clem k posted:I don't like the 3 rails anymore, next layout is 2 rail. Even if it is Gargrave's and Ross 2 rail.
Clem
We should talk Clem. That's what I'm doing with my Grizzly Valley layout.
My impression of the effect the middle rail has on scenery and an overall layout is that it detracts from the realism, in a big way. Even if the sides of the rail are finished in black, the shiny top rail stands out. This did not deter me from choosing 3 rail. I am just answering the OP's question. As previously stated the less complicated electronics, product selection, availability, used market, resell potential, and more opportunities to be compatible with other layouts were the over-ruling factors for me. Maybe 2 rail will someday become status quo, but I'm thinking I'll be long dead. This is such a niche hobby, and getting more so with every passing day, I'm not sure 2 rail has the market to support ($$$) the product line options in the future.
Just my 2 cents,
Rich
bigkid posted: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).
You can run the same size equipment in the same space from 3 rail to 2 rail. You can use body mount couplers or truck mounted couplers in either. You can have blind drivers in 2 rail as well. Sometimes you have to do the work yourself or outsource it to professionals, but it absolutely can, has, and is being done in 2 rail in the same space.
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.
Again, only if you are comparing ready to run. My argument is that there is more available in 2 rail because you can buy RTR 2 rail models, but you can also convert almost any 3 rail model over to 2 rail if you are willing. Example: Lionel makes a great PS-1 Boxcar. I have converted several with 3D printed parts and Kadee couplers. They work great.
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.
I will agree that Legacy has a very user friendly interface, but that's about it. DCC is FAR more flexible, has better speed control, and better sound quality with greater sound options.
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.
Fair point
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.
Agreed if 3 rail nostalgia is a factor. I will always have a small 3 rail FastTrack layout for that purpose.
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).
Don't forget that there is a category not often discussed which is 2 rail HiRail. That is using 2 rail Gargraves and Ross track with 2 rail equipment. The beauty of this is that while you will not be able to run Lionel engines you can run MTH Proto 3/2 engines. Example: The MTH HiRail Chessie 4-8-4 will run on 27"r 2 rail HiRail track. Here is an example of my MTH H-10 backing through a 36"r Gargraves turnout with a 27"r S curve to parallel that I setup as a "torture test".
I really hate to pick apart what people say, but I feel I have to respond to a few points that you made. See above.
So here it is again. An argument over the benefits of the third rail instead of a discussion about how it looks for the OP's original question. How bad two rail is!
"Effect of the third - the middle - rail on layout scenery and overall layout impression."
Let's make excuses for using it instead of talking about how good or bad it looks. I saw a 3 rail McDonalds diesel at a train club going around super tight curves. Big gaps, huge claws sticking out, wheel flanges bigger than G scale.
It looked stupid. Sometimes O scale shouldn't fit. If you only have two to three feet for a whole layout's width of an oval, maybe a smaller scale would be better?
IMHO, Just saying!
What about those crazy Impressionist artists? Reality and utterly realistic portrayal of the world is the only way to go. Not to mention photographers who use various means to distort the image to convey the message. The third rail says "this is a model of reality, not reality." It also is convenient and historically interesting. For those who find it ridiculous, that's their privilege. You can hate the Impressionists if you like, or the films of the surrealists. But to say such narrow minded, concrete thinkers are missing out on the point of model railroading/toys is an understatement.
It looked stupid. Sometimes O scale shouldn't fit. If you only have two to three feet for a whole layout's width of an oval, maybe a smaller scale would be better?
Obviously that Burger King train did not look stupid to the person that owns it.
Don't buy things that you don't like.
Thought it pointless to respond here but scrapiron's post nailed it for me.
I'm "stuck" with the third rail. No reasonable way of getting around it now. The pizza cutters and the lobster claws too although I have some scale wheel rolling stock and have converted most to K-Ds.
Not sure what the goal is here for most. It's the "Traditional 3-rail" forum after all. Still my goal was never to emulate the "toyness" of my Lionels from the 1950s.
So lambaste me for my "poor choice" if you will but after a couple of thousand dollar engines, starting over with 2-rail becomes a hard choice.
I "live with" the 3-rd rail. I don't "like it."
AlanRail posted: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.
