Strummer - I have posted a few. Will endeavor to post more! See "Burlington streamlined Aeolus 4-6-4" and "Colorado & Southern steam wrecking derrick" for previous posts.
I was trying to answer the original question the best I could, did not intend to insult anyone. BTW when I said dying I believe it is happening to Model RR in general not just 2R. When I went to the annual loco Train Show there were VERY few under 50 in attendance.
If you read my prior posts on this subject I always have wanted but couldn't afford O Scale 2R. Scale proportions are Extremely important to me. Please read them it will give a better understanding where I am coming from.
I am actually stuck in a quandary. Maybe you more experienced guys can help. I really prefer 2R but have been acquiring 3R because the only place I can find what I like is eBay and the 3R is way more available for Steam Locos. Plus as mentioned I really like K-Line 4600 series cars. Lastly the large radius required for 2R is an issue FOR ME. So what I have been doing is buying Weaver Boxcars and Hoppers 2R or 3R but intend to run them as 2R. The height difference of 0.165" for the 3R couplers makes the proportions look wrong. Plus can couple them closer with the Kadees which also looks way better. The K-Line Cars am trying to decide what to do to bring them closer together.
I gotta say when looking in from the outside from HO, I thought there was a divide between 2R and 3R, but wasn't sure until I jumped in. Maybe I was wrong. As I said wasn't trying to disparage anyone.
I am familiar with the former Roco 2-rail stuff. I still have some Roco track here and have it on a display shelf. The Pandrol rail clips were a negative for me. I also have two EMD F7's but they are definitely light duty. I believe that any serious effort in 2-rail must provide Lionel type heft and quality, and the only Co. to have achieved that was MTH.
Finally, I have both 2-rail and 3-rail on common tables, and from a distance of 3-ft or more it is mostly indistinguishable IF you ignore the center rail. My "scenery and buildings" serve both. Re "space" as a potential problem, many of us do not want a switching layout. We want to see big steam and the Baker valve gear go by! On my layout, I can operate, as near as I can determine, almost everything ever built in 2-rail or 3-rail. I have not checked any ATSF 2-10-4's or UP 4-12-2's on my 2-rail though, as I suspect the long rigid wheelbase and engine tail beam might be a problem. A steamer with a very long boiler like a UP Big Boy might also be a problem with my two track 3-rail layout in curves due to overhang. When I built my 3-rail layout, I checked for possible interference on my two track curves using a scale 85-ft passenger car and my 3rd Rail B&O EM1 2-8-8-4. I have a MTH 3-rail UP Challenger and operate that engine with no adjacent track restrictions.
I enjoyed everyone's comments about their personal experience with 2-rail layouts as well as the advantages of 3-rail (vs 2-rail). I found it interesting that many made a decision that compared 3-Rail O gauge with HO, which I believe has a much younger demographic AND a wide selection of equipment available from SEVERAL importers. Those importers hit several price points, depending on degree of detail, DCC, etc. so many can find a way to participate depending on their financial situation. That is one reason why I believe a harvest pricing strategy is exactly the wrong strategy unless a company has a "going out of business model".
@Hudson5432 posted:1. I am familiar with the former Roco 2-rail stuff. I also have two EMD F7's but they are definitely light duty.
2. I believe that any serious effort in 2-rail must provide Lionel type heft and quality,...
1. Actually, the Roco/Atlas F units were F9s... 😁
2. "...Lionel type heft and quality...". You must be referring to Lionel's older stuff, as the word "quality" as it now applies is used mostly in the phase "lack of quality control"... 😳
Mark in Oregon
This thread certainly took off!!! Are any of the 3-rail guys still following it?
Mention was made of 2-rail track having to be laid absolutely perfectly for anything to run ok.
Sorry, no one told me...
