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

I'm with MartyE and a simple "NO" says it all for me IMO.

@c.sam posted:

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!

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.

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.

Wow the ScaleTrax looks nice.  I didn't even mention in my initial post, because of the issue of availability and some very troubling reports of its reliability to deliver power through its connectors.

The Yes or NO was my attempt to get input from members that don't usually post, just read the topics.  The more input I can get on this, the better for making an informed decision.

Thanks for your posts.

I want to again thank all who have posted!  This topic contains a lot of good information, due to the collective knowledge and experiences of the members of this forum.  That is the reason I am here, a lot of good people, with a lot of good knowledge and insight!

BTW I don't mean to imply this subject is closed, the more relevant information in a topic the better.  If you are seeing this and haven't posted yet please do.  Thank you!

It seems to me that a stud system, like Marklin's, would make sense as the center conductor for 3-rail track. I suppose it has not become popular because (among other problems) adopting it it would mean having to replace existing pick-up rollers with new "skates," which most people probably would not be willing to do. I haven't had any 3-rail trains since I was a kid and had some Lionel equipment. My father decided that American Flyer was the way to go because of its 2-rail track and because its size was "perfect" (he said). He helped me build a Flyer layout that was a lot of fun. Then I tried HO scale, but it was too small to be satisfying. Eventually, I found my way into 2-rail O-scale and I have been very happy with that choice, even though it is a minority endeavor. A stud system for the 3-rail market would appeal to the "scale" crowd in O-gauge and might attract others over time: but as others have pointed in several posts, the cost of tooling, manufacturing, advertising, and distribution for a whole new track system is probably prohibitive at this point in the 3-rail section of the hobby. Atlas track would look pretty nice with studs and the basic tooling is in place for switches!

Scale Trax had a problem with tie-spacing, though I could have lived with it. The center blade had an unexpected appearance problem for me, too: it looked better from above, but when viewed pretty much from the side, the "blade" was flat, of course, and this made it stand out more slab-like than a rail-shaped center conductor.

I spray paint my GG, of course, so this gives it a very different look. Getting rid of the black center rail makes it blend in better; the blackening really only makes it stand out once you eliminate the 50's auto chrome-bumper rails.

Atlas with a blade-type center conductor, lower than the running-rail height, would probably be the winner of track currently made, except for this: GG/Ross looks very good (properly dressed) and is always available, reliable and has few surprises. I personally will never build another layout, so I would not be a customer for a new track, but, if so, it would have to at least closely approximate GG/Ross availability. I won't wait for China.

Still - hope you try and succeed.

Somehow I missed the experiments with the 'stud rail' in the early 2000's as I was out of the hobby until 2009. It would definitely seem to be a good idea considering how well it worked for Marklin. A 'snap-on' skid for existing 3R equipment sounds like a viable solution as well.  Does anyone have any photos or literature from whoever was marketing it initially?

Too bad someone couldn't try to resurrect and expand on MTH's ScaleTrax. It was an excellent product and very easy to use as the flex track was just as easy to maneuver as HO flex. You could create ANY size curve needed and it was quiet and  much less expensive than Atlas due to the material costs of the rail being much smaller and lighter. Only 2 were nickel silver compared to Atlas's 3. I never experienced any connectivity issues on our layout that was 24'x 16' in an 'L' pattern. The tie spacing was more like a short line or siding but I used a dremel and cut short gaps in the roadbed and slid the ties closer together for a much more prototype look like Atlas with good effect in some spots.

I wonder what became of the tools to produce it?

A stud system would be awesome but that train has left the station.  There are too many legacy engines out there to convert.  I think that very few people would purchase a stud track system and then convert their trains.

Probably the best looking 3-rail track would be 2-rail track running battery powered 3-rail engines.  A modeler could pull the middle rail out of any manufacturers 3-rail track system or they could just buy 2-rail track.  Pulling the center rail and converting a few engines to battery power would be much easier than converting an entire layout to a smaller middle rail.  

I have converted several 3-rail engines to battery power with radio or cell phone (Bluetooth) control.  All of them run much better than they did on track power.  I use a battery powered engine to pull my track cleaning train these days.  It works better than any track powered track cleaning train.  

