The Elusive "Perfect" 3R Track - Would there be any "Takers"

Yes*

*Gargraves rail is too big...  :-(

It's not so much the track as it is the switches that are problematic in one way or another.

John

What is nice about using Gargraves track is that you can set up your layout with actual set curves or for custom curves, use the flexibility of the track  to accommodate your needs. And as to switches, there are both Gargraves and Ross for again custom options.

It is not true to say that "just like everything else in this hobby, there is no standardization."  The NMRA has established standards for all the commonly recognized modeling scales that use 2-rail track, including both traditional 1:48 O-gauge and proto 48. O-scale 2-rail modelers can purchase a very nice steel NMRA standards gauge that checks for for basic track gauge (O gauge), flange way clearances, wheel flange depth, and so on. I am not very familiar with 3-rail systems, but apparently there is no equivalent standards gauge available. In my opinion, the existence of NMRA standards and the improved appearance of 2-rail track are good arguments for modeling in 2-rail O-scale/O-gauge.

No.

I believe the market is small, and the risk is great…….

I would not be interested…….personally, nearing 71, I have likely made my last big track order. Ross is an excellent track system and “perfect enough” for me.

Peter

No.  

GG/Ross provides a reliable and cost effective (relatively) track system.  To me, the oversized ties and rail are part of the allure of 3R - I like the nostalgia aspect and looks great when painted and ballasted.  

Would you rip up several thousand dollars of track to install a new track system? Many people will Not. New people to the hobby might buy it. It would take a long time to get a foothold in the hobby.

@B Smith posted:

It is not true to say that "just like everything else in this hobby, there is no standardization."  The NMRA has established standards for all the commonly recognized modeling scales that use 2-rail track, including both traditional 1:48 O-gauge and proto 48. O-scale 2-rail modelers can purchase a very nice steel NMRA standards gauge that checks for for basic track gauge (O gauge), flange way clearances, wheel flange depth, and so on. I am not very familiar with 3-rail systems, but apparently there is no equivalent standards gauge available. In my opinion, the existence of NMRA standards and the improved appearance of 2-rail track are good arguments for modeling in 2-rail O-scale/O-gauge.

Thank you for your reply, I could not agree with you more!  I have edited my opening post which was ambiguous.

My original idea when leaving HO for O was to do 2R (unfortunately?) I got sidetracked and went 3R, "well sorta".  At this point I have decided that my freight cars (mostly Weaver/CMP and Intermountain) will be converted to 2R if they are not already (I have bought both).  On the other hand my K-Line Passenger cars will remain 3R.  Locos (mostly 3R) will not be converted.  At this point I am seriously considering having one Mainline 2R and one 3R.  This track would be for the 3R section.  The 2R section will be Code 145.

I was slightly intrigued when I found out that Lionel pre-war T-rail track is code 250, and G scalers use code 250. You could in theory hand lay your own track. The problem would be switches. Might be able to use G scale code 250 frogs, but that center rail is the realm of a machinist or some really clever 3D printing.

Should point out that I currently run on the floor with tubular and K-Line shadow rail. Tubular, that way when my wife steps on it not costly to replace. I tried GarGarves but it sucked up the moisture and got an odor, but that was before my 'purge' of closed in spaces in the basement, and a de-humidifier.

@gftiv posted:

Would you rip up several thousand dollars of track to install a new track system? Many people will Not. New people to the hobby might buy it. It would take a long time to get a foothold in the hobby.

Thank you for your input, this is just what I was asking for!  To clarify my original post, this track would be easy to mate with Existing Gargraves.  The only thing different, other than the look of the ties, would be the center conductor.  Once the exact conductor was chosen, an appropriate center pin for inter-connection would be designed.

@Putnam Division posted:

I believe the market is small, and the risk is great…….

I would not be interested…….personally, nearing 71, I have likely made my last big track order. Ross is an excellent track system and “perfect enough” for me.

Thank you Peter for your input and especially the photos.  What you have looks great!

Maybe I am more concerned about the appearance than I need to be.  BTW I never "regretted" buying the Minivan.  Just never took it to a car show.  LOL

A thank you to all that have posted so far!  Hope the input continues, lots of valid points to consider.