And it is reliable, too, I'll just leave this here - a high speed run down the same track:-
The word "Mindset" was used earlier, and that is very much the issue as I see it from outside the USA. As long as people think a "real" model railroad can be nothing less than an empire of several towns on multiple levels with helix and return loops, then 2-rail O is doomed. As long as people just want to model Transition Era mainline railroads , 2-rail O is probably doomed.
If you open your eyes to the possibilities provided by Short Lines, especially the smaller ones, then a modern era Short Line, even freelanced, can be ideal for 2-rail O. In the UK we have nothing like Short Lines, those of us into US railroads find them fascinating and great sources of inspiration. Coupled with the British way of modelling a 'place' rather than a 'route', we have learned how to enjoy model railroading in spaces many of you guys just would not contemplate, it seems.
My 2-rail O layout is in my loft (attic), is 17ft x 8ft, uses 36" radius curves, but #6 switches, and includes a loop around the room, a small Interchange Yard and a branch line around the outside to several industries on 3 spurs. I accept that my locos are all diesels (from old Atlas/Roco Plymouths, through SW1200, various Geeps, up to Atlas SD40). I run modern freight cars up to MTH 72ft Centerbeam Flats. Just working a train of inbound cars and a train of outbounds can take well over an hour. OK it's not a half-day session with multiple crews, but I bet I operate my layout more times in a month than a basement empire does, that needs a large amount of operators to work it.
Lack of space is just a challenge to the imagination.
I would offer up several things. There are three basic groups that come to O Scale 2-Rail: New to the hobby, have been out of the hobby, and crossovers from HO or O 3-Rail Etc. What draws them? What could draw more? How do you break the stigma of "not enough room"? Bigger may be better with aging eyesight and great room to put some deep base speakers in. These are marketing to a large degree, but also played right a huge opportunity.
The HO RTR market is a great example of more people just want to buy and run trains and not have to re-invent the wheel to get them to run well. O Scale conversions to 2-Rail outside of some freight cars are not for the faint of heart, let along a complete locomotive teardown, lest they be stuck with a third party scenario where they have to wait a while to get that coveted locomotive converted. This in itself effects the supply/demand market for things that do run well which often bumps the price up to sometimes gouge levels, which pushes people away.
First, the goal of making it sell itself. As already mentioned good quality, and always in supply track should be the norm, including switches. For grins at Christmas a couple years ago I built a simple double track oval to go around the Christmas tree. It was simplistic, but it was really cool and got a lot of comments from guests. The kicker though was it was a bit of work to get it set up i.e. cork, track, woodwork etc. As we know, with a little bit of work we can build great turnouts, but if we're building for a large or hidden area then that could drive people away in a sense. So, like the RTR market in 3 Rail and other scales - make it easy to build a temporary set up with molded roadbed.
Second, grab me at hello! A new locomotive or car should be ready to go out of the box i.e. have a high quality decoder, deep base speaker, and Kadee Couplers etc. I've actually avoided a purchase decision where a model had an older inferior sound decoder (not mentioning any manufacturers). It may sound lazy, but I don't like the thought of having to open up a locomotive and ripping out an inferior decoder, maybe trying to sell it, and installing a new one and a base speaker.
3rd, as 2-Rail is unique with the conversion aspect the norm instead of trying to build a new model from the ground up, make a retrofit kit that will make converting a locomotive a snap with minimal effort and the 3-Rail parts that are replaced could be sold off etc.
Last, I'm not complaining, in fact since I've been "officially" on board for the last 5 or so years I've been very happy overall with the new things that have come out. What's needed also are some new manufacturers that are 2-Rail only and let the 3-Railers convert over if they want instead of vice-versa i.e. a high quality model to start with.
Attachments
Images (1)
A few thoughts.
I am a member of the European Train Enthusiasts club and there I hear a lot of the same debate about the advantages of 3 rail Marklin system (actually stud rail) AC vs 2 rail DC HO scale. In Europe there are plenty of manufacturers, clubs and modelers in each, so it’s not like one dominates in the HO market share. In general, the Marklin system 3 rail trains can handle tighter curves and of course there’s the reverse loop issue, but it’s not like there are huge differences between the two. Yet, people will swear by one or the other.
