Cottage industry - new 'scale' 3 Rail track?

Sam, I'm working on 3 rail track using Atlas Code 148 2-rail track and switches.  I am nearly finished with my first experiments.  The conversions are easy but the cost of using another manufacturers products would be prohibitive.  

 

Code 148 has a better profile and works.

 

BTW, that means #5 or #7.5 switches, no 072 or tighter curved switches. 

 

 

Ditto.  Looking at exact the same thing.  I'll see if I can find the picture of the weathered 2 rail with a third rail laying on the ties.  I think the biggest hangup is coming up with a reasonable way to secure that extra rail.

 

Atlas two rail is available.  Adding a third rail using "N" or "HO" flex would not be horrible. Switches are another story.

 

BTW, if you go back through early (I mean really early) issues of OGRR you can find ads for other track systems.  It might be telling that the only one(s) still around are Atlas and Gargraves.

Hey Howard - That's terrific!  Looks great too.

 

Was thinking that with the move to full scale locomotives started back in the 1990s that our track systems have failed to keep up. The major manufacturers are amazing us with 'near museum' scale engines and locomotives as well as scale rolling stock these day but the track is 20 years out of date.

 

Perhaps you are here with the right track at the right time?  Please tell us more...

I would suspect that the most likely candidates to make a new rail system would be one of the established firms.

 

I don't think that a new small firm would have the resources to invent, manufacture, distribute and market a new track system.  The new track system would also, I believe, have to have a transition piece that would allow it to easily connect with one of today's systems.

 

The major advantage for "scale" operators of 3-rail track versus 2-rail track I believe is that 3-rail track and equipment allows for much smaller curves.  I see many posts on this forum that ask will this big engine or car get around O-54 or smaller curves.  Most 3-rail operators that I know think that O-72 is too big.  (The minimum curve on my home layout is O-72.  It is almost too small for some my larger equipment.  The overhang of scale engines and passenger cars causes problems.  O-72 switches are also derailment problem for my larger equipment.)

 

I think that if a person is going to use #5 and larger switches with curves larger than O-72, they might as well go with 2 rail track.  Today's DCC systems make 2 rail almost as easy to wire as 3 rail systems.  I have operated on many DCC layouts from N to G gauge.  I can tell you that I always have more reliable control over a DCC engine than I do with a TMCC or DCS engine.  TMCC and DCS work on my layout but they don't work as well as DCC systems that I have used.  (There aren't any TMCC ground plane issues or DCS signal strength issues with DCC.  You don't need to put RF chokes in your passenger car lighting systems to get DCC to work, etc.)

 

Joe

 

 

It would be very easy for Atlas to produce this track.

 

My pictures aren't very good and you can't see that the Code 100 rail I'm using for the third rail is about the same width as a Super O third rail.  I'm using Micro Engineering weathered Code 100 for the third rail.

 

The stock 2-rail frogs work for all the 3-rail trucks and engines I've run through the switch.  The guard rails need to be repositioned for 3-rail wheels.  The molded in electrical connections need to be redone for 3-rail.  The only thing I have left to do is secure the 3rd rail between the points.  I'm waiting for some parts from Fast Tracks to secure the last piece.  

 

I've done 2 switches a #5 and a #7.5.  I want to try a couple of other methods before committing to a method of doing the rest of the layout.  I will need to test this section to make sure it is durable, but, so far to good!  

 

I'll post when I have trains running on this section.

Well, I have corresponded with Ross about nickel silver.  Scaletrax has the right idea

EXCEPT for the proprietary connections I do not like.  Ross or Atlas, with nickel silver

track, profiled like Scaletrax, but without "funny" interconnection/compatibility problems and maybe with low profile wood ties, would seem to be logical, but...how often does logic prevail?  As they now stand, they are either rust prone, tall and

clunky, or incompatible, so I don't like any of them, and they are a detettant to the

hobby.

"deterrant"

So wouldn't it be less expensive to go 2- rail?  The big downside is having to insulate steam locomotive drivers - all the rest is trivial when compared to the cost of a new track system for those who want track realism with a center rail.

 

Even the steam drivers are simpler and more cost effective - for instance, MTH could, if it wanted to, extend the 3-2 concept to steam, simply by making the frame separate at the axle centerlines.  They already offer 2- rail versions of most locomotives.

 

Converting cars - at least freight cars - could be done with plastic wheelsets.  Really trivial.

 

Going this route, you can use existing 2- rail track, but retain the sharp corners currently thought possible only because of the presence of the center rail.

 

Opinion.

It is an interesting idea, but I suspect you'd discover that it would be more than a "cottage industry" effort to get to a scale where you might at least break even as a business.  3-D printers are great for making prototypes and one-off stuff but with the number of ties you would want, you'd probably want to seek a faster/lower cost way to produce them by the gross, at least.

 

I hope someone does this . . . great idea. 

