Effect of the third - the middle - rail on layout scenery and overall layout impression.

I was in HO forever and couldn't get past the middle rail.  However, I've discovered a number of years ago a couple of things: first the mind "sees" what it expects to see.  I've had a large number of visitors come to our railroad and later, after they are away from it, I ask them whether or not the layout had two or three rails.  Most laugh and blurt out "two!" because of course that is how many rails a railroad has.

Secondly, the weathering!  I buy "phantom" rail and weather rails, ties and ballast.  There are times when I forget there are three rails.

Best of all is the major advantages of three-rail wiring!  The "dead" rail trick, the non-derailing function, and the greatest of all---no polarity issues!  Give me three rail track!!!  I have had enough two rail for a lifetime.

PS:  When the LCCA Board of Directors visited the Glacier Line two years ago; on two different occasions someone made the comment that they had seen photos of the layout prior to visit and they though it was two-rail. 

During a car ride the other day, I glanced out the window and noticed some nearby railroad track.  I thought how boring it looked because it only had two rails

None, and I mean none, of the 327 guests who have visited me over the past four years or so, to enjoy the Hidden Pass Junction RR layout have ever mentioned, noted, or brought up the third rail - they just admire the trains and all the details. Most of these people have not been model railroaders, so their exposure to railroad tracks are the real, two-rail tracks at grade crossings, and the ones they see when (if) they visit museums. 

Alex

Who cares what someone like that thinks.  I love the 3rd rail.   I have a few trains and run them every day.  I enjoy 3 rail trains.

To those that deride the third rail, I say show me the results of your modeling efforts.  Most don't have any.  Many of the remainder that do don't even come close to the many wonderful well modeled layouts we see here at the forum.  I think that a well modeled layout, in spite of the third rail, trumps a 2 rail layout in any scale that hasn't progressed beyond bare plywood with track.

Dave 

the naysayers need to visit us in san diego!

The history of Lionel is TOY trains. For those who were not happy with that, there was HO. Of course, Lionel lost sales in the past because of this. With the advent of TMCC, DCS and all the other new technology, we now have the choice of much more realistic trains in O gauge.

And as your photos demonstrate Moonson, you can have an incredibly detailed layout with trains to match. Of course, guys (very notably) like Frank53 did the same thing using the traditional types of Lionel trains. So having a high rail layout isn't limited to having scale proportioned trains either.

Past and present CEO's of Lionel all say nostalgia is a huge factor in the Lionel market. And I'd say that's true. And with the highly detailed trains made today, you can have the realism benefits of HO with that nostalgia reasoning of "I had Lionel when I was a kid." And as many have noted, the larger size of Lionel is easier on the eyes. After all, I think Lionel needs all the sales it can get, from the new high end right down to the traditional line. Even Lionel has said, they cannot afford to focus on only one segment of the market.

I would imagine there will always be the purist who, no matter how realistic the layout, will still point out the middle rail. Just as there are those in the O-gauge hobby who look at the traditional trains and say "they're not scale." But I think the majority of O-gauge operators today appreciate the both the variety and features of trains today, that couldn't have been imagined not very long ago.

When I see comments like  "...I think the look of that middle rail looks ridiculous..." I think that is the poster's problem, not mine. There are so many beautiful, realistic model railroads posted in this forum and others that the existence of a third rail is like complaining that a boxcar has 164 rivets instead of 175. I like the benefits of the third rail and hardly notice it in models.

The third rail is what powers the fun. I like it and odnt even notice it as out of place. It belongs there on my layout. 3Rail all the way

Ingeniero No1 posted:

None, and I mean none, of the 327 guests who have visited me over the past four years or so, to enjoy the Hidden Pass Junction RR layout have ever mentioned, noted, or brought up the third rail - they just admire the trains and all the details. Most of these people have not been model railroaders, so their exposure to railroad tracks are the real, two-rail tracks at grade crossings, and the ones they see when (if) they visit museums. 

Alex

Moonson posted:

A poster's words on another thread, "...I think the look of that middle rail looks ridiculous..." made me wonder. Do many of my fellow hobbyists feel that same way?