In general I would say a lot of our people from Europe had Marklin 3 rail as children and just stuck with it. Some of our guys from the US got into Marklin because they were impressed with the advanced digital systems and easy to use track system, which is more like fastrack or other 3 rail roadbed track systems. I guess my point is that people tend to stick with what they know, or gravitate to what impresses them.
Now, back to O gauge. I do have both 2 rail and 3 rail trains. In fact, I used to run my 2 rail trains on a carpet central and they did fine. I got into 2 rail after using 3 rail for years because I wanted more realistic looking trains. I was already used to dcc, so that was also an easy transition. What I haven’t done is invest As heavily in a 2 rail layout as I originally intended. Why? It wasn’t for lack of product, but There just isn’t a great selection of readily available track or clubs with with the ability to run DCC. You can buy ready to run digital 2 rail trains if you preorder, which is already a requirement for high end 3 rail. However, when it comes to clubs with modern layouts and buying off the shelf track the supply is pretty short compared to 3 what 3 rail modelers have.
I just checked and you are correct, my Atlas F7's are actually F9's. (They were painted as NYC F7's and I have not looked them over closely for several years.
I do not own any recent Lionel models, but based on what I am reading continuously on the 3RScale forum, I do believe that Lionel's recent quality level is a real problem. I also do not believe it is Fedex or UPS.
Too much space needed, cost, polarity requirements, potential derailment issues, product availability all good reasons for me.
Plus I don't want it. I like what I have.
Same thing with fancy electronics on engines, power sources and train software. Just read this forum for a week and I was convinced to avoid the stuff or I would go insane.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me, the reason I run with 3 rail (with an attempt at the "scale" end of things) is because that's where I started, and I suspect it's similar for a lot of folks. When I got into O, it was because I had an old Lionel set down in the basement and my daughter was old enough to play with it.
From there, I realized how crappy my old Lionel set was (not that there aren't those who delight in its toyish aspect), with its scout engine and O27 cars, and wanted something that looked a bit better, so I gradually picked up a few things that worked with what I had. If instead I'd had some O scale 2 rail trains down the basement, that's probably the way I'd have gone. 2 rail scale will always look more realistic, and most of the other "excuses" are just that. You run what'll fit, or you go with a different gauge. Wiring is wiring, DC isn't inherently more difficult, and if you're running some sort of command system, even less so (95% of what I own in 3 rail is either TMCC or DCS). Price for new stuff is pretty much the same, but there ARE tons more used 3 rail items available for purchase used (also where the bulk of my trains come from).
So the way I see it, the main problem (if there is one, folks who run 2 rail don't seem to have one) to overcome is inertia. A hundred years of 3 rail dominance (market-wise) is a powerful force, and the fact that many entering O may already have experience with 3 rail is self-steering. Not sure if anything can be "done" to increase 2 rail's popularity, but why worry about it? A lot more people own Fords than Ferraris, yet the Ferrari owners don't seem to mind.
@MainLine Steam posted:I was trying to answer the original question the best I could, did not intend to insult anyone.
The problem with this topic is while the question is neutral, the answers tend to make O 2 railers uncomfortable. If you don't want to hear the answers then don't ask the question. It is true that for O 2 railers that for each negative comment that is made there is a response or a work around that is adequate to them. However they have already bought into the O 2 rail religion. Not everyone buys into the response, or wants to have to deal with the work around. If the goal is to grow O 2 rail it is necessary to look at how the unconverted see it.
@MainLine Steam posted:I was trying to answer the original question the best I could, did not intend to insult anyone. BTW when I said dying I believe it is happening to Model RR in general not just 2R. When I went to the annual loco Train Show there were VERY few under 50 in attendance.
It is not my opinion that 2R is dying but there have been articles in the MR (O Scale Resource) press that participation in it has been going down. However, my point is, a couple of years ago I talked to a hobby shop owner and I asked him his thoughts on the state of the hobby (all scales and gauges) and he said "the hobby is doing great. It is hobby shops that are the endangered species." I (and the LHS owner) could be wrong but I agree with his assessment. It is my opinion that participation in both OS3R and OS2R has declined somewhat but in 2R it seems to a little more noticeable since there were less folks to begin with. I believe the hobby overall will be fine.
@aussteve posted:Too much space needed, cost, polarity requirements, potential derailment issues, product availability all good reasons for me.
I'll give you product availability. That is a problem, and exacerbated for the likes of me being on the other side of The Pond. But the other "reasons" - no.
I could reel off a whole list of reasons why I don't want ("detest" is actually a better description) 3-rail, and they would all be to do with appearance & realism, or the complete lack of, when it comes to 3-rail. My reasons would not be based on blinkered myths. For one - "derailment issues"? Go up to my previous post above and watch my YouTube video links.
If there are so many 'issues' with 2-rail O regarding the supply of electricity and things falling off the rails, then how come this debate is utterly non-existent in the smaller scales HO & N..???? In fact in the UK O Scale is booming at the moment, not dying, and again the vast majority of it is 2-rail Scale, and there is no 'great debate' about these imaginary problems, because that's just what they are - imaginary!!
Part of it is likely space. That’s why I argue 2 rail with the higher rails and swinging pilots would be a great happy medium for o scale. As a 3railer I’d be very happy with it.
Ah, fantastic - I've just worked out how to embed YouTube videos here!!*
@Csxcellent posted:Part of it is likely space. That’s why I argue 2 rail with the higher rails and swinging pilots would be a great happy medium for o scale. As a 3railer I’d be very happy with it.
What difference do higher rails and swinging pilots make, apart from looking awful..??! In my video above, my Atlas SD40 takes my 36" radius curves on Code 125 2-rail, hand-spiked track, with no issues at all.
*Edit - have now gone back to my post further up and embeded the two videos I really want Unbelievers to see. 
"I could reel off a whole list of reasons why I don't want ("detest" is actually a better description) 3-rail,..."
Well, almost a century of 3 rail has dominated 2 rail, there must be deeper reasons, and one is probably the simplicity of making convoluted track layouts without having to worry about crossing voltage polarities. This started out as a toy for kids with small hands, to be played with hard and run till the brushes wore out. Adults got into it and everything changed, realism and accuracy, 2 rails with kluge gadgets to make a 3 rail loco a 2 rail and run on an outside pickup rail, unless your were modeling an interurban, subway, or some NE electric line, that is even more unrealistic. I find it amazing that when I am running, my 3 rail stuff, the middle rail just seems to disappear and the ease of going through the reversing loop trumps the rail accuracy of my HO stuff with toggle switches being thrown to avoid a short circuit on a similar loop. Remember, its a hobby, something to relieve tension, fill your free time, make you happy, and keep you from smoking, drinking and chasing loose women.
@SundayShunter posted:I could reel off a whole list of reasons why I don't want ("detest" is actually a better description) 3-rail, and they would all be to do with appearance & realism, or the complete lack of, when it comes to 3-rail. My reasons would not be based on blinkered myths. For one - "derailment issues"? Go up to my previous post above and watch my YouTube video links.
I can remember Ed Reutling posting here some of the worse looking track ever laid and running a loco over it just to prove it could be done.
If there are so many 'issues' with 2-rail O regarding the supply of electricity and things falling off the rails, then how come this debate is utterly non-existent in the smaller scales HO & N..????
If you go back a page or 2, I raised that exact point. It's an argument born of desperation to justify 3 rail.
@Bill N posted:The problem with this topic is while the question is neutral, the answers tend to make O 2 railers uncomfortable. If you don't want to hear the answers then don't ask the question. It is true that for O 2 railers that for each negative comment that is made there is a response or a work around that is adequate to them. However they have already bought into the O 2 rail religion. Not everyone buys into the response, or wants to have to deal with the work around. If the goal is to grow O 2 rail it is necessary to look at how the unconverted see it.
Explaining the "workaround," is a matter of fact means for consideration to reach a potential goal on a layout, not an ultimatum. I think most do understand how the unconverted see it, but some of the unconverted, maybe many, don't seem to even realize the alternatives exist.
@CALNNC posted:"I could reel off a whole list of reasons why I don't want ("detest" is actually a better description) 3-rail,..."
Well, almost a century of 3 rail has dominated 2 rail, there must be deeper reasons, ....
Remember, its a hobby, something to relieve tension, fill your free time, make you happy, and keep you from smoking, drinking and chasing loose women.
Indeed it is a hobby and each to their own; 3-rail does have advantages over 2-rail if all that matters is running toy trains in smaller spaces - or more of them in the same space, but accept that that - running toy trains - is exactly what it is, not making as realistic a model of a railroad as the ability of the individual modeller allows.
The domination of 3-rail over 2-rail in the USA in O does not negate the inaccuracy of some of the 'reasons' why 2-rail apparently cannot work. The other part of the OP's question, how to make it more popular, is the more difficult issue to address, and there I go back to the word "mindset", and the overall impression people have of what a "successful" model railroad is supposed to be.
As I said earlier, here in the UK O Scale is currently booming, despite it costing more than OO & N (which actually cost about the same as each other!) and the fact we have much smaller houses than in the USA. It helps that a lot of the prototype - especially in the Steam Era (pre-1968) - was a lot smaller than US equipment, but the will is there to make the most of what's available, be that models produced or space available, and adjusting one's expectations to fit, not the other way around.
I love well done O scale 2R layouts. The biggest problem I see though is, it's not "scale" either. It's Ow5. Not until you get into Proto48 do you get an actual "O" 1:48 scale railroad. This is probably the biggest turnoff to me.
One thing I've never understood though... In the HO world, where tolerances are much tighter, pretty much anything runs on 18" radius, with a few outliers requiring 22" radius. The scale equivalent for O would be 33" and 40" radii. Pretty much any 3R "scale" locomotive can work with those numbers... but 2R locomotives seemingly require 60" or higher radius curves. Why? If HO (with it's teeny tiny flanges) can get it done, why can't 2R O scale?
@rplst8 posted:....but 2R locomotives seemingly require 60" or higher radius curves. Why? If HO (with it's teeny tiny flanges) can get it done, why can't 2R O scale?
I give up. Which bit of "36in radius" have people missed, not just in my posts & video, either..??
@rplst8 posted:I love well done O scale 2R layouts. The biggest problem I see though is, it's not "scale" either. It's Ow5. Not until you get into Proto48 do you get an actual "O" 1:48 scale railroad. This is probably the biggest turnoff to me.
One thing I've never understood though... In the HO world, where tolerances are much tighter, pretty much anything runs on 18" radius, with a few outliers requiring 22" radius. The scale equivalent for O would be 33" and 40" radii. Pretty much any 3R "scale" locomotive can work with those numbers... but 2R locomotives seemingly require 60" or higher radius curves. Why? If HO (with it's teeny tiny flanges) can get it done, why can't 2R O scale?
Teeny tiny flanges??? You’re putting HO in a pedestal. Keep in mind that HO is not Proto87. HO is closer to 3 rail than to 2 rail in that respect.
@CALNNC posted:"I could reel off a whole list of reasons why I don't want ("detest" is actually a better description) 3-rail,..."
the ease of going through the reversing loop trumps the rail accuracy of my HO stuff with toggle switches being thrown to avoid a short circuit on a similar loop. "
There are relatively inexpensive, simple to wire electronic reversing units that will achieve the same thing in 2 rail. No toggles necessary.
