Did Lionel consider a new generation of Super O? Yes.

 Very interesting. 

Super O happened in that time period where all the stuff I had as a kid was in boxes following the family around the country, so I was really never knowledgeable about it. 

If if this had been available with O-54 curves and switches, when I started layout  construction in 2001, I would have looked at it closely.  Went with Atlas nickel silver. 

Very interesting!

Peter

The roadbed looks like Ross's.

There is no notch or slot for the 3rd rail in the roadbed.   I guess that would mean that the ties stand up above the roadbed sufficiently to support the 3rd rail in the ties alone.    I would be more interested if we could see an assembled piece with the 3rd rail.

The outside rails look hollow not solid in the picture. Looks great though. 

Curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

What I think is that if they'd made this stuff in the same variety of diameters that they now do for FasTrack, I'd have grabbed it immediately.  My layout is FasTrack, and I have no complaints with it, but I have always thought that Super O was far superior in appearance.

If they offered everything they have now in Fastrack plus numbered turnouts, then I would definitely consider it for a permanent layout.  I love the look for super O, but there were not many options for curves and turnouts.

May be someday, they will reconsider. 

Fastrack caught on in a big way for Lionel, and it took them by surprise according to an interview from the designer published a few years back.  They were quickly scrambling to augment it as fast as they could and meet demand.  Plans for a more realistic looking track, were shelved, and I haven't heard anything since.

Hopefully, Lionel may resurrect the "new super O" or "super O II" or whatever name they go with.

The rapid success of Fastrack I guess is to blame...To me, there is room for yet another track system one that address some of the compromises of the other track systems.  Only time will tell.

Great post Notch!  I have had Super O on two layouts.  I was starting to replace the O gauge in 1958.  And then about 10 years later in 1968, I was buying all the new Super O track and switches I could find that could still be found at local stores that still carried Lionel.

The track was extremely well made, better than any of the "scale" 3 rail available to day except for Ross.  Along with the plastic, the metal parts that held the track together made it extremely durable.

It's too bad Lionel could not see a way to pursue production.

Super O Bob's layout with large radius Super O curves was fantastic.

I would have purchased it. I have some fastrack for portable display layouts but I am not crazy about the round top rail head. I n the process of taking down an Atlas scale layout and constructing a Super O post war layout. This is my second time around with Super O.

They should bring back Super O!! I prefer tubular unless Super O made a return!!! And now they are ceasing the production of tubular!! Fast Track is not the answer.....

Many years ago, the gentleman who designed both FasTrack and the proposed "Super O 2.0" posted the story of both systems' development here on this forum.  It was a very interesting read.

From what I remember, the new Super O system was ultimatedly rejected as they thought it couldn't get a big enough share of the hi-rail track market (vs. Gargraves, Ross, Atlas, MTH ScaleTrax, etc.).

Andy

Hate to say it Mark, but that ship sailed over ten years ago. Fastrack is here to stay, way too much invested at this point. That being said, I would also like to see this added to the line, I'm just not sure the market could sustain it without a HUGE number of additional track pieces being added to the line. Still fun to see what could have been though. 

Fastrack is what it is.  It certainly comes under fire a lot but I am a fan of it for the simple ability to quick and easily set up some on carpet without worrying about a mess.  It is not the end all be all but it is great for certain things.

Personally, I am sold on solid rail and I use Atlas track. I also like Fastrack and think it is a well designed and well thought out track system. I actually like the looks of it too, but it's hollow rail and noisy, my main reason for going with solid rail and Atlas. 

After seeing your picture above, I sure think the Super-O track would have been a better choice. It looks better, has solid rail, looks like wood ties and can be used by itself or with the added road bed. This really seems like a better idea to me, and may have appealed to a lot more people than Fastrack does. Wonder what the reasoning was for not using that and going with Fastrack. Interesting topic.

I saw quite a bit of Super O at York this year in the member halls.  Some of it looked new.

Bill

Member of the future layout club.

im not sure how many know, atlas o track  was based on prewar t-rail and postwar super o. imo, they were quite sucessful.

 i always felt fastrack was for the starter sets and a 10 year olds carpet central.-jim

And the prices were up there.

That's a shame they didn't produce new Super O track.  It was always my favorite track and used it on all my layouts as a kid up until 2001.  I had sent a request to Lionel's "Talk to us" back in 1998 asking if they'd consider making Super O again.  I got the standard "We'll look into it" reply.  

