My 2R HiRail (2RHR) adventure begins

that is 2 rail gargraves track.....

please post more pictures of this....

Interesting idea, especially with the variety of turnouts Ross makes. Without the center rail, the rail height doesn't seem as pronounced. By the way, very nice ballasting job (which also makes the ties less pronounced).

Wow! I've never seen Gargraves track look so good. I wish I would have thought of this idea years ago. It's a real space saver but back when I converted MTH was not making 2R High Rail locomotives. "It's not fantastic, but it looks a heck of a lot better than going 3 rail IMHO. " I totally agree but what about rolling stock? Will you use the stock 2 rail wheel sets or some other type of wheel sets? Do you think that the rolling stock will have any problems with the switches?

I knew Gargraves made 2R track and turnouts but not Ross. Do you have to have the Ross track specially made?

Is the EL switcher an MTH locomotive?

I think you can special order the Ross turnouts as 2-rail. At one time they also offered machined metal frogs. 2-rail rolling stock works fine on Gargraves track and Ross turnouts already, the exception being backing through curve-replacement turnouts (i.e., O-72). Long-frog turnouts (#6, #8, #10) would need a "frog-point" because the 3-rail-gapped frog has too much space. We put one into a #8 curved turnout on the club layout several years ago (still works great) to support scale-wheeled equipment.

I have to admit, with the way it's ballasted and missing the center rail, the track looks entirely different. One big plus on using Gargraves is the cost per foot is lower than just about all of the other track available.

Hey, I recognize that EL unit, Jonathan. It used to live in my basement!

That is some pretty sharp looking track!

Hey Matt, what's a "frog-point"? I never heard of that.

Anyone know why the 3 rail stuff is gauged different than 2 rail? I noticed this when I built my shelves. It was tough to figure out a way so I could display both 2 and 3 rail equipment.

It's one of these:

We put it in almost 8 years ago. The #8 frog is so long that scale wheels (and some hi-rail wheels) would have problems. So one of our members machined it from aluminum (it has curved edges to match the radii of the component curves). Ross has the  PDF files for 1:1 printouts of their products for planning and it was perfect to make the piece. It has a shaft that runs through the base of the frog and is actuated by a second Tortoise machine tied into the one that moves the points. A little bit of the frog was machined out to make notches for the point and the tail end where it swivels.

AGHRMatt posted:

Interesting idea, especially with the variety of turnouts Ross makes. Without the center rail, the rail height doesn't seem as pronounced. By the way, very nice ballasting job (which also makes the ties less pronounced).

Thank you Matt.

Hudson J1e posted:

Wow! I've never seen Gargraves track look so good. I wish I would have thought of this idea years ago. It's a real space saver but back when I converted MTH was not making 2R High Rail locomotives. "It's not fantastic, but it looks a heck of a lot better than going 3 rail IMHO. " I totally agree but what about rolling stock? Will you use the stock 2 rail wheel sets or some other type of wheel sets? Do you think that the rolling stock will have any problems with the switches?

I knew Gargraves made 2R track and turnouts but not Ross. Do you have to have the Ross track specially made?

Is the EL switcher an MTH locomotive?

I am going to attempt to use the 2 rail wheelset if possible. If they don't get along well with the turnouts then I will switch to NWSL insulated HiRail wheel sets. So far the 2R wheels are working.

On Ross's website under the FAQ section it lists the 2 rail option. I called Steve to verify and he said he will make anything in 2R if you ask. Also, Gargraves makes a couple 2R turnouts as well that are similar.

The switcher is an Atlas O 2R that I got from Bill McBride. Thanks Bill

In the very old days of O scale 2R,  code 172 and larger was pretty much the standard. I don't know what code Gargraves 2R track is, but it doesn't look any larger than some early layouts I've seen in photos from the 40's, 50's and 60's. 

Weathering always seems to shrink the code of any rail and your's looks very nice Jonathan. 

Butch

up148 posted:

In the very old days of O scale 2R,  code 172 and larger was pretty much the standard. I don't know what code Gargraves 2R track is, but it doesn't look any larger than some early layouts I've seen in photos from the 40's, 50's and 60's. 

Weathering always seems to shrink the code of any rail and your's looks very nice Jonathan. 

 

Butch

Thanks Butch.

Good morning  Jonathan   

I also have thought about doing this, you received more favorable response than I did. My freight fleet rides on 80% Weaver trucks with Delrin wheels and Kadee couplers and all my MTH as the 2/3 rail option. so maybe next layout will be Gargraves 2 rail.

Thanks for posting  

Clem k  

Matt, thanks for the explanation.

Jonathan, I agree with Butch. Your weathering looks fantastic.

And another advantage to doing what Jonathan is doing is locomotives on the secondary market are much easier to find since MTH made so many more of them.

clem k posted:

Good morning  Jonathan   

I also have thought about doing this, you received more favorable response than I did. My freight fleet rides on 80% Weaver trucks with Delrin wheels and Kadee couplers and all my MTH as the 2/3 rail option. so maybe next layout will be Gargraves 2 rail.