What's missing from this discussion, but very doable...and becoming more so in the near term (follow the R/C hobbies...drones, planes, etc.)...is the use of on-board battery power. It takes away most of the arguments on both sides regarding 2 vs. 3 rails, because the track serves no function in conveying power to the engines/rolling stock.
Battery power is becoming the new norm for avid large scale railroaders. One of the periodicals for this branch of the hobby...Garden Railways...is already two issues into an in-depth discussion about battery power, radio control. And, as I've mentioned in other threads regarding this subject, battery powered O scale engines are part of the demonstration of RCS America at York...Orange Hall...and have been for a few years now.
In fact, this subject has been discussed and demonstrated in HO and featured in a periodical article several months ago. One of our (LHS) customers is, apparently, pursuing this himself, drawing on the expertise in our R/C department.
Battery power: The baby gorilla waiting outside the O scale door, folks.
And why there isn't a forum category to capture the discussion and efforts....and promote further development and pros/cons discussions...is an enigma, at least.
I know, I know.....just go away and leave us alone....with our paradigms...
KD
dkdkrd posted:I know, I know.....just go away and leave us alone....KD
Run what you like and can afford. I don't care what other people think when it comes to my trains. It's all about having fun and doing what you like, if it is two rail or three rail, N, HO, O Gauge, O scale or some other scale.
Do what interests you not somebody else's thoughts on how you should play with your trains.
Now go and run your trains!
One day way back in my early collector days (70's), I picked up a OO Lionel set with two rails. I put a small layout in my train room with all my O stuff running on 072 tinplate rails. I got tired of answering the question about "where is the third rail on this set?" I packed it up and replaced it with my 3 rail OO gauge set also from my collection. All I can tell you is that for whatever the reason, it must have made my visitors more comfortable, because the questions no longer arose.
Have fun that is what it is all about!
Engineer-Joe posted:
So here it is again. An argument over the benefits of the third rail instead of a discussion about how it looks for the OP's original question. How bad two rail is!
"Effect of the third - the middle - rail on layout scenery and overall layout impression."
Let's make excuses for using it instead of talking about how good or bad it looks.
Well, even if they are not saying it in so many words, pretty much every 3-railer who has posted so far has already conceded that it looks bad. Other things being equal, does anyone with eyeballs actually think that three rails look as realistic as two??? They are all answering OP's question: "Yes, it detracts, but not enough to make me want to get rid of it. And so I don't look like a lunatic, let me offer my reasons."
For the record, I'm not in love with the third rail either, from an appearance standpoint, and I run Postwar and MPC! But there is no way in haitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks I'm getting rid of it; when scenery time come, I'll just blend it in a little.
Eh. I come from a rivet counting background. All of my efforts up to this point have been side tracked because of research. Incorrectly spaced locomotive drivers, rebuilding everything so it is absolutely correct and agonizing over finding spacific brass models that they only made 3 of back in 1992. Even when I got fed up with that and started building German prototype steam I started getting frustrated finding proper locomotives drivers to replace the oversize NEM flanged drivers. And then waiting months to find /purchase/ship the items from Germany to here. So finding O scale three rail was a breath of fresh air. I am building,not waiting. I like the third rail cause it gives me perspective. And keeps me from obsessing over the tiny stuff and focusing on the whole. Whenever I find myself nitpicking certain details the third rail brings me back to reality and reminds me this is a hobby. Not a life or death struggle for the most accurate models. Now having said that....I am handlaying my track,fixing the pilots on all of my locos ,adding all the seperate details and scale wheels/lasers.so I guess old habits die hard. But I still love the third rail. And have no regrets....
Attachments
Images (1)
I don't think I even see the third rail most of the time. Don
Attachments
Images (2)
dkdkrd posted:AlanRail posted: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.
What's missing from this discussion, but very doable...and becoming more so in the near term (follow the R/C hobbies...drones, planes, etc.)...is the use of on-board battery power. It takes away most of the arguments on both sides regarding 2 vs. 3 rails, because the track serves no function in conveying power to the engines/rolling stock.
Battery power is becoming the new norm for avid large scale railroaders. One of the periodicals for this branch of the hobby...Garden Railways...is already two issues into an in-depth discussion about battery power, radio control. And, as I've mentioned in other threads regarding this subject, battery powered O scale engines are part of the demonstration of RCS America at York...Orange Hall...and have been for a few years now.
