Three vs two rail Tracks

All Lionel trains be it post war or modern to my knowledge have the outer wheels connected electrically therefore cannot run on 2 rail track with the one exception of converting the locomotive to run on battery power. 

Atlas, MTH, 3rd Rail and few other exotic brass manufacturers make 2 rail locomotives and cars. 

Atlas and ME (Micro-Engineering) make 2 rail track and there are various methods of hand laying your own track. 

Wiring is basically the same unless you have a reverse loop in 2 rail. Than 2 rail is a little more difficult but it is the same procedure as HO. Back in the day reverse loops were difficult to wire but modern technology has taken the mystery out of it and made it pretty simple especially with in a DCC environment. 

yanksali posted:

I see some in the hobby have two rail O scale layouts.  The middle third rail certainly takes away some of the realism.

Making plans for a new layout and was curious about how difficult and expensive it would  be to do it in two rail.

As a novice to two rail , I have some basic questions

Do you need to buy special engines and freight and passenger cars to run on two railroad or  is a difficult modification to the cars required?

Does anyone sell O scale trains ready made for two rail?

 Can you run  post war and modern Lionel trains on two rail or is there some lengthy conversion process involved?

Who makes two rail O tracks? Are they more expensive than three rail track?

Is wiring the track and accessories for two rail more difficult than three rail?

 

Yanksali, I wondered about many of these things years ago when I started to collect and run in earnest.  I will give a few simple opinions which might help and others I'm sure will elaborate.

1. Yes the third rail does take away some realism, but us 3 Railers have learned to love   the 3 rail track.  I think Lionel put something in their smoke pellets to cause this odd behavior.

2.  I think most 2 Railers are going for a Scale appearance and I sincerely respect what their beautiful layouts represent.  I myself am a 3 Rail guy who likes the toylike look of the Postwar trains, but my layout is Highrail or a hybrid of the two camps.  I like more realistic scenery and run Atlas 3 rail track (with realistic ties and blackened center rail) which is quite beautiful.  I run my "toy" trains on that track/layout.  Gives me a little of both.

3.  O Scale is probably going to cost more because the detail in the scale models is so far beyond the most toy trains.

4.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I believe 2 Rail is DC Powered like my G Scale outdoor layout, whereas most Toy trains are AC Powered.  

5.  I understand some manufacturers make some products that can be converted from 3 Rail to 2 Rail, but I don't think that is cost effective.

6.  Many manufacturers make both 2 Rail and 3 Rail models ready made for one or the other, but not usually both.

7.  I suppose it is possible to convert Postwar and other Toy trains to 2 Rail but again it would not be cost effective and would ruin any collector value.

8. Many manufacturers make 2 Rail track, it is more expensive than tubular toy train track which is about the cheapest available track.

9.  The wiring will be somewhat different and there are things that can be done in 3 Rail that are easier than 2 Rail such as using insulated track sections to actuate accessories, but only if you are not running a more sophisticated control system.  Once you get into control systems the world gets a lot more interesting and possibly more complicated.  I myself run my Toy trains on old school conventional transformer power using Direct Digital Control (my Digits Directly on the Control levers of a ZW transformer).  However, I run my G Scale (2 Rail) Outdoor layout on DC Track Power with Radio Control so I can walk around untethered to a fixed panel.

In summary, it's not about the Track, it's about the look you want, Scale for super realism and Toy, for that old time feel of trains of our youth.  There are train types all in between these two extremes, you just need to decide which one excites you most and go for it, or do as I did and do more than one.

Happy Trails,

Chris S. 

Lionel has done very few things that can run on 2 rail.    I think a few special models have been done.    They are dedicated to 3 rail.     Although in the last few years, I think they have started offering replacement trucks to convert cars from 3 rail to 2 rail

MTH makes locos RTR in both 2 and 3 rail and offers replace trucks for cars.

Sunset 3rd/Rail does locos in both 2 and 3 rail.

Atlas does both locos and cars in both.

The big difference is that 3 rail equipment has uninsulated wheels generally.   One electrical pickkup is through the wheels and the other side is through a center roller or wiper.    2 Rail on the other hand picks up one electrical contact from one rail and the other from the other rail.     So the uninsulated wheelsets on 3 rail equipment cause a dead short on 2 rail track.      Also flanges on 3 rail stuff are usually much much larger as are couplers.     Pilots and trucks on 3 rail are compromised to allow sharper curves.