Thanks for posting  

Clem k  

Thanks Clem. You are 2/3 of the way there

Hudson J1e posted:

Matt, thanks for the explanation.

Jonathan, I agree with Butch. Your weathering looks fantastic.

And another advantage to doing what Jonathan is doing is locomotives on the secondary market are much easier to find since MTH made so many more of them.

Thanks Phil. You are correct about the secondary market options. Scale wheel models rarely come around. Proto 3/2 HiRail models are much more plentiful. The only quirk is that my diesels will need to be setup like the 3RS folks do - Scale wheel "-2" models to get the fixed pilots and scale couplers, but probably run the HiRail wheel sets for reliable operation.

jonnyspeed posted:

Hudson J1e posted:

Matt, thanks for the explanation.

Jonathan, I agree with Butch. Your weathering looks fantastic.

And another advantage to doing what Jonathan is doing is locomotives on the secondary market are much easier to find since MTH made so many more of them.

Thanks Phil. You are correct about the secondary market options. Scale wheel models rarely come around. Proto 3/2 HiRail models are much more plentiful. The only quirk is that my diesels will need to be setup like the 3RS folks do - Scale wheel "-2" models to get the fixed pilots and scale couplers, but probably run the HiRail wheel sets for reliable operation.

With consistent track work (no-kinks) the scale wheels will work fine on Gargraves/Ross track, especially without a center rail to lift the locomotive up by it's pickup rollers (the cause of most of my locomotive derailments). The limitation is that they're not going to take kindly to less than 36" radius. The long-wheelbase diesels (Es44's, SD70ACe's) can go through 36" radius with cars coupled, but there will be some cars that will create problems (cars with longer space between the end sills and the truck bolsters). It's trial and error -- in my case a lot of trials with a lot of errors. Hi-rail wheelsets, of course, will work fine. A compromise would be Code 172 wheels with .062 flanges.

Good Day Jonathan,

I really like this idea! My thinking the rolling stock and engines will track better in 2R HiRail (2RHR)! less derails!

Regards,

Frank

Thank you Frank.  I hope to have some video of my experiments posted this weekend.

Here is a picture of a early MAX GRAY truck , note the larger flanges . Also is pictured is a handlaid .172 turnout .Code 172 rail was used for years , along with TRUSCALE roadbed . Truscale was wood , and cut with a lot of different radius. I had a lot of 96 and 84 .

At one time I had over 1000 ft of the roadbed all large radius curves and  3ft straight sections . The original man who made it used old lumber from wooden boats. His son is in Spring Hill Florida , and has the machines , he bought all the roadbed from me . 

I think his company is Ironhorse models , his name is Tony

Scratchbuilder1-48 posted:

Here is a picture of a early MAX GRAY truck , note the larger flanges . Also is pictured is a handlaid .172 turnout .Code 172 rail was used for years , along with TRUSCALE roadbed . Truscale was wood , and cut with a lot of different radius. I had a lot of 96 and 84 .

At one time I had over 1000 ft of the roadbed all large radius curves and  3ft straight sections . The original man who made it used old lumber from wooden boats. His son is in Spring Hill Florida , and has the machines , he bought all the roadbed from me . 

I think his company is Ironhorse models , his name is Tony

Really nice work! I thought of hand-laying my own 2RHR track, but after some thought I realized that I just don't have the time to complete all of my current projects, finish a basement, build a layout, AND hand-lay my track. Maybe someday, but for now I need off the shelf RTR track. That's why I'm going with GG and Ross.

Test runs today:

Good demonstration.

The derailment was what I expected to see with a curve-replacement turnout because the curve extends through the frog which causes the scale wheels to pick the frog. The cause is the guard rail gap being too wide (which could be narrowed and still support modern hi-rail backspacing), which lets the flange get too close to the point of the frog and pick it. My experience with Ross numbered turnouts we use at the club (#5/11-degree) has been good, with only a couple of "pick" derailments when backing long trains into the staging yard. I think that's related to the pressure on the offending car from the weight of the cars being pushed. Using #4 turnouts should be even better than the #5's because the angle of the frog is larger, resulting in a smaller gap between the closure rails and the back of the frog for the wheel to cross.

Very interesting project Jonathan!  It's encouraging to see how that works so well. In regular 2-rail I have faced a similar "frog challenge" with Atlas/Roco 2 rail switches. They are roughly #6 and the spec sheet says 2.0 metre radius. The frogs are way over scale to accommodate the older wheelsets you mention. To limit drop-in with closer to scale wheels they came with a couple of frog inserts in different thicknesses. See attached pics. Perhaps such a tweak could benefit your frogs? Easy to make in brass strip, or if you don't need powered frogs, styrene.

Also, a strip of styrene glued on edge to the inside of the guard rails might help prevent derailing such as the lead axle did on your gondola. Might need some trial end error to find how much you can narrow the flangeway and move its centre line towards the outside rail, and still run all the wheel profiles you want to. 

