Just curious to know if any of you folks have ever removed the middle rail from your layout to achieve a more realistic track profile. I understand that doing so would require a new train control configuration.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Sounds like a make work project. Better to spend the time and effort drinking scotch and contemplating scenery and buildings on the layout.
Haha. You suggestion makes perfect sense. Just the first part though.
It would be easier to start over with two rail track in my opinion. Also, switches would need to be totally rewired and physically modified to run two rail equipment with scale flanges. NH Joe
I did sort of. I sold most of my 3 rail track at a show and bought 2 rail track. This was about 16 years ago. The pizza cutter flanges and lobster claws never bothered me about 3 rail but that rail down the center of track did. It bothered me a lot. That’s how I got into 2 rail.
Pulling up all the track and switches would make some sense, unless of course you have complicated switches like three way turnouts and double slip switches.
Another option is to dim the lights and as the scotch kicks in, the third rail should just disappear - problem solved.
@Mainliner posted:Just curious to know if any of you folks have ever removed the middle rail from your layout to achieve a more realistic track profile. I understand that doing so would require a new train control configuration.
Just my opinion but, that would be a TOTAL waste of time! The rail size on 3-rail track systems is historically WAY TOO LARGE for 2-Rail SCALE modeling. Much better to purchase properly sized 2-Rail track & turnouts, with proper sized ties. Then there is always the option of hand-laid track on individual wood ties.
I have Atlas track (some Gargraves too). I no longer use DCS (MTH locos are gone). I do have TMCC stuff though. Eventually, I wish to convert to dead rail. At that point the 3rd rail is no longer needed. But the conversion will take time.
I get Hot Water’s point and agree that for true fidelity scale rail is required. But, my physical constraints require tighter curves and time to convert my existing locos, most of which have hirail running gear.
So my thoughts are build my layout with 3rail, and when fully dead rail pull the third. Hand laid track is way above my pay grade.
Joe, the drink kicked in. Can’t see any of the rails though!
Larry
Yes. I have done it...to around 5" of Gargraves track used to store axles in a maintenance facility.
Attachments
Images (1)
Salvaging the switches, especially the double slip switches is a cost effective approach. Pulling the 3rd rail would only need to be done in the most visible areas. You may never need to pull the 3rd rail from the switches, especially if there is a chance of damage to the switch operation.
The most important design consideration is to have a hidden staging yard, either under the layout or in the next room (you may need permission to use the next room). In these locations you can use the 3-rail track, as it would not be seen. It is amazing how many engines and rolling stock you want to run that do not "store well" on the layout.
Hidden staging, double slip switches, dead rail conversion & scotch, not necessarily in that order.
I realize now, through your wisdom, that I only need one of the above.
And Lehigh, I’m thinking on the grand scale. Your track work is commendable.
@Hot Water posted:Just my opinion but, that would be a TOTAL waste of time! The rail size on 3-rail track systems is historically WAY TOO LARGE for 2-Rail SCALE modeling. Much better to purchase properly sized 2-Rail track & turnouts, with proper sized ties. Then there is always the option of hand-laid track on individual wood ties.
See my signature line...
When I made my 12 foot test track I used Atlas 21st century 3-rail and pulled off the center rail for a 2-rail run. (It's just what I had on hand at the time in long sections.)
Works just fine aside from the aforementioned scale fidelity.
I have it connected to my Lionel ZW-L using one of my old-New Stock Lionel G scale ac-dc converter boxes. It works great for the test track. Allowing me to use the same ZW-L to conventionally power three different tracks 3R, 2R, and HO.
Besides the test track, I doubt I would use that same power set up on anything larger than a small room loop.
Since I have quite a bit of 3R and 2R locomotives my previous layout was multiple loops and my next one will be as well. (If I ever get around to building it)
Currently, I'm experimenting with a layout using one loop of Atlas 3R track to be dual purpose 3-Rail and 2-Rail. (A simple round-the-room shelf layout, the center rail wouldn't really be visible at that height.) Atlas track rails are isolated so I'm working on a simple switch out section of track for the power. I can then flip a switch to dedicate the same tracks as either three rail or two rail depending on how I want to power it.
