A Scale Too Far

I might be there if the products where there.

quote:

Just convert to two-rail and be done with it. You'll feel better about yourself and your trains.

#1 - Is he buying my collection of 3rail engines, rolling stock and track at list price so I can purchase everything again in 2 rail?

#2 - Let me know when all the manufactures have all the ATSF engines I now have in 3rail available in 2rail or when he wants to foot the bill to have them all converted.

#3 - I most certainly won't feel better after my wife sees the credit card bills!

LOL. What a maroon. If switching were "that simple" I certainly would have. The only (oxy)moron here is Joe.

I've got to admit that the more time goes on the more I believe this.

I like OST (great magazine,) but here are some other rules that somehow ended up on the editing room floor:

• Atlas/Gargraves/Ross (Code 215) is not two feet off the ground. It's 10 5/16" high.
  
• MTH ScaleTrax (Code 193) it not two feet off the ground. It's 9 1/4" high.
  
• Atlas Code 148 "scale" track is just under 6" tall. That's pushing it for anything but very modern very heavy mainline.
  
• Standard US Gauge is 4' 8.5" not 5' as they are in 3-rail, and 2-rail (except Proto:48 where they do it right.) There's some fairly credible debate that the centerlines of the rails are actually 5' apart which why the gauge in between is short of that by 3.5"
  
• Except for the aforementioned Proto:48 modelers, ALL model railroad flanges are too big. And if you think 3-rail O gauge flanges are bad, take a look at N scale.
  
• Real railroads don't measure their curves in radius or diameter. They use degrees of curvature. Plus, you don't start getting into realistic mainline curves until you go past 6' radius.
  
• Real electric-powered locomotives use a third rail of some type -- either overhead wire or a multiple outside rails. All others are self-propelled by burning some type of flammable fuel. Therefore, we must abandon our electric powered "steam" and "diesels" in favor of live steam and live diesel-electric. All "electric" locomotives shall be powered by overhead wire or outside third rail with the appropriate shoes -- not those neat little bars Walthers used to sell.
  
• The ever-pompous AGHRMatt is being a pain in the caboose again.
  

Submitted with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.

Looks like Joe is indearing himself to his 3RS subscribers. Talk about how to win friends and influence people!

quote:

Originally posted by AGHRMatt:

Atlas/Gargraves/Ross (Code 215) is not two feet off the ground. It's 10 5/16" high.

MTH ScaleTrax (Code 193) it not two feet off the ground. It's 9 1/4" high.

Atlas Code 148 "scale" track is just under 6" tall. That's pushing it for anything but very modern very heavy mainline.

Traditional tubular O-31 Lionel track would have a scale rail height of 16" and the ties would be a foot tall. That's the only way to get track over "2 feet" tall in 3 rail but even then how many 3RS people use this track?

An old buddy of mine had a neighbor come over once, and told him that "In our neighborhood WE cut our grass on Saturdays". My buddy told him "When you start buying my beer, I'll cut my grass when you want it cut".

I read his commentary when I got the magazine...Maybe when Joe starts buying me 2-rail trains I'll play along

Until then I'm having fun making my Vanderbilt tender to go round my 3-rail track.

Matt,
isolated wheels, isolated gear box, isolated frogs.....ok ok....enough..
I ll be back to my 3 rail elevated track!
AG.

quote:

Originally posted by AGHRMatt:

Atlas Code 148 "scale" track is just under 6" tall. That's pushing it for anything but very modern very heavy mainline.

I went back and double checked that. Code 148 = 7.1" tall while code 125 = 6" tall. I get what you mean though. A neat thing is that 5' gauge is 1.06 x wider than standard prototypically accurate track. If we multiply code 148 x 1.06 we get code 157 which is what some of the older black tie Atlas 2 rail track was. I know...now I'm just being a bit goofy.

I read the editorial that Joe wrote too. I did not take offense as most of you seem to.

I understood him to say IF you are don't like the look of the middle rail, then change. It was a big IF. He didn't say you had to, or you should, or it was better. He said IF the middle rail bothers you. He left it up to you. If you are happy with it, so be it.

The other ideas he touched on, were get out there and build something which is a lot more common in 2-rail.

He also said, if we want to be accurate, we should go to Proto-48 and smaller size rail. So he agreed with all your complaints about current 2-rail too.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:

quote:

Originally posted by AGHRMatt:

Atlas Code 148 "scale" track is just under 6" tall. That's pushing it for anything but very modern very heavy mainline.

