Dose anyone have a picture of ross track mating to gargraves track ?

In the following video you can watch the trailing engine of the Baldwin Shark set transition from Ross to GarGraves and back at 3:28 to about 3:40 and then again at 5:20.

I use Ross and Gargraves, only, on our layout.  Ross for all switches, crossings.  Gargraves for all other track.  The layout was designed using RRTrack.

The rationale was based on the frequent use of flex track, made only by Gargraves.  Flex track significantly eased the making of custom transitional curves in the track plan.   Otherwise, both Gargraves and Ross could provide acceptable pre-formed sectional curves and straights called for in the plan.

Yes, there was a price difference between the two manufacturers standard pieces.  But more of concern to me was the difference in appearance.  Gargraves flex track has, of necessity, no 'spikes' showing along the rails as with the Ross track.  The spiked appearance is no doubt more akin to the 1:1 appearance.  But adding spikes to the occasional piece of flex track after forming so as to not celebrate the same joined to adjacent Ross track seemed a bit of tedium I wished to avoid.  (There are about 2 dozen significant lengths of flex used in the o/a plan.)

Instead, I chose to use Gargraves 'spikeless' track everywhere...except the switches.  And, IMHO, the Ross switches are worthy of celebration.   Switches in the 1:1 realm have additional rail support pieces that give a more complicated appearance.  Besides, after seeing Ross's gorgeous l-o-n-g double crossover at a show, I had to have it on the layout...and the rest sort of followed!

I know this rationale is not for everyone.  I thought I'd share it since it sounds like you're currently going through some of the same thoughts/concerns in employing either, or both, of these excellent Made in America products.

FWIW...

KD

Ross and Gargraves track pins are slightly different. Gargraves larger.  Not a problem with new track, older track, the pin insertion tends to loosen after awhile.   IMO.

If you look, closely, at Dave's picture, you can note that the ties are a slightly different height, which can be accommodated.

@Mike CT posted:

Ross and Gargraves track pins are slightly different. Gargraves larger.  Not a problem with new track, older track, the pin insertion tends to loosen after awhile.   IMO.

If you look, closely, at Dave's picture, you can note that the ties are a slightly different height, which can be accommodated.

While the ties themselves might have slightly different heights, the railhead ends up being the same height. I've not had to do any shimming or adjustment to get them to mate.

Ross curves look better than Gargraves because their support rails are hidden beneath the outer rails; whereas GGs have black support rails beneath the ties.  The support rails keep the curves structurally intact.  Both Ross and GGs are solid and very nice.  I believe you can't go wrong with either.   However, I'm using GG because that's what I started with and I've bent a lot of it for odd curves and they have 0-42s (Ross is 0-44?) as standard.  I prefer the preformed curves over rolling my own when possible.  It saves a lot of time and they are perfect.  I'm sure Ross are perfect, too.

But all of my switches are Ross.  They reign king of switches.

My above picture shows Ross transitioning to Gargraves flex. Looking at Gargraves site. I didn’t realize they offered the variety of sectional track that they now do. Most of my track laying was over 30 years. Don’t believe anything back then was available as far as sectional track. The standard was Gargraves flex with Ross or even ROW switches.
My recent track laying did involve using Ross sectional straights. I built a roundhouse with whisker tracks. Wasn’t going for the heavily ballasted look and thought it would look better. This may be a trivial thing but laying track also involves wiring the track. There are a number of ways to accomplish this. I like heavy wires. 14 gauge feeders. The Ross with the already flattened underside rail I just thought it was easier to do for me. I generally crimp on a spade connecter and push it up into the slot in the rail. Then solder the spade to the rail. You can accomplish the same thing with Gargraves. Just seems there’s a little more work involved especially cleaning off the black center rail. I really can’t comment on the Gargraves sectional. I had seen the plastic tie version. Didn’t realize they offered it in wood as well.

The Ross track features glued as well as spiked rail. The Gargraves flex has floating ties. If you don’t plan on ballasting. The Ross definitely looks better. What may have seemed a little flimsy with the Gargraves.  With ties being able to move around and nothing but some spring action of the rail grabbing the ties. Once ballasted nothing will ever move.

@ITS TOY TRAINS FOR ME posted:

As title says I'm looking for a couple pictures of ross track mating to gargraves track.   I really like the look of the ross track but trying to decide if it is worth the extra cost.   I know everyone uses the ross switches with gargraves so I would like to see the actual difference.

It mates perfectly, I used all Ross switches, some Ross O72 curves, and the rest was Gargraves flex track.

Ross on the right, Gargraves on the left.

@dkdkrd posted:

I use Ross and Gargraves, only, on our layout.  Ross for all switches, crossings.  Gargraves for all other track.  The layout was designed using RRTrack.

The rationale was based on the frequent use of flex track, made only by Gargraves.  Flex track significantly eased the making of custom transitional curves in the track plan.   Otherwise, both Gargraves and Ross could provide acceptable pre-formed sectional curves and straights called for in the plan.

Yes, there was a price difference between the two manufacturers standard pieces.  But more of concern to me was the difference in appearance.  Gargraves flex track has, of necessity, no 'spikes' showing along the rails as with the Ross track.  The spiked appearance is no doubt more akin to the 1:1 appearance.  But adding spikes to the occasional piece of flex track after forming so as to not celebrate the same joined to adjacent Ross track seemed a bit of tedium I wished to avoid.  (There are about 2 dozen significant lengths of flex used in the o/a plan.)

Instead, I chose to use Gargraves 'spikeless' track everywhere...except the switches.  And, IMHO, the Ross switches are worthy of celebration.   Switches in the 1:1 realm have additional rail support pieces that give a more complicated appearance.  Besides, after seeing Ross's gorgeous l-o-n-g double crossover at a show, I had to have it on the layout...and the rest sort of followed!

I know this rationale is not for everyone.  I thought I'd share it since it sounds like you're currently going through some of the same thoughts/concerns in employing either, or both, of these excellent Made in America products.

FWIW...

KD

It was the double cross over that led me to start looking at the Ross.   I plan on using all sectional track and I do not plan on ballasting.  After reading all of the replies and all of the gargraves/ross posts I'm actually leaning towards all Ross.  I am not ready to build (wont be for quite a while) but I have a  really good idea of what I want.  I was looking for some pictures and ideas so I could make  a final decision and start accumulating track so its not one BIG  outlay.