A new track system?

Personally not looking for one, but if you build it, some may come.

I'm not looking for another track system either!

There are enough track systems right now.

Lionel has Fastrack, MTH has Scaletrax & Realtrax, Atlas has 2 track systems (don't know the names in Atlas). K-Line had Shadow Rail with the center rail being darkened.

Even Bachmann is bringing out a new Williams by Bachmann E Z Track system( a bit similar to H.O. E Z Track) for O gauge trains. This is not E Z Streets! It looks more like Lionel Fastrack then tubular track as it has a built-in roadbed like Fastrack & Realtrax.

Lee Fritz

I would be in for a new system, I have mishmash of everybodys stuff, I would sell it off and get the new system if it was well done.

I concure with your assessment of the track that is out there Sam.

John

Please no!

I'd like to see a new track system with absolutely perfect "O" Gauge rails, spikes, tieplates, fishplates (rail joiners), and ballast / roadbed. Maybe welded into 1/4 mile sections like the real thing.

Then I could read all the posts complaining that nothing will run on it.

There are too many track systems as there is and why would anybody make another 3 rail track system. 

The only way to have a smaller rail is to go to two rail. I would not look for anybody to make another 3 rail track system. 

It seems the only way to have a more scale looking 3 rail track system will be home made. 

Im wondering if there is any possibility of a small American company being able to (profitably) put out a new 3 rail track system?

That's an easy answer: no way.  The key word is "profitably."

I agree, I doubt it would be economically viable for a new track system, that in all likelyhood would not be compatible with the other track systems. It would mean coming up with a product either in enough standard curve sizes to satisfy demand, plus switches in various numbers and so forth, and would be pretty expensive to make, and would likely be very, very expensive. Might be easier to modify 2 rail scale rail and put a third rail of some sort in it (might be interesting trying that with a switch), but I suspect the trade offs in current track offerings is in part based in the economics. 

It might be easier making it yourself, getting scale size ties, heavier O scale track (code 148 maybe?), and doing it yourself, could detail it as you see fit, and so forth. Handlaying switches is more problematic, but there are relatively easy ways to lay by hand curves and straights. 

Sam, I doubt that you will see in the foreseeable future a new O-Gauge track system. The potential market is small compared to other scales and I don't see anyone who would take on such a project.

Sam, as you know, I am building a modular layout using ScaleTrax.  I like the rail size (code 190) and don't mind the tie spacing all that much.  Their flex track is the best out there.  I agree with you on the limited turnouts.  If they would introduce a wye or three way, the yard possibilities would be endless.  Curved turnouts would also be welcome although I believe the former would have more advantages.  I also wish there were more offerings in radii.  The attached layout drawing will give you an idea of how I had to work around the turnouts in the main yard.

With that being said, if Lionel could have expanded the Super O line that would be my track system of choice.  Tie spacing is good and I could even overlook the tapered ties to help hide the thin copper center rail.  The center rail on this track system was virtually invisible.  To me, the only negative about Super O was that it only came in a 36 in diameter.  There are several people who can fabricate the 072 inch diameter curves and I have seen some 072 turnouts.  The electric turnouts had a lot to be desired, but the manual ones were great.  Also, the Super O track would mate with Gargraves as the rail height was the same.

I bought a bunch of Gargraves some years back but my old pre-war Lionel, Ives and Flyer didn't like it so it remains in the attic, although I might use it in a loop o a new layout. Old fashioned tubulatr track with conventional control-less fuss and bother.

Years ago I believe the name of the company was Railway Design. They displayed at the Springfield, MA show and advertised in OGR. I'm going back probably to the early 90's when hi rail was taking off. Made in the USA with a choice of track rails And a plastic tie system. All solid rail. I think you could even buy it in kit form and assemble it yourself. Had the appearance of today's Atlas track. Don't think it ever took off sales wise. Gargraves was inexpensive and Ross and Curtis turnouts mated up to it and was sort of the standard. It was a nice looking system. Just seemed to expensive and time consuming to assemble.

 Does anyone else remember this system? 

I agree with Erie Bob.  An expanded version of Super-O would be the only new track system that would appeal to me.

I don't see any new system being needed or feasible.

The entrepreneur who had the excellent looking stud rail years ago, which IMHO had the best shot at breaking into the market, was never able to get it off the ground.

Like a poster above said, if you're that concerned about the track, you're ready for 2-rail. 

the next track system for me will only have two rails.

I think this makes the most sense for something other than what is available on the market now. With all the existing manufacturers going to 'Build To Order' so they know how many items they can sell before even producing them, I think it's highly unlikely anyone will be blindly coming out with a new track system anytime soon with no idea if it will sell or not. And if someone did come out with a new track system, would we like it? Or would it be less pleasing to us than the systems available now? 