I went back and double checked that. Code 148 = 7.1" tall while code 125 = 6" tall. I get what you mean though. A neat thing is that 5' gauge is 1.06 x wider than standard prototypically accurate track. If we multiply code 148 x 1.06 we get code 157 which is what some of the older black tie Atlas 2 rail track was. I know...now I'm just being a bit goofy.

I screwed up. Forgot to multiply the result (5.92) by 12. The old Atlas 2-rail track was roughly code 160. I've heard reports that it was anywhere from code 153 to code 165.

I don't take offense to Joe's comments. He publishes a magazine and he's expressing an opinion. Reasonable people will disagree. I'm more concerned with these more pressing issues:

• The proliferation of smaller and smaller trains. By the time you make enough to afford them, your eyes are so bad you can't see them.
  
• How am I to get through the next five months waiting for the next season of "Burn Notice?"
  
• How long can I come up with posts for MidWeek Haiku?
  
• Why do people insist on turning perfectly good Santa Fe diesels into Pumpkins. That's just wrong.
  

So I am curious... Has anyone ever gone the opposite direction of Proto:48 and implemented a "2-rail toy" scale? Just use Gargraves 2-rail track, or remove the center from O gauge tubular, remove the rollers, isolate the wheels, etc.? Leave the big toy wheels and lobster claw couplers on. Kind of like an American Flyer O gauge, I guess.

Just curious.

Jonathan

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Bowman:
So I am curious... Has anyone ever gone the opposite direction of Proto:48 and implemented a "2-rail toy" scale? Just use Gargraves 2-rail track, or remove the center from O gauge tubular, remove the rollers, isolate the wheels, etc.? Leave the big toy wheels and lobster claw couplers on. Kind of like an American Flyer O gauge, I guess.

Just curious.

Jonathan

Here you go.

Removing the center rail from most existing track, especially Atlas, and making it look good isn't easy. Gargraves has everything in 2 rail and Ross will do the same if requested. NMRA has prototypical scale standards which applies to P:48, the regular standard which applies to 1.25" spacing between rails like we have, but they also have the DF standard which applies to Deep Flange wheels that are designed to run on tighter than normal curves. The DF standard does not say anything about the number of rails. Hidden within NMRA standards if look you closely enough is an add on about additional rails. One is for outside 3rd rail which states the top of the rails is 1/8" above the top of running rails and that the center of the outside rail is 11/16" away from the inside edge of the nearest running rail. They have a standard for overhead wire systems too but they also have a little known center rail standard as well.

Admittedly I haven't looked at the standards really closely in a while and they are always changing them but standards for every power source type were there. They could have been in recommended practices but they've been getting rid of those slowly. I will say that I don't necessarily agree with their DF standards though.

What fun! If you like the center reil, do not give it up, and do not take offense if others wonder why you stick with it.

But if for some reason you start to dislike the appearance of that center rail or those flanges, then by all means convert. There is plenty Of 2 Rail out there, and some of it is quite reasonably priced.

This is a hobby. It's seriousness is related to enjoyment. I see a lot of 3 rail layouts that put my 2 rail loops to shame!

I was introduced to O scale by an old gentleman who had been in it since the 1940's if you can even imagine that. He was a 2 rail enthusiast from the beginning and for him going scale meant a departure from the toy like Lionel setup he knew in his youth. Once I saw his 2 rail equipment and his handlaid track and how much realism he was able to achieve I was hooked and a 2 railer I became for ever more. I admit it is not the easiest type of model railroading, but that challenge is part of it's appeal for me.

Bob

quote:

Just convert to two-rail and be done with it. You'll feel better about yourself and your trains."

Ya, sure Joe. I'll be all over that right about the time that you write your next editorial telling me how to take a Sunset 2 rail Z-5 2-8-8-4 and make it go around a 36" radius curve, put in a DCC sound decoder, and do it for the same money that the equivalent three rail model costs.

Thanks, but I'll keep getting my two rail fix in HO.

I feel pretty good about myself and my trains too, especially considering the money I saved not subscribing to OST. That reallocation of funds left more money for three rail scale stuff.

quote:

How am I to get through the next five months waiting for the next season of "Burn Notice?"

Matt,
You think you are in bad shape, try waiting for the next season of Memphis Beat.

I still find odd that so many people who profess the two rail religion will display a beautiful scale locomotive on their shelf, yet, I haven't seen a display of any beautiful models of trackwork displayed on any two railer's shelf.

Sometimes I look out the cab window and wonder where the third rail has gone.

My 2 C's worth.