In fact, this subject has been discussed and demonstrated in HO and featured in a periodical article several months ago. One of our (LHS) customers is, apparently, pursuing this himself, drawing on the expertise in our R/C department.
Battery power: The baby gorilla waiting outside the O scale door, folks.
And why there isn't a forum category to capture the discussion and efforts....and promote further development and pros/cons discussions...is an enigma, at least.
I know, I know.....just go away and leave us alone....
KD
I think for the cutting edge O gauge if not scale people this is where the hobby is headed. One can hardly notice that most responses in this forum are in regard to what I would call modern 21st century O using electronics for direction and speed management along with sound production from horns and whistles, chuff or roar to crew chatter. Those of us in the post war era are probably in need of our own forum as well as those in the develeoping future of battery power teamed with digital controls and sounds.
Bogie
I would be remiss in my duties as the resident WindupGuy if I didn't mention that there is a very, very, very small contingent of O gauge enthusiasts that still operate the original & traditional O gauge two-rail trains... the ones that are powered by springs, not electrons. Of course, my focus is in the historical aspect of toy O gauge trains, not scale modeling. In the states, mechanical trains tended to be relegated to low-end toy train sets, but our friends in England certainly demonstrated that clockwork mechanisms could be used to power realistic O gauge trains. Regardless, I realize that windup motors are an antiquated technology with certain inherent operating limitations; but radio controlled battery power seems to be a natural evolution from spring power. It offers the same advantages of eliminating the need for track wiring, as well as bypassing any problems with power pickup from dirty track.
By the way, a tip of the hat to all who have posted pictures of some excellent model railroads in this thread. I certainly admire the talent and hard work it takes to get such realistic results, no matter if the track has two or three rails! 
I don't spend much time counting rivets or comparing dimensions to scale. If you put down some good scenery or operating accessories, then I probably don't even see the third rail. Run some long consists with interesting colorful cars and then I don't even hear the third rail. Others may be able to hear the third rail, while they are checking for duplicate car numbers on the rolling stock. Not me, I am zoned in on the clickity clack of the wheels and that occasional whistle/horn.
Well I'm almost at the point of being totally confused. I asked a question on a controversial subject so it's my fault.
There is no straight forward answer from what I can see. I am not as naïve as some blokes might think I have been in American O scale 2-Rail for 30 years I started with ON 3 and hand layed track, built freight cars, and bought some brass locomotives then found after a couple of years was getting nowhere working at the bench all the time was not my style I wanted a layout I wanted to run trains not just to look at but for a purpose so I sold all the On3 back to America and went into 2 rail O scale even then not much around but enough to get me set up for a layout that I could operate and to this day that's what I have.
I have watched from the outside (I live in West Australia) the reinvention of O scale just in that 30 years and most can be contributed to 3 rail that is where the market is.
From what I see 3 rail gives someone an instant layout within a day you could get trains up and running, try that with 2 rail, Ok you can lay a length of 2 rail track down on a plank and run a train up and down you know what I mean gaps for turnouts etc, this from what I have seen is not needed for a simple layout in 3 rail. 3 rail can be made to look realistic paint and ballast the track add kadees and your away running.
I know the older blokes (I'm old to!) that count every rivet would hate what I'm saying but with 3 rail it still can be made to look realistic. On the other hand 2 rail can be reliable to, even with DC I don't have problems with my layout except for operator error my layout runs as near as perfect as I can get if it didn't I would dump the lot and go back to Marklin that is not going to happen 2 rail can be just as reliable as 3 rail now the one snag is can 3 rail be as reliable when switching cars like maybe 150 cars a session that's what we do here switching cars all day long, is 3 rail suitable for that with those huge couplers.
All that said I watched a video here on this forum the other night of a 3 rail layout (it might have been Mr muffins layout) and there were these big beautiful steam locos moving round the tracks and the sound was fantastic if you like railroads how could you not be impressed with something like that I know 2 has sound I had an old Pacific Fast Mail sound system for my On3 locos once but watching those 3 rail locos running really impressed me and I thought if I was starting out in O scale in America that would be the way to go!