For example, would you say that the layout, of which these sites pictured here are a part, is "ridiculous" and has its value in our hobby reduced by the presence of that middle rail? Is this scenery damaged or diminished by the type of track utilized?

Do you have photos of your layout or of those you have visited that you feel demonstrate  they arenot maderidiculous by the presence of that third rail?

FrankM.

Alex, agree. None have ever tempered their enjoyment with a comment about the 3rd rail!

Frank, no one has ever commented on the 3rd rail other than persnickety 2railers. Maybe it is because of all the 2 rail powered electrical issues with reversing loops and turnouts?

In the 20 years we've been running, there was only one comment related to our use of 3-rail track, but the reference was actually to the trains running on it as not being scale. This was from an H.O. modeler that "the cars aren't scale sized" as he looked at my train of Weaver cars pulled by pair of MTH Premier SD60's. An associate of mine from the [now gone] Citrus Empire O scale (2-rail) club looked at me, chuckled, and then corrected the guy. We surmised that he was thrown off by trains you can actually see from 15 feet away.

I have had many, many visitors and operators spend time with my layout.  The vast majority of them are scale modelers in HO or N-scale.  Like others above, I have also never had a derogatory comment about the 3rd rail, other than one 90+ year old NMRA emeritus official who shook his head slowly and stated, "I only wish it was 2-rail."

Last Fall, two well-known O-scale Proto-48 modelers came for a visit.  When we were arranging their visit, I wondered what they would think of the 3-rail track.  Proto-48 guys are generally HARD CORE scale.  After they were here about 15 minutes, one of them turned to the other and said, "You know, I don't even see the 3rd rail anymore."

My layout was the cover feature in Railroad Model Craftsman magazine in July of 2015.  The editor told me that all of the correspondence he received about the article was positive.  He printed three letters to the editor in the September issue.  One of them stood out.  In part, the writer said,

"I was so busy enjoying the scenes and modeling in the photographs, I didn't even notice it was a 3-rail layout until I read the story!  'What?  3-rail?' I said to myself as I went back to check the photos."

Regarding the poster on another thread who commented on the "ridiculous" middle rail, I'd sure like to see some photos of his layout.  Surely it would put any 3-rail layout to shame.  NOT!  Dollars to donuts he either doesn't have a layout or has a plywood central of some sort (along with many excuses/explanations of why the layout isn't further along).

I laughed the other day when I drove over a bridge and saw several yard tracks... something looked missing. Then I realized it was the middle rail.

Garrett76 posted:

During a car ride the other day, I glanced out the window and noticed some nearby railroad track.  I thought how boring it looked because it only had two rails

I think I am having the same thoughts as you and J Daddy, the real RR tracks no longer look quite right for some reason? Looks like something is missing.

I actually like having the 3rd rail on my layout, I don't even notice it anymore. It's also much more reliable with a whole lot less maintenance than my grandson's HO track. I guess, to each their own, some like 2 rail and some like 3 rail.

My O gauge trains are toys in a fantasy world.  No realism permitted.

I don't care if it's not scale, I celebrate that extra rail.

Pete

J Daddy posted:

I laughed the other day when I drove over a bridge and saw several yard tracks... something looked missing. Then I realized it was the middle rail.

J. Daddy:  Well isn't it?  :-)

Its like having a safety rail! The other day I was running a Lionel Pacific at speed when for some strange reason I left another section of atlas track on top of this trestle...

The pacific hit the section of track, derailed but saved it from certain destruction when the third rail prevented it from crashing to the concrete!

UH, do you see my third rail?

Now ask that same set of questions over on the 2-rail forum and let's compare the answers - that's really only way to get a fair assessment and sampling of responses since here you're polling the choir.

Are you saying this is a biased forum?

Actually, the third rail explains a lot about my layout...

I hear the the 3 rail comment quite often. Doesn't matter to me and I've done HO and N scale for many years too. It either bothers you or it don't, so good luck with your 2 rail adventures. There are many more locomotives available in 3 rail that I can actually afford to own vs 2 rail that either don't exist or cost too much.

