3 rail track preference?

Don't sell the loco just yet. I may be wrong, but I think with the switch in the DCC position, your loco should work on two rail track if you have a DCC system in place.  Not based upon personal experience, so await comments from those with hands-on knowledge.

I think I’m in the majority suggesting Atlas track and Ross switches for a incipient 3 rail layout.

Actually, I've used both Atlas and Gargraves track with Ross and Atlas switches.  My recommendation for easy construction would be the Ross switches and either Ross track if you're using sectional or Gargarves for flex track.

My reasoning is the Ross or Gargraves track more closely matches the Ross switches in appearance and presents a more "finished" look.  The atlas ties present a significant difference in appearance than the Ross/Gargraves when mated with the Ross switches.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Actually, I've used both Atlas and Gargraves track with Ross and Atlas switches.  My recommendation for easy construction would be the Ross switches and either Ross track if you're using sectional or Gargarves for flex track.

My reasoning is the Ross or Gargraves track more closely matches the Ross switches in appearance and presents a more "finished" look.  The atlas ties present a significant difference in appearance than the Ross/Gargraves when mated with the Ross switches.

Thanks for the comparison John…..I see what you mean, that’s a significant difference.

I also find that with the 100% compatible pins, using Ross switches that Ross or Gargraves track is also easier to lay.  I do like the Atlas solid rail, but in 2019 when I was buying track, Atlas was over twice the price of Gargraves, and also in limited availability.  After consideration I went with Gargraves/Ross, and I really love the Gargraves flex track, it made a lot of the track laying truly painless.

Atlas was in sort supply when I started so I ended up using a lot of Ross sections, Gargraves, and Ross switches. I'm extremely pleased. I will mostly use Ross sectional just because it has the little spikes on every tie and I wanted consistency across my model railroad. I have some spots where I went to Gargraves because the tracks are hidden or elevated and Gargraves is very affordable for the quality of the product. Plus it comes in flexible sections!

But my Christmas tree train is in fact Atlas. It's an oval, so it was easy to source at the time. I have had bad luck with Atlas switches but people say they have improve in recent years.

What do you like the look of? You may have to either hit up the local brick and mortar shop, buy a piece of each, or ask for photos to figure out what you like.

Just get a set of rollers and let it run it in place.

Alternately, get a loop of whatever the min radius on the box is and use it at the holidays.

If I understand correctly you're a nascent 2-railer and you want to run a 20-3819-1 on 2-rail track.  Given the space required for O scale, I don't advise that you create a 3-rail layout (or mess up your 2-rail layout) just for the sake of this loco!

Unfortunately MTH never made a 2-rail version of their USRA Pacific.  Despite my pleading with Mike Wolf every year at York, all of MTH's O gauge steam locos have a "captive axle" chassis.  So there's no easy way to change out the wheelsets for insulated ones with smaller NMRA-spec 2-rail flanges .  Converting a captive axle chassis in situ requires much experience and skilled machine work.  There used to be a forum member Joe Foehrkolb who performed many such conversions, unfortunately he passed away a few years ago.

It's a longshot... but for $125 you could purchase MTH part number DF1100029B which is a Pennsy K4 Pacific chassis with factory 2-rail insulated wheels and flanges.  I believe the driving wheels are the same size and pattern as your USRA loco.  (Note, MTH's K4s have drivers that are undersized relative to the prototype.)  If you're really lucky, that K4 chassis may bolt under your USRA boiler without modification.  (These models were tooled within a year of each other, so it's possible that the tooling or key specs were reused.)  Then you'll have to swap pretty much EVERYTHING from your 3-rail loco onto the new 2-rail chassis.  You'll also have to source 2-rail lead and trailing trucks, but that should be easy compared to the main drive block!

If you do gamble on the K4 drive block, please post back and let us know if it fits, in case others want to perform this conversion.  Good luck!

I have used atlas track an mostly atlas switches with some Ross switches for the more unique configurations.  Atlas will be a bit more money than Ross and gargraves but for me it looks better.  I think all will work well for you.

If you are going to make a new layout just for this one loco, maybe you could consider a garden railroad. If you are interested, you would need to use Atlas track for its ability to holdup under sunlight.

Another possibility would be to convert the loco to battery power. A battery powered loco can run on either 2 or 3 rail track. But you would need to cut all power to 2 rail track.

