Crazy ideas about 3- rail track

I wouldn't do it.  First, with the black studs on each tie it would not look that realistic.  Frankly I think it would look worse than Atlas track with its black center rail, but that is just an opinion.  Second, not all locos will run on it.  Those with rollers might not, likely to be periods where all rollers are between studs.  You need sliding contacts to work will with the studs.

I've had Atlas for about a year now, having replaced my Fasttrack with it.  I like it a lot.  

I have thought about this as well.....I believe a blackened metal band in the middle of the tie might be less visually disturbing. The roller would need to be replaced with a "ski" shaped pickup (on a spring loaded bracket as is used now) which could contact at least 2 ties at any time. Use commercially availble 3 rail switches but preceed and follow the switch with a short transition piece that allows the ski to ramp up or down to contact the traditional 3rd rail in the switch. I don't believe the 3rd rails in the switches or crossovers would look too unusual. I know the naysayers will chirp in with the "if you want 2-rails then model in 2-rail" philosophy, but innovation is what moves this hobby ahead. Besides, with a proper ski configuration you could run traditional 3rd rail or the proposed modified rail.......I bet a talented machinist might be able to fabricate a ski which can fit over a roller so irreversible modifications would not be necessary.

People say stuff about if no one has ever done it that way .....well, now is your opportunity......

  as a naysayer myself I concur with the last poster. If you want to do to 2 rail do it, if you want to do three rail do that. Innovation is a wonderful thing but sometimes it just is a crazy idea.

Fred

Yeah.....but I'm sure glad that Joshua Lionel Cowen  had a crazy idea for a window display some 114 years ago!!

This has been talked about for years and although to some it looks attractive, all I have to say is why!

if I wanted two rail I would switch to two rail. Trying to make something that it is not is a waste of time and resource. Yes I love my scale engines and they look great on my Ross track. Why would I waste my time on a product that looks no better then what I have.

Sorry but the time has past for stud rail, it was not feasible years ago and it is not today. 

I'm glad that Joshua Lionel Cohen had great ideas too. But how about Thomas Edison's plan for electrification of New York City with DC power.

Regardless of which rail system you use, welcome back!

Ed Boyle

One of the groups I belong to, The European Train Enthusiasts www.ete.org has been running on a center stud contact. Here's a 3-rail AC HO DB express running on the center stud rail. Can hardly notice it.

I forgot to add another contributor to the studrail movement- Fred Swain. He sent me some pics a few years ago of some 2-rail track he had given the studrail treatment. This could easily be done to Atlas 3-rail, after the center rail is removed and the plastic rib is removed. 2-rail Gargraves requires even less work.

The mechanics of studrail have already been figured out years ago- raised studs lift sliders over the powered rails on switches. And as you can see, the studs that provide power aren't that obvious. I'm looking into alternatives other than a fabricated studrail- it seems to cost so much to make, but in reality is probably very cheap to make if made in quantity. The tooling is the main issue, as well as finding a machine shop willing to do small enough batches. Marklin HO also operates with a stud rail system, and it's been around for awhile.

Geno

I have a couple of Märklin HO train sets with stud rail track.   I see  how good the track looks as well as how well the trains operate on it, and the question I ask is, why not in O?  It not only looks good, but track cleaning maintenance is reduced since the skids effectively “clean” the center rail.

The stud rail concept appeared in Model Railroader magazine I believe in the 1940s, well before Märklin introduced their system at any rate, so I doubt there would be patent issues.

some 3-rail engines and rolling stock have flanges that are just too tall for code 148 2-rail track

I am curious about which engines and rolling stock had flanges too tall to run on Code 148 rails.  Were they from a single manufacturer or a particular era?  Were there many of them or was it just a rare few?  Many years ago, I tested a few Atlas-O and Weaver cars on the Atlas-O 2-rail track and my recollection is they all ran smoothly.

