Building 3-RS track?

Nope. Not yet. Waiting on my 198 feet of code 148 and 100 rail. And thousand ties to do so. I have built a few in the past and expect very little problems. Soon as I get all my stuff I'll post

CentralFan1976 posted:

Bob2, you hit it right on the head!

 

I have too much 3-rail stuff to turn back now, and no layout.

 

I myself fell down the slippery slope!

If you don't have a layout, the smart thing to do would be to sell the stuff and go 2 rail. I sold off a pile of HO, same difference.

Simon

Or do what I am planning on doing. 3rs switching layout. And a p48 switching layout. See what wins in the end

Messing around with a macro app for my phone. Seems cool. Would use my dslr but I am lazy....plus it shows the track

Looks great!

my shipment of Protocraft couplers came in!  

Single screw for the coupler and th Atlas box. Had to modify the back of the coupler. 

Thanks,

Mario

You guys are doing great work!   It's encouraging to see this direction taken in 3 rail. If I am able to rebuild someday I just may give this a try..

Those couplers look great Mario! I have been curious about those protocraft products. How do you like them? Have you operated with them yet?

Thanks!

TJ, as for operation, no. I'm a Kadee 740 guy. I bought these purely for looks on the fronts of lead locomotives. 

-Mario

Great idea Mario.

Ron

Ahh I see. I am rounding up stuff for a P48 RS3 project coming up and I am gonna get a set of those couplers to play around with . They look great

They are totally worth it and so much fun. 

I can't see switching with these, but I'm not that kinda guy. 

On leading locomotives? YES!

Switching could be a challenge. But it would add prototypical time to the moves so it may not be that bad. As long as my big ham fists don't wreck stuff. But they sure do look nice

The spree continues...

CentralFan1976 posted:

The spree continues...

Looks good. What mods did you have to do or were they a direct swap for the Kadees?

 For all of these cases, because I am basically fixing the front coupler in place,  I just screwed them in. But with little modification they could use the factory Atlas box or Kadee box. 

Any thoughts on using the switch rails themselves as the center AC hot when the switch is thrown (seen here neutral)?

Thanks,

Mario

CentralFan1976 posted:

Any thoughts on using the switch rails themselves as the center AC hot when the switch is thrown (seen here neutral)?

Thanks,

Mario

The issue as I see it is the ability to cut the power to the rail not be used when the switch is thrown. 

6 or 7 years ago I spent lots of time in the pursuit of a realistic 3 rail track. I hand laid code 148 with tie plates. I tried code 100 to code 148 on the center rail. I too modified an Atlas 2 rail switch using each rail type for the center. No matter what I tried, that center rail never disappears. It is always present, screaming it's presence to destroy the realism at all vantage points except low from the side. 

I tried hand laying heavy running rails using everything from code 172, to 215, to 250, but left them as only 2 rail. To my eyes, all of them were more convincing in realism than the much lighter code when used in 3 rail. Realistic track has 2 rails and any extra down the middle is noticeable but a taller running rail isn't very noticeable as most people don't even realize that there are size differences anyways, or what the total heights are. 

My quest then took me to stud rail as I concluded that the only realistic center rail is the one that isn't there. I had the stud rail laser cut. It mounted between the halves of cork road bed and stuck up between the ties in the ballast. After detailing, it was quite believable. Far better than any possible solid center rail. Clip on sliders on the rollers were made. Not all engines were easy to convert though.

The big problem came at switches. If I wanted a real look, that meant scale wheels. Deep flanges and a solid center rail are a huge eyesore in my personal opinion and they both had to go. That either meant run only modern MTH diesels with scale wheels or start converting. That wasn't much of an option so a switch that worked with both wheel types was needed. I don't find any switch from any manufacturer acceptable for both wheels. I too moved the guard rails on an Atlas 2R switch so deep flange wheels would work. Scale wheel reliability through the frog became inconsistent. 

I made the enormous mistake of sharing my work on this forum and received constant criticism for my efforts, including from an admin. I figured that a closed frog would be the best solution, and it is, but was then met with people claiming it didn't look real enough or that I didn't have realistic tie plates. Keep in mind the argument over realism apparently didn't apply to having an obvious center rail in place, an irony that was only obvious apparently to me. 