Have it - the middle rail. Don't like it, esthetically. Like it, operationally.  It's just a current conductor system, not a Modeling Ideology (oh - everything's an Ideology - I forgot!).  I'm used to it, but I do see it.

"If I were starting today..." Well, talk is cheap. If all the locos that I love were made in S scale...but, they're not. If I had the discipline that I should have, I'd have 6 locos (Hudsons, Mohawks and Niagaras), 50 cars and a 2-rail O-scale layout with radii that could handle the Niagara. Done.

But, I have a whole s**tpile of 3-rail scale equipment. Too late to turn back. The middle rail does, indeed, "look ridiculous", as stated above, but I embrace it. 

The main scale is HO, of course - typically 2-rail (some German practice notwithstanding). All fine and good. But when I walk up to a nice, operating HO layout, I can admire it and appreciate the work and skill. But - I never have any desire to have one like it. The size just leaves me nonplussed. 3RO "standards" and fudge-factors enables me to have substantial beautiful models that can be operated somewhere other than a barn.   

Oh - and my equipment isn't "toy trains"; they are not toys. Yours may be, but that's just you.

I run 2-rail, but to me, it's all good -- all rails, all scales. I prefer highly weathered realistic modeling and Frank's is among the best, regardless of how many rails. 

Jerrman

Any electric powered railroad in real life does have a third rail, in a sense.  Instead of the third rail between the outer rails, it is the overhead wire!

To me it doesn't matter whether it has 2 rails or 3 rails.  I have some prewar American Flyer "O" gauge track that has 4 rails.  So what?  Yes, my rails all have 3 rails, hi-rail, and that is my preference.  Has been since I was so little I do not remember what else there was in the world, except trains and Mom and Dad.  But, the one common thread is TRAINS.  Real trains, scale trains, toy trains, from #1 to Z gauge... all trains.  And each to his own and what he /she enjoys.

Jesse   TCA 

I have always found the third rail a distraction, even Lionel went to great lengths to minimize it with the Super O track. Lesser attempts to disguise it with black color treatments and black ties certainly are common in the market place. These work better in my view with black cinder ballast which hardly anyone does since it tends to also hide the ties.

I've played with this on and off since I was a kid back in the late 40's and early 50's trying to find cheap ways of reducing the visual impact of the third rail and back then adding ties for better realism, having too many HO and American Flyer friends. I've cut a lot of quarter inch square wood from balsa to birch into ties in my life. Stained them dark brown and glued and HO nailed ripped apart tinplate rail to them. I've painted the middle rail black, used brass brads with small diameter brass rods soldered on top; to grooving the center of the ties and pressing brass door weather strip into them. In the end when you get down to it Lionel Super O is about the best visual solution really makes me wonder why it's never been revived especially with choice of wider curvatures.

Bogie 

I've had 3-rail trains so long that it looks normal to me. The prototype trackage looks "sparse" to me.

I run so much tinplate these days that I consider the third rail to be crucial. It conveys the whimsy and lack of seriousness that make up my approach to the hobby.

I've been looking at 3 rail track for so long that when I go over the grade crossing by my home I think it looks unrealistic.....

Peter

I think someone calling it ridiculous says a lot about them, more than the nature of 3 rail trains. I appreciate scale 2 rail as much as anyone, A lot of that comes from the kind of detail the people do and so forth, or how much they try to mimic the prototype operationally. I could sit there and say given how little time most of us have to enjoy our hobby, isn't it silly to waste time making sure that a model of a prototype box car has the right length roof walk and the trucks with the proper version of X type of truck and so forth? Or that it is silly to make sure the ballast is formed the way they would in 'real life', or to paint the rails rust color? Doesn't that take time from running the trains? ...and I think you get my point, it really is in the eye of the beholder. 

