Newbie 2 Rail Introduction And Assistance Please

I will take a shot at some of your questions.

There was a fella who used to post about what radius his MTH locomotives would make. I believe he used to say that the MTH Big Boy could handle a tighter radius than 60” but I am not 100% sure.

MTH scale wheel versions— yes, you do need a special version. This I am sure. The version you need is noted on the part number by having a “-2” at the end of the part number. With the “-2” you will get scale wheels and fixed pilots. This I am sure. 

Good luck. 

MTH PS3 “scale” wheel locomotives can be operated with DCS or DCC. There is a polarity switch that allows you to operate your locomotive on 2-rail or 3-rail track.

Early Atlas TMCC locomotives did not have cruise, that feature was implemented around 2005 with EOB. That has since been replaced with the ERR Cruise Commander.

Atlas 2-rail DCC locomotives have QSI decoders which did have cruise.

some of the older (new generation) MTH 2 rail 3/2 diesels had a gap that appeared larger between the frame and the trucks. The engine looked like it was too high. MTH solved this by adding pieces on the frame to close this gap for better looks (also done by Rich Battista on his equipment).

 So if you look at the first SD70ACe from MTH and compare it to later releases, the height of the engine is the same. The gap is closed by those frame pieces.

http://www.toytrainsontracks.com/HowTo.html

Fill Gaps Between Trucks

This is the locomotive I was referring to the pictures shows a gap and I have no idea how much stock to put in to the picture.  Thanks for all the responses.

I'm not positive of that model but it looks like a Dash 8 wide cab? ( C8-40W)

Here's a random engine photo on my tracks without back lighting under the truck gap

I believe that's what's making that stock photo look worse than it is.

When I looked briefly into S scale, it was right before MTH released any models and before Lionel released their scale wheel versions. If I had waited another year, I probably would have S scale instead of O. When I saw what Carl Tuveson had done, it inspired me to take a deeper look. It was maybe just a matter of a year's difference in what was readily available. It appears that MTH's S scale releases haven't been as wide (not much modern) as I had expected anyways.

 I had a similar problem leaving HO scale when MTH was just entering. Now when I see all of what they have released, I partly wished I had remained into HO. I could have an HO empire! Choose carefully before diving in.

Welcome to the O scale 2 rail fraternity!!

Hope to answer some of your questions posed to the thread and these are just IMHO.

My personal layout and club layout have used NCE DCC for many years without any issues. The owner is a 2 rail O scaler.

I own a number of MTH diesels and have not found the “gap” to be that obtrusive. I believe Joe was right that the MTH catalogue photos and the actual models present a different view.

Your big question is if you can operate a BigBoy and C-C diesels on your 15x17 layout. I am building a 12x18 layout and learned from going through a “givens” and “druthers” thought process and also reading  John Armstrong’s book “ Track planning for realistic operations” what my layout’s limitations on motive power and equipment would be and found quickly it would be the land of 2-8-0,2-8-2 steam and B-B diesels to give the right look and of course, play value. Your Big Boy is 132’ which is 33’ in O scale and that is not adding any decent freight trains behind it. Also think of that size traversing a 50 or 60 inch radius and the overall limitations that could present. Good luck on your layout and please post  your building progress photos on this forum.

Regards, John P Dunn Sr.

Strasburg shows- 08/10 , 10/12/2019

Again thanks gentlemen.  This has been a tough decision perhaps not 100% made.  If I only had more room and time of course.  I could blow out an adjacent wall but that would only give me 11' more in length and no additional width.   I love the quality of O and the size.  I have the classic eyes getting worse and hands getting bigger syndrome and I am only in my early 50's.  The one negative for me is that I enjoy a large range of  eras and road names including modern and passenger cars.  I love the story behind them.  I realize with my room limitations the mainline is not much more than a circle even at a 60"R.   HO has so much to offer but I find the steam engines can be a pain to take on and off the track. In HO I can't see the awesome detail without my glasses and face mashed up to the pieces as they roll by.  I could engineer the benchwork to be near eye level and that would help if I did do HO.  Also I probably would want to do a container train and that probably would not be achievable in O in my limited space.  I need a separate building or would have to rip up the entire basement build out to have the space needed in O.  All unachievable due to the boss. I guess I'll debate it some more.  At one time I thought of doing 3 rail O on the lower level and HO on the upper maybe I'll revisit that.  

