Märklin style 3-Rail for O

Stud rail for O gauge has been talked about several times over the past ten years.  I recall someone experimenting with it for a time.

Rusty

I could even envision a version where the third "rail" would run under the ties and would get covered by the ballast.  It might simplify the manufacturing of it.

@rplst8 posted:

I could even envision a version where the third "rail" would run under the ties and would get covered by the ballast.  It might simplify the manufacturing of it.

Then how would the electrical power be picked up, if the powered third "rail" was UNDER the ties? 

It would mean converting all your roller pickups to slide type to have center studded track work. IMHO, 2 rail dead track with battery powered locos is the next step.

@Hot Water posted:

 Then how would the electrical power be picked up, if the powered third "rail" was UNDER the ties? 

The power comes from the exposed studs in the ties.  The third rail in Marklin track is embedded in the sleepers.

@sxe60 posted:

It would mean converting all your roller pickups to slide type to have center studded track work. IMHO, 2 rail dead track with battery powered locos is the next step.

This is an interesting idea, but charging all of the locos could be a real pain.  Additionally, for DCC and DCS, you still need the rails powered to transmit the data signal.

P.S. I mentioned converting the roller to a shoe.

I doubt that the concept of stud rail track can be patented.  There was an article in Model Railroader magazine on using stud rail that was published well before Märklin introduced their stud rail track.  I have wondered if Märklin got the idea from that article.  

Besides that, add a lot of drag.  More than a normal shoe from height and cantelever/thrust angles. Roller vs lightly sprung shoe; another huge drag improvement.

Look at the flat bases you lay a phone on for charging. The concept has interesting potential for no wire power supplies anyhow.  (is a spinning magnetic field in the pad. The secondary or generator side could be electromechanical or solid state..? ... cost effective? likely not.

@rplst8 posted:

This is an interesting idea, but charging all of the locos could be a real pain.  Additionally, for DCC and DCS, you still need the rails powered to transmit the data signal.

P.S. I mentioned converting the roller to a shoe.

Not true in the case of DCC.  I've seen and run O-scale battery powered locomotives with CVP Airwire "converter boards" powering standard DCC decoders that provide all of the usual DCC features.

Put an electromagnet in each tie. Use groups to pull the loco fwd or back, adding and dropping power to one or two to move. Run on wood rails now.

You'll need a whole lot of block control logic circuits, but it's as easy as 10 0011

Shoes usually have a steadier contact than rollers imo. 

It became apparent running lit cars of both types. Rollers blink more. But you're looking at half the drag with a roller (5 cars vs 10)

Stud rail 3 rail track was on the cover of OGR about 15 years ago or more.  It used snap on brass skis which snapped onto the rollers.  The idea had turnout and application problems.  I believe the gentleman who designed it was from Europe.  It was stamped sheet metal which was held in place by split two piece roadbed.  Ultimately is was a bust and the remaining stock was sold out on a buy/sell thread I believe.  Looked fantastic!!

@rplst8 posted:

This is an interesting idea, but charging all of the locos could be a real pain.  Additionally, for DCC and DCS, you still need the rails powered to transmit the data signal.

P.S. I mentioned converting the roller to a shoe.

@Bob posted:

Not true in the case of DCC.  I've seen and run O-scale battery powered locomotives with CVP Airwire "converter boards" powering standard DCC decoders that provide all of the usual DCC features.

I concur with Bob.  I have run battery powered O gauge locomotives using DCC on the floor with no track at all using the AirWire system.  The system sends a DCC signal from a handheld remote to a receiver in the engine and then to the DCC board.  The engine power comes from the battery.  You get all the usual DCC features.  It is an expensive conversion (about $300) but it works.  

DCS does require the track signal now.  I don't know of any DCS compatible radio transmitters / receivers that will bypass the TIU and send a signal directly to / from an engine.  You can, however, use the AirWire system to control a MTH PS-3 engine by connecting the AirWire DCC receiver to the PS-3 DCC board.  This can be done with or without a battery.  NH Joe

As a Märklin HO operator and collector, I always hoped the firm would get into the modern O Gauge market. Less from a track and operations point of view and more from a rolling stock and locomotive perspective, bringing a limited but high-quality number of models of both European and American equipment to the North American market. I thought the Märklin and German-made cache would bring some appeal. But as I understand, not much of their product is made in Germany anymore.

