I never thought much of it. I know they're just toys so I accept it.
645 posted:Dominic Mazoch posted: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!
Uh - the New York City subway and Chicago's CTA among others both use an actual third rail to power their trains. Not all electrically powered 1:1 operations use overhead catenary or trolly wire.
The London Underground uses a center and outer electrical rails: FOUR RAILS.
The 3rd rail does not bother me a bit and the wheels either. The couplers are prototype seen a pic on internet awhile back looked very close to what o scale is using and too i know the trains are prototype and most are scale.
Marty Fitzhenry posted: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.
Ditto....
Michael Hokkanen posted: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.
I had the same experience in 2000, and it was out with HO I'd collected for almost 20 years and in with O.....
I grew up with O and HO. Over the years as O became more scale in appearance I became more aware of the 3 rail's visual disruption. Now I'm to the point that I really detest it. Even the best 3 rail layouts don't cut it for me anymore. I appreciate them, but it's not what I want anymore. My eye is always drawn to the 3rd rail. Unless there is a train on it or I'm at eye level though to be fair. Just my opinion.
to me the 3rd rail gives me the ok to run a steam engine with modern day freight cars. so no the 3rd rail doesn't really bother me at all because at the end of the day all of this hobby revolves around a bunch of toys.
I don't like the 3 rails anymore, next layout is 2 rail. Even if it is Gargrave's and Ross 2 rail.
Clem
I've never seen a O scale three rail layout no three rail in West Australia but from photos I see here and other places some of the layouts are miles better than 2-rail layouts especially scenery wise so I can't really say what is good what is bad I would have thought 3-rail layouts are easier to wire because of the centre rail but are they more noisier than a 2 rail layout what is the real attraction with 3 rail over 2 rail? I would like to know. I am pleased that 3 rail took off so big because I use a lot of three rail freight cars that I probably would not have if the industry had have stayed O 2 rail so I'm grateful to 3 railers maybe selfish saying that but I don't care I just don't have the time to build every single thing I'm struggling with the Steel mill at the moment that's why I call it "The last great project" we all owe a lot to 3 railers they have resurrected the O scale hobby as far as I'm concerned
I had a Marklin HO layout many years ago with stud contact does that mean I've seen a 3 rail layout! Grin.
Roo.
I value that third center rail for it's ability to power the roller pickups on my locomotives. The layout would be pretty "static" without it...
Thanks Tom. So you like three rail because your locos have got roller pickups. OK, that's a start, we are off and running, what other advantages does three rail have.
I need to do some modelling and get away from this computer! Grin.
Roo.
Well if I had a friend reasonably nearby with a 3 rail model railroad, and he was to invite me over to participate in one of his operating sessions, I'd be pleased to attend...and equally pleased to ignore the third rail entirely. I appreciate a railroad built with prototype operation in mind 3 rail or 2 rail and find those built to simply run trains round and round less appealing.
But unfortunately I do not have such a friend, and so I pursue the building of my own 2 rail railroad and enjoy all aspects of it...flying solo unfortunately.
Bob
What 3rd rail?....
In the late 70's I participated in a garden tour of Japan. Ours was a rather mixed group of landscape professionals, amateur gardeners, tour-junkies, accommodating-but-disinterested spouses, etc., etc.. One lady in particular had a southern drawl that was both quaint and classic. On this tour, however, she was...befitting this forum discussion...indeed, the '3rd Rail', somewhere among the latter two categories of participants aforementioned.
Japanese gardens are unique, beautiful, simple, and rather spiritual in their form...extraordinary. Some of the most iconic Zen gardens are located at the many Bhuddist temples throughout the country, those in the Kyoto area among the most famous. The Zen garden at the Ryoan-ji Temple is an example...
The temple building is to the right in this picture. The building wall has typical sliding Shoji screens which open to a couple steps that run the full length of the garden. The steps are where one sits while contemplating the garden, to consider the carefully raked stone patterns, the 'island' forms, the tranquility and peace. I think you get the picture....
Anyway, our tour group sat on the steps, admiring the garden, and listening to an elderly gentleman/monk describe the garden, it's history, it's spiritual significance, etc., etc.. And then he offered to take a few questions.
Our Southern Belle had one: "Wha' don't y'all paint that wall around the garden? It'd look a lot bettah!"
To which the smiling gentleman/monk replied, "What wall?"
----------------
So, I sometimes think of that incident when my kindly HO friends (
) comment on the 3rd rail on my layout.
"What 3rd rail?"