I knew I was going to have a larger layout in the near future at that time and was hoping Super O would come back with larger radius curves and switches.  But when the time came that I needed track I ended up buying 7,000 feet of Atlas O track.

I still plan to use the Super O track I have on the layout.  It brings back memories and is a great track system.

I've always liked the look of Lionel Super O track and if this system had been offered with 054 and 072 curves I would have purchased it in a heartbeat.  As it is I decided to stick with the old conventional lionel tubular track.  I use Lionel Fastrack for my O Gauge loop on my Christmas layout. 

I agree. I use it on my 5x8 layout. I think Lionel was looking for a "starter set" track that was easy to take apart, put together, and survive being stepped on. I think they were surprised it was also adopted by some of us "more serious" operators. There is the ultimate track for the 2-rail look available...it's called 2-rail track.

If they would have offered it with as large of a track, curve, switch and accessory selection as they have done with Fastrack, I think it would have been an even bigger hit. Much more so than Fastrack and I think Fastrack is pretty popular. I think it would have been more popular and with a lot more people in one configuration or the other (road bed or no road bed).

Super O rails are not solid, except for the thin bar like, center rail, and the pins are flat & quite thin, but strong. The snap fit works well to hold things together.

Its simple track, the quality of the piece produced would have been reflected in the price sure, but you get what you pay for.

Like they captured a greater majority in that market with Fastrack?

(that's aimed at Lionel, not you) 

I think S.O. would have greatly outsold Fastrac had they been released "head to head".

It isn't solid rail, and the roadbed is "new". Noise? I found it a bit quieter than GarGraves. The SO click clack at rail joints is very unique with two small clicks each joint on the center rail. The center rail sound is unique also being a thin bar of copper VS a "normal" rail

So far nobody has noted the softer rubbery plastic had obvious sound dampening qualities.

  Or mentioned the center rail clips did pop up on occasion, turning that rail joint into a obstacle for the roller to jamb up on.

 And last but not least, And it took many, many, hours of run times, but that thin center rail, did carve a near "slot like divot" into the "soft" rollers some engines had. Slide shoes too And its really an issue, to have good track work and clips when using a slide shoe engine too. They tended to pop the clips up more often. 

I think FT may have been a happy experiment as stated. And looking at this photo, its hard not to believe SO had a great impact on FT.

 I had heard rumors the SO expansion wasn't pursued because a roadbed version was planned, but a hard enough non scuff material was lacking. A hollow roadbed in SO plastic warped and drooped with out major webbing, and a solid roadbed wasn't in the cards for some reason. 

The fastrack rail joint "pins" looks like a modern safety improvement on the great, but likely too thin SO pins, for satisfying "modern" safety standards with kids.(Go lock the kitchen knifes up too) Yep I punctured me thumb with one before. And did it with staples, nails, pins on a new shirt etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It's called learning . 

The closest thing to Super O made I've seen is the K-line snaptrack (?). I think this is the RMT track now. Its black color is the biggest difference and when I first saw and held it, I thought for sure it was S.O.II.

 Except for the rails, and color, its very close to S.O.

When the day comes I need to make the choice again, it would be S.O., then RMT/K-line, or GarGraves after a price and availability check, then tubular.

I believe that the chances of Lionel re-introducing super O track is about zero. Super O track was introduced in the late 50's when Lionel was on the decline. It may have been an effort to try and stem the losses and restore sales. Unfortunately nothing new in model trains during that time period could make a difference. The baby boomers were growing up and the interest in trains was waning. Super O track just didn't catch on and it only lasted three years. With so many track choices now the return on the investment for a new track pattern just would not be there.

Wider radius curves are available for super-o track. There are several TCA members who specialize in Super-o. Elliot Weltz used to re-shape your track to any curve you desire. Older Gargrave turnouts mate well with Super-O. Grind down the ends of the Gargrave pins to fit the Super-O track. You can replace the center rails with the Super-O power blade. Many possibilities.

The Yahoo Super O group has a tutorial on bending your own wide radius track.  It's not that hard.  I plan to use Super O in the foreground on my layout (under construction).  It looks much better than any other sectional track.

I don't think they were aiming at that market (scale/realistic) with FasTrack.  I think they were aiming at MTH RealTrax, and at the same time looking to get away from tubular.

One could argue that they did pretty well agains RealTrax.  I've used both, and while I liked the rail profile of the RealTrax (and it was solid at the time), the FasTrack was a better system.  I only use it now for the occasional carpet central.  When it comes time for a permanent layout, I would definitely have considered SO2.

