2 and 3 Rail Gargraves Track...

Mark,

I cannot answer your questions about track but I do hope that you get better soon. Post some pics of your AN 4-6-0’s when you feel better. I’d love to see them, been looking for one for some time now.

Malcolm

I used to run on a friend;s 2-rail scale layout (he's since passed) that used some gargraves for hidden staging.  Thats the only place derailments would occur. Maybe newer gargraves is better formed? Maybe depends on subroadbed. Maybe depends on whether you can reach it or not....

Thank you Malcolm, that's very nice.

If you use the search feature and type in "All Nation/Varney Ten Wheeler" you should be able to read the entire thread I posted about the first one I got. It's 4 pages long, and "bob2" played a huge part in the story line. I really had no idea what I was doing, but with Bob and some others, it came out okay. Heavy and a smooth runner.

Let me know if I can help; after all, I'm not going anywhere! 😁

Mark in Oregon

I can't answer your question but since your not having problems with it I wouldn't worry to much.

I think Gar-Graves track code is 215, maybe the same as Atlas track. I've had a bad back for years and at times it's pure H%#.

I hope your back problems can be taken care of. Mine can't.

@feet posted:

1. I can't answer your question but since your not having problems with it I wouldn't worry to much.

2. I think Gar-Graves track code is 215, maybe the same as Atlas track. I've had a bad back for years and at times it's pure H%#.

3. I hope your back problems can be taken care of. Mine can't.

1. Not so much "worried" as curious. 🙂

2. I should have mentioned that the "Atlas" track I have is 2 rail, so I think it's code 148(?). And yes, back issues suck. 🤬

3. Thank you. I hope you are able to cope. 👍

Mark in Oregon

@Brother_Love posted:

Mark,

Post some pics of your AN 4-6-0’s when you feel better. I’d love to see them, been looking for one for some time now.

Malcolm

Trying from my crappy phone...

Hey, it worked! 😊

There you are Malcolm

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Trying from my crappy phone...

Hey, it worked! 😊

There you are Malcolm

Mark in Oregon

Thanks. It looks great, I’m still looking for one.

I had a layout in the 70s built with Gargraves track and switches before I converted to 2 rail.   As I started converting, I found all the stuff ran on the Gargraves.    I was even able to make switches work by adding a riser on top of the guard rails.

The Gargraves then, which I still have in box someplace, had a flat top.   The rail profile was the same as any 2 rail rail-profile.     I have seen mention since then that the top of the rail was more rounded.    Any I have seen, has had a slight crown, but not anything like tubular track.     That mention of the rail having a more rounded top probably is why you hear that 2 rail stuff won't track on it.    It would depend on how "rounded" it was.  

Any flat-top rail that is in gauge should work just fine with 2 rail flanges as with 3 rail flanges.  

I did learn after a time, that a high speed cutting tool such as a Dremel is best for cutting the track because the rail is hollow and using a saw at low speeds tended to grab and tear it up.   I also learned to clamp it to a flat surface for cutting.    If the ends are ragged and bent after cutting, that could lead to derailments also.    Large rail gaps in any rail on curves also lead to derailments because the flanges tend to "pick" the joint and climb over rail instead of following it.    A lot of old O scale equipment had much sharper pointed flanges rather than narrowly rounded ones, and they are very troublesome.

So what brand are you using now...or did you hand lay it?

Mark in Oregon

Malcolm

Here are a couple of equally lousy photos of the other Ten Wheeler:

This one still needs some parts and to be fine tuned, as I believe one of the driver sets is not quite correct. The valve gear was trashed, so it stands as you see it here.

I painted this one due to the condition it was in; the first one has a nice, original patina so I left it alone.

This was lacking a headlight, so I opted for a Precision Scale Pennsy type. I like the look of it: looks kinda "short line-ish".

I could also mention that the first one came with the 1" motor; this one has the 5/8" size. Both motors run well, after a proper cleaning. 👍

Another instance where "bob2" supplied me with some much needed parts.