KD
Attachments
Roo posted:I've never seen a O scale three rail layout no three rail in West Australia but from photos I see here and other places some of the layouts are miles better than 2-rail layouts especially scenery wise so I can't really say what is good what is bad I would have thought 3-rail layouts are easier to wire because of the centre rail but are they more noisier than a 2 rail layout what is the real attraction with 3 rail over 2 rail? I would like to know. I am pleased that 3 rail took off so big because I use a lot of three rail freight cars that I probably would not have if the industry had have stayed O 2 rail so I'm grateful to 3 railers maybe selfish saying that but I don't care I just don't have the time to build every single thing I'm struggling with the Steel mill at the moment that's why I call it "The last great project" we all owe a lot to 3 railers they have resurrected the O scale hobby as far as I'm concerned
I had a Marklin HO layout many years ago with stud contact does that mean I've seen a 3 rail layout! Grin.
Roo.
The 3rd rail is a carry over from some hundred years ago or so. 3 rail equipment does not require insulated wheels or axles. 3 rail trains can loop around and return on the same track without any electrical switching. 3 rail trains can run on insanely tight curves compared to 2 rail trains. As far as I know, in the US, all 2 rail O gauge trains have scale wheels and all locomotive drivers have flanges (no blind drivers) and therefore require broader curves.
I happen to like 3 rail track. It is easier to do a turn around as relays & insulating pins are not needed. You can get Gargraves Phantom rail track if the center rail looks that bad to you, the center rail is black.
There are some real railroads that have 3 track, like Pike's Pike for cog rail use.
Lee Fritz
I am exactly like GeorgeS. I tried every winter to build an HO layout. Had books, magazines, was fascinated with building a realistic layout. Track planning for realistic operation - I still have it. Never worked. Thirty years later I bought a lionel scout set to go around my Christmas tree. And I was immediately hooked. This thing runs great! Maybe I can build a layout that actually works! This was 1999-2000, just when TMCC got really going, I bought into all the IC controls boxes, (which I still treasure) got the TMCC command control special NYC steam set with a Cab1 and command base, and a couple diesels and built a really cool operating layout, which sadly has since departed. Moment of silence ... Bottom line is it works really good, it's not hard to do, and it's fun. If the third rail bothers you, I would suggest you do what a previous poster and RRMC magazine cover guy Bob did. That looks pretty darn good to me. Also, like GeorgeS, I mostly play around with prewar standard gauge now. I kind of lost interest after I tore down my layout and just didn't want to bite on the whole Legacy thing. I still use my Cab1 and a powermaster or a TPC and even the ARC box occasionally to run my standard gauge stuff. Third rail is part of the gig. So, that's my story and I'm stickin to it. Cheers and remember to have fun.
When I was 6 years old I dumped my Lionel O-27 for a Marx HO set mainly because of the 3rd rail.....and cost.
Today that same 3rd rail makes my life easy in wiring and reliability.......and thus looks GREAT!!!
I have grown up with Lionel's 3 rail track and will continue to use it!
Have gotten into H.O. scale just a bit. The track or curve sizes don't appeal to me as well in H.O. because you may still need the same size layout because of curve diameters. If you get some large engines in H.O. you still need large curves(R-22; 44 inch diameter or higher) to operate with.
O gauge 3 rail is about 2 and an eighth inches wide and H.O. track is about one and a quarter inches wide. So not all that much savings in track size to me.
Lee Fritz
I had AF S gauge when I was a boy; without the 3rd rail, but with large flanges and couplers. In my teens, a new friend liked my trains and decided to get into HO. Probably HO because it was less expensive and more readily available. Not once did his trains run without derailing.
Oman posted:I had AF S gauge when I was a boy; without the 3rd rail, but with large flanges and couplers. In my teens, a new friend liked my trains and decided to get into HO. Probably HO because it was less expensive and more readily available. Not once did his trains run without derailing.
I have some 2 rail AF that I got as a boy. I like the looks of the AF track but the engines are not easy to work on at times, as I have the AF steam engines and the brushes in the motor area need to make contact just right or may not work. Another thing about AF track I have is the diameter of the curves are close to 42 inches, so you need some decent space to run the AF trains. The AF switches are nicer then Lionel as they have a switch for 2 train or regular operation built-in. I have tried AF Pike Master track and don't like it any, roadbed is very flimsy and comes off very easy.
Lee Fritz
I think there's some myths that get spread by posts like these. It makes it sound like O scale two rail is nothing but trouble.
You're asking three rail guys if they mind the third rail. That's OK by me. You won't get fully objective answers.
