Cottage industry - new 'scale' 3 Rail track?

Yet another thought:  The big advertising plus for American Flyer was once that it was

two rail track, but that track set up in the air on what I considered very unrealistic

ties.  I am assuming there is S scale flextrack of better dimensions to alleviate that

problem or is there?  I just wonder how much more it would have cost to build realistic track vs. a similar but clunky approximation, for which a lot of big bucks has been spent tooling up?  Seems like both would have demanded compatibility tests with a

variety of equipment.

IMHO, instead of a new 3 rail track system Lionel or MTH or ? should build a 2 rail Hi-rail track system. MTH Proto 3/2 engines will easily run on such a system and you would still have the benefit of big trains in a small space (the only reason for 3rd rail other than nostalgia). If Lionel would offer something similar to Proto 3/2 then going forward you could totally eliminate the center rail. Of course rolling stock would have to have insulated wheels, but that's not hard.

The is no technical reason for the center rail anymore other than supporting the existing 3 rail product that people own. That's fine. Let 3 rail live on, but for the next generation of O gauge modelers why not give them an option? There is a reason that HO is by FAR the most popular scale and IMHO no small part of that is realistic looking track.

You can accomplish 2RHR with Ross Custom track and I personally considered that, and I still may use it. But I would like to see something like Atlas code 148 that has the turnouts gauged to support Hi-Rail wheels. That would be the best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned. Good looking 2 rail track with ready to run equipment from Lionel and MTH that could run on 3 rail for the folks that have an existing layout or on 2 rail with the "new" 2RHR track system.

I think you might be surprised how many people would convert their layouts too. I remember reading posts on this Forum when FasTrack was announced. Guys were complaining and wondering why Lionel would bring out a new track system, that it wasn't needed, and there was no way they would switch. Now it is absolutely everywhere.

My 2 cents...

I did post additional photos of that sample section in that 3RS post last November that I referenced.  Just search for my posts in the 3RS forum after, say, 10/13 and you should quickly find them.

Thank you for joining the 'No Oversized Tie Plate Club' -- I think we need a [ ahem ] club tie........

Best, SZ

You won't be able to sell your product by simply being "more scale" than the competition. You also have to beat them on PRICE.

There has to be some incentive for new modelers to start out with your product when there are others that are "good enough" at a much lower cost.

There has to be some incentive for existing modelers to tear up their layouts and replace it all with your product.

If you can figure out "scale" and "inexpensive" then you will make a killing.

When I left tinplate for HO, it was the realistic and abundant choices of rolling stock,

not the unrealistic, "brassy" looking track.  It took them forever to get to nickel silver, I think, after I had returned to "tinplate">

You must have left HO in the '60s because nickel silver goes back at least that far.

Pete

If you are looking for a scale look the perhaps it would be easiest to go to a 2 rail scale layout instead of trying to hide the 3rd rail.

There is so much available in 2 rail, and most freight passenger cars are easy to convert with more scale looking wheels and couplers etc.

Most everyone but Lionel and Williams makes items in Scale 2 rail.

I have both. For the items I could not get in 2 rail or where I have tight areas to run I have 3 rail.

Also an area where it is all 2 rail scale and purchased the fine scale items in 2 rail.

Lots of different scale track options on the market or hand lay your own track.

 very interesting thread, with several clever modifications to hide the middle rail. Would reliable and economical switches would pose a problem?

Also what is purpose of the 3 RAIL SCALE forum?

Seems like a discussion of 3 rail scale track should be on the 3 RAIL SCALE forum.

That's certainly what I would do, even if it meant disposing of the many thousands of dollars I have invested in 3-rail equipment.  At one point some years ago I strongly considered doing just that, and had already purchased some 2-rail motive power from Atlas O, but I changed my mind when I found that my new home simply did not have the space I would want and need for 2-rail scale.

I do get a kick out of reading these frequently appearing quests for a more "2-rail-like-3-rail-track" system.  I'm pretty sure that most in the hobby realize that the chances of an all-new complete track system (emphasis on that word "complete") appearing in the 3-rail world at this point are just about zero.

On the other hand, Bachmann is releasing the start of O gauge E-Z Streets, so anything is possible! 