@New Haven Joe posted:

I concur with Bob.  I have run battery powered O gauge locomotives using DCC on the floor with no track at all using the AirWire system.  The system sends a DCC signal from a handheld remote to a receiver in the engine and then to the DCC board.  The engine power comes from the battery.  You get all the usual DCC features.  It is an expensive conversion (about $300) but it works.  

DCS does require the track signal now.  I don't know of any DCS compatible radio transmitters / receivers that will bypass the TIU and send a signal directly to / from an engine.  You can, however, use the AirWire system to control a MTH PS-3 engine by connecting the AirWire DCC receiver to the PS-3 DCC board.  This can be done with or without a battery.  NH Joe

This is all good info, I didn't know about the AirWire system.  I wonder if Lionel TMCC/Legacy engines would work out of the box since their system is already radio based.

That said, converting all of my motive power to use batteries, charging the batteries, and finding two rail track that works with high-rail wheelsets seems like a lot of extra work, extra cost, and doesn't really cover the gist of this post.

The motivation behind discussing stud rail for O gauge is the potential upcoming loss of ScaleTrax, which to my eye looks the most realistic of all the 3 rail options and is pretty price competitive. I watched Rich Battista's videos and then bought a small sample of ScaleTrax.  After experimenting and using his techniques, I found it a dream to work with.  Staggering the start of the rails from flex-track piece to flex-track piece results in wonderful curves and is so easy to work with.

I'm really lamenting the loss of ScaleTrax and I'm unable to find a dealer to supply all of the track I need for my planned layout.  Obviously Gar-Graves and Atlas are great options, but I dislike the height of Gar-Graves and thick center rail, and I'm not crazy about the rail joiners on the Atlas product.  Don't get me wrong, they're great products, but out of the box ScaleTrax just looked and worked great for my needs.

I'm really hoping that someone picks up the line after MTH is dissolved or someone offers a stud rail track that looks more prototypical and keeps some of the great features that the MTH product had.

@JBuettner posted:

As a Märklin HO operator and collector, I always hoped the firm would get into the modern O Gauge market. 

That would be great.  I find it hard to believe that one of the European companies doesn't see the potential inherent in a buyout of MTH to expand their footprint into other markets.  Märklin seems like a perfect contender for that since it doesn't really have any competing product lines, allowing it to expand and simultaneously get a bigger piece of the North American market.

With the combination of MTH ScaleTrax and Premier line, Atlas O, and Lionel Legacy, scale offerings, and new LionScale line, the "3-rail scale" market was looking to be a great place to start a hobby with fantastic new technology and still be able to enjoy classic O gauge trains as well.  The simplicity of wiring for 3-rail AC, DCS, and Legacy lowers the bar of entry into the hobby. 

Maybe Atlas, Bachmann, or Athearn could expand into the position MTH had in O 3-rail now, but their apparent lack of interest combined with the pricing in the new catalogs from Lionel, "3-rail scale" seems like it will be moving in the direction of a very, very rich man's hobby.

Hugo Pallesen had developed it using Atlas 2-rail track with a stud set into the center seam of cork roadbed. He eventually went 2-rail. The stud rail system, while innovative, was complicated, time consuming and expensive to implement when compared to using regular hi-rail track or just biting the bullet and going 2-rail. In the past, there have been other implementations for more realistic track, including outside third rail and thin wire soldered to brass screws as a center rail (I saw an example in one of the older O Scale Railroading issues). In the end, you live with three-rail track, go 2-rail, or go "dead rail" (which I think will ultimately be where we all end up as battery tech improves). What I think the ultimate system would be is one that uses R/C to drive a receiver board sending DCC commands to an on-board decoder so you could essentially run your DCC-equipped locomotives from battery in a dead-rail context with minimal modification.

@AGHRMatt posted:

In the end, you live with three-rail track, go 2-rail, or go "dead rail" (which I think will ultimately be where we all end up as battery tech improves). What I think the ultimate system would be is one that uses R/C to drive a receiver board sending DCC commands to an on-board decoder so you could essentially run your DCC-equipped locomotives from battery in a dead-rail context with minimal modification.

I'm happy to live with 3-rail, the simplicity in wiring reverse loops and cost involved in 2-rail outweighs any changes.

I do have a thought on the battery powered idea.  Rather than charging the batteries separately, I wonder if it would be feasible to power the non-reversing sections of the railway so the batteries can charge on the fly.  Then any sections that reverse back could just be dead rail which would keep wiring simple.