After constantly being told that I was wasting my time trying what I wanted to try, being told that it looked good but no one would but it unless Mike Wolf made it, being told that people wouldn't use it because they were already committed to their own layouts, and being told that I should just accept existing track options, I saw the light. I realised that the efforts were good but 50 years too late. The future wasn't in 3 rail. The past was. The future was in battery power so pure 2 rail became my focus with an emphasis on radio control. The neat thing about my experiments was that I knew that 2 rail track could be built to hi rail specs and have a fairly believable scene. This could easily still allow those deep flanges if so desired and a closed frog switch would allow any wheel. 

I'm not saying that you are wasting your time. Not at all. I actually like that you are trying what you are and enjoying it. That's what counts. It certainly looks better than the other 3 rail track out there. It's also nice that you aren't being met with the hostility that I was. Keep it up. Experimenting is fun!

Fred,

Thank you for the information that you have added, it certainly gives us a benchmark into your research, and insight into the reception that you received.

Personally, I have also received some of the same feedback on other projects, and I used to let it get to me.  But I don't anymore.  In fact, the 3RS Forum is the only forum I regularly check.

I'd love to see some pics of the work that you did, and don't feel like you're going to get the same reception, again.  I think that what you have done, along with Marker and Ron H and others, and what we are doing is a worthwhile pursuit and personally, I prefer not to go through the hassle of converting all my engines to 2-rail.

Here's some modified pictures showing my ideas:

What I'm thinking is just to move the points in, closer to the center line, to where it can become the conductor for the AC hot.  The red lines were added to show the continuity of conduction.

The throw would be increased, but I'd probably hand throw these anyway.

The above picture is an O 2-rail #7.5, that I modified digitally, not an actual photograph of a modified switch.  I believe it is hand laid.

Thanks!

- Mario

suzukovich posted:

CentralFan1976 posted:

Any thoughts on using the switch rails themselves as the center AC hot when the switch is thrown (seen here neutral)?

Thanks,

Mario

The issue as I see it is the ability to cut the power to the rail not be used when the switch is thrown. 

It should be easy to isolate the points from the stock rails, just by cutting or removing the jumpers.

I like the above picture, because the maker of the turnout has included a stud in the center.  This stud could actually be the conductor to power that side of the point.

Thanks,

- Mario

I'm a track person. I love hand laying. I also wanted the ability to run any new equipment with scale wheels or any old Lionel on the same track. A closed frog makes that easily possible. My only issue then is in resolving the center rail. 

fredswain posted:

I'm a track person. I love hand laying. I also wanted the ability to run any new equipment with scale wheels or any old Lionel on the same track. A closed frog makes that easily possible. My only issue then is in resolving the center rail. 

May I ask a noob question?

What's a closed frog?

This is what I think of as a closed-frog switch. I had some on my S-scale AF layout in the late 50's, along with flexible brass track on fibre ties. It's actually a pretty nice mechanical solution, although it is not an accurate model of an RR switch. 

By comparison, here's a high-speed "moveable point frog" from an actual RR application. The point of the frog moves in conjunction with the switch points, giving a smooth ride at the frog without a gap that the wheel tread must cross.

B Smith posted:

This is what I think of as a closed-frog switch. I had some on my S-scale AF layout in the late 50's, along with flexible brass track on fibre ties. It's actually a pretty nice mechanical solution, although it is not an accurate model of an RR switch. 

 

Yup. That's it. It may not technically be accurate but then again a center 3rd rail isn't either. This solves all wheel problems.

In fact, with a switch like this you don't even need the guard rails opposite the "frog," although they do help to give the visual illusion of a normal switch. But as a 2-rail guy, I would say "dump the center rail" and go Proto:48 for accuracy and realistic appearance, or at least use traditional 5' wide-gauge 2-rail. Nit-picking is in the eye of the critic, I suppose, but 3-rail track can never look realistic, no matter what you do to reduce the visual impact of the center rail. Just my opinion, of course. 

fredswain posted:

6 or 7 years ago I spent lots of time in the pursuit of a realistic 3 rail track. I hand laid code 148 with tie plates. I tried code 100 to code 148 on the center rail. I too modified an Atlas 2 rail switch using each rail type for the center. No matter what I tried, that center rail never disappears. It is always present, screaming it's presence to destroy the realism at all vantage points except low from the side. 

