Stud Rail and Scale-Sized Electro Coupler

Good ideas

 

Bogie

 Kadee has a G scale opperating coupler. Not quite what's needed here. Expensive and you need radio control just for the coupler. I believe it uses RC servos. But the O scale Kadee will work in this manner I would think.  It just needs a similar setup to open the coupler using the existing electro coupler setup as far a wiring and a device to open it mechanicly. 

 There is also an HO coupler selling on ebay. Using a piece of thread that's pulled back by a device that rotates. The stock coupler spring is used to close the coupler. 

 I would prefer a modified Kadee rather than a bulky hard closing electro coupler.

Jtrain,
You're  not the only person who wants to see studrail happen in the O scale world. A few years ago I got in touch with Hugo the Dane, the last person I knew of who operated an O gauge studrail layout. He went to pure 2-rail, and sold me the last supply of studrail he had made up. Unfortunately most of it is spaced for the older black tie Atlas/Roco code 155 track, so I'm buying the older Atlas track whenever I can find it. Once I accumulate enough of that, I can set down a loop with the studrail on my layout and work on making tooling for the newer brown tie Atlas code 148 track.

If there's enough interest in the studrail as an add-on to Atlas 2 rail track, I may look into doing a dedicated studrail track system. Developing the tooling to do a new track system isn't  cheap, and many 3-railers are content with existing track systems- interest in it may not be enough to justify the expense in creating it. I plan to make enough studrail to finish my modular layout- if others are interested I'll make more. Studrail isn't for most O gaugers, but for those who like it, it's the perfect solution to running AC trains on 2 rail track


Geno

Not only Hugo, but several other folks (Fred Swain?) have developed really good looking track with studs.  I believe all found that 2-rail was lots easier, cheaper, and more trouble-free.  Nobody was able to find enough of a market to justify commercial production.

 

It turns out that most 3-railers like the center rail.  They prefer the look of "traditional" track.  Those few that don't say it would be too expensive to convert to some other track system.

 

I am quite sure that a scale size electro-coupler would sell well if it worked and was not a hundred dollars a copy.  In the meantime, Kadee couplers do quite well, even on 3-rail track.

 

All opinion, of course.

Just curious, how does one modify the locomotives to run on studrail?  It seems that would be another significant issue.

 

Wonder whatever happened to David Vergun and his beagle, he had hand made stud rail.

Don't get me going on this!

I am still waiting for a MTH version.

I was disappointed that the G scale version snaps when under very heavy loads. So I guess it's better to wait for them to get it right.

 I have run big consists outside in G scale and have to use KDs to haul and handle the stresses. The stock MTH G scale non-electric coupler seems to hold better. There are too many couplers in G scale that are not compatable with each other. I imagine there is a lot to designing the perfect coupler that is near scale, and works with all others in the market.

  If MTH released an electric scale coupler in O scale that had flaws, everyone would be bashing them.

My apology for not including Fred Swain in the list of studrail advocates- he has posted more than a few examples of his work, showing the potential of studrail to blurr the line between 2 and 3 rail.

 

I do agree with Bob's opinion about the viability of a studrail track system to compete in today's O gauge track market. Atlas O 2 rail, despite it's simplicity, is costly and not the easiest to buy due to production shortages. But thankfully there are other makers of O gauge 2-rail track like Micro Engineering, and it's cost per foot is much less than Atlas O. That being said, if an add-on studrail was available, interested parties could easily put together their own studrail track and evaluate it for themselves.

 

Atlas O attempted to market an scale electrocoupler, but it's function wasn't even up to Lionel's lobster claw electrocoupler, so it was rejected by most O scalers. I'm okay with Kadee 805s on my diesels- they may be manual, but they're proven, reliable, and seemlessly mate with lobster claws- Atlas couplers only mate with other scale couplers.

 

Geno

Does anyone make Code 172 2-rail track?  I think that is the lowest scale profile height that will work with all 3-rail wheel flanges.  Others have tested Code 148 track and found that some 3-rail wheel flanges touch the ties, but maybe I am misremembering.