Thanks for the photos from the European Train Enthusiasts and Fred Swain, they are an inspiration.  I’d love to see a manufacturer raise the bar for three-rail realism by offering stud-rail track and rolling stock that came with Kadee couplers.

and that window display was two rail

I also have quite a few Atlas 3-rail freight cars and TMCC diesels- they all ran well on the test loop studrail I laid down a few years ago. The flanges on the 3-rail Atlas models are shallow enough to run on code 148 2-rail track- it's Lionel's diesels, steamers and some freight cars that have deeper flanges and require taller profile track. I have enough 2-rail Atlas track to put a single loop with 49.5" radius curves around my 20 x 20 room- as nice and prototypical as that would look, setting up a studrail layout with that track would prevent me from using most of the Lionel diesels in my fleet. I have a few MTH diesels with scale wheels  too- those obviously would have no issues on code 148 rail.

Given the cost of any 2 or 3-rail O gauge track system today, I would even consider having one main line use code 148 track (since I have a good quantity of it), and the other with the taller Atlas 3-rail, with the center rail removed and an alternate method to power the center pick up. Another option might be having flanges of those Lionel diesels milled down enough to clear the ties of the lower 2-rail track (seems like almost too much work to me).

Geno

Naysayer here.  There are only several reasons to continue to use a center rail.

Let me try a partial list:

1. Already have a huge investment in 3-rail trains and track.

2. Cannot figure out how to do a reverse loop.

3. More good stuff can be had in 3-rail than in 2-rail, for cheaper.

4. just plain old like the looks of 3-rail track.

Naysayer opinion here - #4 is a valid reason.  I have some sympathy for #1, but not much.

Never, unless that they made every NYC Hudson, with EVERY DETAIL and PS2. But not gonna happen...

Interesting discussion....  Question:  Has anyone considered using a wire mounted to the top of the ties replacing the center rail?  It seems to me that most rollers would still be able to contact that wire and once ballasted, the wire would be much less noticeable....just a thought....

Alan

Gee, 72 Blackbird,  that third rail must really bother you.  Even if you could modify three rail track to two rail and modify three rail trains to run on it what would you really have?  Answer: You would have unrealistic toy trains running on some sort of home made track that would not be compatible with anyone else' trains.  Lets face it a Lionel 736 would look just the same as it does on three rail.  If you want two rail get two rail and run the beautiful full scale trains on nice looking track.  Of course those scale two rail trains are more expensive than three rail trains, also you need more space for broader curves and longer trains.  Track planning would be harder with troublesome reverse loops etc.  Remote control cars that operate on special sections of track might require some more brainstorming too.  Most of us three railers just learn to see through the third rails.  I thought this was settled along with modifying three rail engines to use with two rail ten years ago.  I like my three rail pike with modern full scale size trains modified to run on sharper curves.  Of course I would love to run full scale tworail. but it is not to be.  Good luck with your experimenting but I don't think people will beat a path to your door even if you can make it work.

First post here - my dad recently gave me his old pre-war Lionel trains.  Anyway, having dabbled in ho and n scale (just table-top operations), I have to say the o gauge is fun - big, easy-to-see, etc.   Anyway, thought I'd share this photo I took along the Norfolk Southern in Front Royal, Virginia this fall.  For about two weeks, a new rail dropped by Maintenance of Way made the track look like three-rail.

Alan I believe it is called Super O, sorry could not resist, regards Rob

Would it be possible to do a buried magnetic strip such as is used at Miniature Wunderland in Germany? Or convert engines to battery power as has been discussed in previous threads. 

Don

Anything is possible.  Fred managed to make stud rail look almost as good as two rail, then discovered how much easier and cheaper it would be to just go 2-rail.

Battery and R/C is now possible.  It is just a question of time before an inexpensive control system leaps on to the market.  There will still be folks who love the looks of 3- rail track, and others who like transformers.  

But it is a hobby, and if your hobby happens to be to make 3- rail trains look like 2- rail trains, you should not pay any attention to us naysayers.

