Why 2 Rail???

In your case, since you don't have such a huge investment, I'd say go for it. You have the space for the requisite curves and the products are readily available, so it should be a pretty easy go. Just keep in mind that your track work needs to be a little cleaner since the smaller flanges will be less tolerant of bad track work. The old electrical advantages of 3-rail (reverse loops/wyes) have pretty much been eliminated through modern electronics.

I've said many times, if I were starting over I would be going 2-rail. I have a TON (literally) of 3-rail equipment. With three exceptions, all of my new purchases over the last four years have been 2-rail, including my MTH diesel locomotives (which go both ways). In the most technical sense, I'm 3RS since I run this equipment at the club. I have also been converting some existing rolling stock over to scale wheels. Because of my existing 3-rail investment (unless I decide to dump it all) a hybrid layout will be more likely or I might set up an outdoor 3-rail layout and go 2-rail indoors.

Definitely go for it!  I would do the same myself if (1) I was starting over and (2) I had sufficient space to do the kind of layout I would like to do.

Time is short. Go NOw before it's too late!

All you need to do is go over to the trackside photos on the 3-rail scale forum and look at those spectacularly realistic layouts and locomotives.  Ask yourself what single thing would make them world- class?

Hand-laying track is not difficult.  You might try a short length before you wait for $20 hunks of Atlas track.

Hi,

In my opinion 2 rail make anything look better.

another thing is making your own switches give to you a lot of more chances than the 3 rails configurations standards.

AG.

I switched over from 3 rail also.

Two rail track looks better and building the 2 rail layout has simply been a new level of satisfaction for me. 

I have 2 reverse loops on the layout. When a train goes through the reverse loop I simply flip a DPDT switch while the train is running through to reverse the polarity. Since DCC uses commands for direction, the train doesn't stop or hesitate at all. You can also get a device for $40 to automatically handle the reverse loop.

For realism.  While I respect the 3 railers, I just can't deal with that extra rail.

I keep some 3 rail track for my post-war lionel stuff, but I haven't run that since the mid 90s.

I'm in the same boat as you Marc. I didn't have a lot of 3rail stuff and my layout was barely started. Also I have a lot of MTH engines that can be switched to two rail easily. I did sell off some of them though to get the newer scale wheel version. I really like all the detail parts and making things look right.

Good move you won't regret it.

Ralph

I was in the same boat, started as a 3 railer and just could not get past the middle rail.  As stated the wiring is not any harder than 3 rail and a lot of 2 rail equipment will operate just fine on smaller radius.  In the end the instant realism from 2 rail is huge and I enjoy it.

 I liked the look of 2 rail track better. It was more than that. I went to a local club where they had a new three rail O gauge layout being built. I looked at it while a large modern diesel was going round on overly tight radius curves that didn't make sense on this larger layout. There was a really large gap in the front steps. There was a large coupler sticking out. The flanges on the wheels were big. The third rail added to a crowded look from the larger profile track. It was a modern layout yet it still did not draw me in like it should have. I never liked the tubular track that so many had when they were young. So this was a step backwards to me with the molded on roadbed and an attempt to change the look. It was everything that pushed me away.

 I think there's many layouts built with smaller profile track in three rail that looks OK. I notice the owners are leaning towards more realism with certain things changed. Some have gone to KD couplers. Some weather everything that looks so real you don't even notice an extra rail. Your drawn into all the detailing that's been done.

 Now with two rail I find I'm automatically drawn in. I ran two rail HO in my youth so my mind thinks that is what is normal. It's hard to put into words except what Chris told me a while back. Something like "If you don't like the third rail now, you never will."

Consider a 19th Century layout!  You can use curves only 26" (0-54).

If I was in your shoes, I would definitely go two rail.  Unload the three rail, don't look back.

Regards.