The only US based manufacture that COULD do it is Gargraves....and I don't see them doing it. I have a feeling they sell all the current style track they make....so no need or room to make a all new line.

Hand lay your track if none of the current lines fit your needs.

Super "O"

Only one piece of track needs to be made to test the waters for viability - a 36" Flex.

> Equals 4-original 9" straights

> Un-bent it would provide the harder to acquire straight sections

> Could be bent to any diameter above the original 36"

> Sliding end sections, several ties long, could be used to retain the end-locking function of the track if it was custom cut

Dave

On behalf of our LHS...several hundred miles west of Charlie's shop........

Ditto.  Ditto. Ditto.

If anyone is considering sectional track DO NOT use MTH FasTrax. It has no pins for rail section to rail section and the misalignment needs to be addressed (with a file!), The switches are terrible. I had to fix every one of them new out of the package. The frog gauging is too loose and the engines sometimes have trouble getting through them without a noticeable bump. The points don't seat against the rails correctly out of the box. And some of MTH's engines short out the track as they go through the switches due to the center contact rollers bridging over to the points. I have one engine that will not go through one switch without shorting out the track.

I had one section that required some fancy back and forth on a curve section to hook it all up and the trains look drunk going through that section. I ripped it out and used Atlas Flex track to make up the section and it looks so smooth both to the sight and watching the train go through that section. I like the Atlas track but I don't know about their switches as I think I heard they are not the way to go in O gauge. They certainly are not for a HO layout as I can attest.

Ross and Gargraves are the names I hear all the time for good track and switches.

LDBennett

This is a perennial topic.  If I were a 3-railer, I would be proud of the way my track looked.  And if it bothered me, I would switch to 2- rail.

There is no longer a technical or operational reason for the center rail - it is either retained for tradition, or because it is too expensive and time- consuming to switch.

If a new 3-rail system were to be available, those who are heavily invested in the old system would be loathe to switch - just as easy to go 2- rail.  Ask the stud rail guys - they figured it out.

That's my opinion, and I am sticking with it.

I', gonna stick with Atlas track.  I know  . . . but I can buy in anywhere and its good track and mine is installed and paid for now . . . 

Atlas switches had some problems when they first came out. Those have been resolved. The only problem they have now is when you hold the switch button down too long it burns up the switch machine. All dual coil switch machines have this problem, it isn't just Atlas. Atlas makes good track and switches, it's also solid rail and very quiet and  doesn't rust.

That being said, Ross probably has the best name in the O gauge market for switches, and definitely the largest selection. I'm sticking with Atlas because I want it all to match, and I like it. And I also like the 3rd rail.

If you run MTH DCS then few of the locomotives are set up to run 2 rail except for some of the Premier engines which are more expensive. All the lighted cars are only set up for three rail as far as I know. Personally I think the Atlas track I have looks good. The Gargraves track I have seen when ballasted looks good too. Tubular track with alignment pins are important as I found out the hard way. So it is not perfectly to scale. Oh well. This section of the forum is for three rail trains. Scale two rail trains and track systems are in a different section of this forum. If a person complains about the look of a three rail track system then they need a scale layout not a toy train three rail layout. Just my opinion too.

LDBennett

Well, since I bought all of the FasTrack I needed to build my layout and then sold it for roughly .50 on the $1. Then bought all new GarGraves w/ Ross switches. I'm about half way in laying the track. No way I'm tearing this up to start over again, again for any "New" track system. I don't care how prototypically perfect it may be! It could be free and you wouldn't get my interest at this point.

I just want to get this thing running!

Gilly 

"There is no longer a technical or operational reason for the center rail..."

????????

I for one am not interested in any polarity flippers for reverse loops; nor any on-board battery system.

Dave

I made said modification to some 1970's-era Atlas 2-rail switches way back in the early '90s (maybe even late '80s):

(lighting is kinda off--it's 1am with no overhead lighting in the test-track/living room)

"Large Scale" spikes anchor Code 148 rail, matching the running rails on these and a handful of sectional pieces (naturally I then had to clip off the ends below the ties). Transitions to 027 tubular were simply 027 pins soldered to the 2-rail style Atlas joiners). Guard rails were removed, as the back-to-back gauge of 3-rail wheelsets is too narrow for them, but otherwise the flanges clear the ties and spikes.

---PCJ

Remake Super O in more radius  and turnout choices or T-rail with brown ties and more of them with more radius and turn out choices 

I'm not a fan of the look of Atlas, in some ways. I use GG/Ross, even though the ties

are too few/big. I like the steel rails - no mysteries there - and the pins.

Place a piece of Atlas and GG track side-by-side on a flat surface.

The Atlas is taller, bottom of tie to top of rail. The GG, above the tie, has a nice shape

and height. You're supposed to cover up that web between the ties - which is my gripe

with GG (that and the Silver Surfer rail color all black, please!), actually.