@Landsteiner posted:

Don't sell the loco just yet. I may be wrong, but I think with the switch in the DCC position, your loco should work on two rail track if you have a DCC system in place.  Not based upon personal experience, so await comments from those with hands-on knowledge.

There should also be a 2-rail/3-rail switch.  Another issue is whether or not the wheel flanges will work on whatever track is being used.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Actually, I've used both Atlas and Gargraves track with Ross and Atlas switches.  My recommendation for easy construction would be the Ross switches and either Ross track if you're using sectional or Gargarves for flex track.

My reasoning is the Ross or Gargraves track more closely matches the Ross switches in appearance and presents a more "finished" look.  The atlas ties present a significant difference in appearance than the Ross/Gargraves when mated with the Ross switches.

I've not used Atlas track for various reasons, one of which has been the sketchy availability.  That's a nice comparison, but it made me wonder - which track has the more realistic size and spacing of the ties?  It's never been an issue for me, but it is for some folks.  Atlas looks like it might be the winner in that regard.  But Ross and GarGraves is the clear winner for availability and cost.

In general, the type of track to use depends on a lot of factors.  If the objective is simply to run the engine because it belonged to a family member, a loop of tubular track could be put on a board or integrated into an existing layout.  Tubular track is cheap, plentiful, and can be made to look fairly realistic if desired by adding ties and ballast.

Atlas has the more realistic size and spacing on it's ties.  However, for our modular club, we had issues with the Atlas track breaking out of the plastic ties, it doesn't stand up to handling.  For a permanent layout that doesn't travel, it is nice track to run on, but the price and availability were two stumbling blocks for me.  Add to that the appearance of the Atlas track next to the Ross switches was a turn-off as they look so different.  It's much easier for me to live with the oversized ties when all the track and switches match.

I used Gargrave track and turnouts as well Ross turnouts at the club and Gargrave track and Ross turnouts on my home layout. I know this topic is a matter of costs and looks but I have been very satisfied with my selection. Our club is now 25 years old!

Atlas

Longtime user of Gargraves and Ross track & switches. I recently purchased a bunch of Atlas Nickel-Silver track for a living room modular layout mainly because I always wanted a solid railed track system. However, Atlas is twice the cost of Ross (section to section comparison) and frankly the appearance of the plastic ties takes a back seat to wood ties. The other negative aspect of Atlas is the poor conductivity via rail joiners that was reported on this forum. As suggested by others, I soldered each rail joiner. I am kind of stuck with a lot of Atlas now and will use it for the remaining modules. In hindsight, I wish I would've gone with Ross; just cannot beat the look of wood ties.

@Nu2Oscale posted:

Hello all. I have inherited a Pennsy, MTH Premier, USRA heavy 4-6-2 (20-3819-1) from my late grandfather’s vast collection. This loco looks to be brand new and, for my granddad’s passion of trains, it deserves to be run.

The dilemma I’m facing is…my ‘inventory’ and layout is all 2 rail. I searched and discussed the option of converting the 4-6-2 loco to 2 rail but, it appears this loco ‘model’ was never offered for 2 rail operation, and it doesn’t appear to be as simple as swapping the wheels/drive block, and flipping the switch, from 2-3 rail. Also, lookin at the tender, it only has the DCS/DCC switch, no 2/3 rail switch…so I’m not sure how a swap would even translate, if possible.

I tell you all of that to ask your opinion, “what is the ‘majority’ preference of 3 rail track, for performance and function” ?

Since it appears my only logical choice is to (somehow/somewhere) build a 3 rail layout, (or simply sell the loco, which I’m very conflicted about) I’m now in the market for 3 rail info also.

Thanks for everyone’s input. Apologies for the long-winded post, for a simple question.

@Nu2Oscale,

Since you're a 2-railer, I think you will be happier with Atlas O track that, in my opinion, looks more realistic because it has solid rails and ties that are closer to scale than the various kinds of O gauge track with tubular rails. I have two layouts with Atlas O track and switches that have been in operation for 25 years and 10 years without any mechanical or electrical issues. Atlas O is more expensive but when you consider the time, effort and cost to build a layout, the difference in cost becomes less of a consideration. You also should think about making your new layout "3-rail scale."

MELGAR

I use Gargraves with Ross switches. Works perfectly. Gargraves flex works great should you need to ease around a signal or any other object. My true preference though would be Ross all the way. Track and switches.