Lastly, don't you just love that TCS WOWDiesel in "prototype throttle" mode? I recently put one in my SW9 and I can't stop running it.  The way it responds to load, and then drops back to idle when coasting seems so much more realistic than other decoders I've tried.            

Pete

EDIT: Oops, Matt beat me to it. Right on! 

Jonathan, I didn't notice the trucks/wheels dipping thru the frog, did you build up the bottom of the frog so they wouldn't or did Ross provide frogs that were made for 2-rail (not as deep as 3-rail)?

I didn't read every word on every post, so maybe you already mentioned this.

When I pulled my middle rail up last May I left the 3-rail wheels on everything because (1) didn't want to machine the engines wheels and (2) didn't want to change all my rolling stock with 3-rail trucks/wheels to 2-rail at the time.

I've tried some 2-rail wheels on a couple of cars, but they dip when going thru the frogs.

I love this idea!    I have three MTH scale wheel engines on order: one SD70ACe and two SD60E's.  Will I have a problem with Ross's #4 switches, or should I invest in the #5's?  I'm planning an L shape industry using auto racks, hi-cube boxes, and well cars for freight. 

I love the WOW sound decoder but I love the Loksound ESU more.  IMO, it's the best decoder in DCC.  ESU updates their prime mover files all the time making it easy for the end user to download the files to their engines.  Just my two cents!  

Well done Jonathan. The trains look so much better without the third rail and ballasted.

Wanting continuous run in O gauge without a large area available often means having visually unbelievable curves so hiding them as much has possible will also add to the  look of your railroad.

Closed frog points are a reliable way of accommodating wildly varying wheel standards.  I can remember at least one manufacturer offering them years ago in Walthers catalogues. Not sure if was in O or HO or both.

 When first contemplating my outdoor O gauge layout many years back I first planned to use closed frog points. While I preferred 2-rail the local market was still principally 3-rail era and I saw them as a way of accommodating most wheels likely to show up. I planned to use a large rail section to clear the flanges of many 3-rail items and provide switchable stud contact or 2-rail  for power.  Laziness won out and I used commercial track suitable for my finescale wheeled models. Given no 3-railers have turned up at my door to be disappointed perhaps I made the right decision?

Best of luck with your endeavour.

Regards

BobC

Bob Delbridge posted:

Jonathan, I didn't notice the trucks/wheels dipping thru the frog, did you build up the bottom of the frog so they wouldn't or did Ross provide frogs that were made for 2-rail (not as deep as 3-rail)?

I didn't read every word on every post, so maybe you already mentioned this.

When I pulled my middle rail up last May I left the 3-rail wheels on everything because (1) didn't want to machine the engines wheels and (2) didn't want to change all my rolling stock with 3-rail trucks/wheels to 2-rail at the time.

I've tried some 2-rail wheels on a couple of cars, but they dip when going thru the frogs.

Atlas trucks aren't equalized so the "dipping" is minimal. It's more pronounced with Weaver plastic trucks which are fully equalized and the wheels dip a lot more. Pete's frog inserts keep the wheels from dipping as far because the scale wheel flanges will ride on the inserts (which the prototypes do to an extent to keep the wheels from banging the frog). If you're running modern hi-rail wheels, the backside spacing is a bit farther out, so narrowing the guard rail gap would work with both scale and hi-rail wheels and reduce incidents of picking the frogs. There are three of us at AGHR that run scale wheels and we've looked at this to make backing through turnouts smoother.

Bob Delbridge posted:

Jonathan, I didn't notice the trucks/wheels dipping thru the frog, did you build up the bottom of the frog so they wouldn't or did Ross provide frogs that were made for 2-rail (not as deep as 3-rail)?

I didn't read every word on every post, so maybe you already mentioned this.

When I pulled my middle rail up last May I left the 3-rail wheels on everything because (1) didn't want to machine the engines wheels and (2) didn't want to change all my rolling stock with 3-rail trucks/wheels to 2-rail at the time.

I've tried some 2-rail wheels on a couple of cars, but they dip when going thru the frogs.

This is a 36"r radius (curve replacement) Gargraves turnout. I have done nothing to it except paint it. Scale wheels from intermountain, MTH, and Atlas all make it through just fine. Of course 3R flanged wheels work fine too as long as they are insulated. I'd rather not have to order NWSL insulated axles unless absolutely necessary as they are $18 for 4.

Bob Reynolds posted:

I love this idea!    I have three MTH scale wheel engines on order: one SD70ACe and two SD60E's.  Will I have a problem with Ross's #4 switches, or should I invest in the #5's?  I'm planning an L shape industry using auto racks, hi-cube boxes, and well cars for freight. 

I love the WOW sound decoder but I love the Loksound ESU more.  IMO, it's the best decoder in DCC.  ESU updates their prime mover files all the time making it easy for the end user to download the files to their engines.  Just my two cents!  