I hope you can find one; if your locomotive skills are half as good as your caboose skills, it should be a treat for us all to see. 🙂

Mark in Oregon

Edit: I should mention "Johnbeere" swapped the original damaged and useless (to me) pilot truck for a nice one. Of course, he fixed the original so it's as good or better than new. Thanks, John!  🙂

@Strummer posted:

I'm posting a lot these days, since I'm still pretty much bed ridden due to my back. For that I apologize.

I'm posting this here, because I dunno where else to put it.

I play in both 2 and 3 rail: after I got my first "decent/modern" 3 rail steam engine, I bought a bunch of 3 rail Gargraves, both sectional and flex. It's worked out really well.

Since the rails are insulated from each other, I reasoned that my 2 rail stuff might work on it as well...and it does. Everything from rather lightweight Weaver hoppers to die cast Scale Craft all track just fine. (Turnouts aren't an issue for me, since I just have big ovals and like to sit back and watch things run.)

Sure, I get it that this track doesn't look as good as my 2 rail Atlas does, but I can lay down a larger radius curve using the US made Gargraves and it works. I know my All Nation 4-6-0s look better on the larger radius curves...I guess everything does. 🙂

I guess my question is: I read a lot about the Gargraves "rail tops" being incorrect for 2 rail wheels, yet I am experiencing no difficulties what so ever. What am I missing here?

Again, I apologize for posting so much, but I'm seeing a specialist on Thursday, so...🙂

Mark in Oregon

Hi Mark.

I'm in a similar situation, converting rolling stock to 2-rail and having purchased MTH scale-wheel locomotives almost exclusively since 2009. I'm designing my home layout to support both 2-rail and my 3-rail equipment that can't be converted easily.

I ran scale-wheel equipment on the AGHR layout from 2009 on with a few problems here and there. The locomotives are MTH offerings and the curves are all large enough to support scale wheels with full flanges (I have several YouTube videos on the subject). About 60% of the track is still Gargraves, but all new alignments have been re-done using Atlas-O track. The mainline turnouts are Ross.

Gargraves track does work for 2-rail equipment, but sometimes it gets out of gauge (too wide) and you can experience derailments. Atlas-O three-rail track is gauged better. Ross turnouts (#5/11-degree) seem to work reliably with 2-rail rolling stock. The frogs on the #6 and above are too wide (we put a "frog point" in a #8 curved turnout) for scale wheels and curve-replacement turnouts are anyone's guess. Atlas track is generally fully-insulated. The turnouts and terminal tracks do have the rails bridged together. If you want to use Ross turnouts, get the bare bones ones as opposed to Ross Ready so you are in control of how the rails are connected.

Thanks Matt for your thoughts; I appreciate your taking time to comment.

I understand what you say about Gargraves getting out of gauge, but since most of my wheels are 145/172 size, I think (hope) that won't become an issue.

Depending on how the treatment/recovery of this back of mine goes, we're hoping to be able to get down to Van Nuys in late April or May to visit our son. If that happens, maybe I can stop by and see your club's layout and meet you and your fellow members.

Thanks again.

Mark in Oregon

Hope the back gets better soon.

My conversions are Code 172 wheel sets, either Intermountain or Atlas and MTH replacement trucks. A couple of Pecos River Brass cars I have came with Code 145 wheels and found bad spots on the track. I made a gauge tool that would bend the Gargraves rails inward to proper gauge.

I have a couple of Atlas cars that would randomly derail. I never did figure out why though I suspect that they had slightly tweaked frames that caught track undulations at just the right moment.

Gargraves track left, Atlas track right.  Combined using an atlas track joiner.  The lower profile of Gargraves was removed with a dremel tool.  The height, of the two different track ties, is not a good match.