I left HO for the exact reasons you mention. I build a fragile hopper and had to use tweezers to mount the grabs. They fell off when I sneezed! 

Installing decoders into engines that ended up failing and me breaking off details was the final straw.

My first jump was to G scale and there wasn't much of anything (modern) available compared to other scales at the time. You can't fit much in any space inside without remodeling.

O scale engines generally can be much more stout, easier to rail, and easier to see the details on. The sacrifice you face is what I did. You can't fit as much in the same space as HO. I came from G scale on the same benchwork so it was better. They seemed like the best fit of size vs. detailing for me.

 I went with 2 rail O for the looks and I'm happy overall so far. I have G scale below, (& outside,) and a 3 rail highline. I waffle still about another loop of HO up higher. Hey, Maybe I could do S in another room??? 

I went from HO in the mid-90s to O Scale and have never looked back. My layout, should I ever finish it, is a 4 x 16' switching layout. I could use the entire basement, about 50x30', but since my wife died almost 3 years ago, I don't have that much drive. I do, however, still build cars, locos, and buildings. Love the trains hobby.

Dick

I didn't see this thread. I'm a 3-railer with an identity crisis, and purchase "-2" MTH locomotives, except for large-wheelbase steam. Here are a couple of photos of MTH scale-wheeled locomotives that give you and idea of how they sit.

Up front, keep in mind that the 2-rail MTH locomotives share a lot of the same parts with the 3-rail locomotives (chassis, side frames, truck blocks, electrical). The locomotives can switch between 2-rail and three rail, AC or DC, DCC or DCS (Proto-3 only). I have Proto-2 and Proto-3 engines. The later release engines (mostly Proto-3) sit better height-wise. The big thing with the side frames is that they're designed for the wider-tread 3-rail wheelsets (you can change out the axle sets) and thus sit farther out. Mike Pitogo surgically shaved down the side frames and re-drilled the holes to bring them in, but you have to be extremely precise as the side frames are metal and have brake shoes. And yes, all of these run on flat-top 3-rail track like Gargraves, MTH and Atlas, and negotiate #5 turnouts. They WILL find kinked or uneven track in a 3-rail context because of the center rail pickup rollers causing the wheels to ride up. Four-axle diesels are more tolerant. The Big Boy also has scale wheels as does my Blue Goose Hudson.

Over the 10 years since I bought my first -2 MTH locomotive, I've enjoyed them quite a bit and most of them will run reliably on the layout. The ones that have issues stay home. All except long-wheelbase steam CAN negotiate 36" radius well-laid track, but I'd advise against it if you're planning on steam down the road. There is a hidden 36" radius curve on the mainline where the trestle photos were taken.

I think you could use one more CNW (from the new catalog) Matt! 

Thanks Matt and Joe I've seen you posts over the years and appreciate the thoughts.  Mr. Dunn I am a play value/scale guy so I could perhaps push the envelope a little.  I just don't know guys.  I can build and engineer most anything but what I can't do is make the room larger.  O scale steam locomotives are so awesome to look at and listen to although I am predominately liking diesels from the 80's and 90's. 40R To 50R is much more attractive to me but  I think that limits me from ever running a Big Boy.  I guess about the only thing I could do is lay some track and see how things operate and look.  It would be so beneficial to watch a video of someone operating larger units on a tighter radius.  If I did bring this to fruition I think I would make one to help inspire people.  I'll keep researching and debating.  Thanks

Matt I see you have some videos I'll check them out.  I should be working right now.  Oh well this is a pick me up.

Matt can you please elaborate on the radius at your club layout?  It looks like some of your curves are (I'll refer to 3 rail terminology O54) and I see some double door boxcars with scale wheels and scale couplers negotiating those curves?

AGHRMatt posted:

I didn't see this thread. I'm a 3-railer with an identity crisis...

That's a great way to look at it: I bet that description suits a lot of us here... 