Jerry

This is NOT a thread I should be reading.   I have all the GarGraves flex and Ross switches purchased to finish a 24x28 layout, a half dozen 3R MTH/Lionel locos, etc.  However, I've bought a few 2R cars, have been converting all couplers over to Kadees and thinking, hmmmm....wonder what it would be like to get rid of that middle rail.

Please tell me, how deep were you guys into 3R in terms of "stuff" (locos and track work) before you abandoned the third rail?  I'm having second thoughts about continuing in 3R and maybe making the jump to 2R, but hesitate to rip up the trackwork, rewire, etc.  And I know that I'd want to hand lay the rail!

....gregg

Like a lot of others,  I started in three rail. And I was ptretty deep into it, and quite content:

https://ogrforum.com/topic/who-s-layout

Then I started running with the wrong crowd (some of them even post here). After looking at the potential for very realistic modeling, I decided my layout had one rail too many.  So I tore my 3 rail layout down and started over. I have never regretted it.

I got back into the hobby late 2011; ramped up in spring 2012 and three months later toured some local 2r and 3r layouts.    Immediately switched with zero regrets and have a few MPC era dregs left.     I got out even on rolling stock and slightly ahead on turnouts and track---blind luck.

In my opinion, the art, freedom and realism in 2R is far superior.     Watch out for the finer brass models--your wallet will lighten.     

Posted by Gregg Laiben

So, really, I'd only be out some time for ripping up the rail and replacing it with 2 rail.  And then figure out which engines could be converted to 2R.

 

you got it!

I had a small 3 rail layout and one day I just decided that it was "done" and that I had reached as far as I would ever go in that direction.  Literally tore it out of the room and took it up to the garage, put a for sale advert out, and got rid of it to the 1st guy that showed up with cash in hand.  Never looked back...  Tore the room apart, new walls, and construction and started over.  All hand laid track and switched (Andre is correct - building switched in place gives you total control and freedom in design!!). 

Still have 90+% of the 3R stuff in storage.  Guess I could sell it off, but I've never bothered to look back at it.  Now that I've typed this, I might just look into that if only to recover the storage space,  

Frankly, I never even considered 3Rail...just reminded me of my childhood Lionel set running around the Christmas Tree. I wanted to get rid of that as a kid and get going with more realistic HO trains. Now 50 plus years later the only course of action for me was to bump up to 2 rail O scale for reason of eyesight and handling...BUT NEVER 3 rail.

Bob

Well I also had a almost complete 3 rail layout, and a good amount of 3 rail equipment.  I ripped it all out and was glad to do it, most of my rolling stock I have converted over.  And as for my track...yep all hand laid.

...to add a little more to the discussion, I consider 2R as a less is more pursuit. I do not see any reason to buy everything that comes to market and line my train room with dozens of shelves to display them. That's what collectors do. I'm not a collector, I'm a model railroader.

  I model a prototype and more specifically an era...if that particular prototype and era didn't have a certain equipment in common use, then neither will my model railroad. That forces specific acquisition verses budget killing armload buying frenzies.

NOTICE, I call it a model railroad...and not a whole pile of model trains. Ask yourself what you are really after, than go after it.

Bob

Agree, John. Except that I probably have double the 2R over 3R solely because I am constantly building more rolling stock than I can ever use since I enjoy that activity.  Not unlike Chris, I have WAY TOO MUCH STUFF and have been selling it off for the past 2 years w/o making a measureable dent. 

Have to agree with all of your solutions to Robert E's myth dissemination exercise as well.  Being only DC operations, I sell off all of the electronics.  Cost to me on electronics is that I make a profit!  Have bought maybe 3 engines made in the past 20 years and only 2 new, and have rarely paid more than $400 for any of the brass steam or traction engines that I have on the roster; last brass engine that I bought was just over $300.  Only have one brass freight car over $200 that was a very recent acquisition...

There's way more available at good prices to those that have a bit of patience while also exercising restraint as a requirement!