Most new Lionel engines come with Bluetooth.  I haven't done it yet.  However, I think that these engines could be converted to battery and run using the built-in Bluetooth.  I have converted Lion Chief engines to battery and I use the controller that is supplied with the engine to run it.  It works great.  NH Joe

@New Haven Joe posted:

Probably the best looking 3-rail track would be 2-rail track running battery powered 3-rail engines.  A modeler could pull the middle rail out of any manufacturers 3-rail track system or they could just buy 2-rail track.  Pulling the center rail and converting a few engines to battery power would be much easier than converting an entire layout to a smaller middle rail.

Folks interested in Dead Rail (running with Power on Board the locomotive via batteries) will likely want to follow Darrell Lamm's series on that specific topic that is appearing in the magazine. His detailed discussion of all aspects of batteries themselves and their application to O scale begins in RUN 336, our June/July 2024 issue, which I am working on now. Will likely be a three-part series. With Dead Rail, it makes no difference if you have 2-rail or 3-rail track so far as the locomotive power is concerned.

With batteries quickly becoming smaller, more powerful, and holding long-lasting charges, this is a viable solution for many operators.

Allan

It looks like you are right about the battery size and charge.

It would be nice to not rely on track power.

In that case, I would consider re-tracking my layout to 2-rail.

@New Haven Joe posted:

A stud system would be awesome but that train has left the station.  There are too many legacy engines out there to convert.  I think that very few people would purchase a stud track system and then convert their trains.

  NH Joe

Stud rail only requires adding a shoe to the pickup rollers. Everything else would be unchanged.

Pete

@Allan Miller posted:

Folks interested in Dead Rail (running with Power on Board the locomotive via batteries) will likely want to follow Darrell Lamm's series on that specific topic that is appearing in the magazine. His detailed discussion of all aspects of batteries themselves and their application to O scale begins in RUN 336, our June/July 2024 issue, which I am working on now. Will likely be a three-part series. With Dead Rail, it makes no difference if you have 2-rail or 3-rail track so far as the locomotive power is concerned.

With batteries quickly becoming smaller, more powerful, and holding long-lasting charges, this is a viable solution for many operators.

Alan . Is there any updates on the fourm for Deadrail/Battery Power to be inserted in the fourm  directory that was discussed at the end of last year.

Read this whole dissertation, and of the one fellow noting the stud center rail, which Marklin still produces for HO.  The switches and crossings seem to be a mass of insulated sections though.  To me this argument is the classic lipstick on a pig, folks want and hope to hide that third rail without accepting that is just what it is.  For most of us, we have been staring at that third rail since we were children.   The old Atlas HO track planning book had a picture of a man looking at his 3 rail rectangular sharp curves with two dead end spurs rail layout and saying to himself, this is not what he had in mind, where in his minds eye he saw 2 rail empire with realistic 2 rail broad curve trackage.  We who love 3 rail do not see that third rail, it is like our brain has a third rail filter.  We can enjoy the relative reliable function of our trains instead of what can be hit and miss with smaller scales, and when the cat jumps up on the layout, you know his shedding fur will not bring your consist to a screeching halt.  Don't get me wrong, I love both O and HO and have layouts for both, the HO layout I have cut up and moved 3 times in 45 years so it has an excuse to be iffy at times. I am still trying to get my golden spike driven on my new O gauge, bound and determined to get a 2 track arch bridge in front of a window that the survey crew is having a hard time laying it out.

Despite the tie spacing issue, Scaletrax was one of the best-looking track systems as Rich Battista so aptly shows in his excellent DVDs.  Obviously, the best attribute is the lower height of the track, and then the thinner middle rail.

This was an add in the early 90’s run in OGR. Many options for rail choices. Different rail heights. I saw this displayed at the Amherst show. The designer had a background in manufacturing and had  developed many plastic kits over the years. He was taking orders. Probably ahead of it’s time and really not sure what became of it.

Guys...keep the discussion on topic.  Dead rail needs to be discussed in a separate thread.

@Dave_C posted:

This was an add in the early 90’s run in OGR. Many options for rail choices. Different rail heights. I saw this displayed at the Amherst show. The designer had a background in manufacturing and had  developed many plastic kits over the years. He was taking orders. Probably ahead of it’s time and really not sure what became of it.

