Running MTH 3R steamers on 2R?

Will;

MTH already makes several steamers that are 2/3 rail interchangeable.

TrainPop...those are the ones that I am wondering about! My main question is how would one that comes 3R with blind drivers/large flanges operate on 2R track?

The big thing you have to overcome is that both sides of the 3-rail wheel sets are not insulated, meaning if you put them on 2-rail track they'll short out.  One side needs to be insulated.  Getting the 2-rail sets from MTH (or some other vendor) is one method, fixing them yourself (or have someone else do it) is another.

Yeah new wheel sets are needed....http://www.mthtrains.com/content/20-89005 or

http://www.mthtrains.com/searc...esolr_search/2089006

Hi Will,

Your MTH engiens can run on code 148 which the mian size of Atlas 2rail.I'm not sure how well they work with Atlas switches as I am building my own.  When you order a new MTH engine you can order them with scale wheels and still run them 3rail. As long as you are using like Scaletrax or Atlas.

I successfully ran my MTH J1e on my 2-rail code 148 track withna scale switch on a curve.  Not a single problem.  I was not happy with the cylinders, frame, and drivers, so it no longer has MTH wheels - but it ran fine just the way it came from the factory.

Oops.  That is K-Line.  I will find the MTH photo tomorrow.

Will,

For years before all the new powering systems came about, 2 rail trains operated on DC current (different electrical potential in each rail) and their right side wheels were insulated from the left side wheels to prevent a short across the 2 rails. 3 rail originally ran on AC current and pulled power (as we all know) from the center rail via the pickup roller and 3 rail wheels are NOT insulated. The shorting problem is the BIG impediment to 2 railing 3 rail trains!

Most folks that want to run 2 rail stuff are NOT interested in 3 rail trains because 3 rail trains were traditionally toys that were not to scale nor all that prototypical, though that has been changing in recent years because of some 3 railers demands for more prototypical/realistic equipment.

My question to you is: How much of a rivet counter do you want to be? How realistic do you want your pike to be? Some folks go all out for realism and some don't care about reality at all. It's all personal preference.

Simon

I understand DC and AC and how the 3R rolling stock does not have insulated wheels and where this is a problem when putting them on 2R track, but isnt the point of the new MTH 3/2 Rail compatible locomotives that you can just "flip the switch" and run them on either 2 or 3 rail track? This statement leads me to believe that MTH has insulated the wheels on all their 3/2 locomotives. Is this a fact?

Does it really matter which wheels are even on the loco? I know that I can run my -2 diesels on my 3R Scaletrax with no problem.  Can an MTH steam locomotive with "scale wheels" traverse the same radius curves as its "Hi-rail" counterpart? 

I guess thats my real question...it all comes down to curve limitations.  I can run any 3R loco on O72 but not many 2R steamers will traverse a 36"Radius curve. So my thought was to leave the Hi-Rail wheels on the MTH "3/2" Steamer and flip it to the 2rail option so it can go around a 36"Radius curve.

I hope I am making sense! 

Hi Will,

No, it doesn't matter which wheels you have as along as the engine is a 3-2 engine. All you have to do is flip the switch and remove the rollers and your good to go. The only thing with the now older PS2 you had to make sure the polarity switch is flipped to the positive side in either direction. Now PS3 takes care of that with new electronics.

 I am also thinking like you with 3rail wheels could you run a tighter radius. As long as your not worried about having blind drivers. In reality some engines actually did have blind drivers. Plus on the box or in the description on MTH's website it should tell you what radius it can run in 3rail and 2rail.

Ralph

Yes - you are.  The short answer to your question is that throwing that switch will not change the radius that your locomotive will take.  Pulling the center rail out of your track will likewise not change its operating radius.

If you should decide to go to fine scale wheels, or add full size cylinders and tail beams, or adjust couplers and drawbars for more prototypical spacing, or all of that, you will need larger radius track.

I do not think any of this is related to rivet counting - I have many fine models without any rivets, yet I run 2-rail with 74" radius curves.  The big question is simply whether or not you like the looks of the center rail.  If not, now is the time to change.

Will,

I think Bob has pretty well summed it up in his first paragraph above. I would think MTH should be able to give you info on what the various configurations of their locos can handle radius wise.

Simon

Hi Will,

For what it's worth.  I put myself through **** for a couple of years.  Dealing with all the above issues and more.  I was a 3 rail happy campler from 1997 when I re-entered the hobby until a couple of years ago.  At that point I found myself getting more and more into scale considerations of all types. Some mentioned above.  At some point it became clear to me that no matter what I tried I was no longer happy even with 3 Rail Scale.  Too many compromises.

Sounds to me like you may be in the same situation.