Yeah Allan, not to mention you have to admit you've sung that same tune before Lionel came out with FasTrack, and before WBB came out with their version of O gauge tubular track. 

As to prior questions of why bother and just go to 2-rail are missing another element:  making 3-rail track more "scale" looking helps to make the center rail less obvious (almost invisible if the Stud Rail concept as Jonnyspeed above alluded to & exists in HO scale by Märklin) and gives you something that going to 2-rail can't give you:  The flexibility of operating postwar and other traditional 3-rail trains and scale trains on the same layout.  I would wager that there's more people that have both than some of posters here discouraging this idea believe.

Bottom line: Cottage industry just plain silly, fuhgedaboudit. Hand lay the track.  Ultimate cottage industry.  Stop being so dad-gummed lazy!  What a sad turn of affairs that people want to buy instead of make.  Get hip to the cogitation!

Pete

Steinzeit:

    I always felt the same as you in your #3. They look like little cigar boxes on the ties, on either side of the rail!

John Knapp

Erie, not Eerie

Let me be clear on this - personally, I am not looking to start such a company. But would greatly encourage someone to do so if feasible. AND I would certainly purchase such a product if available. Admittedly, 2 rail O is a fine segment of the hobby but I don't have the room for a layout with such sweeping curves either. I will continue to admire them however!

The 3- rail scale section is devoted to full scale models on three rail track.  Here we are trying to explore ways to make three rail track look like it has only two rails.  Scale sized rails, at that.  This topic has no forum that it fits into.  The 3- rail scale folks want 3- rail track, or they would be 2- railers.

I doubt that stud rail means that Lionel stuff can roll unmodified.  Once you get around to modifying rolling stock, you double the expense and still have unrealistic track, although I think Fred's track looked almost 2- rail.

Compared to what you want to do here, 2- rail is easier and simpler, as well as cheaper in the short haul.  There is no physical constraint that says 2-rail needs wider radius turns - it is the fidelity of the models that dictate the radius, not the center rail or the giant flanges.

There seem to be some VERY small markets (scales, gauges) serviced by track providers.  The inside cover of this Mar/Apr. 2014 issue of Narrow Gauge and Short

Line Gazette I am looking at shows an ad by Precision Scale for HO/HOn3 dual gauge

track, HOn3, On3!!, and On2!!!, no less.  Turn the page, and Sn3!! locos are offered.

Who is making Sn3 track?  Who do you know modeling in Sn3?  Somebody must be.

Seems there are a whole lot more tinplaters/3 railers who'd like better track than

any potential buyers for the above.

I think that if you added up the number of modelers in all of those scales you mentioned, they would vastly outnumber 3 rail modelers. I know this is a 3 rail O centric forum, but lets keep in mind that 3 rail O is a fraction of the hobby overall.

Several sources have cited On30 as the fastest growing segment of the hobby over the last few years. Even Andy Edelman of MTH has commented that the O gauge 3 rail market is contracting.

That is why I think that MTH or Lionel should consider a new 2RHR track system. In my opinion new modelers to the hobby will not want 3 rail track. 3 rail was a necessity when it was invented. There was no competition from other scales like there is today. HO and N scale are positively booming right now and On30 is arguably the fastest growing facet of the hobby. I don't think it is any coincidence that all of these have realistic looking 2 rail track.

Of course, that is my opinion.

Wow!!! What a good thread!  

Personally, I use Fastrack and old Lionel track and like the use of both.  Other types of track have advantages also.  I can say a new track system will be welcome by many.  As to a universal track system that everyone will want and accept is more of a dream than a reality in 3rail. I think more people will go to 2 rail before going to a system that hides the center rail.

Of course I could be wrong.  Many men have dreamed and made reality happen.

Good luck.

David56 

That is why I think that MTH or Lionel should consider a new 2RHR track system. In my opinion new modelers to the hobby will not want 3 rail track. 3 rail was a necessity when it was invented. There was no competition from other scales like there is today. HO and N scale are positively booming right now and On30 is arguably the fastest growing facet of the hobby. I don't think it is any coincidence that all of these have realistic looking 2 rail track.

I don't usually paste others' comments, but I agree here.