Thank you to all who have replied- believe it or not, hearing even the opinions not to do it raise valid points and those are worth considering too. Almost all of my engines and rolling stock are 3-rail scale, with the exception of the 2-rail Atlas and Weaver cars. The MTH engines are in a special category- you can go either way with those, so it looks like I will be buying more of those, as well as investing in DCS. But I will try to use as much as possible of what I already have in terms of motive power- part of this experiment is to see how well a slightly modified 3-rail engine can run on modified 3-rail track.

At first I considered selling all of my 2-rail track in an attempt to make some sort of universal track system that both 2 and 3 rail trains can use, but clearly the majority of people who are happy with existing track systems- if people want more realism than any 3-rail track they just go 2-rail. I may be one of those people in the end too, so it makes sense for me to use what 2-rail track I have- bend the studs down and viola! I'm a 2-railer. I'm not trying to compete with the Big Three either- I'm just a guy who wants to build his layout to his vision. Some of my ideas are out of the box to say the least- if it works, great, if it doesn't it's my layout and I think I can live with it. But I think when I'm done, people will like it- making the 3rd rail disappear is the thing that still hasn't been accomplished yet. Having 2 rail track next to 3-rail track might seem strange too, but I remember an Atlas catalog cover where they did just that- having a layout that operates with both types of track will be interesting, to say the least.

O Gauge is at a point where more people are buying scale engines and rolling stock, because they like to model what they see running on the rails now, and they like the realism. The success of MTH's 3/2 convertible engines proves it. The engines are always in demand and MTH is still doing it, since they know both the 2-rail and 3-rail scale guys are buying them. The scale 3-railers who buy these engines keep the hi rail wheels on them because they have no choice- there's no track system that will let them run the scale wheels, but still draw power from a center rail. Once they see it's possible to make their 3-rail track seem more realistic and the parts are there to do it, some will try it- what happens after that is anyone's guess.
Geno

Geno, I have followed your thread with interest, as I remember seeing an article in another magazine years ago showing someone's efforts along this line.  My first thought was, "Oh, this looks great!"  He had made what he called skis to pick up the current from the studs.  Each ski had a C-shaped  clip attached, maybe soldered, that clipped to the roller.

The track looked beautiful, but would have been very expensive to produce as designed.  There's no doubt this idea would work, as Marklin has proven.  (Though I don't quite get why HO needs three rail, as the HO track is so realistic to begin with).

I thoroughly understand your interest in this.  As a collector more than an operator, there's no way I would drift into 2-rail.  I treasure my locos and think it would be great to see them run on realistic track.  So we may be in the minority, but please post some photos if and when you develop something.  I'll be interested.

In your absence there were a couple of threads on battery powered trains. With Lithium Polymer batteries, it is quite possible to eliminate the power supply wiring systems altogether. 

These batteries and radio control have taken over the model airplane hobby, IMO.  Model Railroading has the radio control systems, and 18 volt LiPo batteries could be adapted to existing electronics. Just a matter of how many batteries in how many box cars. 

Here is one of the threads.  No Wire to Tracks  Click on the underlined phrase to link.

A LOT OF TIMES  the best system never surfaces in the market because existing and leading manufacturers are heavily invested in less effective systems. So unless a junior entrepreneur has backing and time we never see it. If not for Mike Wolfe would Lionel ever have detailed engines? Probably not.

Stud rail is one of these systems. I have had to look twice or thrice to see the studs.So all I see are two rails. However, it will likely never see the light unless someone is willing to take a risk and has the backing to challenge LIONEL, MTH or ATLAS. or ROSS.

Thanks Mike.  I note they locked the thread - guess it got too contentious.

I was willing to invest in some Atlas 3-rail to conduct my experiment, but I did an inventory of my 2-rail track on hand, and it turns out I have over 200' of straight track and all the wide radius curves I need to lay a two-track main. So it looks like I'll be using code 148 Atlas 2-rail track after all. I don't have enough studrail to do both lines, so I'm back to square one- finding someone to make more studrail.

I think this time I'll focus on setting up a hand-operated press to make the studrail myself. I have a buddy who has access to a machine shop w/ CNC equipement too- I'll get his opinion on how to better make the studrail. I still need to procure more switches- I'm sure the 2-rail guys will be able to offer me more than a few options. I bet they'll be really thrilled when they find out what kind of trains I'll be running- lol.

