Hi-Rail Scale vs 3-Rail Scale

This is fun!!!  

YES! Now that there's some Hi-Rail Railroadin'!

Look up the term "hi-rail" anywhere, and you should see those photos of Frank's layout!

Never tire of seeing them.

Jim

Scrapiron said:

I want to run two rail, true scale trains. I don't think I have the requisite skills right now,

Yes you do Elliot.  You definitely do.

This answers the question asked.   My thinking is that 3RS is an extension of  3R high rail or at the very least a sub thread. If nothing else it just part of the evolution of 3R high rail.  For the record I actually prefer Kadees over the lobster claws and fixed pilots/scale equipment and have started converting my rolling stock accordingly. But there are limitations. 40 ft cars can run tighter curves. 50 ft cars 060 curves are pushing it. Then you have the engines. My first fixed pilot conversion an SD45 just makes it with the 060 curve leading into one of the sidings in my yard. Main line 084/072 Although I want to, with current limitations I cant upgrade my Alco C628/630 to fixed pilots. My Atlas SDP35 and SD24s If I fix the pilots I would need to run 084 into the yard as the just not enough room for the trucks to turn unless I am missing something. So that's another thing Layout size also limits what you can do. 

We have had lots of great comments on the history of Hi-Rail dating back to the 1930, 40s and 50s.  Three rail trains have long been available and been dependable runners, something that has not always been true of scratch built, kit built or imported brass locomotives.  The attraction of running three rail trains in realistic scenery has existed for a long, long time.  The Lionel scale models of the late pre-war period like the Hudson, B-6 switcher and scale freight cars along with T-Rail track made 3 rail scale model railroading a possibility 75 years ago.

As noted, Gargraves track has been around for decades.  More recently, Ross switches combined with Gargraves track gave O gaugers the same design flexibility and operating possibilities available in other scales.

The big leap that lead to today's 3 rail scale movement came in the 1990s when MTH introduced the scale challenger.  It has been followed by many more scale steam and electric locomotives that require O-72 minimum curves.  That lead to a boom in layout building with O-72 curves since all those great locomotives needed layouts to run on. 

Once you had a layout designed around scale steam and electric locomotives it became possible to have diesels without the swinging pilots needed to handle traditional O-27 and O-31 curves.  And with a more realistic pilot why not more realistic couplers?  Kadees not only add visual realism they make prototypical switching operations more reliable. 

As suzukovich has noted above, making the move to fixed pilots and fixed couplers requires a layout that is designed to accommodate them.  That means not just O-72 curves it also means the avoidance of S curves that are common with traditional 3 rail.  Today we have the Atlas and MTH ScaleTrax track systems along with Gargraves/Ross that offer numbered switches and allow for the reduction or elimination of S curves.

The big advantages of the 3 rail scale approach to model railroading are steam and detection.  While most 2 rail O diesels can run on 36 inch radius curves most steam locomotives can not.  Three rail also makes detection for realistic signalling much easier and less expensive.  Detection is also useful for digital control panels and automated operation.  Those advantages, big O scale steam in a moderate space and easier detection for realistic signalling and the digital layout control revolution combined with a vast array of trains will keep the three rail scale approach to model railroading an attractive option for many years to come. 

The numerous comments about the virtues of Kadee's has piqued my interest and when I am able to build another home layout I'm thinking of beginning the changeover to them. Many thanks to all of you who have contributed so much to this ongoing discussion!

I am going to disagree with Ted.  Battery and remote control technology is getting very close to allowing trains to run without track power.  At that point, there will be only one reason for retaining the center rail.  As it is, a 2- rail steam locomotive can be made to operate on the same curves as a 3- rail locomotive.  I know nothing about signaling, but am having a hard time believing that it has anything to do with how many rails there are.

