fredswain posted:I found a couple of leftover stud rail strips. I might disassemble my displays that I built years ago and make a simple little switching layout. It would probably only be a main, a siding, and a lead with one switch but I could integrate a sector plate into it and get a stud rail micro layout out of it.
That's great!
Keep us in the loop. I speak for us all when we say that, it's an amazing system!
Thanks,
- Mario
I want to see it too. especially in operation. I still think it's the way to go.
I almost forgot about this experiment. I ran several layers of copper tape under the roadbed. I ran brass nails through the ties and through the tape. It wasn't as nice as my main pieces but easily doable with no special parts and still quite the improvement over the solid center rail. 
fredswain posted:I almost forgot about this experiment. I ran several layers of copper tape under the roadbed. I ran brass nails through the ties and through the tape. It wasn't as nice as my main pieces but easily doable with no special parts and still quite the improvement over the solid center rail.
I love that! It's almost a steampunk look!
thanks!
fredswain posted:I almost forgot about this experiment. I ran several layers of copper tape under the roadbed. I ran brass nails through the ties and through the tape. It wasn't as nice as my main pieces but easily doable with no special parts and still quite the improvement over the solid center rail.
So simple and easy done. How did it work out and could you show pics of both. From my vantage point looking at the pic I would think they need to sit a little higher. Also looking at it you could run them through the ballast therefore camouflagingredients the scews.
I made this piece just to test the concept. At first I was going to lay thin strips of brass under the ties in the roadbed and glue it all down. The track is hand laid. The ties are wood. I was concerned about price as well as the brass around curves. I then had the idea of using copper tape. It was flexible so corners should be easy. I wanted several layers thick as I knew that it would be limited by total current capacity. Each nail would penetrate the tape and hopefully make an electrical connection. This is only a 36" long straight. I think there were 2 or 3 that didn't connect electrically. I knew this might happen but hopefully sheer quantity would take care of it.
I've only proven that the concept technically works. I've run an engine back and forth but obviously not under a load over a long distance. I don't know if it's a truly viable technique or not? It might not be a good idea. It was only a proof of concept.
I ran the nails through the ties rather than between them because it was easy. Once the nail head reached the tie, I stopped. Over the length, there is a little height variation so there are some that may potentially never get touched by the slider. If you look straight down the piece from the end you'll see that they aren't perfectly straight. It's tough getting things perfect by hand.
Had the idea been extended to switches, the nails would rise to rail height like my functioning laser cut stud strips did. I'm sure that nails or even screws could be used as that they could be installed between the ties. If a small screw could be used it would make fine tuning the stud height quite simple. A stud need not be used at every tie if the slider shoe is designed properly.
I tried adapting this technique to both Atlas and ME flex track. The plastic ties kept splitting when I'd hammer the nails in.
CentralFan1976 posted:fredswain posted:I almost forgot about this experiment. I ran several layers of copper tape under the roadbed. I ran brass nails through the ties and through the tape. It wasn't as nice as my main pieces but easily doable with no special parts and still quite the improvement over the solid center rail.
I love that! It's almost a steampunk look!
thanks!
Confession time: there are no spikes here because this is just some random aluminum code 158 rail that I have. It's just sitting there. When I built this it had brass code 172 rail spiked down and really had a neat steampunk look to it. I had removed the rail and was going to throw this out. I merely set rails on it for these pictures just to show what it looked like.
Mario, your idea on switch building works just fine. I found these for $5 at a train show several years ago. Someone custom built these using American Flyer rail. The running rails complete the circuit when touching the running rail in their direction. The rail becomes a center rail when it is in the appropriate position. There's a metal contact underneath that the rail slides over to complete the circuit. No polarity reversing wiring necessary. It does it automatically. 
This is an old code 172 Trackmaster/Bob Peare switch. You can run any wheel, deep flange, scale, or otherwise on it with no issues. Modern problems were solved decades ago. 
Once again, if you are trying to make more realistic track, 2-rail is lots easier, and probably cheaper unless you have more than ten locomotives to convert. If you do not mind a center rail, do what Norm Charbonneau does - he puts his effort into realistic bodies and scenery, and keeps the Lionel wheels and track. His results are spectacular.
Fred's track is beautiful, but even he admits it is a lot of work.
If I were in 3-rail and wanted to convert, my locomotives would get traded or go on eBay. I do have a number of converted cars. They are easy. And I have the famous Lionel Hudson and B6 - converted here.