Scaletrax is my favorite, esthetically - the ties are thin, and, honestly, doesn't Atlas

have -too many- ties? (I must measure this; I've forgotten the actual mainline practice.) Certainly it does for siding trackage. 

If GG would make all the rails not chrome, and attached them with staples like Ross

(I know - long-amortized tooling), I'd never consider anything else. Smaller/more ties?

Yeah, sure - but I can make do.

Did somebody say 'Super O'  part B?

     Hoppy

I have previously expressed my opinion, which agrees with C. Sam, plus a few more

gripes about what is available thrown in...I do not THINK that there are not enough

people in three rail, with an interest in reliable, trouble-free, REALISTIC track and

switches.  I am not going to two rail, or to plastic N-5C's lettered for the Santa Fe.

Because I am in three rail, does not mean I have to be forever cursed with fragile,

clunky, or unrealistic track. I also don't have to use tubular track, although those who wish a nostalgic look can do as they wish.   Those who have unlimited time and want to lay their track, will do so, but for me that would be with a third rail.  While dealers may be happy to inventory a myriad of lousy track systems, I'd think they would be happier if there was one hot-selling reliable and realistic one.  Might help to be very

affluent if one is junking all their rolling stock to get into big buck brass two rail.

Gee, Charlie, you don't want to stock yet another line of track products?

Several have mentioned Lionel's Super O here. It's too bad that Lionel decided not to produce it again. Someone commented that years ago Neil Young and another Lionel person (Richard Kughn?) considered resurrecting it but eventually nixed the idea. That would have been a much better idea than Fastrack IMO - It has many of the attributes that Colorado Highrailer mentions above and would probably been a big hit. Especially if wider curves, flex track, more switches, and the like had been developed.

Would Super O work OK if the center blade was lowered slightly to eliminate the 'hump' in the ties?

gargraves and Atlas good enough 4 me!!!

From what I have read, I believe most of us have constructed a model railroad with the track system we have chosen from the onset.  We thought it was the best track selection at the time based on what was being offered, cost, our operating plan and layout design. 

I chose ScaleTrax for my layout based on track appearance.  I like the low profile rail, a thin center rail and the fact that it is solid rail.  This was the criteria I used for choosing for my track system.  I designed my layout knowing there was a limited choice of turnouts.  That worked out fine for me with the space I had available to work with. 

My only fear is that ScaleTrax may face a similar fate that super O track did.  MTH isn't planning on expanding the line anytime soon as they see a better return on investment in the HO, S and European markets.

I am almost at the point of no return on my layout.  I have been waiting for the #4 and #6 to become available again.  It's been about a year since they have been available.  I just hope (and pray) that MTH will continue the manufacturing of ScaleTrax. 

DITTO DITTO DITTO!!!!!! SUPER O!!!!!!!!!!

One of the interesting things about 3-rail scale is that you demand more realism in car bodies than the average 2- railer.  Thus, you can convert most of your truly good stuff with just new trucks and couplers.  Not only is there no requirement to run imported high dollar brass on 2- rail, but also there is a whole branch of the hobby that totally avoids those expensive models in favor of 70 year old stuff.

 "Might help to be very affluent if one is junking all their rolling stock to get into big buck brass two rail."

True, but not necessary.

Several have mentioned Lionel's Super O here. It's too bad that Lionel decided not to produce it again. Someone commented that years ago Neil Young and another Lionel person (Richard Kughn?) considered resurrecting it but eventually nixed the idea. That would have been a much better idea than Fastrack IMO - It has many of the attributes that Colorado Highrailer mentions above and would probably been a big hit. Especially if wider curves, flex track, more switches, and the like had been developed.

It could have been a hit, but the track would probably be more expensive than most think.  Super O was extremely well made and nearly indestructible.  The switches left a little to be desired.  It was a fine system.  For those that remember Super O Bob and the pictures and videos of the wider radius Super O layout he built, you must remember the excitement it generated.  I would love to see a new Super O with at least an 0-72 option.

Would Super O work OK if the center blade was lowered slightly to eliminate the 'hump' in the ties?

I tried that with the Code 148 track system I worked on.  The problem is that the pickup rollers on some equipment (Like the Atlas CZ passenger cars) don't drop down enough to make contact.  If you did lower the 3rd rail, you then have to ramp it for crossovers and switches (which I did).  I think that the way people comment on the 3rd rail on MTH ScaleTrax, is a result of having the 3rd rail need to maintain a hight equal to the closure rails.  You need that for the roller to not get hung up on the closure rails.  You could probably modify some of these things but it may mean that the trains would need to be modified and it wouldn't be backward compatible.

Atlas could easily produce either a Code 148 three rail O gauge track or a compromise between what they are currently producing and Code 148 and it would be the best thing out there.  I would doubt that they would have to invest that much more in tooling.