Anyway, I finally bit the bullet and made the decision to go totally 2 rail after attending O Scale West 2012.  It has greatly simplified my (model railroading) life.  Glad I did it.  Wish I had done it sooner.  Absolutely no regrets.

There's a lot of work involved in making the switch. But, I now have a clear set of goals and am making great progress.  No more angst. No more 2 rail/3 rail compromises.  I have the NMRA RP's as guidelines. 

Every time I look at the newly emerging layout and see  no-center-rail it brings a big smile to my face.

Good luck, 

Austin Bill

I've run my MTH Proto 3-2 ATSF Hudson on Atlas Code 148 track and the flanges don't hit the ties. However, the tread width and subsequent change in the wheel back-side spacing makes the hi-rail locomotives incompatible with 2-rail turnouts and crossings because of the guard rails. I've talked to a couple of people who have scale-wheeled versions and they said they'll negotiate a 36" radius, so i ordered my Blue Goose with scale wheels. This has me in a quandary about the 3rd Rail CNW H1 Northern I have on order as I'd prefer the scale version, but don't have the space for the 56" radius required.

Bottom line is that if you want your curves sharp, you need to keep your locomotives smaller. Fortunately, MTH has been re-issuing some of its smaller scale steam locomotives in Proto 3-2 with scale wheels. An added bonus of these locomotives is that their rigid-frame design will find the bad areas (high spots, low spots, and kinks) of your track work for you.

Hope this helps.

With all due respect for Matt, and I really mean it.  Matt comes up with great engineering solutions.  A real problem solver.  Makes great contributions to the forum.

BUT, the key operative phrase in his post above is QUANDRY.  I found myself facing a never ending series of quandries while trying to walk the 3 rail scale /2 rail tightrope.  For me the energy spent on "quandry solving" felt like wasted energy that I would rather spend getting on with 2 rail O scale.

Model railroading takes place in a big tent and there's room for all.  Just saying 2 rail is turning out the be a great move for me and might be for others who are tired of constant quandries.    

Austin Bill     

I have a few engines that will run on pretty tight curves. The MTH 2 rail N&W A gets around 36" and I'd give the J a bit wider at around 40" to 42".

Sunset Y engines will get around tight radius curves also.

Chris,

What would you say your "J"is the happiest with in terms of radius? 60+?

Chris,

My mainlines are 56" and 60" minimum. The J pretty much glides through those.

I can run the J through my storage tracks down to 47" and at that point the passenger cars begin to have difficulty. I haven't tested the engine on these tracks in 5 or 6 years or so. Lower than 47" radius tracks in storage are stubb ended so I really couldn't give it a full run through but could run the engine back and forth. When I get a chance I'll test it again and take a closer look at what the drivers are doing on the lower radius tracks.

Regarding the initial question in this thread, I think you'll have difficulty running 3 rail flanges through the guard rails and frogs on stock 2 rail turnouts and a reason I switched fully from 3 to 2 rail. I was heavily invested in 3 rail steam engines when I switched over.

Ok...thnx Chris.

For me, my biggest issue with 3-rail is not the 3rd rail it's that scale 2' high rail.  I would have considered 3-rail if there was decent code 125 or code 148 3-rail track. 

So, I don't think there would be any market for code 250 or 300 2-rail track.  On the contrary I think over the next decade code 125 will become more prevalent much as code 83 has become in HO.

Richard

I think you're right. I was talking with a 2-rail colleague at a train show this past weekend and they've been looking at code 125 replacing code 148.

It's even happening on the 3-rail side of the house. When new layouts are built, they seem to be built with code 215 Atlas/Ross/Gargraves or code 190 ScaleTrax. If I were hand-laying 3-rail track, I'd probably be using FasTracks jigs and code 148 rail as the flanges on modern 3-rail equipment would clear -- I'd just have to modify the guard rail/flangeway width.

BTW, thanks Bill. If I were smart (well, so much for that) I'd learn how to do machine work, re-cut the drivers on my 3-rail steam to fit 2-rail track, drop an off-set third rail in some Atlas 2-rail track to support On30 and have a field day.

Well, I think the shorter rail accentuates our wide gauge problem.  I am sticking to code 148.

Chris,

I ran some trains through some different radius track last weekend. The J eases through the 47" track. It ran back and forth through the 40" track okay but it seemed a little tight and REALLY looked awkward. I've become accustomed to looking at the wider curves. On 36" the drivers were wanting to straighten the track.

A thought about this is that this was all done on Atlas track which I think may be forgiving. If you'd be using this engine on handlaid track on tight radius, you'd probably want to give some slack on the curves.

Me too.

Just the thought of having to re-wheel the entire stock on the layout gives me pause (Some have deep flanges)

The bright side I see is if everyone went to 125 code, the big stuff should get even cheaper.