Bob2, there's still a place for 3 rail track, even among those who favor a degree of realism. Any track that I have will be labor intensive as I'm only hand laying anything that I use. For the realism seeking 3 railers it is understood that there is going to be a compromise somewhere. For me it's with a solid center rail. It can be segmented into studs and look acceptable to me and even used as an outside 3rd rail and look acceptable. As long as the extra rail is solid and down the middle, it's obvious. A small rail code in the middle does little to improve this. An outside rail is even less obvious as our brains think between the rails and not next to them. I personally will commit any permanent layout I build to 2 rail with on board battery power and DCC but that's me personally based on what I want. I love tinkering with lots of ideas though, 3 rail included.
This is another piece I did but never finished. I intended to ballast it and color the rails. This was to show 2 rail hi rail that allowed the use of standard deep flanges. A stud rail, outside rail, or onboard battery power could be used. This is code 215 rail, the same as Atlas 3 rail track. The added height doesn't really look out of place. It's a center solid rail that does, regardless of size. A closed frog switch would allow all wheel profiles. 
My experiment with 2 rail high rail used Gargraves 2 rail track. Not really that objectionable. Far easier to look at than 3 rail IMHO.
Oversized rail, oversized ties, no tie plates, no spikes. In the end it still looks more natural than having a solid line down the middle. Even one with full detail and proper sizing on everything. I have no idea why 2 rail hi rail isn't a thing?
Hi
Jonathan, can you please describe that Erie covered hopper as shown in your posted photos.
A very interesting topic and I appreciate all who have contributed. I believe that unless a big manufacturer offers this type of track it will remain an individual effort. I must say that the finished product of most of these efforts is stunning.
Steve
There's no reason for any manufacturer to get into the 3 rail track game anymore. That ship has sailed and isn't the future. Once MTH embraces 3/2 capability on its entire product line and then if Lionel would get into it, the long term writing would be on the wall. Lionel is pretty stubborn though.
Steam Guy posted:Hi
Jonathan, can you please describe that Erie covered hopper as shown in your posted photos.
A very interesting topic and I appreciate all who have contributed. I believe that unless a big manufacturer offers this type of track it will remain an individual effort. I must say that the finished product of most of these efforts is stunning.
Steve
Hi Steve,
That is a stock Atlas O 2 rail hopper. As for the track system, what most people don't realize is that 2 Rail High Rail track IS readily available right now! Both Gargraves and Ross will sell you any of there track in a 2 rail version. All you have to do is ask for it. I bought the Gargraves 2 rail track in the following video from ebay. The turnout is a plastic tie 36" radiused curve replacement turnout (same as a 3R O-72). No magic here... It can be done today. Either nobody realizes that or they just can't stand to give up their existing 3R equipment. I admit that not being able to run Lionel Legacy engines is also a problem I struggle with which is why I haven't committed to building a 2R High Rail layout yet. Yet...
The basic problem with 2-rail equipment is that the curves are too large for both homes and clubs. The trend in the hobby is to run scale cars and engines. Large modern diesels have become very popular and large steam engines are always popular.
I believe that if Atlas, Lionel or MTH built 2-rail equipment that would go around O-42 curves or at least O-72 then 2 rail hi-rail would become much more popular. This could be done by designing a coupler system that allows cars to pull apart on curves and then return to normal spacing on straights. Marklin and other European manufactures have these couplers installed on their HO equipment.
I would buy a 3-rail stud system if it was available. There would have to be a system to easily convert rollers to sliders. I can't see converting my fleet of 3-rail engines to two rail at this time. It would be too costly and time consuming.
NH Joe
There is no solution to convert every engine to a slider. One size does not fit all because manufacturers don't standardize.
New Haven Joe posted:The basic problem with 2-rail equipment is that the curves are too large for both homes and clubs. The trend in the hobby is to run scale cars and engines. Large modern diesels have become very popular and large steam engines are always popular.
I believe that if Atlas, Lionel or MTH built 2-rail equipment that would go around O-42 curves or at least O-72 then 2 rail hi-rail would become much more popular. This could be done by designing a coupler system that allows cars to pull apart on curves and then return to normal spacing on straights. Marklin and other European manufactures have these couplers installed on their HO equipment.
I would buy a 3-rail stud system if it was available. There would have to be a system to easily convert rollers to sliders. I can't see converting my fleet of 3-rail engines to two rail at this time. It would be too costly and time consuming.
NH Joe
I agree with you Joe. The point to note though is that MTH DOES make large steam engines that will negotiate tighter curves. Example: The PRR M1 Hi-Rail version will run on 27" radius (O-54) curves right out of the box. It will do so on 3 rail or 2 rail (Gargraves or Ross High Rail) track. Large 6 axle diesels will run fine on 36" radius which the MTH Hi-Rail Big Boy will also negotiate.