Hi Bob. I don't believe you will have a problem with #4s (unless the engines are too long for a 4) or #5s. AGHRMATT can give you guidance on #6 and larger. I believe the scale wheels will start to drop in on the larger turnouts. I'll be using most #4s and #5s though if possible.

I love the ESU as well. TCS and ESU have different strengths. I'm happy with both for different reasons.

Bob Reynolds posted:

I love this idea!    I have three MTH scale wheel engines on order: one SD70ACe and two SD60E's.  Will I have a problem with Ross's #4 switches, or should I invest in the #5's?  I'm planning an L shape industry using auto racks, hi-cube boxes, and well cars for freight. 

...

According to Ross, the points on the #4's are actually 36" radius to handle the largest 3-rail locomotives, but the frog is 14 degrees. The SD70ACe and SD60e should get through fine but I like the 11-degree turnouts better from an appearance standpoint. The key is making sure the turnout is level on all three ends. What gets my six-axle diesels at the club is uneven curved track where one of the running rails is low enough to allow the engine to ride on the pickup roller instead of one of the wheels.

Johathan,

I really like the test video's, I have not made my choice yet for 2 rail track. But after seeing your work, I just might go the gargraves way like you are instead of atlas track. 

If the price is about the same, I would rather buy track made here then china. I will be following you on facebook too, thanks for sharing your wealth of information.

Pete

Bob Comerford posted:

Well done Jonathan. The trains look so much better without the third rail and ballasted.

Wanting continuous run in O gauge without a large area available often means having visually unbelievable curves so hiding them as much has possible will also add to the  look of your railroad.

Closed frog points are a reliable way of accommodating wildly varying wheel standards.  I can remember at least one manufacturer offering them years ago in Walthers catalogues. Not sure if was in O or HO or both.

 When first contemplating my outdoor O gauge layout many years back I first planned to use closed frog points. While I preferred 2-rail the local market was still principally 3-rail era and I saw them as a way of accommodating most wheels likely to show up. I planned to use a large rail section to clear the flanges of many 3-rail items and provide switchable stud contact or 2-rail  for power.  Laziness won out and I used commercial track suitable for my finescale wheeled models. Given no 3-railers have turned up at my door to be disappointed perhaps I made the right decision?

Best of luck with your endeavour.

Regards

BobC

Thank you Bob. I looked at closed frogs in S at one time. They are very functional. I'm pretty confident that I will be fine going this route.

DL&W Pete posted:

Johathan,

I really like the test video's, I have not made my choice yet for 2 rail track. But after seeing your work, I just might go the gargraves way like you are instead of atlas track. 

If the price is about the same, I would rather buy track made here then china. I will be following you on facebook too, thanks for sharing your wealth of information.

Pete

You're welcome Pete. I'll be honest... I HATE the 3rd rail, but I still LOVE the trains. I've been thinking of doing this for years, but kept telling myself I was crazy. But then I said why not? I want to prove that anyone with a 3 rail layout could build the exact same thing in 2 rail if they like. You have to give up everything other than MTH and other 2 rail scale models, but to me it's worth the compromise. Who knows, maybe Lionel will see this and seriously consider supporting 2R going forward? I never thought I'd see them offering Kadee coupler support either.

There are some excellent 3 rail layouts out there. Dave Minarik and Bob Bartizek have two of my favorites. They both use Gargraves and Ross track. They would be even better if they pulled out their center rail and went 2RHR IMHO. I know Dave has mentioned wishing he went 2R before.

I think I'll try again with the 2-rail wheels I have and see what happens.

I contacted Ross about making 2-rail track and it seemed like Steve said it was the same price, but was "BTO" and would take longer to get.

If anyone goes this route, I would suggest using as much Ross track as possible.  Gargraves track has that groove cut in the ties to hold the rail in place whereas Ross track is spiked to the ties.  The photo below was taken during my process of pulling up the center rail, it shows a Ross turnout, with Gargraves track on the left (you can see the grooves down the center of the ties).  Ross track is also spiked so it has no grooves cut in the ties.  you can also see the Gargraves track in between the ties, Ross curved track does have a stringer (plastic or wooden, not sure) underneath to keep the curve in place.  Of course Ross does not make flex track (I wonder if they have plans to make any?).

LOL!  You can see where my cat Lily walked thru the scenery while it was still wet.

AGHRMatt posted:

Bob Reynolds posted:

I love this idea!    I have three MTH scale wheel engines on order: one SD70ACe and two SD60E's.  Will I have a problem with Ross's #4 switches, or should I invest in the #5's?  I'm planning an L shape industry using auto racks, hi-cube boxes, and well cars for freight. 

...

According to Ross, the points on the #4's are actually 36" radius to handle the largest 3-rail locomotives, but the frog is 14 degrees. The SD70ACe and SD60e should get through fine but I like the 11-degree turnouts better from an appearance standpoint. The key is making sure the turnout is level on all three ends. What gets my six-axle diesels at the club is uneven curved track where one of the running rails is low enough to allow the engine to ride on the pickup roller instead of one of the wheels.