Thanks for posting.  This is a really neat concept.  Wondering what others think of this Track?

BTW Curtis has been mentioned a few times in this topic (including in this ad).  How did their track compare to Gargraves?  Was it very similar or what made it unique?  Thanks.

The 172 code rail seems like a good compromise. Kind of right in the middle of high rail and 2 rail. It was only available though in aluminum. I’m guessing you would use it outdoors. But this was way before battery power. Not sure how that would have  worked.  The steel was offered I’m sure for those that favored magnetraction. This is at a time many were still heavilly into postwar. It did look good all ballasted up. Better than Gargraves in my opinion with the solid rails and tie plates. At this time I believe Ross didn’t offer sectional track nor did Gargraves. By then all my track was pretty much in place. I might have considered it. But back then Gargraves was less than $4.00 for flex track. I only remember it that one time at the Amherst show. Don’t know if it ever made it’s way to York.
I’m assuming if you bought the 30 inch rail and laid your own track. The ties would be laid out on a curve and then you would bend and add the rails and secure them with the tie plates.

I started out with ROW switches. Then started using Ross and then for a few years it became Ross-Curtis. Then they became 2 seperate companies. Both based in Connecticut. I have a few and I believe the big difference was the Curtis switches used an aluminum frog. Other than that they feature pretty much the same construction.

Thanks Dave for the information on Curtis.

After reading the responses to this topic and doing a little thinking I realize what a great product GarGraves track is.  It has been around for 84 years!  A lot of people, companies and products have changed in 3R over that time, but GarGraves (2 family owned) and track continues on.  Point is there is no way it would have survived that long if it wasn't a great product.  There have been attempts over the years to improve upon it, or compete with it (ie Super O), but they have "come and gone".

So bottom line; Yeah, I can come up with a way to make it look a little more prototypical, but hate to end up like the other "competitors".  One of my credos; Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.  So in fact the "Perfect" 3R track may already exist.

Thanks to all that have contributed to this topic!

Here is an idea for you "Cottage Industry" types:

Plastic Tie Plates w/spikes for Gar Graves track. These could be glued to the outside and/or inside of the rails on top of the ties. It would sure improve the look! Injection molding should make them cost effective, especially if the use of them went "viral"!

@MainLine Steam posted:

As I try to decide what 3R track type is best for me I am drawn many different ways.  I want reliable operation, the thought  of a Brass Steam Loco de-railing and taking a dive gives me cold sweats.  But I would like it to look scale.  Since I don't (presently?) plan to run tinplate, probably don't need to accommodate super big flanges.  Although all my items are about 35-15 years old, I noticed, just like everything else in 3R, there is no standardization.  By this I mean the wheel profile on K-Line Passenger cars is different than Weaver Brass Steam Engines.  For that matter the Drivers have a different Profile than the tender wheelsets.

< snip >

Reading lots of posts and talking to others Gargraves seems to be the choice.  The good, practical, reliable, relatively cost effective solution.  I am a car guy, and at one point owned a Chrysler Minivan.  However like that, though it got the job done, the look just doesn't get me excited.  Unlike other cars I have owned, never had anyone come up and say cool car!

I have a few comments and photos regarding your post's first and seventh paragraphs.  (I snipped out the other paragraphs to condense this reply a little bit.)

I was a project manager for 40 years, so I'm used to looking at "needs" and trying to reach an attainable solution.  Your first paragraph's "needs" for "reliable operation", avoiding derailments and looking "scale" are a bit tough considering 3-rail's center rail and the small market of track manufacturers in 3-rail.  You may want to consider what gets you to what I used to call "an 80% solution".

Regarding "reliable operation" and avoiding derailments, my last layout (2007 - 2019) used Ross sectional track and switches and a few long Gargraves straight and uncoupling/unloading tracks.  All those items were embedded in Ross Roadbed which provides for countersinking about half the tie's height.

• In the 12 years of that layout, I never had a derailment with my mix of Lionel post-war locomotives, post-war/MPC/modern Lionel, Weaver, MTH, RMT and Atlas rolling stock or PS/2 MTH locomotives.
• One piece of rolling stock, a Lionel "BNSF Icicle" reefer, had a shoe on one truck that liked to split a switch, so it became a "shelf queen after the second time that problem occurred.