Conversion of steam locos is very hard because of the valve gear and other stuff.    Some diesels locos can be easily converted if the axles can be easily removed and replaced.     When converting locos, you have to rewire from the center pickup to one side of the loco.    

Rolling stock can be easy to convert in many cases.    Often you can just dissassemble the truck and replace the wheelsets with 2 rail ones.    Or you can just replace trucks which is often more costly.     A note, all of the 3 rail mfg use unique bolster heights on their trucks and bodies so trucks are not easily interchangable from brand to brand.    Generally in 2 rail mfg follow NMRA standards for truc;k and body bolster height, so you can interchange trucks.      

Being the type that likes to keep things simple and easy to understand, I prefer three rail for my "O" gauge trains.  It makes wiring a layout simple.  All sorts of track configurations are possible with no special wiring for things like reverse loops.  Trackside accessories that require and insulated rail are a no brainer.  

LGB, on the other hand, has some ingenious devices that allow their trains to run on reverse loops and accessories to be activated by their 17100, in-track magnetically operated device.  LGB came up with what they call the EPL system.  It's an ingenious system that makes running two rail trains, powered by DC a snap.  When I began with my garden railway, I was running with track power.  Having been into three rail "O" gauge for many years I had a hard time accepting the EPL system.  But once it clicked, I was a very happy garden railway operator.

I don't know if any "O" scale manufacturers of two rail trains have such a system.   

Having posted here, you already know of at least one good source of info on 3-rail O scale.  There is a 2-rail section here.

A good source of info on 2-rail O scale is in a magazine called O Scale Trains, currently published by White River.  OST makes many of their sold-out past issues available for free on their website as downloads (or at least they used to; I am not sure they have that feature working at the moment).  They also host a forum, much less involved than this one.

Simplicity is a matter of opinion.    2 rail DC is about as simple as you can get in my opinion.    You put two wires to the track.    There just 2 wires to the motor, one from each side.     There is no E unit or other mechanical device for reversing.    To reverse you simply use an DPDT switch to reverse the polarity of the feeds to the track.    With 3 rail AC you need something else inside the loco just to control the motor and that adds complexity and something else that can break.

If you go with electronice control systems, then the differences pretty much disappear.

If there were a easy and cost effective way to convert all my 3 rail equipment to two rail I would love to do it.  I wist Lionel would make some kind of conversion kit. I know MTH has something, Atlas and 3rd rail make both 2 and 3 rail models.

Three rail track with plastic or wood cross ties may be wired for two rail operation.  Most Weaver rolling stock meets the 'two rail criteria' for detail as does most Atlas O and selected MTH and Lionel cars.  Case in point, about fifteen years ago Lionel introduced milk cars with two interior tanks and buffers.  Those REA, NH and Pfaudler cars were sought after by two rail men who swapped wheel sets, replace the claw couplers and ran them at the head end of passenger cars. I think Weaver catered to the two rail market when formed.  As stated above, two rail operators tend to have more details on their rolling stock.  If your profile had your location, members of this Forum could recommend shows or shops near you where you could obtain more information, see the items, talk in person to two rail modelers and make your own decision. 

There is a different mind set.  A lot of three rail modelers consider the packaging an important part of the model and will pass on a price 5% more than they had planned to spend.  I respectfully submit that most modelers attending The March Meet look at a model and if it doesn't have the factory box it doesn't affect them.  Also, their wallet comes out when they see a reasonably priced item as it has been on their 'Gee, I'd like to have that' list for a couple of months and they may not find another one.

John in Lansing, ILL

Another consideration is track radius/diameter. 3 rail equipment is designed to run on much sharper curves even down to O-42 (42" diameter).  Most 3-railers run O-36 to O-72 curves.  If you want a realistic appearance, you will want to use at least O-72 curves.

Minimum curves for 2 rail are at least double that size.  2-rail track is measured in radius, so you need to double the value to compare with 3-rail track diameters. Common 2-rail curve radii are 40.5", 45", 49.5", 54" and up.  You need a lot more space for a 2-rail layout.  