Thanks Matt!  I just looked at the Ross regular #11 (100-101) and I think you hit the nail on the head.  I'm going to order one from Steve at Ross and run testing like Jonathan using the GarGraves turnout.  I may have to wait 4 to 6 weeks for the turnout, but this is so exciting! 

Bob Delbridge posted:

I think I'll try again with the 2-rail wheels I have and see what happens.

I contacted Ross about making 2-rail track and it seemed like Steve said it was the same price, but was "BTO" and would take longer to get.

If anyone goes this route, I would suggest using as much Ross track as possible.  Gargraves track has that groove cut in the ties to hold the rail in place whereas Ross track is spiked to the ties.  The photo below was taken during my process of pulling up the center rail, it shows a Ross turnout, with Gargraves track on the left (you can see the grooves down the center of the ties).  Ross track is also spiked so it has no grooves cut in the ties.  you can also see the Gargraves track in between the ties, Ross curved track does have a stringer (plastic or wooden, not sure) underneath to keep the curve in place.  Of course Ross does not make flex track (I wonder if they have plans to make any?).

LOL!  You can see where my cat Lily walked thru the scenery while it was still wet.

Bob-

I'm sending Steve an email tonight after dinner to order a switch.  I'll ask if Ross has any plans to make flex track.  I think the answer will be no, but no harm asking! 

Bob Reynolds posted:

AGHRMatt posted:

Bob Reynolds posted:

I love this idea!    I have three MTH scale wheel engines on order: one SD70ACe and two SD60E's.  Will I have a problem with Ross's #4 switches, or should I invest in the #5's?  I'm planning an L shape industry using auto racks, hi-cube boxes, and well cars for freight. 

...

According to Ross, the points on the #4's are actually 36" radius to handle the largest 3-rail locomotives, but the frog is 14 degrees. The SD70ACe and SD60e should get through fine but I like the 11-degree turnouts better from an appearance standpoint. The key is making sure the turnout is level on all three ends. What gets my six-axle diesels at the club is uneven curved track where one of the running rails is low enough to allow the engine to ride on the pickup roller instead of one of the wheels.

Thanks Matt!  I just looked at the Ross regular #11 (100-101) and I think you hit the nail on the head.  I'm going to order one from Steve at Ross and run testing like Jonathan using the GarGraves turnout.  I may have to wait 4 to 6 weeks for the turnout, but this is so exciting! 

I'm placing an order soon as well. I think I'm going to try to pickup a couple 3 rail turnouts in the mean time to test. We have a train show this weekend that I'm hoping I can find a #4 or #5 3R that I can test until the order comes in. I have to agree with you Bob. I'm excited too

Jonathon, that is great looking track, and a very believable compromise. I have done the same on my small layout, with the addition of a few areas that have outside third rail. I use the OS 3rd rail and/or catenary to feed power to battery chargers in the locomotives. The radio control takes care of speed and direction, bells and whistles.

It's not scale, but it allows me to operate my old LIRR and PRR 3-rail rolling stock and other post-war favorites (for instance, about 50 AMT/Kusan boxcars) without needing to do the wheel-insulating hassle. It also allows me to use the insulated rail method of train location/signalling. 

I have purchased many Ross 2-rail switches and 2-rail fixed-radius curved sections from them, on special order, that mate with my GG straight sections. 

Your ballasting work, the 5' scale width between the rails and the high rails, (which make the over-sized ties seem more in scale) the absence of the middle rail, and the rail weathering, all combine, in my opinion, to a "close enough" appearance.

Enjoy!

Looks awesome!  I wish I had known I could order 2 rail gargraves when I bought all my 3-rail track.  I'll be pulling the middle rail and breaking ties in the near future.  =(

Neat stuff Jonathan. The track weathering looks good.. So this is Gargraves 2 rail high rail track ? I'm guessing Ross makes the same. This is foreign to me, so you can run MTH 3/2 engines on this track? And other smaller scale 2 rail engines. Are you planning on smaller curves? Is this a larger code rail? I had No idea that Gargraves made this track.

Could you run larger scale non MTH steam or would you need huge curves to accomplish that? Anyways nice work!

Seacoast posted:

Neat stuff Jonathan. The track weathering looks good.. So this is Gargraves 2 rail high rail track ? I'm guessing Ross makes the same. This is foreign to me, so you can run MTH 3/2 engines on this track? And other smaller scale 2 rail engines. Are you planning on smaller curves? Is this a larger code rail? I had No idea that Gargraves made this track.

Could you run larger scale non MTH steam or would you need huge curves to accomplish that? Anyways nice work!

Ross makes sectional curves up to 64" radius (O-128) and I'm pretty sure they'll make up the track minus the center rail. Gargraves also makes sectional curved track up to 69" radius (O-138) but they don't have a 2-rail configuration listed on their site.

Seacoast posted:

Neat stuff Jonathan. The track weathering looks good.. So this is Gargraves 2 rail high rail track ? I'm guessing Ross makes the same. This is foreign to me, so you can run MTH 3/2 engines on this track? And other smaller scale 2 rail engines. Are you planning on smaller curves? Is this a larger code rail? I had No idea that Gargraves made this track.