My layout runs fine as a 2 rail layout. I prefer two rail for the looks alone. When I see a 3 rail layout, my mind has to dismiss the look of the third rail. It's not hard to do. It's like I'm making excuses already for it. That's my honest answer and that's why I chose 2 rail. The funny thing is I also have three rail now! I prefer the look of two rail.
I hope anyone reading this does not think I have a hatred for 3 rail. I just prefer 2 rail. The user has to make a decision like I did. Coming from HO to O scale, the trains are more reliable period. Using that statement to promote huge 3 rail features, is a myth that should not be used against 2 rail. I have never had any engine or car hit the floor!!
Another myth if you can call it one is that 2 rail O scale needs larger curves, is that true?
I have seen some 2 rail O scale and talked to a few operators at train shows, so I was told that 2 rail O scale uses DC current.
Lee Fritz
What 3rd rail? Over time I forgot to notice it. However on my city trolley line, the 3rd rail resembles the slotted 3rd rail in the roadway between the rails.
phillyreading posted:Another myth if you can call it one is that 2 rail O scale needs larger curves, is that true?
Generally true - it's a myth. It does come into play when using larger engines w/o blinded drivers. It's not an absolute.
The hand-wringing over overhang in curves is also excessive. There are prototypical curves in use that have significant visible overhang.
I would say that the appearance of the third rail doesn't bother me that much but you have to be very conservative with your track and switch selection. The reason is that some of the more exotic switches, crossings, etc., and the arrangement thereof can look a bit wild.
Operationally, the third rail simplifies reverse loop wiring and offers built-in signal triggering but you do have to realize that electrical contact is hardly perfect. 2 rail has the natural advantage of splitting electrical pickup 50/50 with the wheelsets as opposed to 3 rail needing a proper amount and spacing of pickup rollers to ensure reliable operation, especially through longer switches. No real free lunch there.
I picked O because of the 3rd rail.
The very fact that the question is raised means it is on the minds of model railroaders, either because they run three rail trains or they would like to run two rail trains. The fact that so many people respond to the question means that the answer is important to them. For those who feel three rail is fine means to me their trains represent toys and Lionel history and tinplate and everything attendant to those ideas. At the very least it means that they run three rail scale and the middle rail is "acceptable" even though they might want to delete it if everything else was equal. After all, aren't there some three railers who would switch to two rail if the wiring and everything necessary was not necessary?
For many years the thought of the third rail was merely coincidental. My trains were toys and I thought it was simply okay. As I morphed into the world of greater realism, the middle rail was still okay, just less so. I spent quite a bit of time weathering and working on realistic scenes and, though the middle rail was still not an "issue," I grew a preference for it not to be there. My toys became less "toylike" and more realistic despite the argument by many that they were just toys and leave it at that. They were not toys to me and I began to resent people who called my "models" toys. Gee whiz, if an architect makes a model of a possible structure, must it be called a toy?
My recent acquisitions are less and less toylike and, as a result, my desire for two rails is growing and the desire to "get rid" of the middle rail is growing. A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum, however. I bought a set of expensive two rail passenger cars and I have ordered four F units in two rail that are on the way. Total cost will be more than my first new car. I also bought the most expensive DCC system in anticipation of running two rail somewhere on the next iteration of the Munoz Lines (more on that later).
A brief foray into two rail running running with some of the On3 locos I purchased was a literal slap in the face. I had DCC installed into an expensive On3 loco and, when it arrived $350 later, no sound. It ran smoothly, but a loose wire perhaps? My two other On3 locos with DCC installed would not run at all. Wow, what a revelation. I have no interest nor any willingness to become the Marty Fitzhenry of DCC and two rail. I want to turn on the trains and run them. To heck with opening them up, being a detective, soldering (Heaven forbid), and then announcing to the world, "Hey, just open them up and do what needs to be done." No. I don't want to.
Another slap in the face, where am I going to run my expensive set of two rail trains on my three rail layout and not see the two very different types of tracks next to one another? I do not want to do that. Wire DCC switches? Sorry. No, non, nein, nyet. What to do? You tell me.
Guess what? Now that I decided have decided to jump into the two rail pool without checking to see how deep the water is, three rail is looking better and better to me. The old Munoz Lines was a joy. Three rail seemed to be okay, right? How many two rail layouts look better than Norm Charbonneau's layout? Oh, the humanity !
So, am I moving away from three rail? NO !
Do I wish I had ordered those two rail trains in three rail? YES
Am I conflicted? YES
Welcome to the world of model trains.
mwb posted: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.
