Details & why 2 rail

Well Joe, don't sell yourself short ever. Your always making or modifying something and showing us your efforts, and that sure beats those who spend all their time just giving lips service and little more. Your a doer, good job Joe!

Bob

Joe,

I got the trucks you sent. I have not mailed the RB trucks to you yet. I was waiting to find out if you wanted a couple pair of modern passenger trucks also?

Jim

I have a ;arge investment of 3Rail,but the reason I got in to 2Rail was....I could spend maybe,$500 on one piece of RTR. Put it on the track and turn away, spend another $500 and so forthe. OR, I could spend $500 and it might take me a year to build the kit. THEN I will have a piece that no one else has.
It has been a big learning curve, but I think I know the questions to ask now! THESE guys have helped me a lot.

quote:

So, I'm going with the best I can do.

Joe,

That's the best any of us can do (a piece of wisdom elegant in it's simplicity imparted to me by my Dad. And it is an insight that has served me well in undertakings far more serious than model trains). It is a hobby, not necessarily a competition. Some of the things I see I tip my hat to the modeler for skills far in excess of mine. Other things I see, I certainly can do, and might if I have time. On those, I tip my hat to the modeler for his cleverness and insight in seeing to improve a model and for his generosity in sharing a way to make something better. If there's any competition, it is only with myself. But even that's a friendly.

So keep doing what you can and enjoy what you are doing. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed the work and ideas you've shared with us, and never fail to read your contributions.

Best,

RM

I have switched over to 2 rail and have not looked back. I was done with the third rail, the first switch I made in 2 rail took me a few days and came out ok...not great but ok, and the next got better and so on. I enjoy the challenge that 2 rail provides me in terms of trackwork and details ect... You have done some fine projects that you have shared with us here and they have been really good....your efforts are paying off and looking good. Like I said I am in it for the details....my first switch could use some improvement but the rest got better and I think are coming out very nicely now, for me the track is a huge model in itself and that is where I am starting my efforts. I am enjoying the results thus far.

You guys are great. Sometimes I get too self indulgent. I was just rambling, again! It's very humbling. Joe

quote:

Originally posted by prrjim:
Joe,

I got the trucks you sent. I have not mailed the RB trucks to you yet. I was waiting to find out if you wanted a couple pair of modern passenger trucks also?

Jim

Jim, I was not sure what exactly to send. I smashed the pointed axles as I did not think it through. I figured I would not need them.
I pulled those trucks off a couple of cars and finally got them out to you. ANything you want to trade for just let me know. I can mail you more or make up any difference. Thanks for your patience, Joe

Just rambling is ok.

Here is my ramble - detail has nothing to do with how many rails you want to have. Check out the PRR J1 shots over on this week's photo session. The only things that stops that scene from being perfect are the track and flanges - the locomotive is a work of art, the scenery is great - but the owner prefers 3-rail track. I know few 2-railers who could pose for that kind of photo.

There is only one reason to go two rail, and that is you prefer the appearance of 2-rail track.

That's my opinion, and I am sticking with it.

quote:

There is only one reason to go two rail, and that is you prefer the appearance of 2-rail track.

That is probably the most succinct answer to this question that I have ever read on this forum.

Hi Joe,

You really do some nice work. Plus everything you stated in this post is most of the reason I switched to 2 rail. It is very rewarding to say I built that. It's a big part of why I've been a cabinetmaker for the past 24 years and have gotten to build some great stuff. And now I'm applying that to my trains.

Why 2-rail?

Because it most closely resembles the 'actual' prototypes and doesn't look like a bunch of toy trains running around on 3-rail track. And if someone has doubts or whatever about their modeling skills then by all means go with 3-rail and enjoy yourself.

Granted 3-rail stuff has become much more detailed recently but 2-rail modelbuilding is a much more rewarding experience then buying 'ready-to-run' orange and blue or purple boxes of stuff.