Could you run larger scale non MTH steam or would you need huge curves to accomplish that? Anyways nice work!

Hi George. You have touched on the primary reason for attempting 2R HiRail in the first place. MTH HiRail steam engines are typically run on 3 rail track. You can remove the center rollers and flip a switch and they will also run on 2 rails. So that means you can run them on 2 rail track with the exact same curves that they run on in 3 rail mode. Example: An MTH Big Boy will run on 36"r (O-72) with HiRail wheels but the scale wheel version requires 72"r (or O-144 equivalent).

The only catch (where MTH messed up IMHO) is that the HiRail wheels aren't gauged to NMRA standards and they have flanges that are too deep. That means they won't work on normal 2 rail scale turnouts like Atlas code 148. They will work on Ross and Gargraves turnouts though because they are essentially 3R engines that can pull power from 2 rails with the flip of a switch.

The funny thing is this is nothing new. MTH has had this feature since 2004 I believe. But now with PS3 they added DCC capability along with auto polarity sensing so they can go through 2 rail reverse loops now where PS2 couldn't. I hope that explains it well enough. I think I should start a FAQ on my Facebook page

jonnyspeed posted:

Seacoast posted:

Neat stuff Jonathan. The track weathering looks good.. So this is Gargraves 2 rail high rail track ? I'm guessing Ross makes the same. This is foreign to me, so you can run MTH 3/2 engines on this track? And other smaller scale 2 rail engines. Are you planning on smaller curves? Is this a larger code rail? I had No idea that Gargraves made this track.

Could you run larger scale non MTH steam or would you need huge curves to accomplish that? Anyways nice work!

Hi George. You have touched on the primary reason for attempting 2R HiRail in the first place. MTH HiRail steam engines are typically run on 3 rail track. You can remove the center rollers and flip a switch and they will also run on 2 rails. So that means you can run them on 2 rail track with the exact same curves that they run on in 3 rail mode. Example: An MTH Big Boy will run on 36"r (O-72) with HiRail wheels but the scale wheel version requires 72"r (or O-144 equivalent).

The only catch (where MTH messed up IMHO) is that the HiRail wheels aren't gauged to NMRA standards and they have flanges that are too deep. That means they won't work on normal 2 rail scale turnouts like Atlas code 148. They will work on Ross and Gargraves turnouts though because they are essentially 3R engines that can pull power from 2 rails with the flip of a switch.

The funny thing is this is nothing new. MTH has had this feature since 2004 I believe. But now with PS3 they added DCC capability along with auto polarity sensing so they can go through 2 rail reverse loops now where PS2 couldn't. I hope that explains it well enough. I think I should start a FAQ on my Facebook page

I agree Jonathan, put it on your Facebook page! 

jonnyspeed posted:

Hi George. You have touched on the primary reason for attempting 2R HiRail in the first place. MTH HiRail steam engines are typically run on 3 rail track. You can remove the center rollers and flip a switch and they will also run on 2 rails. So that means you can run them on 2 rail track with the exact same curves that they run on in 3 rail mode. Example: An MTH Big Boy will run on 36"r (O-72) with HiRail wheels but the scale wheel version requires 72"r (or O-144 equivalent).

Actually, the scale-wheeled Big Boy can make it through 36" radius due to the short wheelbase of the drivers and the fact it's essentially a 3-rail locomotive with a full set of scale wheels (no tail beam, notched cylinders, more side play in the tender's axles). It despises uneven track, though as shown in the video I did.

The only catch (where MTH messed up IMHO) is that the HiRail wheels aren't gauged to NMRA standards and they have flanges that are too deep. That means they won't work on normal 2 rail scale turnouts like Atlas code 148. They will work on Ross and Gargraves turnouts though because they are essentially 3R engines that can pull power from 2 rails with the flip of a switch.

Absolutely. I think that also applies to hi-rail wheelsets in general. They modernized the wheels, but kept that narrow backside spacing and flanges that are larger than they need to be.

The funny thing is this is nothing new. MTH has had this feature since 2004 I believe. But now with PS3 they added DCC capability along with auto polarity sensing so they can go through 2 rail reverse loops now where PS2 couldn't. I hope that explains it well enough. I think I should start a FAQ on my Facebook page

Yep. Fixing the polarity issue was the BIG sticking point. I'm even looking at putting Proto-3 upgrades in my scale-wheeled Proto-2 engines.

Jonathan, do you have any plans to convert any engines to BPRC, like BenH, myself, and a couple of others have done?  For those who haven't seen it, looked at Ben's conversion:

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...s-sw-battery-powered

That solves the problems with powering the rails and shorting out the wheels.

After looking at the weathering job you put on your rails I feel the need to redo mine, good stuff

Jonathan,

Smart move and congratulations!  I miss you in S scale, but I'm really happy that you finally made a decision on what route to take.  I know you've been considering this for some time and I think your plans are a really good compromise.  That's one of the pluses of this hobby - there are so many choices.