There is a certain defensiveness to both sides.
Scrapiron - that's awesome. Great post, and great nickname by the way. I used to call my oldest daughter Nora, Scrapiron, because of her rough entrance into the world at childbirth. Maybe like your entrance to 2 rail... Or not. Fun post to read. Keep up the good work, BK
rex desilets posted:mwb posted: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.
There is a certain defensiveness to both sides.
True, but when you limit the sampling on a topic, then you will naturally receive a skewed response.
Guess what? Now that I decided have decided to jump into the two rail pool without checking to see how deep the water is, three rail is looking better and better to me. The old Munoz Lines was a joy. Three rail seemed to be okay, right? How many two rail layouts look better than Norm Charbonneau's layout? Oh, the humanity !
Reminds me of my son's experience with HO. The code 100 layout he built functioned well, but he decided he didn't like the look, tore up the layout, and built a new one using code 83 track. It gave him a lot of trouble, and he wound up switching to "N" gauge.
As far as two rail versus three rail goes: I'm primarily a Lionel (3 rail) guy, but over the years I've owned Flyer (2 rail) trains too. And I am comfortable repairing both. I get lots of practice with the Flyer my brother is always giving me to repair.
The Flyer trains always seem to be more sensitive to dirt.
As always: to each their own!
Imagine a guy who jumped into three rail right now. Just maybe his first engine was a very expensive one that did not work right out of the box. Does that mean that three rail is the problem??? What if his second or third engine also was DOA??
I must be reading the above post incorrectly? Sounds to me like it's maybe a choice of manufacturer's that does not pre check engines before shipping them. I've read plenty of three rail posts about engines DOA. It's a problem with all model trains. It does not matter what type of track is used.
I must be reading the above post incorrectly? Sounds to me like it's maybe a choice of manufacturer's that does not pre check engines before shipping them. I've read plenty of three rail posts about engines DOA. It's a problem with all model trains. It does not matter what type of track is used.
Not certain whether you mean my post. If so, when I referenced Lionel and American Flyer, I meant postwar Lionel, and the American Flyer "S" gauge trains that were made by Gilbert, prior to 1965.
As for the Lionel and American Flyer trains that are made today: I thought they were both "made" by the same company.
Scrapiron Scher posted:...
My recent acquisitions are less and less toylike and, as a result, my desire for two rails is growing and the desire to "get rid" of the middle rail is growing. A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum, however. I bought a set of expensive two rail passenger cars and I have ordered four F units in two rail that are on the way. Total cost will be more than my first new car. I also bought the most expensive DCC system in anticipation of running two rail somewhere on the next iteration of the Munoz Lines (more on that later).
A brief foray into two rail running running with some of the On3 locos I purchased was a literal slap in the face. I had DCC installed into an expensive On3 loco and, when it arrived $350 later, no sound. It ran smoothly, but a loose wire perhaps? My two other On3 locos with DCC installed would not run at all. Wow, what a revelation. I have no interest nor any willingness to become the Marty Fitzhenry of DCC and two rail. I want to turn on the trains and run them. To heck with opening them up, being a detective, soldering (Heaven forbid), and then announcing to the world, "Hey, just open them up and do what needs to be done." No. I don't want to.
Another slap in the face, where am I going to run my expensive set of two rail trains on my three rail layout and not see the two very different types of tracks next to one another? I do not want to do that. Wire DCC switches? Sorry. No, non, nein, nyet. What to do? You tell me.
Guess what? Now that I decided have decided to jump into the two rail pool without checking to see how deep the water is, three rail is looking better and better to me. The old Munoz Lines was a joy. Three rail seemed to be okay, right? How many two rail layouts look better than Norm Charbonneau's layout? Oh, the humanity !
So, am I moving away from three rail? NO !
Do I wish I had ordered those two rail trains in three rail? YES
Am I conflicted? YES
Welcome to the world of model trains.
I should have quoted this post. The fact that someone buys 2 rail and then realizes he has no where to run it, does not sound like it's the tracks fault to me. The fact that he bought an expensive DCC system was his choice. My DCS system does everything and was the best value. I have to put up with software bugs but I believe I've saved a thousand dollars when compared to other's investment in DCC systems.