Marker, anyone, looked at this site? He has does a lot of shows in the Northeast including Syracuse. The switch jigs are pretty trick. I have hand laid a fair amount HO track and its not that difficult. The jigs would really facilitate switch making. Then the 3rd rail could be installed easily into wood ties.

 

Pete

Tony Lash swore in this forum that ScaleTrax the correct and scale spacing for track on the east coast and that there was no need to change. Correct or not. it looks bad,

 

Not sure if there is any more room for a new track system at this time.

I would like to see MTH correct the tie spacing issue but now you are talking new molds which aren't cheap. I also would like to see them improve their switches and increase the switches available.  I think MTH correcting the tie spacing or Atlas scaling down their rail size is the best commercial option...but it is $$$ that I am sure they do not wish to spend. 

Thanks Norton.  I just received my order about 20 minutes ago from Fast Tracks ( handlaidtracks.com ).  He was out of jigs at the time of my order, which is why I decided to try modifying the Atlas switches.  The fact that the frog doesn't have to be modified makes it easy.

 

My current method does not require hand laying my own switches.  I just modify the Atlas switches, which is well within my ability.  I can do it in one work session (a few hours).

 

I will be trying hand laying some switches in the not to distant future.

So, am I alone in the fact I don't mind, well actually I like, the look of Atlas's 3R track, large black center rail and all?  But then I've really never had any issues with the look of 3R in general.  If I was worried about all that detail and looks, I would of stayed in N.

At some point, that third rail, whether large or small, kills the illusion.  IMO, anyone wanting a more "scale" 3-rail track than those already available should probably switch to 2-rail.  After all, you can scale out the ties, spacing, rail height, tie plates, spikes, etc...  But there is STILL an extra rail down the middle.  Either you can live with that or you can't.  I doubt that there is a large enough market to support it.

I have a PS-2 MTH Blue Goose SF Hudson that has two rail wheels.  It will run on 3 or 2 rails.  The engine will run using conventional DC power or PS-2.  I have already run it on a conventional DC two rail layout without problems.  The only issue with this engine on three rail track is that all the drivers have flanges.  Therefore it needs broad curves.    

 

I understand that the new PS-3 system will run on DCC.  I would love to convert this engine to PS-3 so I could use it with DCC on a two rail layout.       

 

You are correct that most other steam engines would need to be converted and I think that would be difficult for many people.

 

Joe 

looks great, but I think 99% of our trains have flanges too large for scale size rails. never mind switches. scale wheels would be a must if you are going to run your layout reliably.

looks great, but I think 99% of our trains have flanges too large for scale size rails

 

Nope.  The Atlas 2 rail track will allow modern and most PW stuff to navigate without issues.  Pre-War and some 1980's era brass have really, really oversized flanges and those will bottom out on the code 148.  Switches are another matter.  The depth of the tread as well as the size of the flanges causes the wheel sets to catch at points and frogs.

 

BTW, unless you run proto-48 all of this stuff is technically wrong.  Even two rail O is not true 1/48 scale "gauge".  It will measure out to 5' not 4' 8-1/2".  The gauge was established before the scale.

This is becoming a really good discussion. Marker is onto something I believe. Modifying Atlas 2 rail is something I had not thought about before.  Sounds like you are well along with this Howard. 

 

sinclair - I have a few feet of Atlas 3 rail on hand and would agree that it is quite impressive in its 'feel' and appearance. The oversized rails are not a huge deterrent but I've always liked the illusion of my equipment appearing more massive on ScaleTrax than any other system.

 

Using the Atlas 2 rail with a smaller center rail added seems a reasonable alternative. Personally, I'm not overly concerned about 'true 1:48 scale everything' as I am about the overall illusion of my trains. I've actually been able to be in denial about that third rail to where after all these years it now appears 'nermal'...

Nope, there are now 2 of us. I like it as is too, and I actually like having 3 rails. I think Atlas track is very nice just as it is. They make quite a few switches, but a few more would be nice. That's about the only improvement I would possibly like to see, but I can get by just fine with what they have now. I am prototypically challenged though, and I think the folks discussing the track here are probably quite prototypically correct. They also want to have their O gauge layouts as correct as the HO & N folks.

This is the Atlas 2 rail, weathered sitting on styrofoam and Woodland Scenics foam rad bed that's been spray painted with "Flexstone" paint.  The third rail is Atlas N flex track rail.

 

Still working on a sane way to attach the N rail to the ties or roadbed that's actually sane/easy.

So Chuck and Marker, how do you deal with the low center rail traversing the outside switch rails since they will be taller?

 

Pete

 

They would have to fab a transition center rail section where the rails would taper upwards to match the switch rail height.

Very inventive Marker. You will have to let us know when your track conversion is fully working.

 

 

You guys are fine with your opinions as Atlas is a quality product and looks a heck of a lot better than Gargraves (or tubular for that matter). I like it. My layout was ScaleTrax and I like it as well. Was just thinking that both could be improved for those of us who want a better product that looks more prototypical!