Unfortunately today it's all buying something new that comes in a box instead of having the satisfaction of building it yourself!

To answer your question with one word:

Prototype.

Its my goal to recreate the prototype as best as I can.

Im sure many here are trying to recreate something in their mind. If its separate grabs, train lines, chains, brake rigging AND 3 rail, who cares. It's satisfying to them.
If its 2 rail and has molded on everything and looks like a cereal box with wheels, who cares? Its their hobby.

We all find enjoyment in this hobby for many reasons. Details and specs are mine.

I agree with you Patrick. For me, it's all about modeling the prototype as accurately as possible. I am a railroader, and I want my models to have the details as on the real thing.

As a younger adult I tried G-scale (LGB). It's beautiful, but still more a toy than a model. Fn3 and 1:32 offer more deatiled models, but are limited in availability and are expensive. The other scales are too small to allow for the level of detailing I like.

I was made aware of O-scale by an article in Finescale Railroader titled the "O Scale Alternative" back in 1997(?) That's where I've been since, because 2-rail O-Scale is a finescale.

I like having brake rigging and piping, reweigh dates and data on my models.

But with that said, to each their own. Enjoy in good health.

Michael Rahilly

I too endeavor to follow a specific prototype with some degree of accuracy. I find it lends direction and purpose to the hobby for me. I'm not a helter skelter buyer of whatever looks cool, but instead choose carefully what my railroad will contain from the track to the motive power and all in between.

This formula has been advantageous to me in managing the overall investment...in other words it prevents me from having one of everything just because there train models.

The 2-rail segment of O scale was the driving force in my decision to go larger than my 40 plus years of HO had provided. I wanted bigger more ponderous equipment, but there was never a consideration for shortcutting realism, which for me 3- rail would have done.

To each there own nevertheless...we all share a common bond of interest in model railroading...that's a good thing.

Bob

When I walked into a hobby 30 months ago after being out of the hobby for 60 years and saw a layout with a 2 rail and 3 rail loop I was imediately drawn to the 2-rail. It looked real and the O gauge equipment looked great, my decision was made. I understand that there will be more 2-rail options coming down the pike.
Enjoy

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
Just rambling is ok.

Here is my ramble - detail has nothing to do with how many rails you want to have. Check out the PRR J1 shots over on this week's photo session. The only things that stops that scene from being perfect are the track and flanges - the locomotive is a work of art, the scenery is great - but the owner prefers 3-rail track. I know few 2-railers who could pose for that kind of photo.

There is only one reason to go two rail, and that is you prefer the appearance of 2-rail track.

That's my opinion, and I am sticking with it.

Well said Bob!

I remember some readers comments in OST in the issue after Jim Policastro's beautiful 3 rail layout was showcased. Someone wrote in saying they were canceling their subscription since the magazine had a bias that favored 3 rail. All because of 1 feature of a very nicely done 3 rail layout! Some of the photos didn't even show any track or trains. Just wonderful scenery. You'd never guess what type of trains were run on them from those scenes. The scenes that did have trains clearly showed a well detailed 3 rail track but that was all that stood out in terms of realism. Yet that little center rail was enough to cause a backlash in the magazine from many readers for featuring it and caused one person to stop receiving the magazine. Jim clearly likes 3 rail but still does have a beautiful layout and I'm not going to say that an additional rail ruins it. It's not like a toy like postwar tubular Lionel train set was being showcased yet from the response of some people you'd have thought it was.

Perhaps you misunderstood the reaction.

OST is the only magazine we 2-railers have. There are two 3-rail magazines that I know of, and neither is in danger of being taken over by 2-rail. But you should know that OGR used to be OSR and was for decades exclusively 2-rail.

Please try to understand that some 2-railers might be a bit sensitive to being overwhelmed by our more numerous 3-rail buddies.

I personally have no objection to an occasional 3-rail or narrow gauge article, but I like OST as a 2-rail publication, and do not want it to succomb to the profitable fate of OSR.