Two rail modelers already have excellent choices for their track system.  

The issues with track, switches, command systems, etc ALL trace back to the desire to PRESERVE compatibility with trains that were made over 60 years ago. aka John Korling's post

The flexibility of operating postwar and other traditional 3-rail trains and scale trains on the same layout.  I would wager that there's more people that have both than some of posters here discouraging this idea believe.

Some of us will engage in activities to make the third rail less noticeable.  We already know about the two rail world and its "advantages" but actually enjoy being able to play with trains that used to belong to our fathers, grandfathers and in a few cases great grandfathers alongside of our own purchases.

Paul Scoles is one of the finest Sn3 modelers around.  Tomalco makes Sn3 track.

Rusty

And just FYI... Custom Trax will soon offer their fantastic pre-built, pre-ballasted track in Sn3 as well.

http://www.custmtrax.com

My thoughts exactly and for clarification; scale track rails are lower than O gauge track. At the same time O gauge wheels have a flange on them larger than scale. IMO, you would encounter an operating nightmare trying to run O gauge wheels on scale track, especially on curves and on switches. IMO, everything drive related must either be scale or O gauge and if they were; there would be concerns how scale wheels would handle the tighter O gauge curves?

Originally Posted by JohnS:

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.

Dennis La Grua:

My thoughts exactly and for clarification; scale track rails are lower than O gauge track. At the same time O gauge wheels have a flange on them larger than scale. IMO, you would encounter an operating nightmare trying to run O gauge wheels on scale track, especially on curves and on switches. IMO, everything drive related must either be scale or O gauge and if they were; there would be concerns how scale wheels would handle the tighter O gauge curves?

You guys are wrong.  You are guessing, I am actually working with it and experiencing it.

The only things I don't expect to run are cars with accessory or uncoupling shoes, but they also get hung up in Ross, Atlas 3rail, Lionel, Scale Trax, etc.  I don't expect to run my Pre War, but I will eventually test it.

Also, Ted Hikel posted, "Tinplate wheels will work on code 148 rail without the flanges hitting the spikes."

With Ted's experience, it was his post that gave me the confidence to go ahead with the project.

If anyone is still skeptical, just measure the flanges on your wheels. Code 148 means its .148" high. I checked 4 pieces of rolling stock and all measured less than .100". .090" was typical. Code 148 is 132 lb rail in O scale. I admit I am not up on current practice but recall they were using 150 lb rail along the Northeast corridor at one time.

Pete

IF a cottage -- or other -- manufacturer would appear, a "complete" track system would not be necessary, just two items:
     - 3 ft flex sections

     - a generic kit for adapting turnouts

An even saner* approach would just be selling the third rail components, probably designed around a specific mfg's 2 rail track but adaptable to others.

*Sanity only in a relative sense, of course......

Opinions.  

SZ

I rest my case.  If somebody, as posted above, is making ready to run track for a

less than highly popular Sn3 modeling niche, then realistic, reliable, track for

three railers should be available.  Someone must have the demographic numbers of people in various scales.  Kalmbach, OGR publishers,  or somebody must know how many are in N, HO, O, G, and assorted narrow gauge, and a breakout of tinplate vs.

scale among them.  Millions in HO, 428 in three rail, or what?

Carnac the Magnificent is the only one that knows these numbers.

Pete: So what you are saying is that 40-50 thousands of an inch clearance between the wheel flange and the tie is sufficient? Would this work if there were ballast or with the slightest irregularity in the roadbed? What is the design of switch that you will use? This is all a dream!

So if there is profit to be made, and one of the participants here is capable, why not?  I say go for it.  Just because I am skeptical does not make it a bad idea.

I doubt that it would take a major investment - maybe Atlas can do all the complicated stuff like casting the ties and extruding the rail.  They would need $ up front, but you would make big bucks on the back end.  Ed Duddy did it for 2- rail, and he was just a person like you or me.

Actually .001" is sufficient. Road bed has no effect as long as its below the ties. I would make my own switches. Would this system be commercially viable? I don't think so but could someone make their own? Without a doubt. 

Pete

Marker

Have you finished your atlas switch conversion? How does it perform. I want to do the same.