"This product is compatible with all O Gauge 3-Rail track systems including those systems offered by Atlas and Gargraves and Lionel and Ross Custom Switches."

@Paul Kallus,   DITTO….. Good topic…

It is a shame that the 3-rail manufacturers did not adopt and adhere to NMRA standards when designing their products. The hobby would be so much more enjoyable if they had.

None of the other scales have the compatibility problems that 3-rail O has.

Agree with Rich.

since lionel is openly letting third parties develop legacy apps.I realize mth dcs is motorola based two way communications and maybe not as easy for them to have third party deveolpers.

who knows,but now if mth would let a third party have dcs then maybe we could get a one size fitz all manufacturers engines control system. complete with an up to date user freindly wireless remote system. Ho still has physical remotes and new one comming to market everday it seems.

rich is 100% right they should of at lest had standards from the get go in the early 90's. if not nmra standards the ageed apon O gauge standard.

just to clarify and add to my last post. I realize mth does controll legacy engines albeit better in the app. it is not however 100% tmcc/legacy freindly.

I still canot controll my tmcc accessories why mth? also since I do not use the app wich I tried but was buggy at lest at the time.to me atleast the mth remote is still not as user-friendly as the cab2 for legacy engines.

I understand why that is,but what puzzles me is why mth never got on the dcs controlled sound car craze to compete with lionel or even operating accessories that were already dcs equipped.

while I have lots of mth engines I highly run and love. they just did not keep inovating like lionel did with vision line. mth just now is putting whistle steam in all there engines.

since tmcc was opened to others years ago at least some of it. we had Kline and others to choose from. now its three major players in the game it seems. not a lot of competition means higher prices in the end right. I could be wrong here so correct me if I am.

bottom line standards would have open the way for more smaller O gauge companies and further expanded the O gauge hobby. menards is trying and I applaud them. they still have much to improve apon engines wise to compete with lionel or mth. there buildings and such though are a great value and I have lots of them.

Interesting subject.  To keep it on topic with the OP, this is about track system compatibility, not control system standards (or lack thereof).  I believe all our O guage trains are compatible across multiple track systems in that there is a standard for the track gauge itself, even if the scale of O gauge trains can vary widely.  Personally, I have run my trains on Ross, Menards, MTH, and GG track.  Track system compatibility has not been a problem.

Compatibility with switches across multiple track manufacturers is probably a function of the model (number and spacing of pickup rollers for engines) and the quality of the switch itself.  Other scales could also argue there is disparate quality of track products across different manufacturers, especially where switches (turnouts) are concerned.   

Different subject, but IMO lack of control system standards is the biggest challenge for O gauge hobbyists

Three-rail track systems, at least we in the hobby tend think so, are dependable and robust and don't require much skill to lay - thus the appeal. However, this is not the case. While switch design could benefit from NMRA standards, so could engines and rolling stock IMO.

The other funky "thing" about 3-rail trains is the traction tires. I've never seen them in other scales, maybe they do, and I will say while they have an advantage, yet they also have a disadvantage, and not just the obvious chore of changing them, but, as I've learned the hard way, they interfere with electrical conductivity. In simple terms, a driver with a traction tire ain't conducting electricity. Try running a Shay or certain other locomotives with traction tires over switches and crossovers - it ain't going through all of them without stalling, and the truck with traction tires is the culprit. So, can we remove them? I don't know, and am afraid to try in that the grooved driver could either flatten out or cut a groove in the track itself?

I am sorry for venting...hey maybe we could come up on a new label, "Venting Saturday?"

@Paul Kallus posted:

The other funky "thing" about 3-rail trains is the traction tires. I've never seen them in other scales, maybe they do, and I will say while they have an advantage, yet they also have a disadvantage, and not just the obvious chore of changing them, but, as I've learned the hard way, they interfere with electrical conductivity.

Tons of HO locomotives have traction tires, as well as a number of the N-scale steamers I've looked at in the store.