While the center rail is an eyesore for some, if you work to achieve realism in your scenery and equipment, no one will notice the center rail. Norm Charbonneau's work demonstrates this well.

Bob

yanksali posted:

The middle third rail certainly takes away some of the realism.

 

 Can you run  post war and modern Lionel trains on two rail or is there some lengthy conversion process involved?

 

If you are running post war trains then there is no reason to look any further. I don't see much sense in converting post war trains since post war trains are not very realistic looking and 3 rail track is not realistic looking so they are pretty much made for each other.

I stick to closer to scale models and I don't really like the looks of the center rail. I switched to 2 rail and it was a simple process for me. I've converted 3 rail rolling stock to 2 rail but I haven't had any need to convert any engines because the 2 rail equivalent has always been available for the road I'm interested in.

To add to what others have said, yes there are simple, inexpensive devices to handle reverse loops automatically in 2 rail 0 scale.

There is a 2 rail forum on this website for anyone who has more questions about 2 rail products.

RRDOC posted:

Another consideration is track radius/diameter. 3 rail equipment is designed to run on much sharper curves even down to O-42 (42" diameter).  Most 3-railers run O-36 to O-72 curves.  If you want a realistic appearance, you will want to use at least O-72 curves.

Minimum curves for 2 rail are at least double that size.  2-rail track is measured in radius, so you need to double the value to compare with 3-rail track diameters. Common 2-rail curve radii are 40.5", 45", 49.5", 54" and up.  You need a lot more space for a 2-rail layout.  

While the center rail is an eyesore for some, if you work to achieve realism in your scenery and equipment, no one will notice the center rail. Norm Charbonneau's work demonstrates this well.

Bob

My sentiments exactly, virtually word-for-word.  As a long time N-scaler, these are most of my main motivations for ultimately deciding upon O-gauge (3-rail) as opposed to O-scale (2-rail).

While the center rail is an eyesore for some, if you work to achieve realism in your scenery and equipment, no one will notice the center rail. Norm Charbonneau's work demonstrates this well.

"No one will notice?" 

I agree that Norm and others -Hot and Dennis come to mind - have done spectacularly realistic layouts.  For me the absolute realism just makes the center rail and huge flanges leap out at me.

But Norm and most other 3-railers like the center rail, and are enjoying their hobby.  It is a choice - you get to decide what makes you happy, and the opinions of others - like me - should not be driving how you personally enjoy your hobby.

I am a true train nut.  I have a difficult time with the five foot gauge.  All my Lionel is converted to 2-rail, and my 763 rolls on 4'6" gauge.

bob2 posted:

I am a true train nut.  I have a difficult time with the five foot gauge.  All my Lionel is converted to 2-rail, and my 763 rolls on 4'6" gauge.

4'6"?  Narrow gauge? 

Standard gauge is 4' 8-1/2".

Rusty

The selection of locomotives that run on three rail track is huge while the selection of 2 wheel locos is narrow. If anyone is really bothered by the look of three rail rack and can't sleep at night, they can always use Gargraves Phantom track that uses real wood ties and has a blackened center rail. Of course 2 rail O gauge is more realistic looking but judging from the folks that have seen my layout there haven't been any complaints.

Also. if you want to see smoke coming out of you engines, most 2 rail engines do not offer this feature regardless of price.

I for one like smoke but a number of individuals don't care for it even in 3 rail, and if it doesn't smoke; aren't you taking away some of the realism?  In 3 rail you can turn it off if you don't like it.

I could be wrong, but Sunset 3rd Rail offer their steam engines in both 2 rail (no smoke) and 3 rail.  I don't think the  3 rail offers any less detail than their 2 rail model of the same engine.  The trucks and wheels may be spaced further apart for more of a prototypically correct appearance.

Just my opinion

Someone please correctly if I am wrong.

Either way good luck and enjoy the hobby

My modeling skills don't go much beyond Postwar and Plasticville buildings.  So I'm ok with the third rail.  My pet peeve is fast, jerky operation, which ruins the illusion in any scale.  IF I had more patience, the room for 2-rail mainline steam (and the wide radius curves it requires), then I might go all the way to Proto:48. 