Regarding looking "scale", by painting the roadbed gray before installing the track and ballasting later, I achieved what I wanted--a 90% solution.  (A 100% solution would have been no center rail at all, but then that would meant abandoning 3R and my legacy locomotives and rolling stock.)

Regarding the O-gauge track market size, economics and small number of manufacturers, I would be shocked if any of those manufacturers would consider creating another track line beyond what's available today.

I hope this info is helpful.

No, because no matter what you do to 3-rail track, it will still be 3-rail track--even with N or HO scale center rail or a blade for center rail.  I struggled with this issue for several years before deciding to go to 2-rail for appearance reasons, but 2-rail has its own set of issues (larger required curves, lack of availability of equipment, time involved to convert equipment, etc.).

I was close to going with MTH ScaleTrax, but I could not get past the fact that the ties are not correctly spaced.  Other 3-rail track systems are also a compromise:  Ross and Gargraves have rail and ties that are too big; Atlas has rail that is too big; other 3-rail track systems (K-Line, Lionel T-rail, Lionel Super O) are harder to find and are also too big; stud rail, if I recall, has issues with switches since the studs have to increase in height to get the slider over the outside rail.

If there was a new 3-rail track system, I think these attributes would be necessary:  1. Code 172 solid rail (big, but not Atlas/Ross/Gargraves code 215 big, yet big enough for most 3-rail flanges); 2. correctly sized and spaced ties; 3. less obtrusive center rail (blade or smaller rail); 4. reliable switches offered in many sizes; and 5. durable.

No.

3-rail is 3-rail, and 2-rail is 2-rail, and never the twain shall meet. My O gauge and Std. Gauge worlds have always been 3-rail, and always will be given my advanced age. My Z, N, HO, On30, and Large Scale (G) worlds have always been 2-rail, aside from my Marklin HO, which has a stud center rail.

I have a 2-rail layout built with MicroEngineering code 148 track and switches from Signature Switch Company. Operation is absolutely reliable, and I have never had a derailment that wasn't my own fault in some way. I know this discussion is focused on improving 3-rail track, but in my humble opinion the best way to improve 3-rail track is to drop the center rail and go to 2-rail!   There is actually a lot of equipment available for 2-rail O-gauge (I'm not talking about Proto 48), from Big Boys and Alleghenys that demand a large-radius down to F-3s/7s that operate nicely on smaller curves. I am only bringing this up in an attempt to gently push some current 3-rail modelers into 2 rail. Also, as the Baby-Boomers like me die off, there will be a lot of 2-rail equipment coming up for sale at good prices. Just saying ...

In theory:  Yes

In Reality:  Probably not.  A new track system would have to be head and shoulders above what I already have.  A mere marginal improvement would not be enough. 

This post takes me back to my youth. Always debating Lionel and American Flyer. If you really hate 3 rail then run American Flyer. Except for a few years in HO & N I've been using 3 rail. Tubular, Super O, Gargraves, Atlas ect. I'm so used to it that when I see real RR Tracks they don't look prototypical LOL.

@B Smith posted:

I have a 2-rail layout built with MicroEngineering code 148 track and switches from Signature Switch Company.  I know this discussion is focused on improving 3-rail track, but in my humble opinion the best way to improve 3-rail track is to drop the center rail and go to 2-rail!  

I think you have hit the spike ...er, the nail on the head here sir!  I longed for better 3R track for several years when my ScaleTrax layout had to come down due to a move and I agonized over the decision to continue in 3R or not. I have a good supply of Atlas 3R on hand but my future availability of a place to rebuild is uncertain at this point and I'm in my 80th year. 

Thanks c. sam -- I'm 78, so I don't envision building another layout at this point. I am very happy with my 2-rail system and the availability of ready-to-use track and switches is actually better than when I first got started in O-scale back in 1973, when I bought some CLW AlCo kits.  Good track, Athearn trucks, Intermountain wheel sets, KDs, and high-quality plastic cars and diesels -- Pittman remotored Atlas F-3s in my case, which perform dual duty on the California Zephyr and some freight trains-- have yielded a trouble-free model railroad.

@Dave_C posted:

This was an add in the early 90’s run in OGR. Many options for rail choices. Different rail heights. I saw this displayed at the Amherst show. The designer had a background in manufacturing and had  developed many plastic kits over the years. He was taking orders. Probably ahead of it’s time and really not sure what became of it.