The 3 Rail Scale guys have some of the nicest looking equipment around and there is plenty of it. The reason I'm a 2 railer dates back many years. I was a TCA Lionel collector that tried to operate Lionel trains like the HO guys. Worked ok for a while but then I saw an O Scale model of a Lionel locomotive I had that could fit into the tender of its O Scale 2 rail brother. I was hooked. Lionel out - O scale in.

With the advent of 3 Rail scale guys using Kadee couplers and scraping the LGB size knuckle couplers, the 3 Rail Scale stuff looks great. Now, The only thing separating the 3 Rail Scale guys and the 2 rail scale guys is the 3rd rail.

I understand what Joe is saying and I don't believe that he's dissing the 3 Rail scale community.

A little more than 2 cents.

Larry

quote:

Originally posted by Eccentric Crank:
In the current issue of OST (O Scale Trains) Joe Giannovario's column included the following:

"...some 'New Rules' for 2012.

...New Rule: Three-Rail Scale Is An Oxymoron. Look, ignoring the middle rail for the moment, prototype track doesn't stand two feet off the ground. Then there is that middle rail. Just convert to two-rail and be done with it. You'll feel better about yourself and your trains."

I've always observed that you three-rail folks seem to feel pretty darned good about your trains!

Rusty

quote:

Originally posted by Big Jim:

quote:

How am I to get through the next five months waiting for the next season of "Burn Notice?"

Matt,
You think you are in bad shape, try waiting for the next season of Memphis Beat.

...

I watch that one, too. The show is pretty good, but the music got me hooked.

quote:

Originally posted by LLKJR:

I understand what Joe is saying and I don't believe that he's dissing the 3 Rail scale community.

If Joe had posted that two-rail track looks better than three-rail track, and that P:48 track looks better than both, I'd buy that.

But he didn't. When he uses words like "oxymoron" and "feel better about yourself", he's suggesting an emotional inferiority to 3RS that is undeserved. Reads like a "diss" to me.

All of which is irrelevant when one considers that the original intent of 3RS was to make the equipment (locomotives and rolling stock) as close to the prototype as possible, with allowances only for the three-rail flanges and the center roller. Track was not part of the picture.

-Crank

I wish Joe would change his mind about not having 3-rail in the magazine and go back to the way it was.

Many of the ads are for 3-rail equipment and like Crank sez, from the frame up 3RS is (hopefully) all about making things look close to scale.

I suspect a lot of his subscribers are also 3-rail enthusiasts, not good to "diss" them.

There's a lot to be learned from both sides of the O scale fence. It makes no sense to exclude things when O scale as a whole is, from what everybody says, a pretty small group.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Delbridge:
There's a lot to be learned from both sides of the O scale fence. It makes no sense to exclude things when O scale as a whole is, from what everybody says, a pretty small group.

Excellent point Bob! I never met a model railroader I didn'y enjoy the company of. These forums are full of opinions and attitudes and I bet face to face we'd all have a ball together messing with our trains.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Delbridge:
I wish Joe would change his mind about not having 3-rail in the magazine and go back to the way it was.

Many of the ads are for 3-rail equipment and like Crank sez, from the frame up 3RS is (hopefully) all about making things look close to scale.

I suspect a lot of his subscribers are also 3-rail enthusiasts, not good to "diss" them.

There's a lot to be learned from both sides of the O scale fence. It makes no sense to exclude things when O scale as a whole is, from what everybody says, a pretty small group.

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that Joe G decided not to feature any three rail anymore in his magazine. If so, he has pretty much staked out his ground that 3RS, and by that definition, hirail, are not his target market. I have no problem with that, OST hasn't been my target magazine for over two years.

That said, I would think that if he wants to editorialize about an oxymoron pertinent to his target audience, he would be telling folks to convert to P48. After all, it is the ultimate in realism, and I'm sure that folks that convert would feel better about themselves and their trains, right up until they discover that there is a reason for oversize rail, wheel flanges, and wheel tread width where tolerances in the real modeling world stack up against the user and cause derailments. Isn't that extra 3.5" between the rails visible too?

quote:

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that Joe G decided not to feature any three rail anymore in his magazine.

Neither am I. I think most often that was limited to the featured layout articles. However, as noted above, there's usually something to be learned from all segments.

I fail to understand the "bickering" over size of rail, how many rails, how far apart the rails are!

My philosophy is simple, "If it runs on rails, I LIKE IT!"

My layout is 2R (OW5 if that matters to anyone), but I have built 2 3R layouts for my grandkids. I am about to build another 3R layout to take the the schools and retirement homes.