All that we really need is a manufacturer to make the center rail.  If it is made with blackened material, it would be pretty much invisible except from a few inches away.  Even then, it would appear as simulated oil drip spots between the rails.  The center stud rail could be used with existing 2-rail track.  Turnouts seem to be a complication, however.  The clip on "skis" would seem easy enough.

Add scale sized electro-couplers for locomotives, maybe kadees for rolling stock, and all that is really left are scale pilots for diesel locomotives and coupler related details, in some cases.  Most of the 2-rail pilots for diesels that I have seen from Weaver and Atlas could be done much better.  Perhaps 3D printing is the answer for prototypically accurate scale pilots?

My goal in all this is to have something that looks just like 2-rail scale but to be able to buy and use the much greater and usually less expensive variety of 3-rail locomotives and rolling stock, without needing to convert anything other than relatively minor modifications.  2-rail rolling stock could also be used unmodified.  It seems there are others out there who share this goal.

Jtrain,

It's interesting you mention code 172 track- back in the 40s and 50s, most 2-rail O gaugers used code 172 solid rail, with handlaid ties and spikes. The oversized rail profile common now was no doubt due to different manufacturers attempting to match the height of classic 0 and then 0-27 Lionel track, but then realizing it was too tall and toylike to look realistic.

 

As far as attempting to disguise or minimize the center rail, this is nothing new- Gargraves has had a darkened center "phantom" rail for 50+ years. Atlas 3-rail also has a darkened center rail, but many have had issues with conductivity on the center rail, and just sanded or polished the coating off the top of the rail. MTH's Scaletrax has a narrow, darkened center rail, realistic tie plates, and a lower profile rail. All of these track systems attempt to hide the center rail, but IMO it's still there and obvious to me- only studrail allows 3-rail trains to run on 2-rail track. The studrail treatment can also be done to all three of these track systems, making them look even more realistic. Of course many 3-railers prefer the RTR nature of existing 3-rail track systems.

 

I've attempted to run some of my 3-rail engines on Atlas code 148 track- the Lionel engines in particular had flanges that were too tall, and hit the ties. The Atlas, MTH, and even K-Line 3-rail engines have smaller flanges and work better on code 148 track, but the taller flanges still cause the engines to jump over the frogs on switches. The best scenario is an 3-rail engine that can be retrofitted with scale wheels, like the MTH 3/2 Protoscale and Atlas diesels.

 

I do agree It's better to buy diesels with fixed pilots and scale wheels, like the MTH 3/2 Protoscale engines, but I'm not opposed to converting 3-rail versions with hi-rail wheels. O gauge 3-railers have gotten used to pulling RTR engines out of the box and running them, but if I can buy slightly used engines at a good price and convert them to fixed pilots, scale couplers and wheels, I'll do it. I started in 3-rail O scale over 25+ years ago- I'm converting the engines and rolling stock I like, selling off the rest and buying newer equipment as I go. It involves some work, but is a much more cost- effective means of getting the trains I want.

 

Geno

Good question. I think the shoe would have to be a clip-on/off since the stud rail layouts would be in a minority.

Here's a couple of links to stud rail standards developed over the pond. These go back to pre-electric layouts with clockwork and/or live steam. Adding the wire and studs was an adaptation. Take a close look at the centre of the track in the photo.

 

http://www.gauge0guild.com/ima...Slides%5Cprog23a.jpg

 

Page 11 here: http://www.gauge0guild.com/manual/01_1_Standards.pdf

 

The stud center rail can be easily cut at a laser or CO2  shop out of .060 steel

The easiest way to do it is use split homasote roadbed , put the center rail standing between the 2 halves and then just use Gargraves 2 rail flex track. when it comes to switches just make pieces of the stud rail with taller studs to lift shoe over the rails.

Just look at Marklin  C Track , the studs are taller on the turnouts the gradually get taller then go back down . When laser cutting the rail you need to select the track type you will use , to space the stud accordingly.

I built a 9ft X 9 ft layout and had it working well 10 years ago.If anyone doing this and wants some 172 rail , I have about 600 ft  of steel rail.

 

Bernie

So Bernie - are you running stud rail now?

 

Stunning the lengths you guys will go to to retain the center rail and still make it less obvious.  If you don't care for the center rail, try 2-rail.  Just one loop, outside the 3-rail loops.

 

Delbridge and others will tell you - radio control and batteries are the up-and-coming thing.  Ten you can keep your studs for appearance, and drop the sliders.

 

Our track gauge is too wide - the code 172 rail makes the track look narrower.  I use 148, but a lot of my models are 17/64 to fit the gauge.

       
       


Bob, are you saying that Code 172 looks more prototypical than Code 148 because of the inherent problem of the O gauge track width?  In other words, Code 172 makes the proportions look "right" while Code 148 leaves the track looking too wide, which it is, of course?

My reply to the common question of why not just convert to 2-rail is why convert to 2-rail when you could run stud rail, which looks just like 2-rail but has all the advantages of 3-rail, such as:

-I can run my 1939 Lionel 700E, unmodified
-I can buy/run Lionel, MTH, and K-Line locomotives without difficult/expensive conversions
-It is easier to make a 3-rail locomotive look scale than to convert it to 2-rail (the oversized flanges and pickup rollers/skis do not bother me since you do not really see the flanges or pickups when the trains are on the track)
-The cost of MTH/Lionel/K-Line locomotives is so much less than the 2-rail alternatives, if they were even made in 2-rail, and if you can find them, sometimes the difference is $300 for the 3-rail plastic/die cast version vs. $2,000 for a similar appearing (often, in my opinion) brass 2-rail version

At some viewing angles even stud contact doesn't look all that good.

There is a big difference between the standards used for wheels for the 3-rail market and 2-rail, best to treat the two systems as incompatible. One of the best options is to look at what Bob Delbridge is doing with battery/ radio if you want to keep your 3-rail stuff. This allows him to remove the third rail, but keep his existing 3-rail wheels and track.... an economical solution!

If you are really unhappy with the look of your toy market equipment then there is no substitute for closer to scale items and that starts with track that looks like the prototype and matching wheels.

 

Good luck!

regards

Bob

No , I gave the layout away , I am no longer in O scale trains , I just am finishing up some models of custom cars and buildings that I built for an  O scale 2 rail TMCC layout of my own  but gave that up as well , I do build O scale stuff for a few good customers and always will but  O scale has way too many divisions ,manufacturers that don't work together for controls that interface ,took all the fun out of it , other scales have a much easier way to use many different brands together and the details and accuracy like Exactrail , Athearn Genesis , BLMA , Intermountain is so amazing right out of the box .Customer support , spare parts are easily available  more user friendly. I read this and other forums  for fun .

 

 

A center rail that is hidden in ballast and rides just above the ties I would think would be very difficult to clean. Rails must get dirty. I know my Gargraves does and there are always plenty of threads on how to clean the rails and who makes the best track cleaning car. I've seen all the pics of stud rail and saw it in person many years ago at an O Scale convention when it was being developed.

 Most operators that desire a more 2 rail appearance in track seem to be running large steamers with constraints to track radius. They are plentiful, will negotiate a tight radius and come RTR with all the bells and whistles. Ripping up the center rail and converting the engines to 2 rail probably isn't an option. With traction tires and blind center drivers I think it would be unreliable as far as electrical contact. The stud rail does look good. Pretty invisible at a quick glance. I've seen some track work that is O Scale but used a very small HO rail for the center rail. Noticeable but with low profile outer rails and correctly spaced ties it was the best of both worlds. I think what Bob is doing with battery power is probably the way to go if it's just a matter of removing the middle rail. The compromise is you want bells and whistles and the RTR steamer and now your giving that up.