(If I was smarter, I would have thought of it earlier and just made the test track that way.)
Heresy??!! Maybe.
But it keep things fun for me. An around the room shelf layout in my poker room isn't exactly "scale" anyway.
3rd Rail's E7 (2R) on the closer track...
(I previously posted this vid on my other thread.)
Attachments
The Atlas looks pretty good like that with the large black rail removed. Atlas rail is pretty tall. You might want to try some 2 rail Atlas and see if your wheels will clear the ties. The lower profile will look so much better!
Gargraves is just plain oversized no matter how you look at it - especially the ties.
Well I think that my project will proceed with the 3-rail Atlas running both dead rail DCC and TMCC. I am using the CVP radio product feeding an ESU decoder in a conversion I did on an Atlas F3. The performance and functional variety of this combo is sooo good. Diesels are one thing, steamers another. I look forward to a dead rail steam loco. But the conversion is not without cost. I hope I can sell the TMCC boards as I go. Once all is dead rail, out will come the center rail as Sam and 41 above have seen or done.
Sam, you’re right, 2rail track wont handle the hi rail flanges. The wheels don’t bother me anyway.
And John, your signature line fits perfect. Had to think a bit about that....
Larry
@Mainliner posted:Just curious to know if any of you folks have ever removed the middle rail from your layout to achieve a more realistic track profile. I understand that doing so would require a new train control configuration.
That’s just crazy talk. Makes as much sense as pulling the center drivers from my Hudson so I have a 4-4-4.
YES, I did it a couple years ago when I converted my first engine from DCS to BPRC and realized BPRC was the way to go.
It was a waste of $$$, should gone 2-rail when I got into O-scale.
Gargraves track is a PITA because the rail is embedded in the ties, Ross track is spiked and isn't as bad.
When I converted to code 148 2-rail track I also tore down the layout and used Mianne parts for the framework.
I still use 3-rail wheels, just no middle rollers.
@Mainliner posted:Just curious to know if any of you folks have ever removed the middle rail from your layout to achieve a more realistic track profile. I understand that doing so would require a new train control configuration.
If you want some 2 rail track contact me, I have a box of curves and a box of straights and 4 switches all Atlas
Must be a rare bird here. My 50's nostalgic roots love the early GG wide flex track curved three rail and my hard core 2 rail appetite favors 2 rail realistic appearance.
Something that reflected my mixed track thinking is the Brandoywine River Museum in Chadd's Ford PA. They have a huge 2 and 3 rail combined very well done layout displaying the best of both worlds.
With that in mind, I just had to add a couple of 3 rail levels to reflect my life's experience in 0 scale.
In your case however, I would not rip out the center rail, but rather simply add a two rail operation along side the existing trackage.
Consider this, IMO, I see absolutely NO resale value in three rail track with the center rail pulled out. If some one would want two rail track they would not want stripped high rail track with a string of messed up / patched up tie centers.
No matter how much you love your layout, one day it is going to be disassembled. The question remains how much recovery would you like to receive from your expensive track purchases? Typically used track in good to excellent condition sells for 1/3 of it's current retail price. Older track can yield 1/4.
(Which reminds me of one of Leno's Jay walking surveys where yuppies thought 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 because four is more than three.)
In my endeavors I have taken down many layouts and 99% of all the 2 or 3 rail track was resellable.
So if you just want to add some not quite new 0 scale 2 rail track I have 600 feet and 100 turnouts of late model Atlas 2 rail looking for a new home.
I am just now in the process of constructing the layout. No track is down, but I have most of it. All my locos are TMCC and in the process of converting to dead rail. So to run, for the foreseeable future, I will need that third rail.