I wish Lionel would join MTH on the 2RHR bandwagon, but I would settle for a 3R stud rail which is the best compromise IMHO.
There's no reason for any manufacturer to get into the 3 rail track game anymore. That ship has sailed and isn't the future.
There is one good reason: some folks like the looks of the center rail. There never was a really good technical reason for it. Insulating wheelsets has been trivial since the 1930s. Gilbert did 2-rail tinplate. HO seems to work fine.
The key: If you like 3-rail, stick with it. If you want to go stud rail, go for a small loop. Once happy with that, add switches. Or take the cheap, easy way out and insulate your wheelsets. Use .215 rail, like Fred, and pizza wheels. That center rail has nothing to do with tight curves.
There's no market for a new 3 rail track system such as stud rail and little use with a new system using a standard center rail. MTH won't even offer a wider assortment of Scaletrax switches. Most of the people that like the center rail are perfectly content with the existing track options. The rest don't make up a large enough market share.
fredswain posted:There's no market for a new 3 rail track system such as stud rail and little use with a new system using a standard center rail. MTH won't even offer a wider assortment of Scaletrax switches. Most of the people that like the center rail are perfectly content with the existing track options. The rest don't make up a large enough market share.
Isn't that a shame.
It brings up a larger issue that I've noticed lately in O, which is the lack of innovation compared to smaller scales. O scale customers have allowed the manufacturers to take a "buy what we give you" approach vs. dictating what they actually want. The most comical example of this ironically came from MTH with their European O scale offerings. I asked Andy E. one time why the new European steam and passenger cars were so much finer detailed than the US models. His response was that the European modelers demanded that level of detail. So I asked if US models would be brought up to that level and his answer was basically no... that they didn't need to have the same level of detail to sell to customers in the US. In HO customers don't tolerate things like poor running qualities or incorrect details. I've seen Athearn offer to take back a diesel model because the molded in door panel was 6 scale inches off. Then look at what Jason Shron is doing at Rapido and it is just out of this world.
It just amazes me how different the cultures are from scale to scale.
They probably look at O scale from the standpoint that if people like a center rail that they'll tolerate less detail. After all, look at O27. There's really no equivalent in other scales.
The reality is that most 3-rail modelers have one foot in the toy hobby and their other foot in the scale hobby. There are many posts on this forum asking whether an XYZ scale engine will go around O-31 curves. Even the HO folks don't run trains on O-31 (15.5 inch radius) curves.
The minimum radius at my HO club is 42 inches (O-84). Most other HO scale modelers that I know use a minimum radius of 36 inches (O-72) on their home layouts except for some industrial sidings which may use 30 inch radius.
I suspect that 3 rail scale hobbyists such as Rich Batista and Bob B. are using large radius curves.
NH Joe
I found this neat gem from the UK online. It just arrived today. It was written in 1949. It's 54 pages devoted to implementing stud rail. 
1949? Surely there is some reason it never caught on in O. I think Maarklin did it successfully in HO, but hobbyists there were so used to 2-rail it did not stand a chance.
There are plenty of truly good models in O Scale. Most of the seriously detailed stuff is 2-rail, and priced to meet the incredibly slim market.
The Europeans are slightly more picky. They are using the correct track gauge, and Mikey is accommodating them.
Three-rail track is doubly cursed with the wrong gauge for 1:48 scale and a center rail. Going to 2-rail cures one affliction, but I'm afraid we're stuck with the 5-foot gauge, short of a true magic potion that can be poured over all the thousands of existing O-scale engines now gauged for 1-1/4" track. If I had a time machine, I would go back 100 years or more and make sure things were done right from the beginning!
N scale gauge is too wide, wheel flanges too large, typically use truck mounted couplers that are way too large, and rail height is way too tall.
Let's not get into On30 or the fracture in G gauge!
If you had P48 and 2 rail O gauge track on the same layout and detailed equally, as long as they never touched practically no one would notice. I doubt seriously that anyone here would notice. At least, not for a while. A slightly wide gauge is hardly noticeable under the best situations. A solid center 3rd rail is always obvious, even under the best conditions.
bob2 posted:1949? Surely there is some reason it never caught on in O. I think Marklin did it successfully in HO, but hobbyists there were so used to 2-rail it did not stand a chance.
If you read the forward in the book the author mentions that he wrote this because of the great interest that he received after mentioning it in another book that he wrote talking about 2 rail. Many people apparently kept writing letters inquiring how to do it. There appears to have been great interest in it back then. Incidentally, thus was around the time that Marklin made the switch from solid center rail to stud. Other manufacturers were stubborn.