I don't know why he would make a post like this showing poor half hearted decisions that have a bad effect on readers making choices. The only positive thing I can get from this, is to take your time before buying. If you buy two rail track, you'll see it's much easier than this post describes. If you want to plop down some track without any soldering, and run trains at full speed, maybe 3 rail would be a better choice. After a while of using it on a carpet and having the joints become loose or not carrying current fully, you'll still have to do something about it. I imagine it's a matter of humidity, solid surface under it, etc. I had to run jumpers after about nine or ten sections to carry full current to the 3 rail trains anyways. I have about 100' of Atlas 2 rail track that I never soldered. It still works perfectly. I can only guess that it matters what it's been thru. Our grandkids keep picking up the 3 rail track at their house. It goes on and off the carpet. All the joints are shot from poor handling and being stepped on.
I respect your part of the hobby - If you like the looks of three rail track, then by all means run three rail track. I personally couldn't tolerate it, and in fact have a bit of trouble dealing with the five foot gauge we seem to be stuck with.
My take on this thread? Let me go find that Shakespeare quote about protestething too much. Some modeles are pretty sensitive about this . . .
Every time I see a nice 2-rail o gauge layout I think about converting to 2-rail. They look better. That said I'm not changing my 3-rail layout.
If 2-rail layouts ran with out electricity but with coal, wood and diesel fuel then I would really consider it. But they don't; they run with electricity and 2-rail electric is a pain.
John C. posted: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.
I was the same, in HO since the late '60s, and couldn't get past the third rail either. Once I saw modern O gauge 3 rail trains, I didn't even notice the third rail. I see the trains, the scenery, and the action. I see just as great modeling in 3 rail as I saw in HO. I'll stick with 3-rail from now on.
Hi Folks,
The third rail is not a detraction for me. I find that the overly sharp curves, oversize couplers, and much too large rail are much more noticeable when comparing 3 rail and 2 rail layouts.
NH Joe
yes, especially when there is a high gap between the body and trucks on most equipment! Its like everything looks top heavy...
Roo posted:I've never seen a O scale three rail layout no three rail in West Australia but from photos I see here and other places some of the layouts are miles better than 2-rail layouts especially scenery wise so I can't really say what is good what is bad I would have thought 3-rail layouts are easier to wire because of the centre rail but are they more noisier than a 2 rail layout what is the real attraction with 3 rail over 2 rail? I would like to know. I am pleased that 3 rail took off so big because I use a lot of three rail freight cars that I probably would not have if the industry had have stayed O 2 rail so I'm grateful to 3 railers maybe selfish saying that but I don't care I just don't have the time to build every single thing I'm struggling with the Steel mill at the moment that's why I call it "The last great project" we all owe a lot to 3 railers they have resurrected the O scale hobby as far as I'm concerned
I had a Marklin HO layout many years ago with stud contact does that mean I've seen a 3 rail layout! Grin.
Roo.
Three rail exists because of a historical oddity, when Joshua Lionel Cowen decided to use the inside third rail to power his trains and avoid issues with polarity and such. Lionel became the dominant player in toy electric trains early, and while American Flyer with S had its run, three rails was what kept going. Its resurgence was fed by baby boomers remembering the trains of their youth, plus getting older and not being able to work with small things as easily, plus the efforts by Lionel and then MTH and Atlas to make more scale like, detailed equipment.
So why does three rail work for people:
1)As compared to two rail O, it allows a lot more operation in a smaller space. Two rail O requires compromises on equipment you won't have in three rail.You can build two rail in smaller spaces, but it also limits what you can run on those layouts. The comprompise on the three rail side are things like truck mounted couplers, blind drivers and other things to allow engines and rolling stock to run on tighter curves (not to mention less than scale size).
2)Lot more equipment available in three rail. Even with MTH building engines that can work in both, and Atlas and its offerings, plus the output of some other firms, there still is a lot more available in three rail.
3)Two rail, other than MTH, uses DCC, which in terms of features, as good as their decoders have gotten, lags behind what Legacy and PS offer.
4)Three rail is inherently easier to wire. Yeah, they have automatic polarity units for two rail that are pretty easy to use along with switches able to handle polarity properly, but it still is easy. Plus, you have two grounds to work with, so you can do the insulated rail as detector trick.
5)It is also kind of nice to perhaps a sizable portion of the community, to be able to run scale or near scale equipment yet still be able to run the old stuff for nostagia sake, or to use the operating accessories that can make three rail O fun. Sure, it isn't particularly prototypical looking, is more 'toy-like', but there is something to having your cake and eating it too, least it is to me.
I think the tradeoffs three rail makes to allow operation in tighter spaces is one of the biggest reason, otherwise the 3 rail hi rail and scale guys would likely switch to 2 rail in many cases (those whom prototypical realism is a very strong factor).