@gftiv posted:

Would you rip up several thousand dollars of track to install a new track system? Many people will Not. New people to the hobby might buy it. It would take a long time to get a foothold in the hobby.

I would tend to agree with that. Definitely not going to try any new track system at my age and in light of what I already have invested. GarGraves track and Ross switches work just fine for me.

My thoughts echo many above.  I would add that with most existing track systems, once the track is ballasted and weathered, it blends into the surrounding scenery, and when trains are running, very few, if any,  people will notice track system shortcomings.  I've seen layouts where the owners used old-school tubular track, added extra ties, ballasted and weathered the track, and added little details like weeds and debris ("old" ties, spikes, rusty tie plates, etc.), and these layouts looked fantastic.

Andy

No chance, I have thousands of dollars tied up in Ross switches with Gargraves track.  I can't imagine making enough difference in the appearance to start over from scratch.  Remember, it's not just the track, which would be the easy part, it's making switches that match it!  I sing with the chorus here, this is not a winner IMO.

I can't imagine this being a marketing success, I'd be looking for another place to make my mark if I were you.

Years ago someone designed a track system with a pretty invisible rail. Called stud rail. Designed to be used with Atlas 2 rail track. It basically was supported between 2 strips of cork and protruded up between the ties. For center rail pickup. You snapped on what was called a ski to your existing roller as you needed to bridge the gap where the tie was. I will admit it looked good at a show I attended. But no real solution as far as turnouts.

There was another track system called Real Rail. It was available pre built or you could build your own. Basswood ties with solid rail. You could get steel, nickel silver or aluminum. It was designed and built in western MA and was shown at the Amherst show. Probably in the early 90’s. They advertised in OGR.

You are not the first to want to come up with the ultimate looking 3 rail track. Both these systems looked really good to the eye. Both were shown well before the internet at shows.  Never saw or heard of a layout built with either one of them. The product was produced so I’m sure it exists somewhere on a layout. Probably one that just never got finished.

I would be a taker as I have no real layout now so perfect would be better. Starting today with whats available would likely be Atlas though I am big fan of Super O and bending curves to suit is not a problem. Switches would be a problem though.

Pete

@Dave_C posted:

Years ago someone designed a track system with a pretty invisible rail. Called stud rail. Designed to be used with Atlas 2 rail track. It basically was supported between 2 strips of cork and protruded up between the ties. For center rail pickup. You snapped on what was called a ski to your existing roller as you needed to bridge the gap where the tie was. I will admit it looked good at a show I attended. But no real solution as far as turnouts.

There was another track system called Real Rail. It was available pre built or you could build your own. Basswood ties with solid rail. You could get steel, nickel silver or aluminum. It was designed and built in western MA and was shown at the Amherst show. Probably in the early 90’s. They advertised in OGR.

You are not the first to want to come up with the ultimate looking 3 rail track. Both these systems looked really good to the eye. Both were shown well before the internet at shows.  Never saw or heard of a layout built with either one of them. The product was produced so I’m sure it exists somewhere on a layout.

Stud rail was shown here but on the 3RS scale forum. I agree it was the best looking at the time. It was banned from the forum as it didn’t involve fixed pilots or kadees. What???? 😳

Pete

No.  There are very diverse reasons for choosing a track system and satisfying all of them in one product is unlikely.

I use GarGraves (wood ties mostly) and Ross track and mostly Ross switches (a few Curtis HiRail switches). Most curves are sectional, but using the GarGraves long straights allows me to bend larger custom curves. And I have done so.

George

No.

But for what it's worth, I think there is room for this track. It would just take a minute to catch on. So many people are in deep with Ross and Gargraves (including me). The company making it would have to be prepared to sit for a minute. I think that's not a big deal if you finance it right and use machines but that's just my opinion. There is a member here that used a small rail (N or HO?) for a center rail and the results are impressive.

It’s funny Pete. Back then most of the critique from non 3 railers was the middle rail. I had many visitors say how real my layout looked. To bad it has that middle rail. Real trains run on 2. No one ever mentioned anything about the huge couplers or the floating pilots on diesels being a bad look.

