Why 2 Rail???

Could be entertaining watching some of those guys school some "modelers"..... 

Dave,

I'll disagree with this point only based on a technicality. You can build a great model railroad without necessarily performing any of the operating duties yourself.  I'm fully aware of John Armstrong championing having a purpose for the railroad. I do think you can model sections of railroads that include little or no switching and still have it be a great model. My point really was one about putting 2 railers up against 3 railers in a switching contest. It just isn't relevant.

The one difference between all of the other items you mention including sound, functionality, lighting, decoration and scenery, and operations is that all of these things can be improved upon and changed over time even if they start off poorly. The one thing that starts out as a poor model and can't be fixed over time is the center rail. To fix the look of the center rail over time, you'd need to remove it.

One might think with my objection to the center rail that I may be against all that three railers are doing on their layouts, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I enjoy looking at just about any layout. I'd agree it is mostly good news between the 2 camps.

ha, this is precious.

I have zero interest in operating beyond test runs to make sure everything works smoothly.  I guess I am not a modeler by the above definition.  I will settle for "builder" or "artist".

Well, a modeler is the person create from scratch almost anything, I will not call my self a modeler if I bought everything done and put it on together on a table.

Bob, I think you are a modeler.

Andre.

That's not what I said Bob.  To quote myself...

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.

In fact, your reaction illustrates my point.  We're all in agreement that "modeling" is a worthwhile and respectable hobby.  Many 2-railers do beautiful work modeling various aspects of the hobby, but we all have to make compromises because of the reality that life is short and resources are limited.  I'm not saying that someone who isn't interested in Proto Ops isn't a modeler.  They may be an excellent modeler of some other aspect of the hobby.  What I object to is precisely the myopic view of modeling that you erroneously accused me of espousing.  Just because others compromise and live with the third rail doesn't mean they are not excelling at other aspects of modeling.  Proto Ops happens to be one part of the hobby where 3-railers are currently achieving quality modeling that is far less common in 2-rail O, but is even more common in HO.  It's a common assumption among 2-railers that you can't be a "modeler" if run on 3-rail track.  Several posters on this thread have made that exact assertion.  It's and assumption that just isn't true.

Dave you stated it very well about the 2 railers compromising on so many things just for the sake of 2 rail track. And I'd like to thank morg777 for proving my point that 2 railers settle for less. After I showed photos of the gorgeous Lionel TMCC scale crane and sound tender, which is a marvel of modern minature electronics, the best you guys could come up with is an obvious european style ROCCO DCC crane for 2 rail? Seriously? Wonder how many of you actually have that crane on your layout? Is it decaled NYC, PRR or SF? Does it look prototypical? Goes well with the 4 wheel euro gondola in the you tube video.

As for " we can use TMCC stuff if we want to" , OK, how many of you actually do? Most 2 railers admit they run DCC, some using converted 3 rail MTH engines. Years ago I remember Atlas trying to get 2 rail TMCC on the market and it was a dismal failure because the two railers wouldn't leave their DCC for it. "What me operate with a Lionel system?" type attitude. And often the attitude of some of the 2 rail community has done damage to what is available to you. One time when I was looking into 2 rail and what was availble at the large 2 rail show in Cleveland, I met John "the King of O scalers" at his table, selling the items he was manufacturing for the 2 rail community.

He was down trodden and frustrated over some of the comments from 2 railers who came by and looked at his train cars for sale. I asked him what was wrong and he said: You know, these guys drive me crazy! I can make a box car that is 99% prototypical down to the count of rivits, and they will nit pick that the steps on the corners are 'out of scale", so they won't buy it.

Another time I was talking to a 2 railer and asking for some advice on getting started in it. Told him I was looking a buying a PSC 0-6-0 switcher for my first engine. He replied: " OH no! Not that one, there's at least a hundred things wrong with the boiler measurements!" Made me think, well OK, if PSC is making junk, who is getting it right?