I tried hand laying heavy running rails using everything from code 172, to 215, to 250, but left them as only 2 rail. To my eyes, all of them were more convincing in realism than the much lighter code when used in 3 rail. Realistic track has 2 rails and any extra down the middle is noticeable but a taller running rail isn't very noticeable as most people don't even realize that there are size differences anyways, or what the total heights are. 

My quest then took me to stud rail as I concluded that the only realistic center rail is the one that isn't there. I had the stud rail laser cut. It mounted between the halves of cork road bed and stuck up between the ties in the ballast. After detailing, it was quite believable. Far better than any possible solid center rail. Clip on sliders on the rollers were made. Not all engines were easy to convert though.

The big problem came at switches. If I wanted a real look, that meant scale wheels. Deep flanges and a solid center rail are a huge eyesore in my personal opinion and they both had to go. That either meant run only modern MTH diesels with scale wheels or start converting. That wasn't much of an option so a switch that worked with both wheel types was needed. I don't find any switch from any manufacturer acceptable for both wheels. I too moved the guard rails on an Atlas 2R switch so deep flange wheels would work. Scale wheel reliability through the frog became inconsistent. 

I made the enormous mistake of sharing my work on this forum and received constant criticism for my efforts, including from an admin. I figured that a closed frog would be the best solution, and it is, but was then met with people claiming it didn't look real enough or that I didn't have realistic tie plates. Keep in mind the argument over realism apparently didn't apply to having an obvious center rail in place, an irony that was only obvious apparently to me. 

After constantly being told that I was wasting my time trying what I wanted to try, being told that it looked good but no one would but it unless Mike Wolf made it, being told that people wouldn't use it because they were already committed to their own layouts, and being told that I should just accept existing track options, I saw the light. I realised that the efforts were good but 50 years too late. The future wasn't in 3 rail. The past was. The future was in battery power so pure 2 rail became my focus with an emphasis on radio control. The neat thing about my experiments was that I knew that 2 rail track could be built to hi rail specs and have a fairly believable scene. This could easily still allow those deep flanges if so desired and a closed frog switch would allow any wheel. 

I'm not saying that you are wasting your time. Not at all. I actually like that you are trying what you are and enjoying it. That's what counts. It certainly looks better than the other 3 rail track out there. It's also nice that you aren't being met with the hostility that I was. Keep it up. Experimenting is fun!

Hi Fred,

You DID have the best solution that I've ever seen. I was one of the few that were on your side. I'm sorry you went through what you did, but it wasn't just you. I've been an advocate of your solution or even a 2 rail high rail solution for years. I get beat up on a regular basis for it.

It bothers me to no end that most people accept the 3rd rail. There is NO reason today to have 3 rails except for Nostalgia and 100+ years of history. You can build a believable 2 rail high rail layout right now with Gargraves and Ross. Once weathered and ballasted it doesn't look too bad. Much better than even the best 3 rail system. The problem is that people love Lionel (myself included) and you can't run Lionel engines on the 2 Rail track without major surgery that is impractical for most.

I'm not so sure battery power is the future. I would certainly embrace it, but as an avid RC modeler with many electric planes and batteries I can tell you that battery management is a pain. Keeping 20, 30, 50+ locos all charged and ready to go might be more trouble than most people want to deal with. 

I'm seriously considering a 2 rail high rail layout for myself. In my testing I've had good success with MTH Hi-rail engines and Scale wheel engines as well as Atlas 2 rail freight and passenger cars. My space is limited and having hidden 24"r return loops would really expand the possibilities of what I can do. I don't care for the look of any 3 rail track system (except your stud rail). To me the solid 3rd rail, no matter the size, ruins the scene.

Unfortunately, sound is a huge priority for me and Lionel has the best sound quality. So I'm stuck between one or the other.... 

Funny the more I read and look into options. Besides the idea about the turnout. Going the stud route AKA Marklin, is starting to look good and would be the easiest to do and still allow for Lionel engines. 