Mark in Oregon

Please note attached short video showing the new Atlas Dash modern diesel pair traversing my layout’s Atlas 49.5 radius which is fine. IMHO.

John

Thank you John that is a tremendous help much appreciated. That's big motive power negotiating those curves!  I could live with that.

Classy Woods, LLC posted:

…. 40R To 50R is much more attractive to me but  I think that limits me from ever running a Big Boy.  I guess about the only thing I could do is lay some track and see how things operate and look.  It would be so beneficial to watch a video of someone operating larger units on a tighter radius.  If I did bring this to fruition I think I would make one to help inspire people.  I'll keep researching and debating.  Thanks

My 2 upgraded MTH 2 rail Alleghenies run thru some pretty tight curves. I messed up converting the second one, using their wireless drawbar. Because it is installed into their very first edition 2 rail Allegheny (that I upgraded to PS3) , I had to mill out some metal just to fit the design. I didn't mill out enough to allow for very tight radii. I went back to it twice and removed more material. There wasn't much of anything left. I believe I should have made a custom steel mount for it to allow it to swivel like MTH does. I should have exactly copied what MTH already solved in their design. The other Allegheny has the flexible wire tether with PS2 and runs thru most everything I have. Joe F from Baldwin Forge and Machine converted just the 2 rail wheels for me. I added extra power pick-ups when it stumbled thru my layout after I installed the PS2.

I finally got the larger Atlas #7 switches installed last year and noticed that the dead frogs are starting to cause issues. My #5.5 switches were not a problem. I should have stuck with those.

 I also have a 3rd Rail Allegheny that runs on my 3 rail highline using O72 on the tightest curve.

My main point (I guess?) is that I had to work to get where I am now. You could take a much easier route and buy all RTR engines and track. My layout uses mainly flex. Many engines are converted from 3 rail. I wish looking back I could have saved energy and time buying only 2 rail stuff. Many pieces still need work. It just wouldn't have burned me out having to fix or modify so many pieces instead of enjoying the time. I remember modifying many modern Lionel 3 rail cars for example. Now they at least come with KD mounting pads on the ones I wanted.

I also thought you would enjoy seeing photos of MTH locos that show once they are weathered the “gap” all but disappear.

There is something about the heft of a O scale 2 rail piece.

This is good therapy while recovering from a flu like condition !!!

John

What strikes me is how much different the M.T.H. locomotives look with scale wheels and scale couplers.  Everything in O that I own is M.T.H but not the convertible or designated scale version type.  Thank you really appreciate the pics. 

My two cents is don’t buy any locomotive with the intention of converting it to 2 rail unless you can do the work yourself. There are some that are easy to convert like the Weaver with the horizontal drive. There’s no one left performing that kind of work anymore now that Joe retired. Sell your 3 rail locomotives and buy 2 rail (if you decide to go the route of 2 rail). I have two 3 rail locomotives I wanted to have converted but I shouldn’t have waited. Now I don’t know what I will do with them.

If you have seen the new MTH catalogue then you know they didn’t catalog any steam locomotives with scale wheels. I don’t know if this is just for this one catalogue or if it is permanent. I fear the worst. At least the 2 rail (-2) diesels seem to be going strong.

I switched to 2 rail about 17 years ago and no regrets. 

Classy Woods, LLC posted:

Matt can you please elaborate on the radius at your club layout?  It looks like some of your curves are (I'll refer to 3 rail terminology O54) and I see some double door boxcars with scale wheels and scale couplers negotiating those curves?

The primary main on the club layout has 48"radius (O-96) curves, except for one hidden curve in a tunnel which is 36" radius (O-72). Where my scale-wheel locomotives has issues is where there are kinks or  badly-uneven track (which we get due to thermal expansion/contraction. Even the Big Boy will get through 36" radius but it doesn't look right. I have a video up where it derails in a couple of spots due to uneven/kinked track.

We have #5 Ross turnouts (11-degree) and the scale-wheel equipment seems to do just fine. They do bounce in the frog gap. We have a #8 curved turnout, which we modified with a "frog point" to allow the equipment to roll through (we even had some older hi-rail equipment derail on the frog). We're designing a closed-frog turnout right now as other members also have or are dabbling with scale wheels.