Good modeling is good modeling and I look to that magazine as more of a place for layouts and articles centered more around scratch building and more realistic modeling. That's what interests me. I like the articles on kit bashing and scratch building and love layouts that showcase these. If those layouts happen to have track running across them that has an extra rail, so be it. I do agree that it's the best place for 2 railers to go but it shouldn't be limited to it. Do I personally prefer the look of 2 rail to 3 rail? Yes I do. I see it going towards a P:48 magazine before going to a 3 rail magazine as more and more of the comments favor the added realism.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
I remember some readers comments in OST in the issue after Jim Policastro's beautiful 3 rail layout was showcased.

Fred,

A very good description of the events following that 3-rail layout feature in OST. It was Norm Charbonneau's layout, however, and not mine. But, I'm flattered by the mix-up.

It was as though some readers could not even bring themselves to acknowledge the quality of his scenery, one saying it was "nice", but.....

However, I fully understand the fear of 2-railers that the magazine might swing the 3-rail way. I was in 2-rail when Myron Biggar took OGR in the 3-rail direction. I was not happy at the time!

In the last 30 or so years, I've had several different 3-rail and 2-rail layouts. I moved a lot, mainly thanks to a former sister-in-law who got into real estate.

First, I went 3-rail in the early 1980s (pre-MTH days) simply because I really liked the size of O gauge as compared to my HO, but didn't have the space for large radius curves.

To make a long story short...a few years later, with a bigger basement, I switched to 2-rail mainly because of track appearance and running qualities. This was before electronic cruise control and command.

Next, back to a house with a smaller basement, and back to 3-rail reluctantly. But, the electronics and speed control (and a switch to Kadee couplers on 3-rail scale cars) now made 3-rail every bit as good operationally as 2-rail.

Eventually, I filled a basement with my current, nice 3-rail layout, but still I would sometimes eye that extra rail and think of the 2-rail layouts of my past.

I was on the verge of ripping out a lot of work and switching back to 2-rail, when I found some room in the basement to build the small 2-rail layout, featured in OGR a while back. I was forced to realize that, operationally, there wasn't much difference anymore between 3-rail and 2-rail...just the track, those flanges, and those nice big curves.

I was eventually able to make peace with myself that the 3-rail layout was here to stay, and that the center rail didn't inhibit my scenery building at all.

If I suddenly were to find myself in a new, empty basement tomorrow, which would I choose??? ...that's a good question....there would be many sleepless nights!

When people ask my advice about which way to go, I say, "Look at this photo. If your response is 'nice scene, but too bad about that center rail'. Then go 2-rail. You'll never be happy with 3-rail."





But, every once in a while I still miss being able to build a neglected spur that looks like this one on my old 2-rail layout:




Just a note, though, that while OGR is presently seen by most to be a 3-rail magazine, I can assure you that Allan Miller would not discriminate at all against anyone wishing to contribute a 2-rail layout feature or an interesting how-to article.

Jim

It was an easy mix up. You've got a wonderful layout (2 of them).

Looking back at old outside 3rd rail layouts such as Frank Ellison's Delta Lines, one thing that was often done was to not install the 3rd rail wherever it wasn't needed such as industry sidings. If an engine was never going to move down it then then extra rail wasn't necessary. Therefore you could have scenes like that last one and still be in 3 rail. Of course with outside rail you'd have to see the guardrails everywhere else but I wonder why many scale oriented 3 railers don't do something similar more often by removing the center rail where it isn't needed?

You guys are right about it mostly being about the track.

I think the Jesus wept moment is when you look along at what should be graceful flowing rails and into a switch, or into a yard of switches and see what havoc the center rail creates. Some of this can be disguised in photos, but when you look at your own layout, you walk around and have to see it from all angles.

I left 3 rail because the track options were not very satisfying even beyond the center rail.