@SundayShunter posted:Ah, fantastic - I've just worked out how to embed YouTube videos here!!*
What difference do higher rails and swinging pilots make, apart from looking awful..??! In my video above, my Atlas SD40 takes my 36" radius curves on Code 125 2-rail, hand-spiked track, with no issues at all.
*Edit - have now gone back to my post further up and embeded the two videos I really want Unbelievers to see.
Great video showing it can be done. Don't give up. Keep 'em coming. Too many folks have blinders on.
Rusty
My feelings reflect those who think 2 rail O scale is more expensive, takes more room plus has a smaller selection of motive power and rolling stock than three rail. Not a new phenomenon either but rather the reality throughout the history of model trains.
I think a better question is why S scale doesn’t have a larger following? Seems like the best compromise between O and HO.
Pete
Why isn't O Scale 2-Rail more popular with model railroaders?
Maybe it has something to do with 2-Rail modelers telling anyone not already a true believer that the majority of what they think is WRONG.
What can be done to increase 2RS's popularity?
I refer you back to the response to the first question.
@rplst8 posted:I love well done O scale 2R layouts. The biggest problem I see though is, it's not "scale" either. It's Ow5. Not until you get into Proto48 do you get an actual "O" 1:48 scale railroad. This is probably the biggest turnoff to me.
Honestly, I don't believe commercially producing models to 4'8.5" would draw many folks in nowadays. OW5 is pretty much cannon now. Plus there's all the existing OW5 (steam locomotives in particular) equipment out there that nobody's going to make conversion kits for, nor will a vast amount of folks want to bother doing the conversions.
Every scale has compromises in one form or another.
To the folks that model P:48, I raise my glass to you, but any commercially viable expansion of 2-Rail O is going to remain OW5.
Rusty
Sundayshunter,
I think you are absolutely correct about the mindset. To get H0 and N scalers to convert, there would have to be a change of mindset. They'd need to scale up their trains, but scale down the empire idea and get more focused as you do.
I came across a guy who told me he wanted to model all of the class 1 railroads, every region of the US, and the kicker was with every season represented as well. I can laugh about it now but looking back when I was in 3 rail, I had models of steam engines from every class 1 railroad that was available, 50 or more in total and I intended to have them all on the layout. To get into 0 scale I focused on one railroad and one area based around the use of 5 steam models only. To sell all of those other models and get focused was actually more of a relief.
I am new to not only to this forum, but forums in general. I have heard from friends, to choose words carefully so as to not excite others.
Bill N. I want to thank you for making me feel better, I REALLY did not want to disparage others, or give negative judgement to their choices.
Also to practice what I am NOW preaching, should use the term "shrinking" not "dying" in regards to Model Railroading. Too be honest with you, I don't see this as a problem for most in the Hobby.
I definitely agree with what Hudson sited. If I owned a LHS I would be very concerned. Along that line there is an EXTREMLY GOOD reason the manufactures no long just bang products out and know they will sell. Build it and they will come, NOT. Everything has moved to pre-order for a good reason, the Manufactures want to stay in Business.
When I made the post summarizing the History of Model Railroading as I understand it. I was trying to explain the domination of 3R vs 2R in numbers of participants. I was also trying to make the point that as time moves on, Technology and the number of people pursuing interests changes.
The reason I don't see the shrinking of the hobby as BAD for the average modeler is it putting a lot of great used items on the market at reduced prices. Economics 101 - supply and demand. As such when I am buying a Used brass Weaver Steam Loco for less than half what it cost new (and in 2022 dollars not 1992 dollars), I am happy. On the other hand I am NOT at this point in life I am not naive enough to think it is a good "investment". Hopefully I will live long enough, that by the time my hiers have to unload it, it will only be worth the scrap value of it materials.
Yes it would be nice for future generations to continue in the hobby, if they choose. I am starting to "work" on my 2 grandsons, but they need to pursue what interests them, not me.