Stud rail was far more difficult than it appears to be.

While I personally think no 3 rail track can look truly real, by no means do I feel that it can't look far nicer than what's available right now. I'm also not going to tell anyone to just switch to 2 rail. I too have older Lionel trains that I have no intention of converting but I'd like to be able to run them with the others.

2 rail hi rail is easy from a track standpoint. Use gargraves 2 rail track with Ross switches with the center rail removed. The hard part is wheels. 3 rail wheels aren't insulated but work perfectly in that track type. Scale wheels don't work well through the switches. 

Hey Fred - I too was a fan of your posts 'back then' and wondered what had become of you. I went with ScaleTrax because of the center blade and smaller rails but the tie spacing always bothered me. Your solution seemed quite feasible as a working and better visually appealing idea.

FREDSWAIN, you're stud rail definitely had my attention.  Much more than all the kadee conversions and so forth.  When going for realism, no matter what, the 3rd rail kills it every time.  Which is why although I enjoy following 3 Rail Scale, I have no real interest in it at this point.  I settle for Scaletrax and moderately realistic scale sized trains.  I could see myself going RC/Battery/2 Rail down the road.  

When I had the stud rail made, I also had a removable center rail prototype made. It too was laser cut from stainless steel. It was a solid rail with fingers every couple of inches. The rail set on top of 2 rail track ties and the fingers went between ties through the table. That's how they were secured and how power was connected. If a center rail was no longer needed or wanted, it could be removed. It also worked for outside 3rd rail. 

Fred - I admired your work, and remember it being well received.  Your final version was stunningly good.

I remember stating that 2-rail was lots easier.  I hope you did not take that as "beating up on you".  I believe you stated in the end that stud indeed was more problematic than simply insulating wheels.

Battery and R/C is coming like a freight train.  Currently it is too expensive and not well adapted to model trains, but remember - for $30 you could go to Radio Shack ten years ago and buy the same thing in a model car, and it would run for a very long time between charges.  Watch this stuff explode when Mikey offers a scale B6sb with battery/R/C for the same price as Lionel's Legacy.  It would be trivial with today's state of the art.

There were several people who flat out told me that I was wasting my time. A well known admin being one of them. There were a few that said stud rail was nice but would only buy it if Mike Wolf made it. It was absolutely a hostile reception. It was what it was but it was ultimately what made me question my involvement in 3RS. Nevertheless, I still love seeing the work of others regardless of number of rails and hope more people in 3 rail will attempt custom track work. 

Well, it is a hobby, and in some sense we are all wasting our time.  I enjoyed your excursion.  I personally have never understood the desire for a center rail when coupled with a desire to make it disappear, although I understand those desires separately.  Two-rail has been perfected for 3/4 of a century, at least in HO and S.  I figure if you like 3-rail track you should proudly display it.

For me, I wanted a realistic looking track system but still wanted the ability to run my dad's postwar Lionel on the same layout without any conversion. I also wanted my nephew or my now son to be able to run their Lionel on it as well. Using a traditional center rail track on a permanent layout wasn't an option for me nor was just setting up some 3 rail track for them to play on. They already had that. It wasn't about proudly displaying 3 rail track. It was about proudly displaying realistic looking track but being able to run whatever I wanted on it, something that the industry is sorely lacking. 

bob2 posted:

Well, it is a hobby, and in some sense we are all wasting our time.  I enjoyed your excursion.  I personally have never understood the desire for a center rail when coupled with a desire to make it disappear, although I understand those desires separately.  Two-rail has been perfected for 3/4 of a century, at least in HO and S.  I figure if you like 3-rail track you should proudly display it.

My perspective is different than most... I was always interested in trains as a kid, but I didn't turn into a Rabid Foamer until Lionel introduced RailSounds and TMCC. I didn't even think about track back then , which I suspect is true for many still. As the offerings from Lionel and MTH grew more and more accurate and scale proportioned I went along for the ride. By 2008 I was building a 3RS layout and I got to a point where I literally couldn't stand looking at the 3rd rail or other 3R-isms any more. That started me on a journey through 2R, HO, S, and N that I'm still struggling with today. I love 2R, but I don't think it will grow due to the space requirements. I've even gone so far as to have 3 rail steam engines converted to 2 rail but keeping blind center drivers and long shank couplers so they would negotiate tighter curves. I even had a K-Line Hudson converted that would negotiate 27"r. 