So what's the answer to all this, there is no answer just enjoy what you like and ignore the negative critics that's what I do when I get visitors and they start this talk of "Gee you must be rich to have all this in O scale" Yeh right never mind all the hours I put into it why bring up the money side of things, they don't get invited back!
Roo.
scale rail posted:I don't think I even see the third rail most of the time. Don
WOW, this is great work!
I love the MILW, as I live within 1/4 mile of the Pacific Extension's line to Grey's Harbor...
If it doesn't bother you guys, why have you been yakking about if for three pages?
Simon
Simon Winter posted:If it doesn't bother you guys, why have you been yakking about if for three pages?
Simon
If people enjoy extended discussion of the topic, why does it bother you? It's all part of the diverse world of miniature railroading! 
The ignorance of 2 Rail is amusing.
If it doesn't bother you guys, why have you been yakking about if for three pages?
Because its something to chat about.
Because the question makes some folks feel like they are being attacked or insulted.
Three rails or two, scale detailed or traditional, the trains are still just toys.
I think that it looks fine. I am with Don -- I don't even notice it in scenes.
Also, I am electrically impaired and do not have a whole-house (or any) basement.
I enjoy seeing the photos of hand laid track and super detailed locomotives, usually running on O scale layouts with minimum or no scenery over on their forum, but that's a different hobby from mine. They drive Fords, I drive a Chevy. I like 3-rail O gauge and never notice the middle rail when looking at operating trains.
Roo posted:
I know the older blokes (I'm old to!) that count every rivet would hate what I'm saying but with 3 rail it still can be made to look realistic. On the other hand 2 rail can be reliable to, even with DC I don't have problems with my layout except for operator error my layout runs as near as perfect as I can get if it didn't I would dump the lot and go back to Marklin that is not going to happen 2 rail can be just as reliable as 3 rail now the one snag is can 3 rail be as reliable when switching cars like maybe 150 cars a session that's what we do here switching cars all day long, is 3 rail suitable for that with those huge couplers.
Roo.
The huge couplers (aka lobster claws) aren't very good for switching. Out of the box, the train needs to slam into them to get them to close. Some guys remove them and put on scale couplers.
Lions and Tigers and Bears. LOL! For those of you afflicted or conflicted just have both. I'm sure their are posters or "lurkers" here that run 2 rail G scale along side their 3 rail. I'm sure there are others that run N and or HO along with 3 rail. Don't worry your secret is safe. Should we take a poll? How many conflicted fotumites run more than one scale/ gauge layout? I'll admit I read other non 3 rail magazines too.
, no therapy needed.
Elliott it's not all for not , continue on with your Sunset 2 rail purchase and enjoy; just divide the Munoz lines room into two and run both. I recall Jim Policastro did similiar, 3 rail and went to the dark side with an additional smaller 2 rail layout at one point in the same room.
Bob I need to get a copy of RMC re: your Penn Western.
It's not what's best, but-what's best for you.
No big deal at all to me. And I'm a wanna be Proto 48'er.
I appreciate a nice layout of any type. And there are 3 railers that have layout building skill that I don't have and may never attain.
What does amaze me is how small real rails/wheels/couplers are. And even more so in the days of 80 and 100 pound branch line rail and type D couplers. Anyone who rides trains or works around them can attest to this. THAT is what I hope someday to convey in my P:48 modeling, where as in real life I hope to make the scenery overwhelm the trains.
I'm not a civil engineer but the most enlightening train ride I've ever had is on the Knox and Kane in 1989. I rode in the vestibule of the hind end car for the trip out and in the vestibule of the head end car on the trip back.
Watching the track geometry was like no other train trip I've been on. Talk about a railroad running on a shoestring budget and skating on thin derailment ice. Only wish I would have had a movie camera to film the tender truck wheels tracking. What poorly gauged track - fractions of an inch kept the equipment off the ground... and we weren't running slow speed either.
I'm sure an FRA inspection would have shut down the operation immediately. But it was an awesome trip that I'll never forget.
Thanks KEITH, thanks JONNYSPEED, thanks, BIGKID some good answers there, it won't happen for me but I still like the big steamers with sound.
My layout is all diesel mostly Atlas SW's, great for switching I'm happy with what I have, all bought from America at 30% on top of price for shipping rates good when the Aussie dollar was equal to the US dollar not now though, doesn't stop me if I want something bad.