 I see absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying that center rail; it is a hobby.

bob2 is more than correct: battery technology and remote systems are not just close . . . they are really there.  Look at electric bicycles like the Faraday Poteur.  It has a small battery as electric bikes go, only 110 amp hours, but it just clips to the frame in a tiny leather pouch: if reshaped slightly it could fit into an O-gauge box car, and it would power a toy train for hours.  And Lionchief Plus is at least good enough as a starting point for a comprehensive control system: I have two and they are great!.  There you have it.

The only downside?  Price.  Replacement batteries for the Porter cost $700 list price: about twice what a Lionchief Plus loco costs.  Pirce will come down to about 1/3 of that eventually, but that is eventually, and you would still be talking about $233 additional just to get rid of the third rail.  Would it be worth it? To some maybe, but not to me.  I like the three rails - nice to have something constant in an ever-changing life.  I started with O-gauge toy trains in 1953 with three rails and big fat couplers.  I'm sticking with that forever.

Which battery chemistry would you bet on? LiFePO4?

I was able to run a 2-R Weaver RS-3 converted to magic carpet drives for over 45 minutes on a 9.6v R/C battery pack--and that was back in the early 1990's.

I'm quite sure that battery power is a viable option today for those modelers who aren't afraid to modify equipment. I'm not sure how complicated it would get with sound equipped engines and large rosters of ultra-expensive steam locomotives that are jammed with electronics, but I'm sure it could be done if someone had the time, money and expertise (which could be purchased if you lacked it but still had money )...

Jeff C

I am going to disagree with Ted.  Battery and remote control technology is getting very close to allowing trains to run without track power.

Bob

The technology is there.  But we haven't yet seen it in a package marketable as a retail item.  And as Lee points out there is a big price hurdle to overcome.

The only downside?  Price.  Replacement batteries for the Porter cost $700 list price: about twice what a Lionchief Plus loco costs.  Pirce will come down to about 1/3 of that eventually, but that is eventually, and you would still be talking about $233 additional just to get rid of the third rail. 

I think our Zs, ZWs, KWs, Z-4000s, ZW-Ls and bricks will be around for a while yet along with that third rail.

I know nothing about signaling, but am having a hard time believing that it has anything to do with how many rails there are.

You need at least two!  (Although you could use infrared detection on a monorail.)

Three rail track systems like Atlas, Gargraves, Ross and MTH Scaletrax with outside rails that are insulated from each other make detection for signaling and layout automation easy in 3 rail.  When our uninsulated 3 rail wheel sets complete a circuit between the outside rails you have detected that the track block is occupied. 

Two rail systems where both outside rails are used to power the train and axles are insulated make detection more difficult.  Generally infrared or current sensing detectors are used and that makes detection more difficult and/or expensive than with 3 rail.  You also need a lighted caboose or passenger car for a current sensing detector to see the back of a train.

A layout with locomotives powered by on board batteries could use two rail track and 3 rail style detection.  But that would also require 3 rail style uninsulated axles on the rolling stock.

About 8 to 10 years ago there was an On30 group in Texas that used RC to run the trains on their portable modular layout they took to malls and such.

All the locomotives were converted with parts salvaged from proportional steering/speed RC cars. Battery was in the tender on larger engines and in special boxcars for smaller engines. I remember reading of one guy who powered a railtruck with parts from a cheap "turn in reverse" RC and powered it with a regular 9 volt battery. Pretty high tech stuff back then it seemed.

But I still think Hi-Rail is traditional electric trains running in a detailed "scale" layout!  LOL

I would not be surprised if you could modify an PC plus loco to run on battery alone. That would give you a remote control battery loco.  The loco uses about 40 watts maximum, much less continuously, so 100 Whr battery would provide about two to four hours of run time.  That's around what five alkaline D cells store.  Package th battery right and it would not be too big a battery pack to put in a boxcar or perhaps even tuck in one end of a big tender.    It would be a fun project I'd like to take on, but I have so much on my plate now I just can't undertake yet another project.  