I have other transportation interests. I am from the "muscle car" generation. However I am glad to see younger generations interested in cars, even if it is "tuned rice burners". I do realize the last sentence could be construed as my words not being well chosen. Hope I didn't offend anyone.
BTW I do agree with CALNNC except.... who says you can't do both. LOL
The detail on the 2 rail MTH vs 3 rail MTH engines (my only reference) is different with the 2R versions looking better IMO. And I agree with the fixed pilot argument. Nice video.
However what are those chunks of wire hanging between the couplers? They look awful. I detested them in HO, (but they were better than what passed for couplers) and they look silly in scale. Why go through the bother of prototype realism when those couplers look so out of place? OK its a compromise, but if we compromise there, where else are compromises made? I dislike them so much I would rather have lobster claws.
The 2 rail scale I own have European style couplers - Fine scale and Lenz - do not know how you could do any switching with these to open these couplers.
@ScoutingDad posted:The detail on the 2 rail MTH vs 3 rail MTH engines (my only reference) is different with the 2R versions looking better IMO. And I agree with the fixed pilot argument. Nice video.
However what are those chunks of wire hanging between the couplers? They look awful. I detested them in HO, (but they were better than what passed for couplers) and they look silly in scale. Why go through the bother of prototype realism when those couplers look so out of place? OK its a compromise, but if we compromise there, where else are compromises made? I dislike them so much I would rather have lobster claws.
The 2 rail scale I own have European style couplers - Fine scale and Lenz - do not know how you could do any switching with these to open these couplers.
Scouting Dad,
That is a thing that can be easily corrected.
Once you lay the 2 rail track the potential is there to correct the other stuff forever.
Once you lay the 3 rail track, you've conceded that you'll have a poor model of track on the layout from square 1.
@GregM posted:Why isn't O Scale 2-Rail more popular with model railroaders?
Maybe it has something to do with 2-Rail modelers telling anyone not already a true believer that the majority of what they think is WRONG.
What can be done to increase 2RS's popularity?
I refer you back to the response to the first question.
Interesting. I'm curious to how many people under 40 have posted to this thread. Again, a number of great points are being made. This topic always seems to bring the insults. It's crazy!
@rplst8 posted:One thing I've never understood though... In the HO world, where tolerances are much tighter, pretty much anything runs on 18" radius, with a few outliers requiring 22" radius. The scale equivalent for O would be 33" and 40" radii. Pretty much any 3R "scale" locomotive can work with those numbers... but 2R locomotives seemingly require 60" or higher radius curves. Why? If HO (with it's teeny tiny flanges) can get it done, why can't 2R O scale?
I'm going to come back to this again. Yes, most HO stuff can take an 18" radius curve, but how pretty does it look?? Common advice for any scale is to make your curves as generous a radius as is possible in your space. So much of 2-Rail O can take a 36" radius curve, but 60" or more will look much better, especially from the outside of the curve. That's all.
@Allan Miller posted:The Youngstown (OH) Model Railroad Association has large, permanent HO and 2-rail O scale layouts in a facility that is wholly owned by the club. Here are a few photos of the O scale layout taken in recent years (the club did not hold an open house during the Covid peak period). The photo of the planned roundhouse location was taken in 2018. The partially complete roundhouse is pictured in Nov. 2021. The HO club has a very active membership. The O scale section of the club is ALWAYS in need of new members who are willing to participate. At the present time, they rely on some of the HO members to assist with ongoing construction projects. If you live in the area and are interested in joining, just visit the YMRA's website.
Allan,
I looked at the website. It is a great club and an example of two displays that coexist. Both displays are impressive.
I would definitely join if I lived within a reasonable distance. I live in the SF Bay Area. NH Joe
Every scale/gauge has its strong points. Some, like relative availability, or nostalgia, are really accidents of history, but others belong to the nature of things. This is how I would boil it down:
Compared to 3-rail, 2-rail O scale is inherently more accurate.
Compared to smaller scales, 2-rail O scale is, or at least can be, better-detailed.