When we get to look at 3 rail layouts, we can usually look at things of interest other than the track and can always come back to the 2 rails on our own layouts.

I recall two rail with outside third rail. It was good.

2 rail O for me means I can carry over some HO wiring stuff I know to be bullet proof.

It is easier to see where the trains are going in 2 rail.

quote:

Originally posted by Lee 145:
It is easier to see where the trains are going in 2 rail.

The street is always easier to follow when it has it's center line! I just had to say it. That's the first thing that popped into my head!

quote:

I wonder why many scale oriented 3 railers don't do something similar more often by removing the center rail where it isn't needed?

Because they like the center rail. If they did not like the center rail they could easily go outside third, and of course at some expense simply go two rail. But it is really too bad that MTH cannot offer 2-rail track and equipment with rail height and curves compatible with O-72 or whatever is the favored size with the scale 3-rail crowd.

It is my impression that the only current obstacle to running MTH on 2-rail Hi Rail track is the lack of insulation on the car wheels.

I think you shoud drop all this nonsense of modelingg Class 1 railroading and instead model a line that ran in your area. The Lewiston and Youngtown Frontier that ran below the Escarpment.Ran passenger servcie to Fort Niagara for some years and then became a switching road for fruit cars. I think they had a little steam tank engine for a while and then a little gas locomotive. At one time when the Gorge Route was still owned by the International Railway Company there was an IRC Q class motor .Typical IRC no nonsense box with motors.
In Gorge Routte days there was 84 which was a converted semiconvertible with a steam road coupler right in the middle of the dash.I took a CCW later Ashland kit and made a model of the 84. This could be easily dones with a Bowser trolley adding a clerestory roof.This car ended up on the Niagara Junction as a work car..

Joe's initial post kinda asked for ramble.

quote:

Joe's initial post kinda asked for ramble.

A little Ramblin' music.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htTLWC1unMc

quote:

But it is really too bad that MTH cannot offer 2-rail track and equipment with rail height and curves compatible with O-72 or whatever is the favored size with the scale 3-rail crowd.

The Gargraves company offers two-rail tinplate height track. They also occasionally (I believe on special request) make 2-rail track with longer ties to hold outside third rail.

The right height rail for tinplate wheels and flexible for any radius.

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
Joe's initial post kinda asked for ramble.

Guilty!! Things need to get aired out once in a while. When they don't, usually an explosion takes place. I have been caught in the middle of one or two of those.
I have been wanting to include a 3 rail loop on a higher shelf. I just keep tossing the idea around.
I could run my 3r SS Allegheny as is. I believe the two rail cars will do fine. I'm not sure I want to see two different tracks. Maybe I'll just raise the shelf a little higher. Joe

quote:

if the 2-rail mfgrs had gone to the trouble of producing largish locos that did not require O-infinity radius

Well, first most large full-scale MTH steamers come ready for some form of 2-rail. It is only the cars that need insulation, and that for the most part is trivial. So you throw the switch, and you can still operate on tinplate curves, but without the center rail. Buy scale trucks if your switches will handle them, or have NWSL run some insulated hi rail steel.

Outside third has lots of prototypes. NYC and New Haven spring to mind, and I rode the Philadelphia and Western many times when it was outside third. But two rail has been pretty much perfected electrically - just ask the HO folks, or even the American Flyer collectors.

Come to think of it, all I am really saying is if you do not like the center rail, the American Flyer stuff simply begs to be copied in O Scale.

I remember when AHM released the HO Y6b, engineered to turn around an 18-in curve. That's what I mean (I have 3 of them...). O scale 2-rail never got the message, so it was easy to resist, not having gigantor-type room for a layout. When Lionel released the Reading T-1 my descent into the dark side started.

quote:

Well, first most large full-scale MTH steamers come ready for some form of 2-rail.

A start, but insufficient to my needs desires, and unavailable back when the O scale bug struck.

quote:

But two rail has been pretty much perfected electrically - just ask the HO folks, or even the American Flyer collectors.