I have some HO scale packed away for a rainy day and maybe some N scale too. I have not gone through those boxes in a while.

I have LGB and I wanted to have a garden railroad until I discovered it required a shovel. I ain't doing nothing that requires a shovel!!!!

I just purchased a 3R loco just so I could look at it because as of now I have no place to run it.

I check every section of this forum and enjoy every photo posted regardless of rail specifics. I love it all! I even like the mining RR that the workers push by hand.

Just enjoy what you have! Remember, "To be offended by someone is to give them power over you."

My 2 cents or maybe a nickels worth, Malcolm

Your Railroad, your money, do what ever the **** you want. Im gonna do P48/3rail scale just to see if I can get anyone else mad. Alot of the members here have pretty thin skin. I dont lose sleep over what Joe says, and I love OST.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Delbridge:
I wish Joe would change his mind about not having 3-rail in the magazine and go back to the way it was.

Gentlemen: I am glad to see that some of you read my last Observations in O Scale Trains Magazine #60. However, it would seem that many of you stopped reading after the 3RS "New Rule" and some of you have not read them at all. For example, Jerry (gnnpnut) says I should have picked on the O standard gauge guys for not going to P48. Well, Jerry, I did do exactly that in another "New Rule" (Track is a model too).

At the end of the column was the most important "New Rule": "Don't let anyone tell you how to enjoy your trains, especially me." The "New Rules" were satire and you all seem to have missed the jokes.

To address Bob's point above, I have not changed my mind about 3-rail in OST. I have simply not been offered to present a 3-rail layout that is anywhere near the level of quality of Norm Charboneau's or Gary Patterson's layouts which are the only 3-rail layouts to have appeared in OST.

OST has never featured and will never feature a review of a strictly 3-rail product. You get enough of that from OGR and CTT. We review O Scale 2-rail products in OST only because no one else does. We have featured many articles on converting 3-rail products for 2-rail use (which might be useful to 3RS modelers) and we feature how-to construction articles that you simply won't get in any other model railroad magazine.

There is no going back "...to the way it was" because it is the way it's always been.

Regards
Joe

I think I got most of what Joe was saying.

I would disagree on one slight point and I'd say that track IS a model, though. That would lead the discussion to a comparison of bad models, better models, and best models of track. The comparison of 0W5 2 rail track compared to 3 rail track, and the model attributes of proto 48 compared to 0w5 model track shouldn't be offensive to anyone.

But, if ultimate accuracy distingushes something as being the only thing that can be called a model, then really not much that anyone has could be considered a true model.

I certanly was not offended by the shot taken at 0w5 2 railers. The hypocrisy isn't in 2 railers pointing out the errors in any track system, though, the hypocrisy would be if those same 0w5 2 railers would be offended about legitimate critique about 0w5 track.

I did read the last line so I did take most as tongue in cheek.

quote:

Originally posted by O_Mag_Publisher:

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Delbridge:
I wish Joe would change his mind about not having 3-rail in the magazine and go back to the way it was.

Gentlemen: I am glad to see that some of you read my last Observations in O Scale Trains Magazine #60. However, it would seem that many of you stopped reading after the 3RS "New Rule" and some of you have not read them at all. For example, Jerry (gnnpnut) says I should have picked on the O standard gauge guys for not going to P48. Well, Jerry, I did do exactly that in another "New Rule" (Track is a model too).

At the end of the column was the most important "New Rule": "Don't let anyone tell you how to enjoy your trains, especially me." The "New Rules" were satire and you all seem to have missed the jokes.

I'm not looking to rain on your parade. One of the danger of "satire" is it can easily be quoted out of context. Getting quoted out of context happens all the time in just about every news publication and on network news.

As far as "track being a model", that is kinda old news to those who came from or still model in other scales. We have known that for years. Why do you think we go thru the effort to hide our oversize rail and three rails by painting the track? Most of us are trying to de-emplasise what we already know (and accept) is a glaring error in our modeling. Once we get over it though, there isn't anything different from what a two railer or three railer can accomplish. When it comes to motive power though, we still get far more value for our money than the equivalent two rail model. I don't have to go through the time and expense of retrofitting a DCC decoder into a three rail model that comes with command control right out of the box.

quote:

To address Bob's point above, I have not changed my mind about 3-rail in OST. I have simply not been offered to present a 3-rail layout that is anywhere near the level of quality of Norm Charboneau's or Gary Patterson's layouts which are the only 3-rail layouts to have appeared in OST.