Sometimes I think the 2 rail community shoots themselves in the foot with an attitude like that towards MFGs trying to produce pieces for the 2 rail market. Thus the circle comes around again to the fact there are not that many MFGs pursuing the 2 rail market, thus less items and availabilty of different pieces the 3 railers have. Again coming right back to the theme that you will, without a doubt, be settling for less.

Who? Not me. I can see what 3 railers and 2 railers are doing beyond the track, but it is hard to ignore the elephant on the track and it should be discussed in modeling terms and not simply glossed over.

Robert,

No-you continue to miss the point. If I wanted an operating Lionel crane on my layout, I would have it. I don't want a crane or a Hudson.   

For Norfolk and Western in the steam era, there are in fact more 2 rail items that have been produced.

This is the same type of stuff I heard during my HO days in the 70's and 80's, except it was about code 100 vs. code 83 or 70 rail and the deep NEM flanges rivarossi was putting on  their products.

Rusty

You're just full of old news aren't you? You should put dates on your "facts" so newbies aren't swayed.

"How many of you don't run my trains because my trains are better tan your trains and na na na nan ana"

Your proof is nothing and your attitude......It is annooyyying!!!

 At first I laughed.

Then, I thought about how true this is.

A concession this big for the sake of easier wiring leaves me to wonder.

If Lionel got back into O scale two rail, there maybe hope for their strict followers not to settle anymore.

I agree. 

But it's only fair that Marc, or anyone else considering two rail, go to the website of the owner of these nice models at 'toytrainsontracks' dot com and ask "What would these scenes [ the photos taken that show trackage ] look like if that were two rail instead of three rail track, and would it make a difference to me?"

SZ

I don't think that I'm comprimising at all with switching to two rail. Like I've said before MTH has made a huge stride in making 2rail a bit mor accessible. I enjoy adding parts to engines and rolling stock to make them more realistic.

I don't care if I have a TMCC crane or even an MTH crane that works. It's not something I really want. I like looking at my track and not seeing that third rail (my opion). If Lionel made two rails engines I would probably buy them (if it was something I wanted). Not sure that will ever happen.

Also I think it's been provne through this thread about alot of myths about 2rail that just don't apply anymore. The wiring is no different then what the HO guys have been doing for a long time and they have managed to get around the 2rail obsticles. Sure there is special equipment to do it, but then look at everything you need for Lionel. All the add on for TMCC.

John Sethian run his whole 2rail layout with DCS and it runs well. Why is that so hard to accept?

Ralph

Hi  good luck with your change. I have been in 2 rail for over 20 years now and love it. If you  need track or rolling stock brop me a line at oscalecarl@hotmail.com. I have plenty

Robert E, you totally missed my point.  You originally stated that operating cranes were not available in 2 rail.  So my example was a European, no compromise model.  So what?  Is that the best retort you can come up with?

As far as the poor adaptation of TMCC by 2 railers, Lionel originally only released older, generic sounds for other manufacturers to use.  Most modelers wanted prototype specific sounds and not generic ones.  I am glad they are doing better nowadays, but their insistence on releasing generic sounds at first hurt their adoption by 2 railers.

There are hyper picky modelers in all scales.  I can go to the local hobby shop and listen to some nitpicker deriding the latest Athearn Genesis HO release, that they didn't get the drain details right or some such nonsense.  Trust me, this is in no way limited to 2 rail O scale.  In fact, I hear the same nonsense from some 3 railers, that their way is so much better.  

Now I like all types of modeling.  The chaps at toytrainsontracks.com put out some fine modeling, and I like looking at their stuff as inspiration for my own work.  But if I'm laying out my own money, I will leave off the third rail as I don't see that rail on real trains.  Do you like it?  That's cool. As I said in a previous post, everything in life is a compromise to one extent or another.  Pick what you like and can live with and promote it in a positive manner.  As soon as you start criticizing others, than you sink to the level of what you rail against.

Maybe Lionel would make an "elephant on track" accessory for 2-rail.

Rusty

Robert you continue to miss the boat on this, you assume that because this 2 railer doesn't have this, or doesn't have that then he/she must be settling for less....and that is a big assumption.  As Christopher N&W stated if he/she wants something then they would have it....why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Why would you say this?  You can model what ever you like, in any way you like.   

Now that's funny when you consider how many on the 3-rail forum complain on how Lionel seems to have eliminated the swinging bell and smoking whistle features...

Or if the NS/NKP Heritage unit be correct...

Rusty

Rusty

Lucy is going to be busy on this topic

PatKelly, you can have exactly that, no matter in two or three rail!  Try building a little diorama a foot square with your preferred track to practice on and redo until you have it done to your satisfaction, then start planning and building.

Pat,

Me too.

Don't give up! 

Yeah, especially when the proto-type didn't even have a swinging bell which has come up on occasion.

If only all O scale trains were like this, not just the P:48 ones shown here.

Several of my 3-rail and 2-rail clients would STRONGLY disagree.  

Those are quotes from above.  My limited command of English tells me that several clients would not let me claim to be a modeler.

I will accede to Christopher - my four test loops and one water tower do not qualify as a model railroad.  I call them test loops because that is what they are.  I will occasionally sip a beverage and watch a train go round and round.  I simply enjoy building.  I get bored quickly watching trains run, even if they are on a schedule.

Look closer at that boxcar, those wheels are not Proto 48.

Would you please provide where you found the data and numbers to support this assertion?  It seems very possibly extrapolated from a skewed perspective, which would not be unsurprising.  But, if you actually have hard data to support this, you should provide that information and how it was gathered.

Or, is this just "opinion"?

Operational crane?  Didn't Ed Reutling post a fully functional DDC operating crane here several years ago along with the Youtube videos?  Neat to look at and proved that it could be done quite economically, but just how often do modelers actually take a crane out to their derailed train and right it prototypically......  Just about every crane I've ever seen on every layout is parked on a MoW siding or adjacent to the roundhouse/engine house and covered with dust since it's been there for 5-25 years......

Last, but not least, an upgrade over a bunny with a pancake on its head to put this all into proper perspective:

I was also going to mention Ed Reutling's TMCC crane car converted to DCC. I believe he used 4 HO decoders to do it and if memory serves he also had an article printed about it in O Scale Trains. It worked very well.

Cranes and the assorted cars which are typically seen with them are mostly a scenic element usually stationed in yards. They have a visual appeal which cannot be denied, but any practical usage is unlikely regardless of it's animated antics courtesy of the toy train marketers. But that has nothing to do with this threads subject..."why 2 rail".

Wait a few months or less and this subject will be repeated by another... to what end remains unknown.

One can only hope if only for the entertainment value,

Yeah.  It is less fun without somebody to pick on.  See you in a few months or less.

Does this mean this thread has finally run its course and its safe to come back to the 2 rail forum?

Safe indeed John. There is comfort in knowing we had the right idea all along...

Bob

I can think of a few myths about 0 scale not yet brought into this discussion. I'll bet they could keep this going for several more pages.

After much thought (and a phone conversation with Ed Rappe) I've come to the conclusion that it's the 3-rail guys that have "Settled For Less".

Honestly, when I got into O-scale back in the mid-90s the only thing I knew there was out there was 3-rail stuff.  I thought O-scale 2-rail mostly disappeared back in the 1970s and the last known layout was Lorell Joiner's Great Southern layout.  What I saw in the LHS around here was all 3-rail, so that's what I bought.  Once the internet started buzzing the 3-rail curtain fell and I found myself bewildered at just how much 2-rail was still available and how many folks were involved.

While I'm still 3-rail, I'm constantly looking over on this forum and considering doing maybe a small switching 2-rail layout (am I STILL settling for less? ).

If I ever get a wheel puller look out...I may one day be "riding the rails" with a bunch of engines that could be called "Converts"