I know alot of people don't see the logic in what I'm doing, but sometimes a person  has to finish what he starts, even if the results don't turn out as planned. It's not my intention to alienate myself from both 3-rail scale and 2-rail O scalers- hopefully people will understand I'm just trying to enjoy my trains as I see fit.

Geno

This, IMHO, is where we're heading.

These folks...RC Link...have been at the last few York meets.  Last April we (wife/I) bought a complete system to install in an LGB Mogul for our as-yet-under-construction garden rwy.  At this past October meet they helped me resolve a couple of late problems.  It now works perfectly!  14.2v LiPo battery is fully enclosed...along with all receiver and sound (Phoenix) boards, speaker, etc. in the tender.  No tag-along cars necessary.  Remote operation of couplers and track switches also part of their package of options.

They had a couple O gauge engines being demonstrated at the York booth (orange hall).  Very enticing, indeed.

Having worked 15 years past my retirement in the trains dept. at our LHS, I've watched with interest and no less envy as the RC crowd...cars, planes, boats, helicopters, ....DRONES!,...has embraced new battery and controls technology.  About two years ago I began discussion with our store RC experts about installations in trains.  Then we saw and talked with the RCS folks.

No, we haven't tried making the next step...an installation in O scale (with which our entire basement is filled)...but with the G success we've had over the past year.....and watching the latest generation of INCREDIBLE items being demonstrated over in the RC department....it's not far off, methinks.

I do believe that a Battery/RC forum category in the Controls section is not that far off.  And the Orange/Purple/Blue/Etc.-box crowd is watching with interest.

For which...in this appropriate season...I'm very thankful!

Just MHO, of course. 

KD

I'm a journeyman carpenter, so I know well how good Lithium-Ion Batteries are. I use Dewalt 20v Li-Ion cordless tools all day at work, and I only have to charge them every 2 days or so- tools I use constantly will run a battery down in 8-9 hours, enough for a single charge. The Dewalt 20v Li-Ion batteries actually provide a constant 18v, which is perfect for O gauge engines with electronics that run on 18v.

My layout will be built on removable 2 x 6 tables, so more than likely it will get relocated to the patio when it gets warmer. I still need to build a decent patio cover out there, so my layout will stay inside until then. Another project for another day-lol.

Geno

Oh man, I didn't know that Hugo passed away. I am very sad to hear this. I met him twice and he was a really nice guy. I really liked him. One time he and his friend came to my house and I took them to my former club and showed him the layout there. Then we all had dinner and it was a great time. I wish I could have spent more time with him. I guess if it was announced on this forum that he passed I somehow missed it. I will always remember him. What a great guy. I had a feeling something was wrong when I didn't see Hugo post anything for years.

I remember Lisa well too. We talked a lot off the forum. She was a really cool lady. I miss her as well.

Sorry, did not mean to get off the topic of batteries. I just had to say something about Hugo.

Gino - you are doing the opposite of alienating folks.  Look at the lively conversation you have provoked.  This is what is fun about the internet - reasoned discussion of things of limited general interest.

i am sure you will have great fun with your project.  You are already expecting to come to the same conclusion as Fred did, and when that happens, you will find 2-rail track far less challenging, maybe even less fun, but far more viable from an operating standpoint, and way cheaper.  Best of all, it is easy to make it look like the real thing.

Hudson,
I bought the last of Hugo's studrail from him back in 2004- since then I lost touch with him and to be honest I don't know he's still around or not. Either way, he was a very nice man and pleasure to speak to. But I do know Lisa Marie did pass away some years ago- also a person who was well liked and was very missed.

Bob- I may very well embrace "the dark side" and become a full-on 2-railer, but I still love Lionel trains and starter sets. Who knows what the future holds, but I do know I won't shelve my Lionel 0-6-0 Dockisders just because I will have a 2-rail layout- either they'll get modified, or hi-rail track will get added to my layout.

Geno