 

I started this thread asking for input from guys (and you too Nicole) who wanted something more...

 

Whew!  That looks great Chuck. Have you and Howard been collaborating on this? 

 

PS  If you used HO rail would it be tall enough to drill small holes every 6" -8" and use fine wire plus CA glue to hold it in place perhaps? 

Could someone do it?  Yes, they could, IF they had very deep pockets that could be devoted to developing a full line of track, switches, and other items.

 

Will someone do it?  Not at all likely in my opinion.  For one thing, they would be about 15 or more years too late at this point in time.  And I certainly can't imagine such an enterprise being undertaken in this country because the cost to the consumer of the final product would limit the potential market to the very few and the decidedly well-to-do.

 

I imagine we'll continue to see individuals try to "improve" on what's available, but I would be very surprised to see any of these efforts translate into a commercially viable and readily available product line.  My opinion might have been different if such a system had emerged back in the mid-1990s or so.

 

For what it's worth, though, I really don't mind being proven wrong!  

Ditto.....CAN be done......Will NOT be done.

You are re-inventing Gargraves and Ross.....both around a while, GG 50+ years maybe??? Starting all over in a new direction would cost big time.....and enter a market already very full. Lionel sells 3 types of track, MTH 2 types, WbB 2 types, Gargraves 3 versions of their track(wood, plastic, SS and phantom) , Atlas 2 types of track.....how many more will the hobby support????

 

 

 

Better yet drill holes and use HO spikes. No glue needed. HO spikes are closer to O scale anyway. Holes not needed for wood ties of course.

 

Pete

Maybe an email or a call to Atlas and MTH would be an idea as a starting point for all the prototypically correct folks?  All the folks that go to York and other train meets where those companies are represented might mention the suggested track improvements to them. You never know, they may just take some of the ideas and go with them?

 

I'm happy as is, mostly because I don't know the difference (too old to learn it all now), but I do understand all of you that want more realistic track and layouts. In the end your suggestions and ideas probably contribute to the manufacturers making better stuff for all of us. So, keep suggesting things to them!

Better yet drill holes and use HO spikes. No glue needed. HO spikes are closer to O scale anyway. Holes not needed for wood ties of course.

 

That's a great idea, thanks Pete.  Music wire is also something I hadn't considered but will look into.  Great ideas, keep em coming!

As cited above there are several companies making more than one kind of track,

none of them pleasing to all.  Seems like one of those making just one kind or a

not particularly successful kind, could, if it wanted to make the investment and thought the market was there, offer something better as an addition, with an eye

toward eventual replacement (although there might be a long term market for

the "old" version, as there is for tubular).

Originally Posted by Norton:

So Chuck and Marker, how do you deal with the low center rail traversing the outside switch rails since they will be taller?

 

Pete

 

They would have to fab a transition center rail section where the rails would taper upwards to match the switch rail height.

 

I bent the center rail so it is ramped up to the height of the Code 148 rail where the roller crosses the outside rails.  It isn't noticeable unless closely examining the switch.  I did it over the length of a couple of ties.  

 

I debated whether to use Code 148 for the switches but decided to give the Code 100 a try first.

 

 

 

 

 

Some can't handle the center rail, I can't stand On30, thinking what a waste it is

to gen up all this stuff that should have been made in On3, and is at least closer

to reality..UNLESS On3 (and On30!) are based on the scale 5 ft. width of "O gauge"

track.

1.  Re Adding a third rail to 2 rail track:  Been there, done that -- back in the early 1980's, using Atlas 2R track and HO rail.  See my posts beginning on Nov 21, 2013 in the 3RS Forum for a description and photos;  sample photos below.

 

2.  Cottage Industry:  The biggest problems are outside the cottage:  marketing / selling / small business regs etc etc   

   [ 2b. MTH actually sells --well, catalogues -- two rail track;  anybody ever see any ? ]

 

3.  It always surprises and disappoints me that what to me seems like the greatest visual drawback of ScaleTrax, other than the Mini Wall of China running down the center of course, are the greatly oversized-in-height tie plates.  Anybody else feel that way ?  Anybody ?

 

Best rgds, SZ

detettant

 

deterrant

 

deterrent

If you like the center rail and the way it looks, why are you trying to disguise it? 2- rail is trivial in comparison to all the fooling around with studs, music wire, blackened rail, and on and on.  Either be proud of the fact that you like 3- rail track, or consider the economics of converting.  Two rail switches are easy compared to three rail switches.  As usual, opinion.

 

This is part of the reason I've never seriously considered 2-rail O-scale... the gauge looks wrong.  If I'm going to have track that doesn't look quite right, I'll go ahead and have the flexibility of 3-rail track.

Yes SZ, I would have to say that the oversized plates are not pleasing to me either. Can you post a few more pics of your track weathered from other angles?