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