One more comment, which is sort of obvious:  Buy used 3 rail equipment, then covert.  

John,

can you send to me Joe Foehrkolb information to contact him?

thank you

Andre.

mwb:

Have to agree with all of your solutions to Robert E's myth dissemination exercise as well.  Being only DC operations, I sell off all of the electronics.  Cost to me on electronics is that I make a profit!  Have bought maybe 3 engines made in the past 20 years and only 2 new, and have rarely paid more than $400 for any of the brass steam or traction engines that I have on the roster;

I don't want you guys to think i'm against 2 rail, as I'm not. Actually back in the 50's I grew up on American Flyer, all my friends had Lionel. Maybe my parents felt the 2 rail looked more real, maybe it was price, I don't remember. 

My point to Marc C. who started this thread is to look beyond just the track. Sure 2 rail does look better than 3 rail, anyone arguing against that would be a fool. But track is not the only aspect of being a 2 railer, that's my point.

mwb. If you are happy with only 3 engines in the last 20 years, good for you. But Marc, are you going to be happy missing out what all is available in the hobby today and settle for less. Settling for less, is also the point I'm trying to get across for going 2 rail. And let me say I do agree with the point that most 3 railers have way to much on the shelves. And buying too much stuff, the latest, the greatest, is often a temptation in this hobby. But isn't that true of most hobbies, no matter what they are?

Back to the conversion of engines to run on that good looking prototypical track: 

So, if Marc decides he wants to run a Challenger on his 2 rail layout, what size curves is that going to require, let's face it, a lot of real estate. And if he wants to buy a Challenger engine, how much will a brass one cost? Sure it may only cost $300-400.00 to convert a Hudson over to 2 rail, but what about the larger articulated engines? So, again, unless you have a deep pockets, you settle for less, less being smaller, fewer axle engines. Or if you'd like to have one of the new Lionel Legacy MR S3 scale engines, what would that cost to convert? But again, whose operating system will you settle for. In 3 rail you can run them side by side. Will you run 2 rail DC? DCC? 2 rail in AC? You'll need to settle on one.

When I was actively looking into 2 rail, I visited some friends layouts. By far the majority of them had beautiful looking 2 rail track, but on bare plywood, no scenery, no buildings, and nothing, nothing as scale looking as their expensive brass engines on the layout. And those brass engines ran on straight DC, no sound, no smoke, no swinging bell, no whistle smoke, etc. And guys, admit it, that stuff only adds to the realism!

All I'm saying is Marc, look beyond just the track. See what's available in 2 rail for the operating system you will settle on. If like other 2 railers, you're willing to settle for less, then bless you in your efforts to build a great looking 2 rail layout. Enjoy the hobby 

If you want the benefits of O scale and the benefits of HO space requirements you should consider On30, George. Marc, the OP, seems to have enough space to go full O scale with his layout, but even so, he may want to at least consider this fun scale/gauge.

Robert,

I'll bet if he bought an MTH Challenger, Sunset or a Lionel Challenger it would get around tight curves. I have MTH Class A 2-6-6-4 engines and Sunset Y3 2-8-8-2 engines that will get around on 36" radius on my layout. It doesn't look good but it works. You are right that you have to figure out what you'll want to run. If you were going to run a 4-12-2 then you'd have to take that into consideration. It depends on the importer and the tolerances they allow. My mainline track radius is 56" and 60" and I run everything from MTH to Kohs on there. It is laughable if you think I've settled for less.

So what is a brand new Legacy board worth??!!!

 I'd 2 rail anything. Good thing MTH has released so many models RTR.

I'm mostly a modern diesel scale modeler, but cannot go without several steamers on the layout. I have plenty of planning time so that is what I will do. plan!

Marc

Steam, especially models of contemporary excursion engines may be the driver for your decision and layout planning.  Take a look at the Sunset and MTH 3 rail vs. 2 rail curve requirements.  Most 3 rail MTH require O-54.  Most MTH 2 rail northerns require 54 inch radius (O-108).  Sunset says 56 in radius (O-112) for many of their big steam locomotives like the Sp GS-4 or ATSF 2900.  Diesels will usually handle tighter turns but Sunset says 56 inch radius for their 2 rail E7s.  Perhaps some E7 owners here can report on their experience with the new Sunset Diesels.

Another consideration is the usual lack of traction tires on 2 rail models.  That may be fine if you model the flat lands.  Or it may not be OK, especially if you model mountain grades.

 I find that my modern six axle diesels when coupled in sets of two or three are hard to stop. I actually can try to grab them and struggle to hold on. One engine won't pull much up hill. Two engines will pull about fifty cars up a grade and near a hundred on level track. I think it's how easy your rolling stock rolls. I find that they act like real engines. I'm not sure how many cars a real engine handles. I do know that the small switchers and trackmobiles had limits on what they were allowed to pull. I think that was mainly for safety reasons and braking. I prefer to have a consist of at least three engines when I pull a hundred cars anyways.

 I have a couple of steamers in two rail. They slip more than the diesels. My Pacific won't handle too many cars on it's own. It mirror's the real thing in that if you have a long train and try to start too fast, she just spins the wheels. My Allegheny pulls much better.

 I think guys who run two rail are more interested in modeling after the real thing.

 Edit: My RR has a 1% grade in one area. It's the only grade on my RR right now. I will be testing more when I add a highline on a second level.

This is starting to get interesting!

I am now following 3r scale as they are scale but with one extra rail. Squint and the 3 rail sort of goes away. But like the saying goes

Yeah, me too, but I find the track, wheels, and couplers absolutely hideous - they destroy what is otherwise truly superb modeling.  understand, that is an opinion - I refuse to be beat up for an opinion.

Robert is entitled to his opinion, but he may have it wrong as to the availability of locomotives and cars in 2-rail.  My opinion is that there may be more variety in 2-rail, since so many short runs of brass have been made.  My suggestion to him is to get that three volume set of KTM Pocket guides, look at all the pictures, realize that these were available a half century ago and are currently selling at ten times their original price, and that the universe of 2-rail has tripled in size since then, not counting conversions!

Finally, and I keep saying this - there is nothing inherent in a center rail that permits sharper turns.  If your locomotive has been altered to go around corners, it will do so regardless of flange size or the presence or absence of a center rail.  The reason a full scale Challenger takes a wider radius is because it is a more accurate model, with tailbeam and proper size cylinders.

All that said, if you like the looks of that center rail, then 2- rail is not for you.  There is now no other reason for selecting 3- rail track.

Reality, what a concept....

Great point regarding the On30. Again the 2 rail O is a great scale.  I dont know if it would work for me.

 I think I didn't consider S scale because there wasn't much out there at the time. All of a sudden to me, there's a ton of stuff coming out in S scale. Maybe now I'd consider it.

 At the time I chose to change scales from HO, and O gauge was super hot. There was so much stuff coming out that people could chose what they wanted. In G scale for example at that time, it was dead! Anyways, the hottest O scale releases that were coming out were actually pointed at 2 rail or the 3RS guys. Lionel chose not to participate maybe from previous failed attempts? Seems like every other manufacturer out there did.

 I have so many two rail engines now I can't count them anymore. That's not to bragg. That's to show how many releases there were. I didn't order many, I actually ran into deals I "couldn't refuse"!! I can count the few three rail engines I bought under the same "can't refuse" deals on one hand now. I planned a highline in three rail years ago for those engines and I really don't have the need to build it.

 I can't see why anyone entering O scale right now wouldn't at least consider 2 rail. It's not the obscure portion of the hobby anymore. Shoot, I didn't even know there were 2 rail engines in O scale back then come to think of it. Probably why I got into G gauge in the first place. I could have saved a ton of time and money!