@AGHRMatt posted:

1. Hope the back gets better soon.

2. I made a gauge tool that would bend the Gargraves rails inward to proper gauge.

1. Thank you. Surgery Wednesday. 👍

2. I would like to see that: can you post a picture?

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

1. Thank you. Surgery Wednesday. 👍

2. I would like to see that: can you post a picture?

Mark in Oregon

I made the tool on the fly. I manually squeezed a piece of track to the correct gauge and measured the outside of the rails. I notched a 2" long block of 1x4 to that distance and filed a slight outward taper on one end. Then I just slid it along te track in the offending areas of the layout.

I'll check with the guys at the club to see if the tool is still there and someone can get a picture. In the mean time, I'll put together a drawing.

Thanks... because you never know...👍

Mark in Oregon

Hello Mark, I am commiserating with you since I had back surgery December first of last year and I am still experiencing pain and still need a cane to walk.. I had stenosis. I hope you have something easy for them to fix. As far as track goes, I have an extensive layout which is completely Gargraves except for some main line switches which are Ross.  I have built most of it before Ross was available. I needed a quick way to cut track and when I used a hack saw, it bound and fought me. I did notice there is not much resistance if you use the hacksaw pulling it backward. It doesn't bind and gets through it rather timely. I would still be cutting if I used a Dremel tool or something like that.  If you are still cutting track, try that with a fine blade hacksaw.  Best of luck on your surgery.  Bill Park

Thank you Bill.

We are confident that there will be a good outcome. I guess by Thursday (procedure is Wednesday) we will have some idea...I guess. Never been through anything like this before.

I appreciate your kind words and support. 👍

Mark in Oregon

The GG rail top is not as flat as in years past due to the edge of the die that forms the rail has worn down some what over the years.  Still a go to track for me.

@Tom Tee posted:

... Still a go to track for me.

👍 In fact, I just picked up a few more sections... just in case.  🙂

@Brother_Love posted:

Thanks. It looks great, I’m still looking for one.

Malcolm

A nice one sold just yesterday on eBay; were you the buyer?

Mark in Oregon

Mark,

From the various 2 rail cars I've experimented with on my mostly Gargraves layout, results were:

1) with the exception of a few, most freight cars and 4 wheel trucked passengers can successfully navigate 3 rail O72.

2) Derailments are not so much the fault of the car, rather that of the track condition.

3) Passenger cars of the 21" variety may require mods to allow for a wider coupler swing.

4) Turnout frog gaps, particularly those by GG allow 4 wheel trucks to drop, whereas 6 wheelers with float right through.  This also happens with 4 drivered locos, much akin to the stability of a table with one shortened leg.  I claim the term for the issue " Atlantic Bob".

5) Engines of an earlier vintage will be happy on GG but the newer stuff hasn't got enough flange to compensate for the rounded rail head of GG track on curves.

6) I have slowly been swapping out some of the GG for 3R Atlas in highly visible areas.  At the transition spots I just solder a regular GG pin bent into a 90* to the Atlas rail end.  It is by far the most stable attachment and alignment method wherever the 2 track types are married, and as a bonus they can provide robust feed drops is needed.

You should find no issues with running as planned.    If so, see #2.

Bruce

Thank you Bruce, for taking the time to send all that good information. I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to comment.

So far, this Gargraves "experiment" has resulted in good, reliable running from both 2 and 3 rail rolling stock; it's mostly just been a process of swapping power sources...and remembering to remove uninsulated-equipped cars when I go to 2 rail running. When I run 3 rail, both types play together nicely...🙂

Mark in Oregon

You're welcome, Mark.

It really is fun to force 2rail rolling stock onto GG.  My layout gives them a real workout, very little of it being straight or level and some of it superelevated.  I recently coaxed a string of 6 Weaver, Pullman Bradley coaches around the rollicking rails without incident. 

An old wooden Walthers head end reefer serves as a transition car between the 3rail locos and 2rail consists.   A hint of the future conversion of all 3rail rolling stock to Kadee's.

Bruce