Fredlein,
In the simplest way, without getting too sophisticated, you can only run two trains on this layout, unsupervised, at the same time. That is, by setting switches you can create two paths, i.e. loops, upon which they can run individually without ever running into each other, no matter what speeds you set the two of them to.
The key word is unsupervised. If you carefully "supervise" two of them, both on the same track at the same time, and probably on the bigger loop, you can run these two together and thus have all three running simultaneously. This is relatively easy if you're using command control. Just get the two running individually, slowly at first, then increase their speeds, slowly as well, going back and forth between them, always making sure that their speeds are matched so that one doesn't overtake the other.
If you're running conventional this is harder. Because you only have one throttle for both you'll need two trains that run at exactly the same speed for every throttle position in order to ensure that they always stay separated.
For these reasons I'm sure that the publisher has gone a little beyond simple, i.e. totally unsupervised, in determining that 3 can run simultaneously. You need to continuously work at least two of them in order to keep them separated.
Now, if you start dividing the large loop into a number of electrically isolated track segments, or blocks, and add a few relays, or even just electrically connect the switches (turnouts) together in the correct way, you can run all three simultaneously with them alternating automatically between the loops, and without supervision. They will stop and go automatically keeping themselves separated. However, I don't think that this last, and more sophisticated, option was in the mind of the publisher when that magic number 3 was determined.
Mike