32 replies to this topic

[kyphur]

 LegoMavrick, on 08 March 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

I had one query, on the LEGO website there are a number of descenting comments to flexitrack specifically about derailments especially on the Maersk train. I'm not sure if I should take these comments too seriously.

The only issue I have with Flex-Track is that it would indeed flex during operation. If I ran a train too fast and had the track too close to a switch or curve (so that the train still had sideways momentum) then the track would move.

To counter this you can either stiffen the track by adding plates or tiles to the studs either between the tracks or on the sleepers outside the tracks, just be sure that the plate/tile is the length of 4 and crosses over the flex joint (instead of the joint between 2 pieces) unless the plate/tile is 8/12/16 long in which case it can cover multiple pieces of flex-track.

Of course the other option is to ballast the Flex-Track which accomplishes the same thing but from beneath the track bed.

As I mentioned earlier, I kind of like the clickity-clack of flex-track...

[SDH]

I don't have any flex track right now as I'm currently a 9 volter. But, in my fantasy terminal station I'm mocking up in LDD and BlueBrick the flex track has been useful in creating a nonstandard track layout. The track spacing will end up as sets of two tracks with 4 stud gaps and 10 stud gaps between the sets for platforms. Without the flex tracks I wouldn't be able to ahieve this more realistic (IMO) layout.

[domboy]

 domboy, on 02 March 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I can't help but wonder if it's physically possibly to create a similarly functional flex track piece that actually looks like the regular track pieces? If it were possible why would Lego not have done so?

I don't actually have any flex pieces yet so I can't comment on how I love or hate them, but I do plan on buying the straight and flex track set hopefully soon so I'll end up with some. I actually can't imagine not having some sort of flexible track piece available to fix those little bits that just don't line up right. Besides, the pictures I've seen of people making really wide curves using just straight track pieces looks rather silly to me too, so which really looks worse?

I finally got some flex track, and I must say after seeing it in person I think it's quite brilliant. Even if it does have all the downsides that have previously been mentioned. I wonder if the disdain for flex has faded any since it's been around for quite awhile now...

Sorry to bump an older thread btw...

[Hrw-Amen]

I do not have space for a permanent track and although flexi track is useful I find on a hard wood floor it does slide around alot during operation and tends to come apart as a result. I expect a fixed track layout would solve that if room allowed?

[ThomAnsell]

I have been trying to create a bridge for my layout but needed some perspective (like bridge pylons) for realism. Since the layout is on a table and I can't lower the water level, the obvious answer is to raise the the land and therefore, the track. It seems flexitrack also has some vertical flexibility so might actually be better suited to doing this. Of course, the gradient can't be too steep or flexitrack's poor traction would become a problem.

Has anyone had much success doing this to create a bridge on a 'single level' layout?

[kyphur]

 Thom2304, on 09 August 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

Has anyone had much success doing this to create a bridge on a 'single level' layout?

Here you'll find my truss bridge, the track on the deck is all flex-track!

Here you can see the layout I started before moving to Savannah GA, notice the inclines leading up to the bridge, they are ALL flex-track. It works well for that purpose. Be aware of the fact that you'll need 11 baseplates length of incline on each side of the bridge forbthe height I achieved!

[Blondie-Wan]

As I'm still very much in a "getting started" phase with trains, I don't have a lot of track at all, and none of the flex track, and haven't actually set up a layout yet. That said, I was watching the trains theme in general when they were introduced, and like many here I was torn between finding them useful and finding them ugly. That said, I do still plan to make use of them in my own train layouts I hope to do sometime, but I'll make only limited use of them, in some of the ways already discussed by others in this thread. I half-suspect that once I get some I'll use at least half of it not for train track at all, but for things like detailing on spaceship hulls.

 domboy, on 02 March 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I can't help but wonder if it's physically possibly to create a similarly functional flex track piece that actually looks like the regular track pieces? If it were possible why would Lego not have done so?

IIRC, some time before it was released, there were rumors and leaks floating around about this forthcoming flexible track, and at some point somebody linked to a leaked photo of some prototypes that showed a couple different versions of the track, one of them more "regular" looking, like you describe (with gaps between sleepers), as well as what became the final version we actually got. The former was pretty clearly more visually consistent with regular track pieces, and my uneducated guess is that TLG would have gone with it if there weren't some specific reason not to; perhaps it was more prone to derailing, or to the piece actually breaking, or something like that. But I really don't know.

[1974]

I can't see how they could be created and still be, you know, flexible  

But different curves (and they could be very short indeed) could be introduced and thus one would often eliminate those not-so-great-looking FT in a setup

I like 'em anyway

They're great for sublte elevation too