You might get some customers from people relatively new to the hobby, but for those of us in too deep, you might consider how our rollers would adjust from your "lower profile" center rail to our existing "high profile" center rail if we wanted to mix the two types.  Maybe some type of "sloped" connection piece?  That way, if we wanted to expand an existing pike into a section that looked more "scale-like," it might be possible.  Still, your biggest issue would be switches with the "lower profile" center rail; would you also produce those?

Chuck

@PRR1950 posted:

You might get some customers from people relatively new to the hobby, but for those of us in too deep, you might consider how our rollers would adjust from your "lower profile" center rail to our existing "high profile" center rail if we wanted to mix the two types.  Maybe some type of "sloped" connection piece?  That way, if we wanted to expand an existing pike into a section that looked more "scale-like," it might be possible.  Still, your biggest issue would be switches with the "lower profile" center rail; would you also produce those?

Not only couplers, but the mention of Atlas being "Code 181", would also apply to Ross/Gargraves.  If you reduced the rail height to truly be Code 100, every 3-rail wheel flange would be riding on the ties!  If you're thinking of only 2-rail, it's a much smaller market, but you solve the problem of the center rail.

@PRR1950 posted:

You might get some customers from people relatively new to the hobby, but for those of us in too deep, you might consider how our rollers would adjust from your "lower profile" center rail to our existing "high profile" center rail if we wanted to mix the two types.  Maybe some type of "sloped" connection piece?  That way, if we wanted to expand an existing pike into a section that looked more "scale-like," it might be possible.  Still, your biggest issue would be switches with the "lower profile" center rail; would you also produce those?

Chuck

Not sure the center rail has to be lower. Super O has the least obtrusive center rail IMO because its thinner and the copper blends in with tie color better. Ballasting helps camouflage the raised ties to large degree. Not sure it has to be that high in an improved version though.

Pete

@MainLine Steam posted:

As I try to decide what 3R track type is best for me...

So started to experiment with some used Atlas 3R track (a natural extension from HO).  Well I don't really like it.  The joiners don't work as well as they do in HO.  Bending it isn't as easy as HO ... and the rails are HUGE.  O equivalent to Code 100 would be Code 181.  Probably the most important fact, the cost is astronomical (about $1 per inch).

Please if you read this, just post a yes or no.

Thank you!

I have two layouts with Atlas O 3-rail track and switches. A 12'-by-8' with about 80 feet of track and 5 switches (O-72, O-54) built 1999 to 2004 and a 10'-by-5' with about 28 feet of track and two O-54 switches built 2014 to 2019. In 25 years of operation, I've never replaced a switch and only replaced one or two pieces of track due to rails loosening from the ties.

I prefer Atlas O track because its solid flat-topped nickel-silver rail is precisely shaped and gauged, and looks most realistic in my opinion. It's quite strong (not flimsy) and O gauge steam locomotive driving wheels make perfect contact with the flat-topped rail. The rail and track joiners make good electrical and mechanical contact and, in my case, have never required replacement. Some 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 steam locomotives with small driving wheels may have difficulty on O-54 switches but not on O-72. On my layouts, diesels have never had problems on the switches.

Why do you want to bend O gauge track? This is not HO. Atlas O offers flex track and numerous sectional curve radii to make any reasonable track plan. The rail height is 0.225 inches - 10.8 inches full scale compared to real rail that is about 7.5 inches in height. Model railroad track is a compromise between strength/durability and scale accuracy. In my opinion, Atlas O comes off well in that regard.

Yes, Atlas O track is expensive, but model railroads are an investment that can last for a long time, so its cost per year has been acceptable for me.

The debate about the best 3-rail track is endless but, in my opinion, there are enough brands/types of 3-rail O gauge track from which to choose. You pay your money and make your choice. So, to answer your question, NO. I would not invest in production of another type of O gauge track.

Like you, I'm a retired engineer.