Bob, do you have any probs with the flanges of your BPRC locos going through 2rail switches, etc.?
Tom/Bill, I may be talking to you about that track. It would force the conversion process.
Appreciate all the comments above.
Larry
Someone Else Posted: Just my opinion but, that would be a TOTAL waste of time! The rail size on 3-rail track systems is historically WAY TOO LARGE for 2-Rail SCALE modeling. Much better to purchase properly sized 2-Rail track & turnouts, with proper sized ties. Then there is always the option of hand-laid track on individual wood ties.
What might be a waste of time to some, is quite possibly an enjoyable modeling experience to others. And who knows? 3-rail, over-sized track with the center rail yanked may be just the 'look' a person could be envisioning. Or perhaps, what if someone wanted to model outside 3rd rail using 3-rail trains? That would be a great way to re-use the left-over middle rail!
All kinds of possibilities open up when one unlocks a closed mind. Just my opinion too, of course. 
Just an FYI, in case no one has ever noticed, GarGraves offers 2-rail (yes, two!) O-gauge flex track with either tinplate or stainless steel rails. Shown on their website. 
@Mainliner posted:Sam, you’re right, 2rail track wont handle the hi rail flanges. The wheels don’t bother me anyway.
Uh, that's not quite what Sam said. Modern hi-rail flanges will work fine with Atlas code 148; just do a search on the forum for [ all words ] Atlas 148 flange height ' or something like that. Hence, since it is easier to add the centre rail and then later remove it [ as opposed to removing the centre rail from 3R track ], if you need to buy additional track for your layout I would suggest buying 2R.
The problem with the high rail flanges for 2R is not the plain track, it's the turnouts: The back-to-back of the hi-rail flanges are less than their scale equivalent -- compare a -1 vs a -2 MTH 3-2 loco, for example -- and they won't go through standard 2R turnouts due to flangeway width at the guard rail, frog, etc. Flange depth is usually more readily solved by comparison. Both problems can be overcome with either the choice of turnout or sweat.
I hope that helps.
Best regards, SZ
@Mixed Freight posted:All kinds of possibilities open up when one unlocks a closed mind.
SOME people on the Forum -- I won't mention ANY names -- lost their keys years ago.....
SZ
Bob, do you have any probs with the flanges of your BPRC locos going through 2rail switches, etc.?
Larry, none at all. Everything runs fine on Code148 2-rail track. All my switches are from Signature Switch, I told him what I was doing and he made them specifically for 3-rail wheels. I actually tried to run 2-rails wheels on some of my rolling stock, but the gaps in the frogs are greater than they would be on normal 2-rail switches, at least I think that's why it didn't work. One thing for sure...I have yet to have a derailment that wasn't "engineers error", which usually amounts to leaving one of the switches not lined up correctly. The big flanges help keep things on track. I hardly notice them, except on the front pilots of some of my steamers. The Williams/Samhongsa brass N&W 611 4-8-4 (and most Williams brass I have) have huge looking flanges. I will say without any proof that there's not much space from the "spikes" on the track to the flange of the wheels.
I don't know how they would perform on say Atlas 2-rail switches, easy enough for someone who has them to try and let ya'll know. My track is a mix of Atlas and Micro-Engineering, all (approx) 2 dozen switches are from Signature Switch. I tried making my own and it was a dismal failure. Definitely cheaper if you can go that way and have the patience and time.
With hindsight, I wish I had left the 3-rail track and switches alone and simply bought 2-rail, would have probably made some cash by selling the 3-rail for cheap.
Now that I've gone 2-rail, I wouldn't go back to 3-rail no matter what. Plus BPRC has given me the freedom to do it how I want and there's ZERO wires to my layout at present. I may eventually get around to wiring up buildings, etc, but no track. May even put power back to the Atlas turntable.
Thanks all for your points of view. So many roads to travel in this hobby. Best about it is they all arrive at the same station.
Larry
