's impossible to build those great looking sweeping curves without the flexi-track. So I'm going to use my C-track for my hidden stations and in the rest of the underground areas, and use K-track for the visible ones. And I will use flexi-track also for my small station area. IMHO it just looks so much better...

/Torbjörn
Offline Sander van Wijk  
#11 Posted : 23 July 2009 17:07:47(UTC)
Sander van Wijk

Netherlands   
Joined: 20/04/2003(UTC)
Posts: 2,248
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands; Göteborg, Sverige,
Just my two pennies worth; it's true that a flex track would be great, but it is not exactly possible to create a flex-c-track given the connector type used. However, it is certainly possible to create sweeping curves with the right combinations of tracks and possibly through cutting some of them to fit. More importantly, the rail profile of the K-track is prototypically more incorrect compared to the C-track rail profile, as the latter one is somewhat lower and hence approaches reality a bit better. Note that none of the H0 tracks offered by Märklin approaches the correct dimensions of the rail profile too significantly. Still, the C-track one is closes to reality. Therefore, and for the simple fact that certain models (like some of my Roco conversions) handle C-track turnouts way better than the K-track ones, I'm using C-track. It takes some effort to get the tracks properly weathered, but when done, the result looks just great. In any way, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, in other words: none of them is perfect, but to me the C-track does come somewhat closer.
Sander
---
Era I(b): K.Bay.Sts.B. and K.W.St.E.
Offline Ladislas  
#12 Posted : 23 July 2009 18:56:41(UTC)
Ladislas


Joined: 09/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 67
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:Originally posted by davemr
<br />
You can still use matching ballast between the tracks in station areas to make the appearance better.


Yes, and you can also use ballast to conceal the plastic trackbed and blend it into the landscape throughout the layout - and so more closely approach the look of a small rural branch line.
Offline Breitenfurt  
#13 Posted : 23 July 2009 18:58:55(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Thanks for all your messages guys.

As I wrote earlier, I have decided to go with C and, to that end, opened my favourite track planner (AnyRail) and started on my layout plan only to hit two problems straight away. Anyway, I have some wiring to modify and need to give that top priority as I have an exhibition in September, so will play about with C and see where I get later.

Just to show how simple I am going for, I plan a double circuit (CW + CCW) with a station with two crossovers and a single siding with headshunt. The 'fiddle yard' will be just 3 tracks, one of which will be accessible to both loops. Basically a toy railway for my grand-daughters to play with when they come to stay. I'll put i a couple of signals and electric points for the station.

All the best,
Chris.
Offline davemr  
#14 Posted : 23 July 2009 23:18:03(UTC)
davemr


Joined: 09/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 983
Location: ,
Dont forget some lights in the station building and platforms ...looks great at night.

dave
davemr
Offline WelshMatt  
#15 Posted : 24 July 2009 00:29:55(UTC)
WelshMatt


Joined: 06/10/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,345
Location: ,
Keep an eye on ebay UK for C track - every so often there seems to be someone selling off unused parts after giving up on their layout plans. I picked up a small pile of curved points in this way a few months ago.
Matt from Wales.

When you pay Range Rover prices, don't accept Lada quality
Offline Breitenfurt  
#16 Posted : 24 July 2009 02:30:42(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Thanks for the tips guys. Both noted and will be acted on. Having decided to use C, I am having problems with the geometry but feel pretty confident that I can sort them out in time. If not, I will be back here for advice!

With best wishes,
Chris.
Offline hxmiesa  
#17 Posted : 24 July 2009 13:43:13(UTC)
hxmiesa

Spain   
Joined: 15/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 3,311
Location: Spain
I am a little saddened that almost nobody has put in a support for K-track.
While K-track may be more fragile and of less prototipical profile than C, it's still (IMHO of course, as always) the only acceptable looking track from Märklin.
The ballast on C-track needs a lot of work to look good. -You basically have to cover it all up anyway.

-But my main gripe is against the C-track geometry!!! I find the 360mm sectional raster too rigid, and the slim switches too long, compared to K-track;
With K-track, the sectional raster is a little smaller, but that is not the main point; The strong point is the slim sitches; they need a LOT less space than the slim C-switches. K-track allows parallel tracks at 55mm (working with slim switches. For C-track only 64mm) -Real 1:87 would be 52mm)
Working with slim K-switches you dont need to fiddle with the enormously space-consuming 71mm straights.
It has the DKW readily available should you need it, and of course the all-important flex-track!

Main problem for K-track is that it is too fragile. -But if you are building a permanent layout, that should not bother too much. (I have recycled some of my trackage several times -even from ballasted with real stone ballast!)
Best regards
Henrik Hoexbroe ("The Dane In Spain")
http://hoexbroe.tripod.com
Offline pab  
#18 Posted : 24 July 2009 14:33:46(UTC)
pab

Netherlands   
Joined: 03/11/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:Originally posted by hxmiesa
<br />I am a little saddened that almost nobody has put in a support for K-track.