MELGAR

@PRR1950 posted:

You might get some customers from people relatively new to the hobby, but for those of us in too deep, you might consider how our rollers would adjust from your "lower profile" center rail to our existing "high profile" center rail if we wanted to mix the two types.  Maybe some type of "sloped" connection piece?  That way, if we wanted to expand an existing pike into a section that looked more "scale-like," it might be possible.  Still, your biggest issue would be switches with the "lower profile" center rail; would you also produce those?

Chuck

Want to clarify where my thinking was originally headed, although "not set in stone" it would be modified based on input received.  Didn't want to post this originally to influence feedback too much.

The product would be a cross between Gargraves and Super O.  It would look similar to Super O but be constructed like Gargraves.  If you examine a piece of Gargraves track, instead of the current tie, it would have ties like Super O.  This could (an option when track is ordered) include a "double tie" with the mounting web and holes about every 6 inches (like Super O).  The center conductor would be a brass strip like Super O.  The top of the center conductor would be the same as the outer rails.  If you compare existing Super O to Gargraves they are the same height wise, so this would also be.

BTW For those that many not be aware, Super O and Gargraves outer rails go right together.

Because of tooling cost this would just be track.  Ross, Gargraves or Super O Switches would be recommended, "take your pick".

@Norton posted:

Not sure the center rail has to be lower. Super O has the least obtrusive center rail IMO because its thinner and the copper blends in with tie color better. Ballasting helps camouflage the raised ties to large degree. Not sure it has to be that high in an improved version though.

Pete

Following the guidance of a couple of 3RS forum members, I constructed some 3 rail track from Atlas 2 rail flextrack and an N-scale or HO-scale recessed center rail.  I used it on sidings and on a long trestle bridge.  All was good until I ran some recent Lionel Heavyweight Passenger cars over it.  Turns out that the center rail pickup couldn't reach the N-scale center rail (HO rail was ok).  So you can go too low . . .  

Fortunately my locomotives and all my K-line passenger cars had no trouble.

Bob

@MainLine Steam posted:

The product would be a cross between Gargraves and Super O.  It would look similar to Super O but be constructed like Gargraves.

I'm sure there might be some interested parties, but I just don't know if this is the product development hill you want to die on.  It's hard to imagine a fledgling startup competing on price in this product arena.  I suppose anything's possible, I just see this as a pretty heavy lift.

Bob, this is the best presented here so far!

@RRDOC posted:

Following the guidance of a couple of 3RS forum members, I constructed some 3 rail track from Atlas 2 rail flextrack and an N-scale or HO-scale recessed center rail.  I used it on sidings and on a long trestle bridge.  All was good until I ran some recent Lionel Heavyweight Passenger cars over it.  Turns out that the center rail pickup couldn't reach the N-scale center rail (HO rail was ok).  So you can go too low . . .  

Fortunately my locomotives and all my K-line passenger cars had no trouble.

Bob

Bob please confirm that K-Line Aluminum and Heavyweight Passenger Cars run on Code 145 without problems.  If so then my need for a "new" track becomes a moot point for me.  You have my solution.  Thank you very much!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I'm sure there might be some interested parties, but I just don't know if this is the product development hill you want to die on.  It's hard to imagine a fledgling startup competing on price in this product arena.  I suppose anything's possible, I just see this as a pretty heavy lift.

Thank you John, I truly appreciate your concern and guidance (unlike the guys trying to burn down houses and electrocute people with a "better" power supply).  It didn't get to this age without thinking before "jumping in" (the reason for this topic).

One point I didn't make previously is that I think it's unlikely that people with established O gauge layouts would replace their track with a new product, even if it is better. In my case, I would not re-track either of my layouts due to the expense and work involved. So, any new brand of track would probably sell only to new O gauge model railroaders, and it would take a long time to see a return on your investment.

MELGAR

@MainLine Steam posted:

Thank you John, I truly appreciate your concern and guidance (unlike the guys trying to burn down houses and electrocute people with a "better" power supply).  It didn't get to this age without thinking before "jumping in" (the reason for this topic).

I occasionally jump before thinking, it explains all the burn scars.