I think you are set to have a lot of fun!  I'm looking forward to hearing more about your plans and following the progress of your layout build.  Please keep the posts and photos flowing!

Thanks, Mike A.

Mikeaa posted:

Jonathan,

Smart move and congratulations!  I miss you in S scale, but I'm really happy that you finally made a decision on what route to take.  I know you've been considering this for some time and I think your plans are a really good compromise.  That's one of the pluses of this hobby - there are so many choices.

I think you are set to have a lot of fun!  I'm looking forward to hearing more about your plans and following the progress of your layout build.  Please keep the posts and photos flowing!

Thanks, Mike A.

Hi Mike,

Thanks. I have definitely put a lot of thought into my choice of what to do next. Honestly, I really would prefer the size of S over O, but the things I like don't align well with S and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Sometimes I suffer from analysis paralysis so it feels really good to actually be moving forward on something. I've literally been thinking of this 2 rail HiRail concept for over 10 years.

I'll let you know when I have something up and running and you can come check it out

Jonathan

 Some interesting reading here. You are running your 3 rail trains with all the bells and whistles on 2 rails. You have the capability of running tighter curves and getting more RR in a given space. As far as the track. The rails are high. The ties are big. Together with the rails weathered and ballast applied it looks pretty tempting. Seeing MTH has this capability. I wonder why they didn't offer Scaletrax in both 3 and 2 rail. Thinking back it may have been catalogued at one time. Would have had a few of us who lack the space to run steamers in a true scale environment thinking of going this route.

Bob Delbridge posted:

Jonathan, do you have any plans to convert any engines to BPRC, like BenH, myself, and a couple of others have done?  For those who haven't seen it, looked at Ben's conversion:

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...s-sw-battery-powered

That solves the problems with powering the rails and shorting out the wheels.

After looking at the weathering job you put on your rails I feel the need to redo mine, good stuff

Hi Bob, I've considered it. Since I will mostly be using MTH engines going forward I will probably stick with track power. If we see another jump in battery technology I may consider it in the future though. Thanks.

I just ordered my 2-rail track from Ross and GarGraves.  I can't wait!!!   

Awesome Bob. Please post photos when you can.  I'm still working on track plans before I place my order with Ross.

Not sure why the video didn't post. Here goes again... Testing an MTH HiRail H10 steam engine on 2 rail HiRail track.

Very nice....that engine is quite a smoker!

Mark in Oregon

jonnyspeed posted:

Awesome Bob. Please post photos when you can.  I'm still working on track plans before I place my order with Ross.

 

Will do!  Right now I ordered enough track to make a long siding.  After testing, then I'll make a track plan.  

And great video Jonathon! I use NCE for my HO trains.  They make a booster unit that runs well with the Power Cab. 

That is a well done integrated smoke system with the sound. How is it done? Does it have an electrically operated clapper to give the bursts of smoke in tune with the chuff or is it operated off the wheel rotation?

regards

 BobC

Bob, The DCS system is the command control system, inside the engine is either ProtoSound 2 (PS2) or PS3.  Both use a tach tape mounted to the flywheel with a tach reader that synchronizes the sound,smoke, movement .  Ps2/3 also controls the lights and other sounds.  You can download sound sets to a loco from the MTH website to make an engine sound like just about any real engine you want.

The smoke unit has a tiny motor/fan that blows the smoke in sync with the movement of the engine.

Believe it or not I gutted my steamers of PS2 and installed BPRC, cause running battery power RC was what I've always wanted to do.  I do miss the steam chuff and whistle (Locosounds just doesn't cut it for US steam )

jonnyspeed posted:

I love the ESU as well. TCS and ESU have different strengths. I'm happy with both for different reasons.

Hi.

What do you feel are the different strengths of the TCS and ESU decoders?

Thanks, Matt 

Matt01 posted:

jonnyspeed posted:

I love the ESU as well. TCS and ESU have different strengths. I'm happy with both for different reasons.

Hi.

What do you feel are the different strengths of the TCS and ESU decoders?

Thanks, Matt 

Hi Matt,

Good question. The ESU decoders have a wider variety of Diesel sounds where TCS has a wider variety of Steam whistles and bells. They both have larger higher amp boards now that are suitable for O scale. ESU has a drop in board that literally plugs right in to the new Atlas U-23B. You can expect that more in the future from Atlas from what I understand. TCS WowSound has the Audio assist feature where you don't have to do CV programming, just follow the voice prompts to make your settings. I love that feature. TCS also has a "prototype mode" where the engine will auto-notch when it senses load increasing or decreasing. Very cool. ESU has a new feature that is similar, but requires a bit of manual intervention to get the same effect. Both have really great sound quality and motor control. ESU is programmable and you can upload sounds to the decoder where the TCS is locked in to what you get.

Hope that helps.