I'm a fan of K track, my lay-out has only K-track.
I find K track a better solution than C track for all the reasons you mentioned.
But in this specific case it's about the best solution for Chris.
C-track seems to be the better solution.
Offline Breitenfurt  
#19 Posted : 24 July 2009 20:38:18(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Thanks for your comments hxmiesa and pab.

I do agree with hxmiesa and if I was building a quality layout for myself, that is what I would probably go for. However, this layout is for my grandchildren when they come to visit and I cannot justify the additional cost of K track. The whole layout will be very simple based mainly on two loops and has to be minimum size so any additional tracks will have to be inside the double loop. No hidden sidings.

I have become used to using the Mini-Club track and am finding it difficult to get my head round the C geometry, but I'll get there.

Best wishes to all,
Chris
Offline davemr  
#20 Posted : 25 July 2009 01:26:36(UTC)
davemr


Joined: 09/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 983
Location: ,
Chris. The Marklin catalogue gives full deatils of C track including geometry. Also their track plans booklet could help.
The great thing about C track is you can play about with it and take it apart again in seconds.
Once you have some track you will fins it easy to build the type of layout you describe.

dave
davemr
Offline Breitenfurt  
#21 Posted : 25 July 2009 02:48:43(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Hi Dave.
I appreciate that and have scanned a few pages from the 2000/2001 catalogue so that I can see what is available. Where I am having problems is creating a two-into three (where the centre track is accessible to both of the two a) using curved points (as in my Z scale layout) and b) using straight points but starting still on the curve. Both are possible but leave the ends out of line with each other. You can get an idea by looking at http://trains.manvell.or...20090724-HO-problems.jpg but bear in mind that I have been working on my Z scale layout so haven't had much of a chance to work on the HO plan.
With best wishes,
Chris.
Offline Bigdaddynz  
#22 Posted : 25 July 2009 05:54:12(UTC)
Bigdaddynz

New Zealand   
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18,120
Location: New Zealand
Chris, I have a picture of how this is done in K track, but I'll have to see if I can find one in C track. The problem is the makeup piece of short track needed at the start of the 2 tracks going into 3 - there isn't a short enough piece of C track to match the one used in the K track diagram.
Offline Bigdaddynz  
#23 Posted : 25 July 2009 09:20:18(UTC)
Bigdaddynz

New Zealand   
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18,120
Location: New Zealand
OK Chris, I found this in the Marklin trackplan book "Das Gleisplanbuch' (Item 07455).


UserPostedImage

Track spacing ends up at 77.5mm centre to centre.

Edited by moderator 11 January 2011 19:08:37(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Breitenfurt  
#24 Posted : 25 July 2009 13:38:08(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Thanks for your efforts Bigdaddynz. (How did you manage to include that image? Whenever I have tried to do that I end up with just text.)

Regarding the 2 into 3, the effect I was trying to get is illustrated in the top right and left corners of UserPostedImage

However, I think that, whatever the final 2-&gt;3 arrangement. it it will go beyond my self imposed limit of 2m x 1m.

I am beginning to think that maybe I'll ditch the idea and go really simple. After all, the layout is for my two granddaughters to play with when they come to visit, hence the two ovals. Anything else is just pandering to me.

All the best,
Chris.

Edited by Webmaster to show the picture here...
Offline Bigdaddynz  
#25 Posted : 25 July 2009 14:08:51(UTC)
Bigdaddynz

New Zealand   
Joined: 17/09/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18,120
Location: New Zealand
Chris, I used Wintrack 8 to produce that drawing. Wintrack can export a drawing to jpg format, which is what I did to produce the picture you see.
Offline Breitenfurt  
#26 Posted : 25 July 2009 17:25:52(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
I've decided to stop trying to be clever and have come up with a nice simple layout:

UserPostedImage.

This nicely fits my 1mx2m and has some operational interest if my younger granddaughter wants to go beyond tail chasing.

All the best,
Chris.

Offline utkan  
#27 Posted : 25 July 2009 18:18:57(UTC)
utkan

Turkey   
Joined: 14/07/2009(UTC)
Posts: 19,116
Location: Istanbul,


Dear Chris,

As an M-Tack holder since 1973, I felt a little bit obliged to give some support to my old faithful M-Tracks!


http://img140.imageshack.../img140/5205/utkan2c.jpg[img][/img]


http://img269.imageshack.../img269/9202/utkan2a.jpg[img][/img]


http://img338.imageshack.../img338/3333/utkan2b.jpg[img][/img]

regards,
mehmet utkan

Cool
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you...
Offline davemr  
#28 Posted : 25 July 2009 18:45:24(UTC)
davemr


Joined: 09/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 983
Location: ,
Hi Chris. Your plan for a simple layout looks fine. It will of course only take small trains but you could extend one of the yard tracks. You could raise the outer track at the back if you did not need the turnouts there.
Youngsters like to see trains going over bridges etc. Uncoupler track might also be good.

dave
davemr
Offline Breitenfurt  
#29 Posted : 25 July 2009 19:25:02(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Hi Mehmet and Dave. Thank you for your messages.