Well even the Mighty Lionel muddied the waters "back in the day" with T Rail track.

@Paul Kallus posted:

I am sorry for venting...hey maybe we could come up on a new label, "Venting Saturday?"

Not to venture off topic, but I like that possible thread topic

@Amfleet25124 posted:

Not to venture off topic, but I like that possible thread topic

I don't!  We have enough topics like this.  Honestly guys....really?

@OGR CEO-PUBLISHER posted:

I don't!  We have enough topics like this.  Honestly guys....really?

Just so know Alan, I meant it "as tongue in cheek", not as a serious point.

@Amfleet25124 posted:

Just so know Alan, I meant it "as tongue in cheek", not as a serious point.

Perhaps you did however someone on here would take it seriously.  I spend huge amounts of time trying to keep the forum civil and so sometimes suggestions like these result in days of extra work trying to keep down negativity.  Hope you understand where I am coming from.

I'll never understand why NMRA standards were not followed.

@feet posted:

I'll never understand why NMRA standards were not followed.

Well, most - many? some?  - not all - of the 3-railers I've been around would not find this to their liking. So I think. One of the appealing things about 3RO is that it allows a form of model railroading without all that "standards fussiness". (DCC is an example of that - TMCC took 5 minutes to add to my layout 30 years ago, worked well, and is still working.  Marketing, marketing.).

Which is funny, as more standards could actually reduce the fussiness of running our trains, even on the toy-train end of the spectrum.

I was a member of the NMRA for a while a couple of decades ago. I have no proof of it, but I did not sense any eagerness on the part of the NMRA to involve itself in that "Lionel" stuff. Dunno, really. Been a long time, and I was just a plain member.

Too bad, wherever the "blame" lies: manufacturers, customers, NMRA, space aliens. Definitely all, I'm sure.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this post.

Well, one reason is that Lionel trains existed long before the NMRA, and the NMRA has never had any three rail standards.  Other than that.... .  The most reliable and trouble free operations I've experienced has been with three rail O gauge and LGB large scale.  Probably just a matter of physics, but Lionel trains were designed for Lionel track, and ditto for LGB.  HO and N (and Z) on the other hand can be quite finicky as to track and dirt/dust, etc. Once again, probably just the physics of larger trains being more robust performance-wise.  But in general, if you operate trains like Lionel, Marklin and LGB on their track with their transformers, operations are usually pretty reliable/predictable.  You introduce other manufacturers and track systems, and things get a little less reliable sometimes.

The NMRA standards that apply to the three-rail segment of the hobby are "S-3.3 Standards, Guarded Track, for Deep Flanges" and "S4.3 Standards, Wheels with Deep Flanges" (the tables for both standards have two separate lines for O and O27 although they appear to have the same standard measurements to me).

The NMRA cannot be blamed for this mess.  They have done their work and made it available without cost to the manufacturers.  When you combine correctly engineered track and wheel standards such as the NMRA's, the result is consistent trouble-free operation.

I do feel the problem can be laid at the feet of the manufacturers who, as far as I can tell, with only one exception, have shown no interest or initiative in adopting standards.  That one exception is Ross Custom Switches, which, a number of years ago, as I recall, made a push to get the 3-rail segment of the hobby to adopt standards just as every other segment of the hobby has.

Note that this has nothing to do with control systems; differing control systems are no excuse for not adopting track and wheel standards.

Any chance the reduction of the number of roller pickups has to do with the modern control systems that have full voltage on the tracks, compared to the old days where the variable track voltage needed  a really reliable low resistance path to get to the motor?

Bunch of winers

Don't  you like a challenge 🤣.

Let's say completely scaled track, engines and cars could be made. When you include the pickups, motors, speakers, LEDs and the electronics there are compromises that are inevitable to fit these nonscaled items into the scaled pieces.

Over the years, We have made the manufacturers do much better when it comes to scale even with paint colors.

I think they all do a pretty good job getting the nonscaled into the scaled.