Andy

Dennis: No question that Super O was introduced too late in the post-war period to make a difference and even as a Super fan and user I agree that Lionel will never bring it out again, but for the record it lasted for TEN years (cataloged from 1957 through 1966), not just three.

Super O Bill

Ken:

Here's a photo which shows a close-up of the end of a section of Super O straight track showing how the center rail is held in place by a slot in the ties.

HTH,

Bill 

That was sarcasm.

If you did go after the "three guys in that market", S-O would have stood a better chance than FT is what I meant. I just don't see any more "realism" in FT than tubular. I see gaudy plastic "roadbed", or gaudy metal ties on one side.

"Custom" tracks on the other.

And S-O as the great in-between choice that's missing. 

Fastrack is what it is - a low production-cost track system that works, but the Super O style on the left gets my vote; the rail profile is a rail profile, unlike Fastrack.

Anyway, back to my 0-27......carry on, everyone.

The "humped ties" on Super O was a turn-off for me. I've never seen wood ties that looked like that...maybe concrete.

Bill, I also own a loop of Super-O, and I occasionally run trains on it.   My point was referring to the development example of version 2 shown, not Super-O ver1.   I would be more interested in the prototype section if we could see it with the 3rd rail.  

Second, IF the roadbed was to work with the track section shown  the,ties would have to stand up above the roadbed in order to cradle a 3rd rail above the roadbed, not a very convincing look.    So I wonder if the roadbed is really ready to work with the shown track section.   

It seems that Lionel did not go very far with this idea, based on what is shown.   

My visual problem with fastrack is partially that the ties seem not as exposed as the track I was used to seeing. Only on occasion would you see a fresh section of ballast resembling Fastrack.  

I don't think Lionel will ever produce another track line, it is pretty clear that they are only going to produce fast track going forward.

My Thoughts;

I don't think Lionel would produce this. Why? Because what beneifit would they achieve. They would just be shift customers from Fastrack to Super ) and not gaining any new customers. Plus the expense would be huge. While track sales are a constant and come every year the tooling costs would be high. Track requires a high end tool mold that can hold up to many extrustions. Switches are very costly to make and we are talking about a whole line in a arena that is filled with many choices. Atlas-2 lines, Bachmann, RMT(I question their future), Lionel-3(though 2 have seen better days), Ross, Gargraves and MTH-2 lines, to name a few. Also technology is changing and I can see "self-contained, Li-po battery trains" running on non-electrical track in releastic 2 rail one day. To make Super O like the original with copper center rail would be too exspensive IMO.

I would like to see new tooling in interactive devices to attract more kids and even harder teens to this great hobby. 

"And last but not least, And it took many, many, hours of run times, but that thin center rail, did carve a near "slot like divot" into the "soft" rollers some engines had. Slide shoes too"

Well, that's no good. 

Oh, Lord, not this again.

Originally stated by Ken-Oscale:

There is no notch or slot for the 3rd rail in the roadbed. 

I'd take another look. There are slots in the ties for a third rail blade-similar to Scaletrax.

I like the detail on it- the ties and roadbed! Too bad that Lionel went with FastraK as this could have been a real winner. The big issues Prior to Atlas O releasing their system of track was no real thought of trackwork was done. Switch performance was hit and miss and curved Radii was all over as one couldn't get equidistant curved track[unless you were a pro at bending Gargraves] 

Then along came Jim Weaver and Atlas O with a track system that was thought out and to accomodate a list of requests and demands:

Realism

Compatability

strength

endurance

Performance

accommodate the then growing modular RR clubs and their requests

accessibility

etc.

I was skeptical at first and took three years before I jumped in to the Atlas O track system. With a lot of convincing from Bob Lavezzi of the NYSME, the growing popularity of modular railroading, the "fix" of the rail joiners to dimpled rail joiners- proved to me this was the realistic system to have.

Is it perfect- NO. Like anything else new, there was a learning curve. For the most part, the track has perfomed as designed, IT has stood up to time and some elements, and like the rest of three rail, pretty much incorporates what I need and want in a track system with minimal compromises compared to the competition. Bonus was the discovery of the ease of fixing broken sections!

At this point in time, the "boat has sailed" for a new track system in this crowded marketplace. IT's a shame because if the new Super o had the thought process and engineering of the current Atlas O track system, I would have been all over that - and so would have others!