I don't really have the space to do the kind of layout I would want to do it 2 rail scale and operate the kind of equipment I would like to, but even if I did I don't know if I would go with 2 rail. I can afford the products in 2 rail O, I could live with DCC and have DCS features only with MTH stuff,but it is more than that, for me the three rail kind of fits multiple needs, with that third rail it is a throwback to the past, to when I was a kid, but I also can build a detailed layout, have neat, scale equipment even, yet run my old stuff if I feel like it. I can still play locomotive engineer and dispatcher and yard chief, and the third rail doesn't change that *shrug*. 

If as some sniff, a three rail layout is just 'playing with trains', I am perfectly happy with that, since for me it is play, if I want work I'll go take my new pups for a walk, now there is work

I model in different scales. The third rail is something that at times had bothered me, but not so much anymore. I do enjoy the use of the phantom track and good scenery can help. And the electrical benefits way outweigh the look.

What really would bother me most in the OP photos wouldn't be the third rail, but the dang tight curves that the FEF and Challenger are going around. But alas, in O you need the tight curves because of space. There's always give and take. Unless it's a proto-48 guy. Then fun is out the window.  (jk)

I had 3 rail tubular track as a kid, and grew up near real trains and subways. It didn't bother me then, and, 50+ years later, it doesn't bother me now. With modern phantom track it is pretty much "hidden" anyway. And No One has ever commented on it being there - they are too busy looking at various details on the layout or operating the cool accessories that are available to use. 

Given the title of this forum it is beyond me why anyone would post here with negative comments about the third rail.  I make no excuses for it. Rather, I embrace it as a feature of Hi Rail O gauge modelling along with other non-scale features such as pizza cutters, lobster claws, traditional sized equipment, and curves that are way too tight. These non-scale features blended with scale attributes of command control, great sound, painted and ballasted track, and realistic scenery and structures make for a much more relaxed hobby experience than when i was in HO. Rivet counting days behind me, I'm enjoying my trains more than ever - 3 rails and all.

As a child, I quickly realized that my postwar 671 was not the 1:1 representation of the real locomotive.  It severely lacked pulling power of the real roster of PRR engines.  However, the disappointment of running on 3 rail track was quickly outweighed by the benefits of anti-derailing switches, no polarity issues, and insulated track sections.  Of course the biggest benefit of the 3 rail track, was the ability to take a random box of track and build a carpet layout that ran first time every time as long as I could get the ends of the track to mate.

Now that I have seen a real life Christmas car, I think I can look past the 3 rail versus 2 rail problem.  However, I am adding two more Lionel cars to my real life bucket list.  I want to see a real life milk car throwing cans onto a platform and the real ICBM rocket launching cars I hear so much about on this forum. 

When I was a kid, I had HO trains. I wanted a layout like I saw in Model Railroader. However, I never got what I imagined, and I had a hard time keeping my trains on the tracks.  I repainted trains to all be Northern Pacific. (They didn't look too good.) Then, I lost interest.  I got back into trains with G scale, but it was limiting operationally. Then, I found O Gauge. I built a great layout. I couldn't believe the great operational capabilities!  

Now I realize that I really just want shiny bright trains that run and don't fall off the track.  I set up a carpet layout and train village every year.  I run 90 year old tinplate and brand new O Gauge together.  I have an original 390e that I run, which is definitely not scale. I run toy trains, and now I can put my childhood imagination to its proper use. What 3rd rail?

George

My thoughts on the third rail. well my self I like it I don't have to deal with problems for reverse loops. An I can use the one out side rail for all my signals.   Appearance wise it has never bothered me. you can still do a quality scale layout with less electoral  problems.   

Everyone has an Opinion, Positive or Negative, For or Against, Has a Layout, Wishes THEY had a Layout???? So, my thoughts are "AIM", Acknowledge, Ignore, and Move On....Three Rail Scale is Here, It's Easier to Wire, It's Simply, Lots of Fun To Run.....Happy Railroading

I was talking to an HO guy the other day about model trains and layouts.  He seemed interested and open minded about other scales so I showed him a video of my trains running. After a short while has asked very sincerely, do they always run so smoothly and at a nice even speed? And do yours derail a lot? They both were apparently problems he dealt with often on his HO pike. The negative effects of third rail to me on appearance are so negligible as to disappear.