I believe that was Rod Guthrie.  I think he also tooled the OGR buildings.

Lou N

@Pat Shediack posted:

Regarding "reliable operation" and avoiding derailments, my last layout (2007 - 2019) used Ross sectional track and switches and a few long Gargraves straight and uncoupling/unloading tracks.  All those items were embedded in Ross Roadbed which provides for countersinking about half the tie's height.

Regarding looking "scale", by painting the roadbed gray before installing the track and ballasting later, I achieved what I wanted--a 90% solution.  (A 100% solution would have been no center rail at all, but then that would meant abandoning 3R and my legacy locomotives and rolling stock.)

I hope this info is helpful.

Thank you Pat this is indeed helpful.  I was not aware of Ross Roadbed.  To me it definitely improves the appearance.

Does it also help to quiet the track?  Please let me know.  Thanks!

Lou, that’s correct. I have a NH Buzzards Bay tower he produced under the  Railway Design brand. Cast in heavy resin.  I think when Myron Biggar ended up with the Korber line. He started Buildings Unlimited. I’m pretty sure some of the plastic kits offered were designed by Rod Guthrie. I believe one was the Flagstop Station and there was a store that was done in stone.

One good thing of being a Digital Subscriber. You can go back through time searching out products and adds in the older issues. You sort of remember things. But it’s nice you can confirm it.

@MainLine Steam posted:

Thanks for posting.  This is a really neat concept.  Wondering what others think of this Track?

BTW Curtis has been mentioned a few times in this topic (including in this ad).  How did their track compare to Gargraves?  Was it very similar or what made it unique?  Thanks.

Back in 2005 when I started Panhandle 1, I had 15 of Frank Curtis' switches, including a double cross-over.  They were gorgeous, trouble-free, and a bit less expensive than the comparable Ross offerings at the time.  It was my impression that Curtis HiRail was a 1-man show.  Eventually, Frank retired and Curtis HiRail ceased operations in 2007 or 2008.

I believe I still have a few of them which I will eventually put up on the For Sale sub-forum.

George

I would be all over some track with a Super O type center rail. My biggest gripe with 3 rail is the huge center rail versus something thinner.

@Surefire posted:

I would be all over some track with a Super O type center rail. My biggest gripe with 3 rail is the huge center rail versus something thinner.

Thanks, I feel the same way, part of the reason I started this topic.  Although due to consensus of comments, I have decided this is NOT a venture I am going to pursue.

Lots of great info here!  Thanks to all.

@Pup posted:

This post takes me back to my youth. Always debating Lionel and American Flyer. If you really hate 3 rail then run American Flyer. Except for a few years in HO & N I've been using 3 rail. Tubular, Super O, Gargraves, Atlas ect. I'm so used to it that when I see real RR Tracks they don't look prototypical LOL.

Probably a lot of us have thought that same thing, especially when looking at 3 rail layouts like Norm's, Dave's etc.

O (1/48) is really the only size/scale where this even comes into play, so I guess my response here would be: maybe there is no "Perfect" 3R track...the closest might be the "original" outside 3rd rail used back in the day...(?)

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Probably a lot of us have thought that same thing, especially when looking at 3 rail layouts like Norm's, Dave's etc.

O (1/48) is really the only size/scale where this even comes into play, so I guess my response here would be: maybe there is no "Perfect" 3R track...the closest might be the "original" outside 3rd rail used back in the day...(?)

Mark in Oregon

Living near NY City, can definitely say, outside 3rd rail is Prototypical.  Not just on Light Rail, it is used on the "Hudson Line" (former NYC).

Looking back, the reason I replaced the old Lionel track with Gargraves was the incredible variety of Ross Switch designs. I know I am not alone in this.

To switch again, would take a lot more than a nicer straight or curved track design.  So maybe having battery-powered trains would do that, but a mere track-upgrade would not!

@MainLine Steam posted:

Living near NY City, can definitely say, outside 3rd rail is Prototypical.  Not just on Light Rail, it is used on the "Hudson Line" (former NYC).

Of course it is...I was referring to model track, as per this ongoing discussion...

Mark (originally from Connecticut) in Oregon