Back then insulated wheels on train cars and engines wasn't as common as it is today. It's the de facto standard in all scales aside from deep flange 3 rail. He makes the case that full conversion of all cars and engines and new track was far more difficult and expensive than merely modifying the track that was already there and without the need to change wiring. In that scenario, he's correct. Today, wheel swaps are easy.
"N scale gauge is too wide"
Yep, 9mm in 1/160 scales out to 4 feet 8.6928 inches. It's a whopping 0.1928 scale inches (0.0012 actual inches) too wide. Horrible! 
As long as we're nitpicking between compromises, let's be thorough.
This was a British layout. It was the Jersey Model Railway club layout. This one was torn down in 1997. Look closely. It's technically 3 rail. It wasn't even ballasted. The construction is inline with the technique in the book which states that a stud only need be placed around every 3" and either on the ties or between them. I've thought of a ridiculously simple way to do stud rail on Ross and Gargraves track and now I'm going to experiment with it. 
Well, not all compromises are created equal. If in fact N scale track is 0.0012 actual inches too wide, then it is off by 0.0012"/56.5" = 0.0000212%, whereas 3-rail track is off by fully 150%.
Make that 0.00212% for N (forgot to divided by 100), but it's still 150% for 3-rail.
B Smith posted:Well, not all compromises are created equal. If in fact N scale track is 0.0012 actual inches too wide, then it is off by 0.0012"/56.5" = 0.0000212%, whereas 3-rail track is off by fully 150%.
B Smith posted:Make that 0.00212% for N (forgot to divided by 100), but it's still 150% for 3-rail.
Well since you brought it up and assuming you're talking about the number of rails, 3-rail track is actually off by 1 rail and 1 rail divided by the correct 2 rails is 1/2 = 50%. Now Gargraves combination O-gauge and standard gauge track has 5 rails (3 extra), so THAT track is off by 150%. 
Your statement on the magnitude of error is therefore off by 100/50 = 200%. 
Isn't math fun?
So.... is anyone else going to positively contribute to this thread in any way or is it just me, a 2 railer that likes to tinker, against several people that like to state that everyone else's opinion is somehow wrong?
Sorry Fred, just having a little fun. I'm actually a friend of Hugo Pallesen, the 3-railer from France who was experimenting with stud rail and movable frog switches about 20 years ago. I've seen stud rail work on some of his test track sections up to 8 or 10 feet long. I recall that passenger cars with sliders clipped to their pickup rollers made a distinct clicking sound when rolled along the studs. A long train of such cars would have made quite a racket. I haven't seen any discussion of this, which is not a problem in Marklin HO due to the much smaller mass of the sliders.
Hugo's modified switches were works of art. There were two designs of movable frogs and either one would allow cars equipped with 2-rail or 3-rail wheelsets to pass smoothly through. Zero derailments ever with those frogs.
Although Hugo spent a few years working on stud rail, to the point of contracting with someone to produce metal stampings of the stud strips (which were to be installed on edge between two strips of cork roadbed), he eventually dropped it all and converted to 2-rail O-scale.
Stud rail when applied to 2-rail code 148 track definitely looks better than any "regular" 3-rail track. Is it worth all of the effort to build an actual layout (rather than test tracks) and also to overcome the problems in converting locomotives (some of which can't be converted per Hugo) and lighted cars? Hugo went 2-rail instead.
The system I came up with looked very much like Hugo's, but at the time I had never seen his. It was apparently just the most logical way to do it with modern technology.
I played around a lot with stud shapes and sizes and found that clicking could be eliminated through proper design. The book actually mentions the clicking issue and ways to avoid it that I hadn't thought about. I'm still curious enough to mess with it. Like Hugo, I too have committed to 2 rail though.
BOB -- good point. Even at 50% it's still a pretty big compromise. Expressing this whole question in terms of percentages can be a little misleading either way. How about a system with only one rail -- I guess that's also off by 50%, but in the other direction (one rail less than usual = 50% fewer rails).
If 2-rail model RR track is a 100%-accurate representation of actual railroad track (considering only the number of rails), then you can't do any better than that for accuracy -- so maybe we should describe 3-rail track as being completely incorrect (100% wrong) with respect to representing actual 2-rail RR track. 
One more mathematical wrinkle: although 3-rail track has 50% too many rails (one more than it should), it can be corrected by a reduction of only 33-1/3% in the number of rails (remove one of the three).
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