Like Bob, I've spent a fair amount of time around real trains.  Although it looks more realistic than 3-rail, the comparatively lower rail height of "standard" 2-rail track makes it more obvious (at least to my eye) that the gauge is too wide.  So it's still a compromise.  Converting a diesel to Proto:48 is doable, but steam- that's a major project!  My advice is to do what makes YOU happy!

Dennis,

I've found that the VARIETY of scale models that has come out in 2 rail is greater than 3 rail for the road and era I model. I think the same is true for other roads as well. Two rail comes in low production numbers, though, while 3 rail comes in high production numbers which I think accounts for the high QUANTITY of 3 rail scale trains out there.

Daylight,

I don't think most 2 railers want the smoke but if they did I'm sure they'd just install it themselves. You can turn the smoke off in 2 rail as well. I have 5 engines that smoke on the layout for videos but I turn the smoke off otherwise. Most visitors evacuate if I turn the smoke on. I'm a little leary of smoke and the effects on the trains and layout in quantity. 

I agree that the real trains running near my house that haul scrap iron, crushed rock, automobiles, tank cars, etc look/sound far more realistic than my Lionel does.  And I never give a second thought to the number of rails there or at my house.

But on my Lionel I do get to blow the whistle and horn whenever I want.

Like anything else, it comes down to a matter of preferences and choices and that will determine what you will do.

with 3 rail O, it was designed from the beginning to run in tighter spaces, even scale equipment has compromises. There is scale equipment that will run 36" radius curves, but that is the low end, whereas a lot of people on their layouts have curves much smaller than that (yes, there is scale 2 rail that will run in tighter curves, mostly small engines like small switchers, 44 tonners and the like). Obviously if you have a larger space then the curve size will be less of an issue for you.

2 rail O also has less made for it, in the scale world it is dwarfed by HO and N. MTH makes engines that can run on either track which increases availability a bit, but when I looked into O scale 2 rail equipment it is more limited in what is available. With 3 rail the top end engines are expensive, Vision line and the like, but there are also engines at the lower end of pricing , some scale, some semi scale. 

2 rail isn't hard to wire per se, the only tricky part are things like reverse loops, but as others have pointed out they have solutions today for reversing polarity that are seamless compared to the 'old days', other than that they are comparable w 3 rail. 

Yes, you can convert three rail to 2, but it isn't easy. Leaving out insulating the wheels from each other, another big issue is flange size. 2 rail scale, not surprisingly, have NMRA compliant flanges which in turn are reflected in the height of scale rail, the typical 3 rail track, whether tinplate, gargraves/ross, atlas or MTH, are typically taller than scale, some are closer to scale, others are way tall to allow the deep flanges of three rail to work. So that post war engine or rolling stock may not work well even if you could convert it, you likely would have to do something about the flange depth (the flanges, like truck mounted versus body mounted  couples on scale O equipment, are compromises to allow running trains in tighter radius curves). Rolling stock is a lot more easy to convert, it isn't difficult to body mount scale couplers and replace trucks with NMRA compliant ones, or even potentially just the wheels), and obviously structures and the like are the same

O scale like any 12 volt DC system has the availability of DCC command control, which is a hobby wide standard, which is a big plus for it. The decoders and the command control system itself are open, so you don't have what you do on three rail where Lionel and MTH have proprietary systems. So you can buy let's say an Atlas engine with whatever DCC decoder they have and run it on your layout whether your command controller is Digitrax, MRC, etc. DCC functionality has improved a great deal, it offers a lot more of what DCS and Legacy have offered all along, but lacks some of the bells and whistles (pun intended). (And before someone complains, I realize that DCS has the ability to control TMCC via a TMCC track control unit, but it cannot control legacy only functions). 

In the end, comes down to the various compromises we make in this world. If you have a relatively large space for a layout that can handle 36"  or larger radii curves (or are willing to compromise on small I scale rolling stock and engines) and the realism of 2 rail scale appeals to you and the price tag doesn't scare you (I would say the same thing to someone who was only interested in scale 3 rail with all the fancy features like Vision line and Premiere MTH level), then 2 rail might be a great option for you. 