So a bit of potential bad news for the whole 2RHR concept after some more test runs. It seems that at faster speeds (moderate really) the MTH H-10 will stutter pretty badly going over the unpowered frog. My guess is it is hopping or bouncing and causing one of the few pickup wheels to lose contact. MTH decided not to put any capacitance in the motor circuitry for some reason. That means that if it loses power momentarily it bucks pretty hard. Considering the whole concept of 2RHR is to use MTH Hi-rail steam we now have a pretty big issue. The potential solutions are not very appealing to me. I could remove the MTH DCS components and replace them with DCC electronics with capacitors. Or I could build my own metal frog for the turnouts and power them. Lastly I could take the engine apart and add more power pickups.

I think I will probably wind up scrapping 2RHR unfortunately. Good old Atlas code 148 turnouts with metal powered frogs and Tam Valley Frog juicers are a more reliable way to go it seems. Of course that means Scale wheels. Well, it has been fun playing around with the idea, but I don't think I can live with the hesitation over every frog. I'll try to get down and shoot another video so you can see what I mean.

Hi Jonathan.

It's not the frog that's the problem; it's the closure rails as they're insulated from the points. The simple way is to put a jumper between the points and the closure rails, but you rely on the points' contact with the stock rails to carry the current. The other way is using a Tortoise machine and it's relay contacts to energize the closure rails. We had a similar problem on a #8 curved turnout at the club and using the Tortoise contacts we eliminated the problem.

jonnyspeed posted:

So a bit of potential bad news for the whole 2RHR concept after some more test runs. It seems that at faster speeds (moderate really) the MTH H-10 will stutter pretty badly going over the unpowered frog. My guess is it is hopping or bouncing and causing one of the few pickup wheels to lose contact. MTH decided not to put any capacitance in the motor circuitry for some reason. That means that if it loses power momentarily it bucks pretty hard. Considering the whole concept of 2RHR is to use MTH Hi-rail steam we now have a pretty big issue. The potential solutions are not very appealing to me. I could remove the MTH DCS components and replace them with DCC electronics with capacitors. Or I could build my own metal frog for the turnouts and power them. Lastly I could take the engine apart and add more power pickups.

I think I will probably wind up scrapping 2RHR unfortunately. Good old Atlas code 148 turnouts with metal powered frogs and Tam Valley Frog juicers are a more reliable way to go it seems. Of course that means Scale wheels. Well, it has been fun playing around with the idea, but I don't think I can live with the hesitation over every frog. I'll try to get down and shoot another video so you can see what I mean.

the tender trucks are the problem. measure the distance of the frog, then measure the distance between the two tender trucks. my weaver pocono does the same thing going through a dead frog, I had the 2.0 board replaced with a 3.0 board and did not correct the issue. my 3.0 SD70Ace and F3 ABA have no problems with going through dead frogs because of the distance between the trucks. the only way to correct this stopping issue is to use a tortoise switch and power the frog, or use frog juicers on every switch for running steam engines.

DL&W Pete posted:

jonnyspeed posted:

So a bit of potential bad news for the whole 2RHR concept after some more test runs. It seems that at faster speeds (moderate really) the MTH H-10 will stutter pretty badly going over the unpowered frog. My guess is it is hopping or bouncing and causing one of the few pickup wheels to lose contact. MTH decided not to put any capacitance in the motor circuitry for some reason. That means that if it loses power momentarily it bucks pretty hard. Considering the whole concept of 2RHR is to use MTH Hi-rail steam we now have a pretty big issue. The potential solutions are not very appealing to me. I could remove the MTH DCS components and replace them with DCC electronics with capacitors. Or I could build my own metal frog for the turnouts and power them. Lastly I could take the engine apart and add more power pickups.

I think I will probably wind up scrapping 2RHR unfortunately. Good old Atlas code 148 turnouts with metal powered frogs and Tam Valley Frog juicers are a more reliable way to go it seems. Of course that means Scale wheels. Well, it has been fun playing around with the idea, but I don't think I can live with the hesitation over every frog. I'll try to get down and shoot another video so you can see what I mean.

the tender trucks are the problem. measure the distance of the frog, then measure the distance between the two tender trucks. my weaver pocono does the same thing going through a dead frog, I had the 2.0 board replaced with a 3.0 board and did not correct the issue. my 3.0 SD70Ace and F3 ABA have no problems with going through dead frogs because of the distance between the trucks. the only way to correct this stopping issue is to use a tortoise switch and power the frog, or use frog juicers on every switch for running steam engines.

Exactly Pete. The problem occurs when the lead tender truck hits the frog. Every time like clockwork. Ironically it doesn't happen at slow speeds. I will test the closure rails as Matt suggests, but if that isn't the issue I'm not sure what I should do with this H-10. I think that a larger engine may not have the problem as you mention Pete. There really is no way to power the frog on this GG turnout as it is made of plastic. 

I haven't given up quite yet, but considering I want to run smaller steam I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble or not? Maybe I should add pickups to the opposite sides of the tender axles and see if that helps? That will be next.