Roo.
dkdkrd posted:AlanRail posted: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.
What's missing from this discussion, but very doable...and becoming more so in the near term (follow the R/C hobbies...drones, planes, etc.)...is the use of on-board battery power. It takes away most of the arguments on both sides regarding 2 vs. 3 rails, because the track serves no function in conveying power to the engines/rolling stock.
Battery power is becoming the new norm for avid large scale railroaders. One of the periodicals for this branch of the hobby...Garden Railways...is already two issues into an in-depth discussion about battery power, radio control. And, as I've mentioned in other threads regarding this subject, battery powered O scale engines are part of the demonstration of RCS America at York...Orange Hall...and have been for a few years now.
In fact, this subject has been discussed and demonstrated in HO and featured in a periodical article several months ago. One of our (LHS) customers is, apparently, pursuing this himself, drawing on the expertise in our R/C department.
Battery power: The baby gorilla waiting outside the O scale door, folks.
And why there isn't a forum category to capture the discussion and efforts....and promote further development and pros/cons discussions...is an enigma, at least.
I know, I know.....just go away and leave us alone....with our paradigms...
KD
There are LRT and Streetcars which can run off overhead, then run off battery for a short distance.
For model trains, you still could have sections of powered track to recharge. At least that would get your past voltage drops and dead zones.
There's no right way or wrong way, there's different ways. Pick the number of rails you like and go with it.
Apparently, 3 rails did bother me, along with the current command control systems, because I pulled up the middle rail, removed all the wiring, boxed up the DCS and TMCC systems, and went BPRC. Here's a shot of my layout with Gargraves track (middle rail removed). Center rollers removed on all the locos:
I haven't cleaned the track in over a year and have had zero problems with the system.
I kept the hi-rail wheels and 072 curves
The other day I put my remaining TMCC and PS2 diesels (8 total) on a test track to see if they still worked (only the two PS2 diesels have batteries in them). I had to pull the manual out to recall how to get the TMCC system up and running but didn't take long. It took me a while longer to connect the DCS system and another day to figure out why it wasn't working (low battery). One look at the hundreds of pages of documentation convinced me I made the right move.
When a battery goes low on my BPRC engines the engine simply stops. I know approx how long I've been running a particular engine and know it's time to charge the battery.
When I placed my PS2 NW2 on the test track it first ran fine, then it started acting up. No sound at turn on, full speed at turn on, or nothing at turn on (didn't know if I had pressed the wrong button or what to cause some of these things, aggravating 
). Finally I charged the battery which solved the strange problems I was getting, but not before pushing a load of buttons and resetting things in the process.
I installed a BlueRail bluetooth board and a battery pack in an old Williams E7 yesterday. There's a video on the Lionel Lion Chief and Other RC Systems sub-forum if you care.
Attachments
C W Burfle posted: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.
Lionel bought out American Flyer around the early 1970's(give or take a few years, not 100% sure of the year) and have been using the American Flyer name since then. It's sort of like what Lionel did with K-Line except for the lawsuit, A.F. was in financial trouble and Lionel or Fundimensions bought out A.F.
There are at least 3 companies that make A.F. 2 rail track or were 3 companies. Gargraves, and S-Helper make 2 rail A.F. track and switches. K-Line used to make 2 rail A.F. track; curves & straights, but no switches, at none that I know of.
Lee Fritz
The bottom line is AC beats DC power just as Tessler said it does, and that's why the 3rd rail rules!
Bob Delbridge posted:There's no right way or wrong way, there's different ways. Pick the number of rails you like and go with it.
Apparently, 3 rails did bother me, along with the current command control systems, because I pulled up the middle rail, removed all the wiring, boxed up the DCS and TMCC systems, and went BPRC. Here's a shot of my layout with Gargraves track (middle rail removed). Center rollers removed on all the locos:
I haven't cleaned the track in over a year and have had zero problems with the system.
I kept the hi-rail wheels and 072 curves
The other day I put my remaining TMCC and PS2 diesels (8 total) on a test track to see if they still worked (only the two PS2 diesels have batteries in them). I had to pull the manual out to recall how to get the TMCC system up and running but didn't take long. It took me a while longer to connect the DCS system and another day to figure out why it wasn't working (low battery). One look at the hundreds of pages of documentation convinced me I made the right move.