In light of this discussion I am really torn. I am preparing some space in the garage to use as a mancave and fill it with a a three-level train layout, integrating Carrera Go 1:43 into one of the levels. One of them will be an American Flyer layout since I grew up an AF fan and have a good bit of track, locos, cars and Plasticville accessories. The other two will be O-gauge - one will be FasTrack, and the other, tubular track, of which I have a good bit of low rail and high rail.

On one hand, low rail tracks are more realistically to scale (so it looks better), and easier to mesh in roadways and sidewalks because it is not as high. I'm not a great scaler but I'd like to work on it and what better place to start than the track. But I get more derails, especially with my newer O-gauge locos with large wheels - they go off track more often. On the other hand, high rail tracks are easier for me to see and handle, re-rail locos and cars, and it's one reason I gravitated away from HO and toward O-gauge to start with - it's bigger.

I have a good bit of both kinds of track, but I'm sure I'll to get a few more items as I decide on a track layout. What considerations am I missing? What else should I be thinking about before I choose one over the other? Thanks for any help you can provide.

3 Rail Scale (3RS/OS3R) it hi-rail cranked up a notch. Basically all scale-sized equipment and subject to the related curve limitations brought on by the use of body-mounted couplers and sometimes scale wheels.

Hi-Rail is [traditionally] defined as a scale environment for trains that are not necessarily scale. You can hi-rail with Postwar, O-27, or even Tinplate O gauge trains, but the surrounding environment is scale. Track can be pretty much anything, and curves aren't typically as broad as would probably be necessary under a 3RS scenario. There was a forum member who had a 4x8 hi-rail layout with brilliantly done scenery and buildings using O-27 track. Blew away anything I've even though about doing. Hi-rail goes WAAAYYY back -- before WWII.

Examples:

Hi-Rail -- Vintage Lionel pre-war O gauge (TMCC installed):

3RS -- MTH U25B w/Scale wheels, fixed pilots, Kadees and weathering (3-rail mode):

I just fail to see why we need to label everything and put it all in it's own little category and subsequently make judgments based off those categories as to which is better or why and so on.  The thing that is very safe to assume is that each and every one of us has our own preferences and so leaving the number of rails out of it and such lets look at some other aspects.

      Some model steam, some model diesel or a combo of both, some have a specific era they are after while others don't and some have specific RR's that they like while others like to run what looks cool to them and don't really have a specific RR in mind.  And I haven't seen anyone getting bashed for modeling the 1930's or for modeling a western themed layout or a winter layout vs. summer or for modeling the L&N instead of the Southern and so on.  So as for being a rivet counter, a 3 railer or 3rs or 2 railer I say that's good, follow what interests you, just don't slam the other guy for having different interests or for not sharing your viewpoint.   We are all modelers, we all are train nuts and lastly we are all here sharing our layouts, ideas and thoughts with each other so how about easing up on the labels and opening up on the ideas instead.  Just sayin....   

Gary, If you are willing to trade in your 3 rail track for another brand you can get a lot closer to Scale rails.

MTH Scaletrax is much smaller rails, has an actual rail shape and the smallest middle rail ever. I'm using it and several others on the forum have done so.

For easy examples go to www.toytrainsontracks.com and check out the previews for the videos they sell. Also I believe CSX Al uses it, check his posts for pictures.

Or easy comparison, go the MTH's website and look at the Scaletrax ad, they show a 1:1 comparison in cross section between several track brands.

Bonus: the Scaletrax Flex is like a noodle. You can bow a 30" piece nearly into a circle and then straighten it back out with your hands !!! No Comparison with any other track.

Some of us don't.  It is polite to allow others to define what it is they do, or are, and then just go along with the program.  This forum has extensive definitions posted.  They sound ok to me.

If I should decide to call myself an Ow5 modeler, I personally would not care if you just called me a 2-railer.  But I think it would be impolite to denigrate my choice of a label. 

That, of course, is not my choice - I prefer O Scaler, which does not tell you how many rails I have or like.

Thank you Russell, I am fairly new to O gauge and was unaware of the benefits of Scaletrax, but I will certainly do some research and give it consideration. I appreciate the feedback. Gary