Sound and smoke are priorities for me so I find it very difficult to stick with 2 rail because Lionel has the best sound quality (not always accurate, but quality) in the entire industry (DCC is catching up though). I am an audiophile so it matters to me... However, I find it really difficult to shell out thousands of dollars for any 3 rail track system. My eyes are immediately drawn to that blessed 3rd rail. I agree with the "track is a model too" concept and it pains me not to have even semi-accurate track.

I wish I still had the passion for 3 rail trains that I used to, but now I just see things I need to fix. Lionel's Legacy steam engines are extremely tempting to me. If there was a track system like Fred designed I would be all over it. The ability to run my Son's collection of RailKing on the same layout as my scale stuff (not at the same time) would be a nice option. 

So, I'm literally stuck between Lionel's trains and the track they run on.

In my dream world there would exist a 2 rail high-rail track system with code 148 rail and Lionel would make products that run on it. Short of that, I'd take Fred's Stud Rail. 

Unfortunately, nobody asked me...

Bob2, I respectfully disagree that Battery power is "coming like a freight train". There are several hurdles to overcome (safety, battery capacity, battery size, charging, etc...) before it will be ready for prime time. Even then I am skeptical that current 3 rail modelers will want to manage the charge status on each engine in their collection. The first time they want to run that Hudson, but they forgot to charge it and they'll be looking for the door. IF battery technology advances to the point that we can get smaller, more power dense, safer, faster charging batteries then perhaps. But today's Lithium cells require careful charging and storage so they perform, don't deteriorate, and most importantly - don't burst into flames. I have over a decade of experience with LiIon, LiPoly, and LiFePo4 chemistries which are the most popular today. Currently LiIon and LiPoly packs must be stored at a proper storage voltage when not in use and must be carefully charged (and monitored. As in you can't leave, you must watch over them) as they can EXPLODE if mishandled. Heck, they can EXPLODE if they are accidently dropped on the floor. Also, when they explode they do so like a Napalm bomb and set everything on fire. If you don't believe me read through this 10+ yr old thread with 300+ pages on the RCGroups board: https://www.rcgroups.com/forum...-Lipo-Fires-Are-Real

Not trying to be negative, just realistic. Technology has a long way to go before it would be feasible. RC controlled trains that run on dry cells have been around for decades. We had a Bachmann set around our tree 30 years ago. That's nothing new. You need a whole lot more power to run O scale motors, command systems, smoke units, and sound units. If we get there I'm all in, but I've been in this battery game for a long time and it moves slowly...

PS. In case you don't know what Fred's Stud rail looks like here is a photo. Isn't this amazing?

I've been into rc cars almost as long as trains, which are both since I was a kid. Lipo batteries don't scare me. There are millions of them in cell phones and lap tops. While a fire isn't unheard of, it is extremely rare. RC is where most problems occur. People try to charge them way too fast. I charge at 1C only. Some push it to 15C and then overcharge them to get a little extra kick. Then they use them with high draw, low wind motors with timing advanced so discharge rates are high. That's the abuse that you'd put them through if you were purposely trying to destroy one. Not everyone does this and of the people that do, not all of them have problems. The risk of a Lipo fire is far greater among the rc community as a result though. 

I designed a heart assist pump that implants in the left ventricle of the human heart to help people with heart failure. We've been developing tet for the past couple of years which is the wireless transmission of power through the skin which eliminates the need for a solid wire exiting the body. We need a small internal battery and we fully intend to implant a small Lipo battery inside the human body. We've done tons of charge and discharge testing and have found them safe when using proper charge and discharge techniques. The rc community has really hurt the image of lipos.

All that aside, there is absolutely nothing that prevents using TMCC, DCS, or Legacy on a 2- rail system.  And battery technology seems to be enjoying rapid advances.  Even lead-acid batteries have improved power and life, and the size is shrinking dramatically.

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.