Yep. Been there, done that. Of course, back in my O days the only sound available was the PFM system which cost more than my pocket book could stand.
In darker moments I wish I'd had the guts to go to S-scale. However, ca 1990, you had to be braver than an On3 fanatic to dabble in "S"

You guys are good at making excuses.

As far as I am concerned, some of you are doing excellent work with 3-rail track, and you should be proud of it. However, if it is true that the center rail bothers you, but you keep it because MTH does not offer a locomotive that you want to run, then excuses you must make. I am entertained.

Since I'm different than most people, I like older things. I buy old Lobaugh and Ambroid kits. I'm about to scratch build a few flat cars from bass wood. No they won't be the most perfect things you've ever seen but they'll be uniquely mine that runs on my fictitious based on no one railroad. As far as engines go I run whatever I feel like. If I want to run my old brass outside rail steam engines then I do. If I want to take a Williams by Bachmann semi scale SD90 (ish)engine and convert it over to scale wheels then I'll do that too. That's a current project btw. I don't take a strict scale approach to anything but rather do what I personally find to be fun. I rarely buy anything brand new and what I do buy new regardless of who it's from is almost certainly going to be modified by me in some way and not necessarily in a way that would make the absolute purist happy. That's just how I am. I'm a tinkerer. I've even got a few semi-scale Lionel cars that I swapped over to Kadee couplers and 2 rail wheel sets and then weathered (crudely I might add). It's all fun to me. I don't get too caught up in what the industry does or doesn't offer or what others may consider a proper way to do it. I do what makes me happy. I think that's kind of the whole point of this thread. Do what makes you happy. That's reason enough for me.

My view of 2 rail was always very capsulated. I never once envisioned building sweeping curves and having them populated by steams greatest behemoths. I was determined to stay within the practical bounds of what would fit and operate in the real world space I had. No amount of MTH or any other mfg was influencial in detering my direction or purpose. I wanted visually sincere scale models without comprimised construction and funny looking wheels which then allowed it to run funky looking down my branchline. Smaller steam/diesels, 40/50ft rolling stock, 46"-50" radius curves, no crammed up spaghetti bowl track plans just because a 4 way turnout is available from some specialty supplier...pure and simple branchline railroading was and is my quest and it is a simple pleasure to work on. Some might feel a hobby is no place to be applying such regimented disaplines...to me it is a formula for progress verses endless collecting to no certain end. Opinions!

Bob

quote:

You guys are good at making excuses.

As far as I am concerned, some of you are doing excellent work with 3-rail track, and you should be proud of it. However, if it is true that the center rail bothers you, but you keep it because MTH does not offer a locomotive that you want to run, then excuses you must make. I am entertained.

Center rail? What center rail?
Consider, for a moment, non-MTH locomotives, such as my Lionel B&O EM-1, which runs around O-72 curve, with wonderful sound. What are other options? The 3rd Rail version, of course, in its 2-rail incarnation, requiring a large radius to function? And an earlier brass import whose importer's name I disremember, also requiring a huge radius. Back to my original comment-had the 2-rail mfgrs offered the EM-1 in 2-rail with O-72 capability things would have followed a different "track."
Keeping you entertained, bob2, is always a good thing.

I have a 3rd Rail Allegheny. If I do convert that one to 2 rail, how big a curve will I need??
My MTH Allegheny that's been 2 railed, runs through Atlas #5.5 switches and all my turns. Joe

A converted 3-rail locomotive should negotiate the same curves before and after. All you have done is change the shape of the wheels and add insulation.

The thing that restricts 2-rail models is our desire for accurate lead and trail trucks and the structure around them.

I recommend that if you want to run scale 2-rail Alleghenies, trade for one that is already 2-rail, and adjust your curves accordingly. Going the other way is more expensive than laying a new wider loop.

Bob2, the P&W (SEPTA) still is outside third rail and still is a fun ride.