@CALNNC posted:

Any chance the reduction of the number of roller pickups has to do with the modern control systems that have full voltage on the tracks, compared to the old days where the variable track voltage needed  a really reliable low resistance path to get to the motor?

I haven't seen a reduction of the number of roller pickups.  Almost all the old prewar and postwar stuff had two rollers.  Modern diesels typically have four rollers, and modern steam has at least three rollers, even smaller locomotives.  You really couldn't reduce the number of rollers found on most older stuff, less than two they won't make it around any layout except one with no switches!

A couple of thoughts about this thread...  I grew up in the '70s watching cartoons on TV after school.  At the end of every Hot Wheels commercial, they would say "some cars not for use with some sets."  There are simply too many combinations to test.  Ergo, Caveat Emptor, especially when it comes to "specialty" switches like curved switches, double-slip switches, 3-way, 4-way, etc.  When in doubt about a certain loco, search the Forum.

To clarify, most HO locomotives don't have traction tires.  Only the cheaper ones do, because they lack sufficient weight.  Tires were optional on MTH's HO steam, but the locos were designed in a way that it's easy to remove the rubber-tired axle and install a non-rubber-tired axle that's provided in the box.  I would love to see this option in 3-rail O!  Rubber tires are always a maintenance issue, but some recent Lionel offerings came with rubber tires that were too thick, causing derailments on some types of switches.  They also deprive the loco of electrical contact on the ground side of the circuit, which can contribute to stalling.

Regarding rollers:  Many MTH steam locos made in the 1990s and early 2000s had only two rollers TOTAL on either the loco or the tender.  That's simply not enough for many complex track arrangements.  With Lionels made until about Y2K, anyone could solve this problem by installing pickup roller(s) on the tender and/or bridging to the loco with a tether.  Because many MTH tender trucks were never offered with rollers by the factory, adding rollers at home requires a fair bit of custom engineering, trial-and-error etc.  MTH should have offered a kit for this purpose.  I know John has provided this service, but without his skill and experience for most folks it's not trivial.

Other considerations:  I've seen video demonstrations where some combination of flywheels and capacitors allow a loco to traverse gaps, dirty track, etc.  Lacking flywheels, the Beeps are perhaps the most egregious offenders in this regard.  And MTH's PS3 circuitry doesn't provide for coasting when power is lost.

I do wish that an organization like the LCCA would devise NMRA-like standards for 3-rail O.  However, if the manufacturers took all of the above considerations into account in their design, a loco should be able to negotiate just about any track arrangement (subject to minimum radius) without stalling or slowing down.  My $.02.

@Rich Melvin posted:

It is a shame that the 3-rail manufacturers did not adopt and adhere to NMRA standards when designing their products. The hobby would be so much more enjoyable if they had.

None of the other scales have the compatibility problems that 3-rail O has.

That depends on what you are talking about. In G scale I find couplers among each mfg to be incompatible.

@Landsteiner posted:

Well, one reason is that Lionel trains existed long before the NMRA, and the NMRA has never had any three rail standards.  Other than that.... .  The most reliable and trouble free operations I've experienced has been with three rail O gauge and LGB large scale.  Probably just a matter of physics, but Lionel trains were designed for Lionel track, and ditto for LGB.  HO and N (and Z) on the other hand can be quite finicky as to track and dirt/dust, etc. Once again, probably just the physics of larger trains being more robust performance-wise.  But in general, if you operate trains like Lionel, Marklin and LGB on their track with their transformers, operations are usually pretty reliable/predictable.  You introduce other manufacturers and track systems, and things get a little less reliable sometimes.

Dust, dirt causes just as many problems in O gauge. And the H O guys have a control system that's compatible with all brands of H O trains.

None of this musical control system nonsense.

@prrhorseshoecurve posted:

That depends on what you are talking about. In G scale I find couplers among each mfg to be incompatible.

This thread is about track systems and, as far as I can tell, Rich's point is correct for track and wheel standards.

Couplers are a whole different ball game with a very long and complicated history.