So, I would think that the person to rope in to grow the 2-rail O scale hobby is the person to whom realism and detail are paramount. I should think that the type of person who belongs to a railroad historical society, or the type who reads Trains or Classic Trains magazine, would prefer to model in 2-rail O, other things being equal. I would imagine that many people who enter the model railroad hobby as adults, unburdened by nostalgia for the trains of their youth, do so because of an interest in real trains, and would be happier in 2-rail O.
Now, I am a committed 3-railer, notwithstanding my admiration for what I see being done in 2-rail. The reasons, if anyone cares to know them, are several: a) nostalgia, b) a complex track plan with continuous running in an extremely limited space, c) a childish delight in trains that are big.
@GregM posted:Why isn't O Scale 2-Rail more popular with model railroaders?
Maybe it has something to do with 2-Rail modelers telling anyone not already a true believer that the majority of what they think is WRONG.
What can be done to increase 2RS's popularity?
I refer you back to the response to the first question.
As trotted out even in this Topic, the majority of what 'other' people think of 2-rail O scale IS wrong, yet they stick to it, despite being shown evidence to the contrary!!
@ScoutingDad posted:The detail on the 2 rail MTH vs 3 rail MTH engines (my only reference) is different with the 2R versions looking better IMO. And I agree with the fixed pilot argument. Nice video.
However what are those chunks of wire hanging between the couplers? They look awful. I detested them in HO, (but they were better than what passed for couplers) and they look silly in scale. Why go through the bother of prototype realism when those couplers look so out of place? OK its a compromise, but if we compromise there, where else are compromises made? I dislike them so much I would rather have lobster claws.
Wow!! How hard is it to just remove the trip pins from Kadees? 
There is another significant reason I would like to identify. When I first got into 2-rail O Scale, I was very surprised by the price of "brass". I was told that detail was the most highly prized characteristic of O Scale models, and that perhaps one half of all O scale buyers "did not have layouts and used their models for display only". So all of the negative characteristics of O Scale, i.e. minimum radius, insufficient room, etc etc are of NO CONCERN to perhaps half of this part of the hobby. Many O scalers do not even care if their models run. This most highly prized "correct detail" is perhaps the major reason why we have fractured further, into Proto48, ON3, etc., which has not helped our cause, and is in fact difficult to explain to a potential new entrant who "just wants to buy a great model like dad or grandpa ran".
I agree with almost all of the above comments. I believe that we O Scalers are close to or have reached a "minimum in number", and we will stay with it until none of us are left. I also believe that the 3 RS guys and the HO guys will see significant reduction in numbers in the years ahead, especially since these members number in the thousands, real railroaders have declined significantly in numbers, and the six North American transcons are trying to make themselves invisible. "Modeling" a real RR will not interest anyone...
There have been a lot of technical reasons shared here on why 2R has slowed...DC vs. AC, size requirements, wiring, etc. I maintain that the marketing behind 3R has made a difference in its popularity. For whatever reasons, 3R got an early start in modeling and companies like Lionel spent fortunes on advertising. Lionel has huge brand awareness. Even folks who are not model train enthusiasts recognize the Lionel brand. Had Lionel started 100 some years ago with 2R, I suspect that 2R would be the prominent choice today. Reversing the 3R dominence in the marketplace in a declining market space would take years and $$$ to occur.
Yes, there may be technical reasons but there are market forces that are also at play.
The first items produced by Joshua Lionel Cohen ran on two rail track. The switch to 3 rail track came later.
@SundayShunter posted:Wow!! How hard is it to just remove the trip pins from Kadees?
I would not think it is that hard, no clue as to how many couplers I would break if I did. But why then does nearly every 2 rail scale photo and vid contain rolling stock appear with the kadee hook still in place? If prototypical realism was all that important wouldn't those be removed regularly? I wish I understood why this "feature" bugs me so much. It really shouldn't matter.
