Building 3-RS track?

bob2 posted:

Yeah, what are you guys going to do when battery power and command control become the norm?  Use a plastic center rail?

 

If you like the center rail, it is easy enough to add in any size rail, or even square stock.  As noted above, rather than modify miles of track, it is easier to convert your rolling stock to 2-rail.

 

That is not true for folks with dozens of locomotives, of course.  They are stuck with center rails and transformers long after the rest of us convert to Rc and battery.

Stuff and nonsense.

Conversion to battery power with DCC radio control is available. Have several early brass locos (conventional) that I plan to convert this way.

With DCC I can get accurate sound files without having to beg Lionel for whatever they'll sell. Etc.

Almost everything I own (except for early MTH diesels) will run on code 148.

I have made a cutter for the groove in the center and I will post pictures tomorrow. Uses two blocks of wood and a razor saw.

It's easy. I got rid of any locos that had a problem with the rails. My custom legacy Santa Fe  PA2s work fine.

Those really look great Ron. You may have mentioned earlier but did you add the smoke to the B unit?

You know , this is a timely thread...I am eyeing some code 148 rail on eBay right now that I was thinking about buying and hand laying some track with. I used to hand lay my HO track and think it may be easier to do it that way than modify atlas 2 rail. I like the look of three rail...just not terribly fond of the looks of any of the brands. I do like gargraves and Ross....but...I can do better lol

Sam, the B unit came with smoke. I bought the ABA units from Scrap Iron when he broke up the Munoz . Then I added scratch built pilots and a bunch of other stuff. Did an OGR post on all the mods.

Here is a pic and video of the tool I made to cut the grooves in the code 48. It is just four pieces of wood with a slanted exacto saw in the middle. Nails through the boards to keep the angle and depth on the saw. Fits in the middle of the track. A couple of swipes and a nice groove is formed for the N scale rail.

what is the advantage of doing this instead of buying 3 rail track? am curious is all as they say all have own ideas and how they prefer things to look.

I wanted scale size rail, that's all, and the n third rail is virtually invisible when filmed.

Ron H posted:

I wanted scale size rail, that's all, and the n third rail is virtually invisible when filmed.

Ron:

I like the look using N scale rail for the center. Is the groove wide enough to insert the N scale rail or rail head (inverted rail)?

Ron H posted:

Sam, the B unit came with smoke. I bought the ABA units from Scrap Iron when he broke up the Munoz . Then I added scratch built pilots and a bunch of other stuff. Did an OGR post on all the mods.

Here is a pic and video of the tool I made to cut the grooves in the code 48. It is just four pieces of wood with a slanted exacto saw in the middle. Nails through the boards to keep the angle and depth on the saw. Fits in the middle of the track. A couple of swipes and a nice groove is formed for the N scale rail.

Ron

Very clever tool!  I was trying to figure out a way to cut a groove with power tools - over thinking it.

I was going to do this with a code 100 center rail, since I have a bunch of code 100 laying around.  But that tiny N scale rail (code 55?) really does disappear after ballasting and weathering.  So N scale it is.

It looks fantastic!  Thanks for sharing.

Bob

Matt,

One could put the rail either way the "T"  up or down. As I stated before my first attempt that I covered in my posts is along the cliff side of my layout and I used a bunch of fastening techniques. I have not been happy with it as the N rail is so thin it squirms around. Operationally it has been good though.

So I've come up with the groove concept so I can epoxy the rail down to each tie after the two rail is tacked down to the road bed. I don't believe I will be able to epoxy more than 8 to 12 inches at a time. Also, I have to invent some kind of clamping fixture to hold the N rail down firm while the epoxy dries.

I guess I had better get the cab forward finished here soon and get this underway since there is some interest.

Ron

Ron.    I love the drama you capture in your videos, how do you do that? The N scale rail would pass Bobs three foot rule for sure. I'm not in three rail but I might try building a test track for some of my unconverted loco's. Thou I have figured out 2.4 ghz radio control, battery power or track, dc or ac for a few dollars. To convert or not convert that is the question ?...             cTr.......( Choose the Right )

Ron H posted:

Matt,

One could put the rail either way the "T"  up or down. As I stated before my first attempt that I covered in my posts is along the cliff side of my layout and I used a bunch of fastening techniques. I have not been happy with it as the N rail is so thin it squirms around. Operationally it has been good though.

So I've come up with the groove concept so I can epoxy the rail down to each tie after the two rail is tacked down to the road bed. I don't believe I will be able to epoxy more than 8 to 12 inches at a time. Also, I have to invent some kind of clamping fixture to hold the N rail down firm while the epoxy dries.

I guess I had better get the cab forward finished here soon and get this underway since there is some interest.

Ron

Thanks. My thought was using brass brad nails soldered to the rail foot and driving that those through the ties, but it requires a lot of precision. There was an old article where 2-rail Gargraves was used with brass wood screws down the center strung with soldered phosphor-bronze wire and I was thinking brass screws could support the rail and provide a point of electrical connection under the benchwork.

Matt,

I've done that and it is not easy without creating a soldering jig and even then the N rail is not a great soldering surface.

Ron

Ron   What about a contact glue?    cTr...( Choose the Right )

Ron is correct - in his photo one has to look diligently to see that third rail.

Ron wants the third rail to disappear - but most want to preserve it for nostalgia purposes.  Ron's models and layout are sufficiently realistic to deserve prototypical track.  