When a battery goes low on my BPRC engines the engine simply stops. I know approx how long I've been running a particular engine and know it's time to charge the battery.
When I placed my PS2 NW2 on the test track it first ran fine, then it started acting up. No sound at turn on, full speed at turn on, or nothing at turn on (didn't know if I had pressed the wrong button or what to cause some of these things, aggravating
I installed a BlueRail bluetooth board and a battery pack in an old Williams E7 yesterday. There's a video on the Lionel Lion Chief and Other RC Systems sub-forum if you care.
Looking good Bob. You've just about convinced me to build up a Dead Rail (Battery powered wireless DCC/Sound) Diesel as a test bed. I have a Lionel S4 and GP30 that should work well for this purpose.
nickaix posted:Engineer-Joe posted:
So here it is again. An argument over the benefits of the third rail instead of a discussion about how it looks for the OP's original question. How bad two rail is!
"Effect of the third - the middle - rail on layout scenery and overall layout impression."
Let's make excuses for using it instead of talking about how good or bad it looks.
Well, even if they are not saying it in so many words, pretty much every 3-railer who has posted so far has already conceded that it looks bad. Other things being equal, does anyone with eyeballs actually think that three rails look as realistic as two??? They are all answering OP's question: "Yes, it detracts, but not enough to make me want to get rid of it. And so I don't look like a lunatic, let me offer my reasons."
For the record, I'm not in love with the third rail either, from an appearance standpoint, and I run Postwar and MPC! But there is no way in haitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks I'm getting rid of it; when scenery time come, I'll just blend it in a little.
I love it because I love whimsy. That's also why my roads are outlined on the foam board with a sharpie, I use the old CTC lokons, have HO scale hot wheels next to 1:18 scale gas pumps, run prewar Lionel and Ives and Marx next to semi scale Lionel equipment, and build my own motorized oddities to run through the tunnels under the ceramic Bedford Falls.
Bobby Ogage posted:The bottom line is AC beats DC power just as Tessler said it does, and that's why the 3rd rail rules!
Each power has it's own properties. AC can be stepped up with only a transformer, and be be rectified to simulate DC or pulsating DC. DC is better for some small motors, but looses voltage quicker over long distances.
FYI; I think the man you mean is Teslaw not Tessler, not 100% sure.
Lee Fritz
Bobby Ogage posted:The bottom line is AC beats DC power just as Tessler said it does, and that's why the 3rd rail rules!
Whoa. AC power for model trains is a historical anachronism. I find that universal-motored locos run smoother and quieter on DC with better speed control. I use DC power on some of my small O27 layouts, with suitably adapted conventional locos. And of course the newer command control systems convert AC track power on-board for DC motors.
Lionel hung on to AC track power because they had their AC-DC whistle feature and outdated E-units, and because we didn't have good cheap power rectifiers for AC to DC conversion in hobby transformers until the 1960's. IMO it would have been a significant advancement if 3-rail had switched to DC track power decades ago.
Oops, off-topic from the original subject.
FYI; I think the man you mean is Teslaw not Tessler, not 100% sure.
It's Telsa.
One isn't forced to use AC with three rail track and DC with two rail track anyway.
And there are probably still several control systems that could be used with either one.
Control systems have come and gone.
I think one was called Astrak.
And there was one that was made by GE (maybe it was Astrak).
AlanRail posted: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.
Except.......that 2 rail layouts modeling trolleys do run on electricity and also do run collecting their power from overhead wire prototypically and they do so quite nicely.
Now you have something to consider with no further excuses,
BTW, life is pain. Anybody who says differently is selling something.
C W Burfle posted:FYI; I think the man you mean is Teslaw not Tessler, not 100% sure.
It's Telsa.
One isn't forced to use AC with three rail track and DC with two rail track anyway.
And there are probably still several control systems that could be used with either one.
Control systems have come and gone.
I think one was called Astrak.
And there was one that was made by GE (maybe it was Astrak).
Thanks for the correct name spelling.
Edison wanted DC power while Tesla was pushing for AC power at the time.
A word or two about command control, I wish that both Lionel and MTH would get on the same bandwagon for command control systems. Each company has at least 2 systems; a light and a full command control with only their respective products running on each system.
Lee Fritz