If you don't have the space then 3 rail scale might be better because of the compromises that allow scale or near scale equipment to run on tighter radii curves (or rather diameter,as they measure it in three rail). I also will add that 3 rail track is not just the old tinplate (which can be made to look halfway decent), Atlas O, Scaletrax, even Gargraves when done right look really, really good, the third rail kind of disappears when you look at one of the better 3 rail layouts out there. 

Also depends on what you want to model, assuming you could do either 3 rail or 2 rail, all else equal, because of the size of the 3 rail market you may be able to find equipment in the road names you want. If you are modelling something like the New York Central or UP, 2 rail could have pretty much anything you want, but with other rail names might be easier to find in 3 rail. 

In my case, while I hope to make a relatively hi rail layout, the third rail and the tight radii and the semi scale equipment doesn't bother me all that much, for me the trains are partly about memories, partly about being a kid but also about building something nice, too. I will run scale and near scale equipment, but I also plan on running my old postwar stuff and have fun with it...but then again, if I get back into it, and somehow end up with a bigger space to use, I might think of 2 rail, as well, if I get the bug

I modeled in 2 rail O scale for the better part of 15 years. In my opinion it takes a lot more effort to get a good running railroad in 2 rail than it does in 3rail. 2 rail is more fussy than 3 rail, the size of the wheel flanges and couplers generally make 3 rail easier to get running. When I returned to the hobby last year I went 3 rail. So far I am glad I did.

Good luck!!

Lionel's early catalog slogan: "Look out for the third rail!" Nuff said! 😁 We tinplaters have subsequently learned to coexist with that third rail. It really is YOUR call!

Hi Yanksali,

I almost stayed away from responding to this thread but here goes. You have already been given some great advice from the other guys. I simply want to add for you to do your research. You don't want to get to the point where you are running trains and say "I wish I would have". For me that would be frustrating and could be expensive. Ultimately, I would hope that most of us have chosen what we want for ourselves and our enjoyment. There are many factors that play a role in that, as already mentioned. 

If you are going for a more prototypical layout and you already know that the 3rd rail will continue to bother you, don't experiment to see if you will get used to it or be able to ignore it. This simply means you will have to be creative and maybe do a really nice detailed switching layout or plan to only use smaller locomotives, etc in 2 Rail with a smaller one. This is coming from someone who models in 3 Rail and loves it. We can give you all the advice in the world but you are the one that will have to see your layout on a regular basis. When you do, you want to know that you made the best decision for yourself so that you can enjoy it to the fullest with NO regrets. 

There are many 3 Rail modelers who have more than enough space to model 2 Rail but they made the choice for 3 rail and have some wonderful layouts and would not do 2 rail if they could do it over. On the other hand there are some guys who would. 

IMO, I think there is enough out there for either set up to make YOU happy with whatever YOU decide. Best wishes and I'm sure whatever you come up with will be great. Whatever way you go there will be many to support you. Keep us posted!

Dave

There you go.  You have all of the collective wisdom here, and almost everyone says "make yourself happy."

Some choose 3 rail, then go to extraordinary lengths to disguise the center rail.  That's a legitimate hobby in itself.  I don't recommend it, but again, whatever makes you happy.

To Rusty - yeah, 65 years ago I was unaware of Q gauge.  I chose 4'6" gauge because back then our wheels were .177" wide, and the slightly narrower gauge would put the sideframes where they belong - important to me.  An ancillary benefit was that Proto-48 bolsters can be used without having to narrow the tread width.  Bet that's more than you wanted to know.

Ted S posted:

My modeling skills don't go much beyond Postwar and Plasticville buildings.  So I'm ok with the third rail.  My pet peeve is fast, jerky operation, which ruins the illusion in any scale.  IF I had more patience, the room for 2-rail mainline steam (and the wide radius curves it requires), then I might go all the way to Proto:48. 

Like Bob, I've spent a fair amount of time around real trains.  Although it looks more realistic than 3-rail, the comparatively lower rail height of "standard" 2-rail track makes it more obvious (at least to my eye) that the gauge is too wide.  So it's still a compromise.  Converting a diesel to Proto:48 is doable, but steam- that's a major project!  My advice is to do what makes YOU happy!

I am a post-war operator.  Indeed, it's tricky to get silky smooth operation with these trains.  But I discovered Lionchief Plus.  So I have post-war styles locos that operate like fancy high end models.