Mehmet, those are super photos and I appreciate how well you have hidden the tinplate base of the M series track. Maybe I would be swung if this was to be a 'model' railway, especially as M track seems to be selling for a lot less than C. But my real passion is for Marklin Z (see my website) and for N scale (lots of stock but no layout yet) which is why I am more interested in putting up a quick layout before the girls next come to stay. It will be a minimalist layout with a minimum amount of scenery - just enough to make it interesting for them.

Thanks for the suggestions Dave. I assume that M. do ramps and bridges to fit. And, yes, it will be tank engines and one mixed traffic and one passenger train. And, yes, uncouplers will be added, and anything else deemed necessary.

Once again, thanks for your comments.
Chris.
Offline utkan  
#30 Posted : 25 July 2009 19:45:46(UTC)
utkan

Turkey   
Joined: 14/07/2009(UTC)
Posts: 19,116
Location: Istanbul,
Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:Originally posted by Chris Manvell
<br />Hi Mehmet and Dave. Thank you for your messages.

Mehmet, those are super photos and I appreciate how well you have hidden the tinplate base of the M series track. Maybe I would be swung if this was to be a 'model' railway, especially as M track seems to be selling for a lot less than C. But my real passion is for Marklin Z (see my website) and for N scale (lots of stock but no layout yet) which is why I am more interested in putting up a quick layout before the girls next come to stay. It will be a minimalist layout with a minimum amount of scenery - just enough to make it interesting for them.

Thanks for the suggestions Dave. I assume that M. do ramps and bridges to fit. And, yes, it will be tank engines and one mixed traffic and one passenger train. And, yes, uncouplers will be added, and anything else deemed necessary.

Once again, thanks for your comments.
Chris.


I got the message,Chriswink

Good LuckSmile

mehmet
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you...
Offline davemr  
#31 Posted : 25 July 2009 20:10:04(UTC)
davemr


Joined: 09/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 983
Location: ,
Hi Chris. Marklin do ramps etc which will fit C track. I think for your purpose the speed that you can lay and take up track will be perfect as it will allow you to try different layouts very quickly. You cant beat it for running qualities which is good for kids.
If you were going for an exhibition layout I would suggest K track.

dave
davemr
Offline steventrain  
#32 Posted : 25 July 2009 23:08:31(UTC)
steventrain

United Kingdom   
Joined: 21/10/2004(UTC)
Posts: 31,411
Location: United Kingdom
Hi Chris,

What controller are you planning?
Large Marklinist 3- Rails Layout with CS2/MS2/Boosters/C-track/favorites Electric class E03/BR103, E18/E118, E94, Crocodiles/Steam BR01, BR03, BR05, BR23, BR44, BR50, Big Boy.
Offline Breitenfurt  
#33 Posted : 26 July 2009 01:18:49(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
Hi Steve.

I have ordered a Marklin 6647 Standard Transformer which I am assured is fine for what I require it for. Is there a problem with that?

Best wishes,
Chris.
Offline applor  
#34 Posted : 27 July 2009 05:47:55(UTC)
applor

Australia   
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC)
Posts: 1,503
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Quote:
[size=1" face="Verdana" id="quote]quote:I am a little saddened that almost nobody has put in a support for K-track.


You mis-understand. I am a big fan of K track, however this is not about me. I suggested C track because it sounded better suited to what Chris needed and his situation.
modelling 1954 Germany (era IIIa)
Offline rschaffr  
#35 Posted : 27 July 2009 06:56:25(UTC)
rschaffr

United States   
Joined: 03/01/2003(UTC)
Posts: 5,170
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
I agree. I prefer K track, but for a layout for the kids or grandkids, C is much better. I did my Era III layout with C and I really like the electrical and physical characteristics of it, but for my main layout (Era IV-V) there is no choice for me but K. I also use quite a bit of C track for carpetbahnen for my grand kids. It is ideal for that!
-Ron
Digital, Epoch IV-V(K-track/IB), Epoch III(C-track/6021/6036/6051)
http://www.sem-co.com/~rschaffr/trains/trains.html
Offline Breitenfurt  
#36 Posted : 27 July 2009 10:08:21(UTC)
Breitenfurt


Joined: 01/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Scotland
I wholeheartedly agree with applor and Ron. For a permanent layout I would go for K. But I want to be flexible and make changes every so often to keep up the interest. BTW, it suddenly came home to me yesterday that this simple little layout with its 3-coach/5-wagon trains will actually take up about twice the space of my Z scale layout with its mainline station capable of handling 8/9-coach trains! Maybe I should have gone for N scale after all?
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 1.756 seconds.