I note the Legacy ATSF is painted silver.  The real ones had stainless side panels?  Otherwise they are as good looking as the high priced brass.

ok can understand the n rail less visible. now how will the contact rollers like it wear wise?

My contact rollers have not shown unusual wear, but each one probably has not had more than a half mile of running 1 to 1 scale.

Bob thanks for the kind words.

My concern going forward is how the passenger car pick up for lighting will react through the turnouts. I have found car rollers to be more problematic than

locomotive rollers. I will probably remove them all and go battery powered for the lighting.

Stephen, I don't know about contact glue. The little N rail may not have sufficient contact patch on the ties. worth a try.

Ron H posted:

My contact rollers have not shown unusual wear, but each one probably has not had more than a half mile of running 1 to 1 scale.

Bob thanks for the kind words.

My concern going forward is how the passenger car pick up for lighting will react through the turnouts. I have found car rollers to be more problematic than

locomotive rollers. I will probably remove them all and go battery powered for the lighting.

 

Ron

Is your concern about modified 2 rail turnouts?  Is the concern about rollers getting pinched between rails, or electrical shorts as they cross rails?

StPaul

If only I could run my trains enough to wear out the rail!  

Bob

RRDOC posted:

Ron H posted:

My contact rollers have not shown unusual wear, but each one probably has not had more than a half mile of running 1 to 1 scale.

Bob thanks for the kind words.

My concern going forward is how the passenger car pick up for lighting will react through the turnouts. I have found car rollers to be more problematic than

locomotive rollers. I will probably remove them all and go battery powered for the lighting.

 

Ron

Is your concern about modified 2 rail turnouts?  Is the concern about rollers getting pinched between rails, or electrical shorts as they cross rails?

 

StPaul

If only I could run my trains enough to wear out the rail!  

Bob

All of these reasons plus I will have to ramp up the third rail as it joins the guts of the turnout for the rollers to climb.The locos will not bounce, but passenger cars at speed may. I like to run at a scale 75 to 90 mph. Marker did a prototype, but nothing demonstrated at speed.

Okay. So I had a hour to throw together a test track. It's scaletrax code 193 rail on the out side rails and atlas code 100 for center rail. Ties are a little undersize at 6 1/2 scale inches wide,but it's what I had on hand. The rails are attached using pliobond for now. Going to add spikes when I get a chance. Ballast is lying loose and is no where near what I am capable of doing but hey, I only had a half hour.

I am going to be ordering some code 148 rail. Ties and tie plates and experiment further in the next few weeks. But all in all I like it better than any of the commercial track I have bought so far. And it's faster than modding atlas track imo. Let me know what ya think.

If you want to have total worry free track , go with code 172 rail . No worries with flanges hitting spikes .  Just curious how many feet of track are making ?

It will only be about 35 feet of track. With three turnouts. So easy peasy. Code 172 crossed my mind but the only equipment I will be running without semi scale wheels will be my atlas and Lionel diesels. The flanges will clear code 148 and spikes with no issues. But we shall see. I keep experimenting.

And next to a piece of gargraves

Awesome!!!!!!

I'm testing the same thing... Eventually. 

I'm looking at Micro Engineering, as well. 

I think it is the way to go. Gives flexibility to build any turnout size needed and looks better than any of the commercial track available. Plus it is quite a bit cheaper. Give it a shot!

And here is one in less harsh light with a GP30 for centralfan.

I really like the look of this track!

Looks great and much easier than what I'm doing.

Ron

I owe you for the inspiration though Ron. Your converted atlas track looks fantastic! You and hot water as well as laidoffsick are the reason I am in o scale three rail!

For an up close and personal, here are two pieces that Marker graciously donated to my test efforts. Both an Atlas and Micro Engineering 2-rail, code 148 with an HO rail down the middle, in a groove. 

I admit I like the ME track a little better. 

But... I also like the idea of using a tail that I won't have to replace the wheel sets for, if they bump along the spike heads.  This only seems to be the Lionel non-powered units as of now, though. 

Thanks,

Mario

Micro engineering spike detail is exquisite. I have some of their HO stuff and love it.

CentralFan1976 posted:

But... I also like the idea of using a tail that I won't have to replace the wheel sets for, if they bump along the spike heads.  This only seems to be the Lionel non-powered units as of now, though. 

Thanks,

Mario

Mario

Are the spike heads higher on the ME track vs the Atlas and therefore a problem for more engines and rolling stock?

Am I correct that with the Atlas track, only the recent Lionel non-powered units are a problem?

Bob

I haven't looked at the spike heads, but the standard O gauge wheels clear them. 

But, the wider flanges of the non-powered units (what I believe to be a concession for trailing, lighter units at the front of a train and prevents string-lining) do.  This is true for at least the Legacy Sharks. 

Got my short handlaid track experiment ballasted and took some pics. I love the way it looks just have to weather the track

Most cool !!!!!

CentralFan1976 posted:

Originally Posted by clem k:

You can buy 2 rail Gargraves and Ross turnouts without the third rail

 

Clem

Hmmm... interesting.

 

I may have to try this.  Is anyone actually doing it?  I was thinking of just doing this for the foreground track, an keep regular Atlas O 3-rail for the background.

 

Thanks,

Mario

Hey Mario. I built a test setup.

I don't know if there is much interest left in this subject but I weathered my short section and took some pics and figured I would post em.

Perfect. 

Ok I have been following this with interest.   Like I need any more cool ideas put in my head. So the question has anybody built any turnouts yet?