 

I have to believe the wear on a ski on the rollers will be far greater than the roller we use now.  I think I'll stick to the old 3-rail track.

 

I'll just go 2 rail

. Ripping up the center rail and converting the engines to 2 rail probably isn't an option.

 

But my point was that installing stud rail at this point might be more expensive than ripping and converting.  Ask yourself why the proponents did just that in the end?

 

Yes, some 2–rail brass is five times as expensive as MTH, but there are other ways to go 2-rail, like just buying 3rd Rail, or even 2-rail MTH.  Bells and whistles do come with the MTH 2-rail.  

 

I have some sympathy for those who want to run a 1939 700E, but not much.  I 2-railed mine a very long time ago.  Everybody who proposed to offer zip-in stud rail has given the idea up after checking manufacturing price and market viability.  They all found it cheaper and more satisfying to go 2-rail with existing products.

       
       


I don't believe that is an issue.  The material used, for rollers or skis, is the main factor for wear.

       

       

I guess it depends on what you want/have.  For example, I have 20 E6 AA and ABA locomotives from Lionel and MTH for my passenger trains.  These cost about $400 each, on average, used.  That is about $8,000 total.  These locomotives were not offered in 2-rail by MTH (or Lionel, of course) but they are very scale in appearance, with scale couplers installed. My only option in 2-rail would be brass.  Sure, I could buy 2 or 3 Key brass versions of these in 2-rail used for that same $8,000.  And I would have to paint/repaint a lot of them to get all of the same roadnames.  All of that would be extremely expensive!  I do not want to spend $80,000 plus painting costs just for those locomotives, even though they are more prototypically correct.  I see that as only a marginal improvement, visible on close inspection only, and certainly not worth $70,000+.

Since I am planning a new layout anyway, the stud rail option looks much cheaper and easier going forward, once it is in place and working.

I've never been taken by the stud-rail idea. It seems like a lot of changes for what will still be a "compromised" appearance, and the sliders...well, no thanks, really.

 

If a 3-rail stud (t-shirt idea, there) system were started with a clean sheet of paper, and I mean the locos, too...but a conversion? Unseen issues. Cascading anomalies. Less than stellar results and appearance.

 

I certainly wouldn't be a user - too much to change and modify. Guys with small inventories, perhaps.

 

Likewise I will stick to the large O-gauge couplers, at this point. On scale equipment they look less large, and I certainly can't convert my "fleet" - locos (small electros) or rolling stock (to Kadees).

 

2-railers: an opportunity missed, 30 years ago. Too inflexible. Sad.

I really don't understand all the seeming resistance to stud rail.  It seems like the logical next step from Lionel Super O to MTH Scaletrax.  It just seems that once you make the third rail pretty much invisible, and you have scale couplers, you have the appearance of 2-rail at a much cheaper cost and choice of product long term.

Can someone post a picture of stud rail?

 

I haven't been around very long and have no idea what this is..

Aaron,

 

 Just picture 2 rail track with pin heads in the center of each tie.

 

Marklin used this system years ago in AC powered HO as well.

 

Doug

Here is one example. It is not the best example however as the linking wire has been strung over the sleepers.

 

Some old copies of Model Railroader should show the part of John Armstrong's layout that used s/c.

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, the s/c system is self cleaning due to the sliding skate, hence its popularity for outdoor layouts. The skate (or ski if you like) will probably wear out in time but I know some with more than 50 years of use.

This part of that club layout has since been converted to solid centre third using brass wire similar to track on the right of shot.

 

This b/w shot from a Victorian layout from the 50's shows the idea at its best.

http://www.vmrs.net/5410_aec.html

 

 

regards

 Bob

Here are some photos of O gauge stud rail track and an O gauge ski/slider from forum member fredswain (from this thread:  https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...-to-stud-rail?page=1 ):

 

I remember MTH talking about O scale electro couplers a few years ago. Nothing came of it as far as I know. Don