Good idea Matt, that'll at least get half of them connected across.
Matt,
Great suggestion! I took your suggestion and alternated all 6 wheel sets on the tender. Therefore, on any given side, the wheels alternated between insulated and non-insulated. I then ran the locomotive with the ABS system operating The engine ran perfectly.
I then removed the front truck and turned one of the two axles. I did this to get improvement in the non-derailing feature that I use on switches. Now the front truck grounds the two outside rails, and this change improved the activation of the non-derailing feature.
I think that I now have the locomotive set up the way I want. It runs with DCS, and it also runs in conjunction with the ABS system and the switch non-derailing feature.
Thanks to all who gave input on this problem. I greatly appreciate your help!
A double thanks to Matt for suggesting what was clearly the common sense and easy solution! 
Am I correct in assuming that the pony, trailing, and tender trucks were easy to take apart on this PS3 engine (appears like it was)? Is this generally true for all PS3?
Were PS2/P1 similarly easy? (Mine are awkward to get off the wall; easier to ask.)
My issues usually involve wheel gage, and very rarely, broken or battered flange. Most manufacturers seem to disagree on wheel gage to some extent-- and of course I have my own ideas-- and a variety of non-MTH switches. My non-MTH engines can be very difficult to remove certain wheelsets from. Thanks IA.
--Frank
Here's what I've l've learned from this thread. MTH should stop making "hybrids" because hybrids always require a specialized ecological niche and can't reproduce. Make 2R engines for 2-railers and 3-rail engines for 3-railers and stop trying trying to make a watchdog that's also a cat. 
Yes, I know, some of us want to buy one device that works everywhere thus cutting down on investment costs. In business, the rule is pick one thing, do it better than your competition, and you'll own the market. Don't try to be all things to all people.
Bob,
I couldn't agree with you more! I have no interest in 2 rail, and all I operate is 3 rail. I hate to think of the number of hours that I spent resolving the issues that are addressed by this thread. I never had any of these problems with PS2 engines.
Frank,
Yes, the trucks and wheel sets were quite easy to remove on this particular PS3 engine. This is the only PS3 engine that I have, so I don't know if other locomotives are similar
Too bad this topic wasn't discussed at the October 2014 TCA MTH meet, and "pin" Mr Wolf on getting a real solution (and not accept the old "we will look into it" standby answer), ie making 3 rail shorted axel wheel sets available or as Bob1949 suggest make engines that exclusively run 2 OR 3 rail not both. And make better wipers and remove oxide from where wiper contact wiper/brushes, as well as oxide from wheel treads.
But hey, what do I know, I am just a whiner......
Originally Posted by Bob1949:
Here's what I've l've learned from this thread. MTH should stop making "hybrids" because hybrids always require a specialized ecological niche and can't reproduce. Make 2R engines for 2-railers and 3-rail engines for 3-railers and stop trying trying to make a watchdog that's also a cat. Yes, I know, some of us want to buy one device that works everywhere thus cutting down on investment costs. In business, the rule is pick one thing, do it better than your competition, and you'll own the market. Don't try to be all things to all people.
Originally Posted by Kirk H:
Bob,
I couldn't agree with you more! I have no interest in 2 rail, and all I operate is 3 rail. I hate to think of the number of hours that I spent resolving the issues that are addressed by this thread. I never had any of these problems with PS2 engines.
Frank,
Yes, the trucks and wheel sets were quite easy to remove on this particular PS3 engine. This is the only PS3 engine that I have, so I don't know if other locomotives are similar
I disagree. Production is easier with hybrids as the only real difference is the wheelsets inserted into the unit (and pilots on diesels). Even though the higher percentage may be 3-rail, maintaining a 2-rail production raises the price on all of the product.
3/2 steam does present a challenge, but as you've seen above, the work-around isn't difficult.
I agree with Matt. Also, if MTH goes to a straight 3 rail and 2 rail production--guess what there won't be a 2 rail production. The numbers won't justify it.
I just wish they would order extra scale wheels for steam engines for folks who want to change a -1 to a -2 engine.
Matt, that was an genius idea you came up with to solve this problem. I have a set of MTH 3 rail Commonwealth tender trucks from a PS1 Hudson I was going to offer to sell but you solved the problem before I found out about it. Great job!!
Matt,
I can’t disagree with what you are saying. However, when I buy a product, I expect that it will work properly right out of the box, unless there is a manufacturing or material defect. In this particular case, there was a design flaw, and this design flaw caused me to spend many hours of my time solving the problem. The sales literature never mentioned that random problems could occur when this locomotive is operated in 3-rail mode.
When I purchased this locomotive, it came as a set, which included 4 passenger cars. (2013 V2 Catalog 20-3500-1) Great Northern S-2 Empire Builder Passenger Set. The 4 passenger cars do not have insulated wheels, so there is no way that this set could be operated in 2-rail mode.
I like MTH products, as most of what I own is MTH. In this particular case, I think they could have done a better job of engineering their products or a least advising potential buyers of certain restrictions associated with the product.