Great news to hear, and thanks for the clarification. Knowing that you had not received any 3RS layouts to feature in OST is something I'm sure that 3RS people could easily fix.

quote:

OST has never featured and will never feature a review of a strictly 3-rail product. You get enough of that from OGR and CTT. We review O Scale 2-rail products in OST only because no one else does. We have featured many articles on converting 3-rail products for 2-rail use (which might be useful to 3RS modelers) and we feature how-to construction articles that you simply won't get in any other model railroad magazine.

There is no going back "...to the way it was" because it is the way it's always been.

Regards
Joe

I don't think anybody here expects OST to feature strictly 3 rail product reviews, I can state emphatically that it wouldn't be a selling point on your magazine to me (in the interest of full disclosure, I don't subscribe to OGR or CTT either).

Regards,
GNNPNUT

quote:

Originally posted by christopher N&W: The comparison of 0W5 2 rail track compared to 3 rail track, and the model attributes of proto 48 compared to 0w5 model track shouldn't be offensive to anyone.

It's apples, oranges, and pears! Your pick!

quote:

Originally posted by christopher N&W:But, if ultimate accuracy distingushes something as being the only thing that can be called a model, then really not much that anyone has could be considered a true model.

I read somewhere that to be considered "museum quality" a model must be NO smaller than 1/32. Guess we are all SOL!

quote:

Originally posted by christopher N&W:I certanly was not offended by the shot taken at 0w5 2 railers. The hypocrisy isn't in 2 railers pointing out the errors in any track system, though, the hypocrisy would be if those same 0w5 2 railers would be offended about legitimate critique about 0w5 track.

If whatever is said is the truth, I don't feel I have any reason to be offended. It is what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by christopher N&W:I did read the last line so I did take most as tongue in cheek.

I've not read Joe's column so I can't comment. I do think his response is a good indication that maybe we should be sure we understand what someone is saying before we start to form the lynch mob.

Simon

I agree with Joe. Three rail scale is a bit of an oxymoron. By trying to create a standard with three rail track, kadee couplers, and scale-sized equipment, you are just codifying one specific step out of many in the continuum between toy-like 1925 tinplate and proto 48. The more you move toward scale, the more ridiculous the third rail will look.

For me, I moved toward scale in three rail, and decided it was a slippery slope. Now, although I'm not really active, I do my scale work in N and find myself gravitating back toward postwar and tinplate in O for the Christmas tree.

I may have some nicely weathered and repainted engines up for sale down the road.

I thought hi-rail was a good term. I think three rail scale is a subset of that.

INMO 3RS offers the best of all worlds! I can run any scale fixed pilot diesel I want but also run Large beautiful steamers on O72 curves...something that I would not be able to do in 2 rail...hence the reason I went 3RS:

I love fixed pilots/Hate swinging pilots

I love kadee couplers/Hate lobster claws

I love huge articulated steamers/Dont have room for O-humongous curves

I love the simplicity and features of DCS/TMCC/Legacy but I hated the complexity of CVs and the like that I had to fight every time I got a new HO loco

I love scale realism but dont want to be nitpicked about every tiny rivet like I was in HO or P48 or whatever

AC is much easier to wire and I do not have to worry as much about wiring reversing loops or complicated track sections that require isolating sections perfectly and train length and the wheels causing a bridge in the circuit...

Just my opinion and input...of course no one really cares what a 21 y/o college student has to say....

Willbacker that makes a lot of sense. You are making a good argument for 3RS. I still have trouble with that third rail though.

I think Will from Stroudsburg makes a really good point. Since I switched to 2 rail, seeing the center rail on 3 rail track stands out to me like a sore thumb.

quote:

Originally posted by willbacker45:

I love fixed pilots/Hate swinging pilots

I love kadee couplers/Hate lobster claws

Well, yes that is fine, and you'll be most understanding when someone tells you they hate the look of the giant ribbon of rail running down the center of 3 rail track.

I wasnt mad at all! I completely understand that..which is why I used scaletrax which has the smallest center rail. I dont like the middle rail either but at this time in my layouts creation the benefits of 3RS greatly outweighed the benefits of 2R therefore 3RS is the best option for ME! Maybe not for everyone but for me and that is all I care about...ME and MY layout.

Well, then in 2RS O then you really cannot have a freelanced road name!

And I do agree. the loco needs to run on exactly what the proto ran on!

quote:

Originally posted by DominicMazoch:
Well, then in 2RS O then you really cannot have a freelanced road name!

And I do agree. the loco needs to run on exactly what the proto ran on!

Well, you can, even with 3RS: