Why 2 Rail???

MTH recommends 42" radius for 6-axle diesels and 4-6-4 Hudsons; 36" radius on the 4-axle units, but I think that's to hedge against the use of couplers with limited swing. I use Kadees because they're readily available and couple with my Atlas rolling stock. Here's my MTH hit-list of what has gone around 36" radius with cars coupled:

SD70ACe (all three locos)

GP38 (all three locos)

GP35 (all three locos)

ES44AC (both locos)

C40-8/C40-8W (all four locos)

C44-9W (both locos)

U25B (both locos)

ATSF 4-6-4 Hudson (only one so far, but considering converting the 3-rail unit)

F7 A-B-B-A (B-units coupled back-to-back with 3-rail couplers/trucks from extra B-Unit--still relatively close-coupled)

* Locos equipped with Kadee 805's, 740's, 806's

 

Issues experienced so far on "Flat-Top" 3-rail track at the club (Gargraves/Ross/Atlas):

Derailment on uneven track when MU'd (sometimes they'll push/pull at just the wrong time)

Derailment on out-of-gauge track (gauge too wide)

Occasional shippage on grade (train too long -- needed helper)

"Bobble" on turnout frogs because of the gap.

 

 

Matt,

You have always been one of the most knowledgable and helpful OGR Forumites, both on the 3 and 2 rail side. Thank you for your comparasions of MTH Locomotives.

I've been jumping back and forth between 2-rail O(P:48), S, and HO. As well as On30/On3. I can't decide which one. They all have their pluses and minuses, but it's hard to decide. HO has the largest selection, but is small, S is the perfect size but SHS went out of business and the 2-8-0 I was eying is gone, P:48 is the ultimate modeling experience it seems like, but is difficult and can be super expensive, and On30/On3 is a toss up. So for me the scales are a huge toss up of this and that to the point where I can't decide which one! Plus I have a good investment in 3-rail, and a 8'x12' layout isn't much to work with in 2-rail O. It could happen but not right now. I applaud those who have gone in the 2-rail direction, but for me it just isn't happening till I decide. I hope the original poster makes a good decision he's happy with.

One of the things I find relaxing is designing module concepts. Even with a 12x12 corner space, you can have a switching layout that supports scale equipment. This one is modeled after Santa Ana Street in Anahiem, CA. The former SP line still runs down the middle of the street and turns South down the middle of Olive St. This particular iteration is designed around MTH ScaleTrax, but could just as easily be done using Atlas or ME 2-rail track with #4 turnouts. Removing the 4-foot section at the bottom cuts it down to 8 feet; narrowing the bench work would give an additional 8 inches available to extend the tail at the bottom. Radius is 36" so a Geep (or better, a 44-tonner) and 40-foot cars would be called for.

 

 

I couldn't agree more, not to mention always willing to share...your very appreciated Matt. 

From the MTH website:

Columbia, Maryland, May 22, 2012 --- M.T.H. Electric Trains has purchased the tooling and production related assets of The Showcase Line® and the S-Trax System® previously produced by S Helper Service, Inc. of Cliffwood, New Jersey.  The sale includes designs, tooling, marketing and trademark assets related to all of S Helper's S Scale, 1/64 model railroading products...

 

Link to the complete article:

http://www.mthtrains.com/news/074

 

SHS locos appear on eBay. 

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.

 

Joe

 

What is that grade?  And is the grade 50 cars long or is only part of the train on the grade?

 

On a prototypical 2.2% mountain grade with the entire train on a grade I think you are going to have a hard time finding any six axle diesels that will handle a 50 car train with cars weighing anything close to the prototype or even to NMRA recommended practice.

 

On model railroads it is pretty common to push grades a little beyond 2.2% with 3% being the end of what most would agree is a reasonable maximum.  That doesn't mean that grades over 2.2% are desirable but there are reasons that cause people to do it.  Those reasons may include gaining height in a limited distance for a flyover or in a helix.  There is a big performance penalty to going to 2.2% grades or over, especially without traction tires.  Marc may need to give that some more thought depending on how he would like to design his layout.

 

I'm not sure how many cars a real engine handles.

 

For a contemporary 110 car unit train with Dash 9s, ES-44s or SD70s expect to see 3 units on an empty and 7 units to get a loaded train over a 2.2% grade.  Without traction tires I expect that you would need more than three units on an empty and more than 7 units for a train at loaded weight to get an O scale train over a 2.2% grade.

 

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.

 

Steam is another consideration for Marc.  Again it will depend on the design of his layout and how he wants his steam power to fit into his operations.  It is harder to generalize about steam than one manufacturers 4 axle or 6 axle diesels.  Some brass steam passenger locomotives have a hard time pulling a prototypical consist even with traction tires on level track.  Some steam locomotives are great pullers. 

 

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

 

Stereotypes come from somewhere.  But I think the changes in the hobby have made some of those stereotypes much less true than they used to be or just downright blown them up.

 

Today's three rail isn't just about 1950s 6464 box cars and 2 rail isn't just about brush painted cars built from 1950s kits either.  Both segments of the hobby have come a long way thanks to the mountains of money that have been spent on O scale trains and the investment in new tooling that was made to serve and expand that market.

 

The investment by the manufactures has given us great benefits.  It is much less expensive to model realistically in 2 rail or 3 rail O than it was 20 years ago.  And it can be done in much less time, or at least with much more ability to chose where you would like to spend your time.  Scale model railroading with 3 rails still has space advantages over 2 rail.  Three rail has cost and time advantages too if prototypical signaling is important.  Two rail has, well, two rails.  Benchwork, scenery, structures, room lighting, control and rolling stock will be similar if not identical challenges.

 

Even though the design thus far is an island type layout,

 

Marc

 

STOP!

 

Don't do it!!!

 

Island type layouts are popular thanks to the existence of 4x8 sheets of plywood and ping pong tables.  That doesn't make them desirable as model railroads nor does that make them efficient users of the space in your home.  Upsizing island layouts makes them more problematic in any scale.  Scaling up an Island layout to the width needed for continuous running on 2 rail O will leave you with either unworkable reach in problems, undesirable duckunders or massive wasted square footage. 

 

Along with your considerations of the relative merits of 2 rail and 3 rail O take a look at other layout concepts for you layout space.  By going with something like a folded dog bone, an around the walls or an around the walls with a center peninsula concept you can have broader curves, more space for the railroad, more space for people or all three. 

 

 

 

 

I have. I've been involved with modeling pretty much since birth and I've always put in some time researching a hobby or interest ( my wife included   before I jumped in. I am destined for 2 rail O gauge. It's the absolute perfect size and detail I am looking for. I have lots of 3 rail experience and 2 rail will just complete my circle (no pun intended) in this hobby.  See, I'm the type of modeler who simply gets lost in model railroading. It's my escape, my other world, my "take your mind off" time. I'm not after collecting and I'm certainly not in any competition with my RR. I've spent a long time competing and now I've no interest in who has the bigger layout, the most engines or rarest piece. For me, 2 rail brings me in to a deeper state of tranquility, so to speak, with this hobby. I put on some of my favorite music or maybe put the TV on for some background noise and then hours pass and I feel good. Sometimes my wife and kids feel the need to check on me to make sure I'm still alive. I am excited about 2 rail and what I am seeing. Like I said before, I have a strong feeling that 2 rail is slowly creeping into the main stream and will certainly be gaining modeler after modeler and pretty soon will probably be side by side with 3 rail modeling. With that said, I still love my 3 rail layout, track is laid and wired and located at my folks home, so I will have the best of both worlds. Really looking forward to (hopefully) another 45 years in modeling railroading. Wow that would make me 89!!!

In my humble opinion all this thread can be resumed in one word.

"Perception" an individual sensory interpretation of the environment.

Andre.

 

Marc:

Best of luck with your decision!  I hope you have many years of relaxing and fun-filled modeling with O 2 rail!

 

littleevan99 said:

 

quote:

...but for me it just isn't happening till I decide.

 

Fortunately, I think you'll find O 2 rail models to be polite as S scale was.  That is, it didn't force itself upon me by breaking down the door and wiping off my existing models and replacing it with themselves with a defiant "You're going to S scale... GOT IT???" No, I had to decide to make the change... didn't happen on its own.

 

AG:

 

I agree.

 

Seriously: I suspect that essentially all of our modeling "givens n' druthers" are perception motivated.

 Ted, seeing how people were laying out their beliefs of O scale 2 rail, I laid out some too. I only have one area of the layout where there's a grade. The layout rises about an inch where it leaves my engine yard. I notice the engines stretch out a bit when pulling fifty cars but barely notice a problem. I would guess it's 1%. I always wanted to add a second level to my layout and try a real steep grade. You may think 1% isn't worth mentioning but it is a grade and I can stall a train there. My Pacific will stall for example when overloaded with a long train.

 Matt, you are one of the best guys to talk stuff over with, along with many here like Ted, Dave, Chris, John, Andre,......etc. etc. It's tough to start thanking guys because you'd leave some out. It's what makes this forum rise above all others that I've seen.

 This forum is blessed with a lot of talent and reasonable people to learn from.

Marc C. "I still love my 3 rail layout, track is laid and wired and located at my folks home, so I will have the best of both worlds."

 

Marc, I wish you well in your 2 rail endeavors. Hopefully it will be what you are looking for, seriously. And enjoy that 3 rail layout with all the action on it!

As for the 2 rail die-harders, who "perceive" their layouts, isn't that the same thing we did as children when we "imagined" our layouts and the action? Here are some photos of my Lionel TMCC controlled crane and the matching sound car. All scale, extremely detailed, but a whole lot more. There is not much "perception" going on here as it works with prototypical actions and realistic sounds. All controlled remotely from my hand held, no hands on needed. What a joy to operate and observe the realistic action and sounds of the crane working hard to left a car back on the track, or another such real railroad type action scene.

Now which one of you has one of these on his 2 rail layout? What's that? You have one, but it just sits there, static, no movement, no sound, but looks 'perceivably' prototypical because it's on 2 rail track. Well, you can always imagine it moving.

OH, did you just settle for less?

 

 

 

 

As for the 2 rail die-harders, who "perceive" their layouts, isn't that the same thing we did as children when we "imagined" our layouts and the action? Here are some photos of my Lionel TMCC controlled crane and the matching sound car. All scale, extremely detailed, but a whole lot more. There is not much "perception" going on here as it works with prototypical actions and realistic sounds. All controlled remotely from my hand held, no hands on needed. What a joy to operate and observe the realistic action and sounds of the crane working hard to left a car back on the track, or another such real railroad type action scene.

Now which one of you has one of these on his 2 rail layout? What's that? You have one, but it just sits there, static, no movement, no sound, but looks 'perceivably' prototypical because it's on 2 rail track. Well, you can always imagine it moving.

OH, did you just settle for less?

 

 Robert E.

 

 

 Robert......nah, not falling for your antagonistic replies...... hope you enjoy your RR too. Nice talking with you. Good health. What's that? you can't shut.......?

 I have to quote him because he's up to something? Probably looking for ammo to use out of context in a three rail campaign? Why the **** else would he continue with this? Maybe something more? Probably not that smart.

Come'on Robert: Your pick didn't make the cut.  Neither did mine.  So what?  No need to be tacky.

 

Now let him enjoy his trains.

 

Andre(2)

I'm glad Ted brought up an around the walls concept, because that was my first reaction when Marc mentioned an island design. As mentioned, around the walls designs have many advantages: Ability to use broader curves when able, use of the center of the room for other uses, or just plain relaxing, ability to reach nearly all places on the layout (an important consideration) and others. In some cases (like my 13' x 13' space) around the walls was the only logical choice.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually argue that 3-rail is more "prototypical" or "realistic". I understand the cost, variety, ease of wiring, collecting, nostalgia, and other aspects of 3 rail, but c'mon now. Even ~35 years ago when I was a kid, the joke between my modeler buddies was that "Lionel has a training rail". If that is your choice for a MRR I am perfectly ok with your decision, but going around touting 3 rail as being more "prototypical" than 2 rail is completely absurd. It is like saying that a string controlled model airplane is more realistic than an R/C one. Cmon now, seriously?

Robert E, when you get your miniature figures to walk around on TMCC, then I'll be impressed.  Otherwise, all that can be made to work on two rail DCC if desired.

 

 

If you enjoy your models your way, that's fine.  If you continue to slam others because they have different priorities than you, please go away.

 

 

There was a mention of "perceptions" which is very important with respect to a layout design. This is why around-the-walls is preferable to island.  Even with a 12x12 around the walls (I actually designed a 10x10 for a guy on another list) operating from inside the layout has some clear advantages:

1. You can't see the entire layout from any operating position. You are forced to turn to follow see the train. This is THE biggest advantage in that it increases the perception of a longer run because more body movement is required to follow the train.
2. Trains move "through" or "in front of" scenery as opposed to running around it. Again this is based on a visual perception.
3. On a layout designed to fit in a 12x12 room, you can do a 10x8 island. This means the maximum curve you can practically use is 42" radius (O-84). I know you can squeeze in a 45" radius if you wanted to, but do you really want to run your trains 3" from the edge everywhere? On around-the-walls, you can squeeze in a 66" radius (if you want a circle, of course) but more practically, you can use 44"-48" radius (O-88 to O-96) effectively.
4. On longer cars, because you're looking at the inside of the curve, the car ends move closer together on tight curves. The underhang of the car covers the rails, further hiding the sharpness. On an island, since you're looking at the outside of the curve, the ends move farther apart, belying the sharpness of the curve, plus you can see the rails. Even on the AGHR club layout, the larger curves are viewed from the outside (60" radius); the remainder of the curves (48" radius) are viewed from the inside (the trestles are the exception at 48" and 53" radius because of space constraints.)
5. Around-the-walls leaves interior space, not just for operating, but for lounging, working, watching TV or generally hiding from the kids. It also tends to lend itself to a higher shelf since you don't have to reach across as much.

The two images below are, believe it or not, the same layout. The first is the initial island plan I did some years ago (I still have half of the benchwork sitting in the garage). I abandoned it because I realized that the purpose of the layout was switching, so I didn't need all the extra space.

 

 

I took great pains to design this one so that you couldn't see through to the other side of the layout from any part -- angled streets, angled buildings, and structures blocking straight through views. It was designed so that one short side would go against a 12-foot wall in a spare bedroom.

 

This one at 12 feet long would fit against one wall in a room. If I wanted to extend the length, I could cut it in half, add a corner and slightly extend the ends to fit a 12x12.

 

 

This last one was an experiment to see how a two-lap continuous run could be pulled of in 11x12 feet. If operated from the interior of the inner loop, the around-the-walls perception would be maintained. Minimum radius is 36" so you can still run scale equipment within those limits. If done in 3-rail, you could run anything produced to date.

 

 

Bottom line is that round-the-walls gets you more from the same space, even if it's a small space.

I got a kick out of Robert's latest post.  You cannot have a TMCC crane on 2- rail track.  There is apparently some law of physics that will not permit TMCC unless there are three rails.

 

So for the modelers using three phase power, you are simply stuck with that center rail. And do not forget, this does not work with outside third either.

 

Opin - er, sarcasm?  Is he trying to convert us to 3- rail, or just justify his choice?  I choose the latter, and I believe he is having a difficult time convincing himself.

 

That is opinion.

Robert you are clearly unaware or out of touch with what is capable on the 2 rail side today.  But speaking of command control, you are aware that TMCC and DCS work just fine on 2 rail layouts...right? 

 maybe he's never heard of American Flyer??

Well Matt he could build a hatch on an Island type layout like on mine. It works well for me as when I get track on it I can stand in the middle and run trains.

Bob, 

I think he's just being ridiculous now, but I think there really are people who believe that one could not get the crane to work in two rail.

 

Marc seems like a "can do" type of person, though. I'm betting he has what it takes to do well in 2 rail.

Better yet, I put down more than 18" of track and actually move my rolling stock about the layout.

 Is he trying to convert us to 3- rail, or just justify his choice?  I choose the latter, and I believe he is having a difficult time convincing himself.

I agree! 

 Where's Ed R when I need him?

Marc

 

I'm glad to hear that you are finding some of the comments from myself and others to be helpful.  Without being named so far there is one person that has been indirectly mentioned here (with a reference to "givens and druthers") that deserves your attention.  He is the late John Armstrong.  Before you get too far along planning a new layout I highly recommend buying a copy of his Track Planning for Realistic Operation.  It is a great little book and contains essential knowledge for track planning in any scale.

 

There is a preview available on line here.

 

http://books.google.com/books?...ge&q&f=false

 

going around touting 3 rail as being more "prototypical" than 2 rail is completely absurd. It is like saying that a string controlled model airplane is more realistic than an R/C one. Cmon now, seriously?

 

Owen

 

Don't be alarmed but the big bang you hear may be stereotypes exploding! 

 

With the abundance of great looking O scale equipment that comes out of the box in great running condition having sound decoders with fantastic speed control already installed and with very capable factory made power supplies available some O scale modelers have devoted their time to building great looking O scale model railroads.  Since all those locomotives are capable out of the box of realistic performance these guys aren't spending time and money installing decoders, rebuilding mechanisms or having (insert your favorite name here) drives installed.  They tend to spend a lot of their modeling time operating trains.  And many of them are enjoying operating realistically.  These guys are modeling and operating realistically in O scale with three rails!

 

It is a pretty cool phenomena.  I've seen it in person from coast to coast.  You should check it out in person some time.

 

Over the last few years I've had the opportunity to dispatch several operating sessions at a large O scale layout.  The best crew members, the guys who I like to see on the toughest assignments because the can kick cars and keep a yard fluid or switch industries on a local job and clear the main before a passenger train or hot freight is due or handle a helper on a steep grade, tend to be guys who are three rail O scalers. 

 

They run their own layouts a lot and are highly proficient.  They have picked up realistic operating practices like working from switch lists or operating in dark territory by track warrant without a hitch.  Some the guys who have struggled a little more are 2 railers.

 

Go figure.

 

As for likening 3 rail O scale trains to line control models, well I should object on the grounds that if you want to push that analogy you have it backwards.  Three rail O scale layouts are more likely to have command control than 2 rail O scale layouts.  The lack of choices among sound decoders for O scale and the cost of DCC at O scale amperages delayed the penetration of command control in the 2 rail market.  Lionel and MTH went to different communication methods to hold the cost down and have done very well with sales.  In fact it sounds like our original poster may be sticking with DCS for 2 rail.

 

But from a model aircraft perspective I think I should object to your belittling the realism of line control aircraft.  Flying line control aircraft was realistic enough to launch Burt Rutan on his career flying and designing aircraft.  And he does have two hanging in the grand gallery of the National Air and Space Museum.

Marc

 

Looks like you have made a decision that you are comfortable with.  You have been offerred several good pieces advice here. I will emphasaize two of them.  They can be applied to anyone building a layout, be it 3 rail, 2 rail, mono rail, or any scale. 

 

1) Avoid island layouts. Matt gave one of the best explanations I have seen.

 

2) Read John Armstrong's book.  Ted is spot on. Not only does John go into detail about prototoype operation and how to get it on your railroad, he gives some specific track planning guidelines (grades, curves, easements, etc) that will help you avoid some major pitfalls and allow you to get a much better operating layout.  He introduced many of the basic concepts of model railroading, and while many of them are in routine use today (for example the concept of "loads in, empties out," or the use of "squares in layout planning), many people are unaware that it was John who invented them.

 

I would add one more thing, and advise you to build a model of your layout. (No, I did not invent this!) I know modern track planning software can give multiple 3D views to help you visualize things. But for me, a physical model was very helpful.  The scale of this one is 1" = 1 foot, and building it took a few evenings:

   

  Among other things, it helped me figure out how the layout got built, what clearances and accesses really were (you can cheat in a computer drawing,you can't in a physical model) and what the viewer will see.  The last was really important, as I designed my layout a series of independent scenes.  Consequently I wanted to control how the viewer looks at them. After I built the model, I stuck a small angled mirror into the models "aisleways" so I could get a feeling for the viewers perspective. I found a number of things I did not like, and had never noticed in cyber space.

 

I have always thought that model you made was one of the best ideas I have ever seen, as you stated there is nothing better when it comes to being able to visualize how all the aspects of a given layout will interact with each other.

Marc,

 

As I read that you have made your choice, welcome to 2 rail!

 

I'll toss out a few random thoughts that might help you along the way.

 

There are piles and piles of 2 rail "stuff" out there. Ebay and various Internet sites, 2 rail specific (meaning no 3 rail) train meets are just a few options. It might take a little looking, but be patient and you can find darn near anything you could ever want.

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned remote control on board battery power, but it is available, and eliminates the need for track wiring. There are threads here on this forum about it. Several modelers are using it with great success.

 

Not sure how close you are to Strasburg, PA, but there is a very nice 2 rail meet there held 3 times a year. Rich Yoder of RY models is one of the promoters. You could contact him for info. if you are interested:

 

http://www.richyodermodels.com/

 

There is a show coming up in November.

 

Cheers,

Simon

 

Next show should be on the 16th of November.

This has been an interesting discussion for the most part. Opinions and advice given, some element of nonsence also offered by those less serious. In the end the advice given will perhaps lead another model railroader in the direction we favor most, since this is the 2Rail segment of this forum, that would be 2Rail.

 

Marc...enjoy the experience, send in a submission and photos once in a while...most of all have fun.

 

One photo as incentive to be a 2Railer. Imagine that scene with a middle rail.

 

 

Bob

This is an example of a "Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc" fallacy. Your reasoning is that because Burt Rutan had a line controlled aircraft that this somehow makes them realistic is without basis. The same goes for the faulty reasoning as to the basis for his later career in aeronautics. He had them as a kid because that is what was commonly available. I had them too, FYI. I also had R/C aircraft later on. Your anecdote about "some" 3 -railers being adept at operating sessions is another example of this faulty reasoning. I bet some of these guys had a baseball glove when they were kids too, does that mean that having a baseball glove when you are a child makes you a better "Ops session" guy? Does being able to run a tight schedule in an ops session mean that 3-rail is suddenly realistic? No, it doesn't. Please keep the straw men out of discussions and leave them out in the field to scare away crows...

Nice scene, Bob!

That is a great scene, I love the difference in elevation along with the clutter.  Very well done. 

This is an example of a "Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc" fallacy. Your reasoning is that because Burt Rutan had a line controlled aircraft that this somehow makes them realistic is without basis. The same goes for the faulty reasoning as to the basis for his later career in aeronautics

 

Owen

 

If you haven't heard them, you might be interested in listening to Mr. Rutan's talks at Oshkosh and other venues.  He has spoken about why he didn't play baseball as a kid but flew line control aircraft.  He also has spoken about how the challenges of aircraft performance and handling in line control model model competitions lead to his passion for aviation research and the innovative problem solving techniques that have made him one of America's great innovative geniuses.

 

That may not address the relative merits of line control vs. radio controlled aircraft medeling.  But it does support the notion that there is plenty to be learned from line control aircraft, even if one does regard them as less realistic than other models.

 

Your anecdote about "some" 3 -railers being adept at operating sessions is another example of this faulty reasoning. I bet some of these guys had a baseball glove when they were kids too, does that mean that having a baseball glove when you are a child makes you a better "Ops session" guy? Does being able to run a tight schedule in an ops session mean that 3-rail is suddenly realistic? No, it doesn't.

 

Ones present skill level in operating model trains is likely much more impacted by how and how often you actually run model trains than it is by youth baseball participation.  You can put that mitt out in the field on your scarecrow.

 

For most American railroads the most realistic way to model prototype track is with two rails.  Track is certainly part of modeling.  But there are other aspects to model railroading beyond track.  It doesn't follow that model railroads with other forms of track can't offer anything to learn about realism.

 

I think everyone here would second my recommendation to Marc that he Read John Armstrong's book on Track Planning for Realistic Operation.  John Armstrong modeled in outside third rail O scale.  I can't see how that invalidates any of what he had to say or makes study of his layout any less valuable.  There are some wonderfully talented modelers working in three rail O today and there is much to learn from them too.

 

Among John Armstrong's innovations was a control system that allowed operators to follow trains around the layout. That has been easy to do in 3 rail O for over a decade and sound comes as part of the package.  Since less time is required to achieve realistic control and sound in 3 rail it stands to reason that scale oriented three railers have had more time to devote to other aspects of realistic model railroading.  Those aspects of realism include scenery, structures, weathering, signalling, backdrops, room lighting and operation.  That extra time may result in the development of a high degree of proficiency in the areas where they have to time to develop their talents.  In the case of some of they guys I know that shows up in their operating skills. 

 

There are things we can learn about realistic modeling from all segments of the hobby. 

 

Marc has said that he is interested in modeling contemporary railroads in an industrial setting.  He might find these scenes inspirational.  I know I do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Ted, I know part of the problem here is that so called "die hard" two railers won't accept a layout in three rail period. I think most of us will gladly look at one and appreciate all the talent used in making the whole package. If there's big gaps in the pilots, large clawed couplers, and big flanges it surely makes it tougher to look past.

 The fact that there is a 3RS movement surely means a move towards more realism. Putting scale couplers and scale wheels on an engine surely makes it look the part. It was funny to me that Rich photographically removed the middle rail in a picture he had posted. Even the two photos you chose above purposely neglect the track work.

 There are guys in three rail that have layouts that stand as testament to their talents. I enjoy all of them. I enjoy watching the trains run on any layout. Sometimes I'm in awe of these 3 rail masterpieces. No one should bash them. I don't know even why this model plane thing got thrown into the discussion? It clouds these posts to guys considering their choices.

 If you enjoy the look of two rail track, it's tough to look past that third rail. I could and I do. In the back of my mind it still bothers me. Unless it's an urban scene where there might really be a live third rail, I just prefer to not use it. It's tough to come to the two rail forum side and justify it's widespread use, that's all. I may lay a 3 rail highline for guests and their equipment as well as the stuff I have to run. Anytime I have to spare, I find myself trying to complete the 2 rail layout I started.

 I hope you guys know, that no respect is lost in your choice of products here with me.

I even bought some LLLLiiiionnnnelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll...... Uhhhmmm,

 some other brand of engines in a non purple box.

I always felt 3 rail trains were toys, since starting with 3 rail as a child.  I didn't seem to mind the extra rail as a kid, but as I grew up I realized real railroads did not use a 3rd rail.  You could just imagine all the steel used, that is, if real railroads used an extra rail.  I doubt they would go for it, or have a need for it.

 

I remember going to a hobby shop, when a guy looked at me like I was from a another planet, because I asked if he had 2-rail stock.  He gave me a nasty look, then said he only had 3-rail.

 

I don't mind if people use 3 rail, it's just not for me.

But I bet we could agree, we all like to model trains.

I wouldn't say that track is just part of modeling, I'd say it is ESSENTIAL to modeling. Three rail track is a very poor model. There are models of track all the way up the food chain to hand laid proto 48 it is true. The attributes and pitfalls of those models can be discussed as well. But the center rail, I'm not sure what that is a model of, because it isn't a model. So, the first thing you'll be doing as a model railroader is laying just about the worst model of something possible. 

 

Proto OPS is not essential to modeling. Proto OPS is essential to playing. Whether it is in 2 rail or 3 rail doesn't make a difference to me. I don't even think it is relevant to the discussion. We have guys in our local group doing operations and some are actually retired engineers. Do you want to give them a test on their skills as 2 rail operators for your informal surveys?

 

The photos Ted posts are very nice examples of models and scenery. The track I know to be not so much.

 

Before I get scolded for being insensitive to our 3 rail brothers and sisters, I fully understand and respect the symbiotic relationship we share. I see the discussion about attributes of imported models as fair game though. I don't have a problem with any 3 railer or judgement of them as a person.

Several of my 3-rail and 2-rail clients would STRONGLY disagree.  John Armstrong aptly described model railroads as a "model transportation system."  A model transportation system that can't operate anything like its prototype isn't much of a model.

 

The question is not who is and isn't "modeling."  It's a question of what compromises a modeler is willing to make in order to achieve other modeling goals.  Many, if not most, folks in 2-rail O have long been willing to compromise functionality, prototypical operating, prototypical sound, reliability, quality of decoration, scenery, and more for the sake of more realistic track.  The good news is that year after year modelers in both 2-rail and 3-rail have to make fewer and fewer compromises.

I think it is safe to say that we can debate this until we are all blue in the face, And I think ultimately it does come down to what an individual prefers Be it 3 rail or 2 rail.  Now I don't know if that in the past 2 railer's have had to compromise on scenery or level of detailing as much as maybe they were just focusing their efforts elsewhere.  If you look at the advent of 3 rail scale with its scale wheels and fixed pilots and KD's I think it is fair to say that the gap has narrowed In terms of fidelity to the prototype But there has been and always will be the issue of that center rail for some..... and those people often switch to 2 rail because the appearance is truer to the prototype.  And while I do applaud those who operate in a realistic fashion with track warrants and switch lists and who strive for the utmost in realism in terms of scenery and details there's still that battle or competition between the scenery the equipment and that Center rail.