It would be an uphill struggle to introduce a new track to three rail O gauge. Essentially the only sets, most people's introduction to this niche of the hobby, are made by Lionel and include Fastrack.  While not everyone loves this product, it has lots of folks who like it and continue to use it if they stay in the hobby and expand a layout.  So that's a formidable obstacle.  If there were no other good options, perhaps a market would exist for a free standing track producer, but the presence of excellent options with Gargraves, Ross and Atlas tracks suggests to me that it is unlikely that a truly superior product could be produced, much less sold in volume.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I occasionally jump before thinking, it explains all the burn scars.

The only people that don't make mistakes are the ones that never do anything.

My home layout and the G&O garden railroad all run on Atlas track.  I chose Atlas because I think it is the most prototypical looking track available.  The ties, etc., on the other brands are too large and the spacing isn't correct.  Atlas track is also rugged.  You can stand on it and it won't break.  It is not affected by weather.  This is important for an outdoor O gauge 3-rail layout.  

I would use Atlas again if I was starting over.  I have found that the there is a lot of Atlas track and probably other brands on the used market at trains shows, etc.  Purchasing used track is much less expensive than buying new.  Used track is often in great shape.  Look at the used track market if you want to reduce your costs.  

The reason there is so much used track available is that many of us, myself included, are arriving at an age where we can no longer maintain or run a layout.  You will see posts on this and other forums all the time about layouts being torn down.  The track and switches are going to the local train show.  

Good luck whatever your choice is.  Happy Model Railroading,  NH Joe

Hey Jim,  it's interesting that only Marty E responded with a simple 'NO' per your original request for a Yes/No answer.  I tried but bit my lip anyway with my initial reply of "Gargraves Rail is too big".  Lol!

Truthfully, when Atlas's 20th Century Track System was first introduced it was designed to mate right up with Gargraves so it is 'too big' as well; or as you mentioned in your initial post "Atlas rails are HUGE".  Otherwise Atlas is the most prototypical track for us but would have been much more appealing had they used a thin center blade like Super O or MTH ScaleTrax.

I had a nice layout using ScaleTrax and found that our trains appeared to be much more massive because of the visible smaller outside rails and the center blade was significantly less obtrusive. I actually pulled the center rail of a piece of Atlas and replaced it with the MTH blade and it was a huge improvement visually even with the larger oversized Atlas rails.

In hopes of having another layout someday, I have been acquiring a good supply of used Atlas but would welcome a new track with outer rains from Atlas 2 rail and a center blade like Super O or ScaleTrax.  Now, how many new people coming in would be aware of and desire more 'scale' looking track is anybody's guess but I certainly would!

Here are some photos of my old layout showing how nice ScaleTrax looks and the effect it creates for enhancing our models. It was very easy to work with as well - very similar to HO flex.

@Dave_C posted:

It’s funny Pete. Back then most of the critique from non 3 railers was the middle rail. I had many visitors say how real my layout looked. To bad it has that middle rail. Real trains run on 2. No one ever mentioned anything about the huge couplers or the floating pilots on diesels being a bad look.

I've had similar experiences.  I was fortunate enough to present the layout at the RPM meet last year.  A number of 2-rail HO folks attended and paid me what I believe is the best compliment you can get - "would you consider going to 2-rail O?"  While flattering, the real cost of such a conversion would be tens of thousands of dollars for a mid-large layout.

As to solving the "perfect 3-rail track", that is a very difficult technical and aesthetic problem.  Previously, I noted my use of GarGraves / Ross track and Ross / Curtis switches.  Back when I was making those choices, I was intrigued by the Atlas solid rail offering, but the price was out of my reach.  GarGraves was the economical choice and looked pretty good, too (especially with ballast).  Tubular (of any variety or make) was never going to get my vote.  K-Line had a viable option until they fumbled the future.

Of course, over the past 5 years all of the major track brands have increased their prices, some of them astronomically.

MTH produced a great looking product called Scale Rail which had the lowest profile, but they never seemed to fully commit to it.  There were some serious production shortages and gaps in curve and switch sizes.  I recall the "stud rail" offerings early in the 2000s.  In fact, I thought OGR was interested in either producing or marketing it (my memory might be incorrect here).  It seemed like a very intriguing product, but then completely disappeared from view.

All in all, I think there's a lot of risk in the idea.

George