Should/could I get rid of the third rail?

@Robbin posted:

If it is not scale it is tending to bother me quite a bit.

Should I just move to two rail equipment with the new layout in NC and sell off all the three rail stuff (which would be a pain)?

I think you already know where you are heading,   Use the three rail stuff to finance the move!

You'll certainly get more bang for the buck by selling the 3-rail stuff intact and moving on from there.  If you rip out the electronics and convert to dead rail, you've essentially purchased the locomotive twice!

I have been trying to figure out if dead rail converted 3R Scale Equipment could just run on Code 148 without changing out wheels.  Hope you get some answers to your question.

You could go outside third lol, and I just ducked

@MainLine Steam posted:

I have been trying to figure out if dead rail converted 3R Scale Equipment could just run on Code 148 without changing out wheels.

You'll have to measure flange depth; some will, but then...........

Most modern 3-rail stuff has 0.095" flanges.  Some Lionel stuff has 0.110" flanges.  While regular track might work out, switches are a major problem.

You mentioned one key thing. You like large steam. Yes you could sell everything off and go 2 rail. That you will still need to upgrade if you go with battery power or in some cases DCC. In most cases you would be dealing with older brass.  You will also need very large radius curves.
Battery powered 3 rail equipment you can get by with 096 curves as you mentioned. In order to get the track to a workable code height and looking good. You may have to handlay track.
Norm C.  runs a lot of Pennsy equipment and big steam on a 3 rail layout. I’ve seen a number of 2 rail scale layouts on you Tube or in magazines. All nicely done.  I’ve yet to see any that can top his for the enjoyment of  running or viewing trains on. Even if it had 4 rails.

  The best thing is. You haven’t started or really committed yet that you aren’t tearing anything out. I might commit to doing one large steamer with dead rail and just try it out. On your temporary layout and maybe some 2 rail track even if it’s just a short straight run. You mentioned you live in Virginia. I watch Al Pugliese Trains on You Tube. He is venturing into O scale with a garage layout. He already has an HO layout and after building structures in O with Howard Zane. He’s made the move and he went with 2 rail but didn’t rule out 3.

I always have had 2 rail, but I would like to try dead rail.

Wow!  Thank you all so much!  This is extremely helpful!  It will take some time to digest but really great information.  I appreciate it so much. I had not even thought about running the implications of an EM-1, M1a or J1 (2-10-4) with drive wheels that all have flanges around curves(gulp!).  May need some scale states worth of space (MD, PA, NJ) to support that kind of realism

I actually had not considered outside third.  I know that was John Armstrong's approach.  I think that looks really pretty good!

As a famous philosopher said "Life is full of tough choices, innit"?  I may be headed for some compromises... After all, I would not want to be too faithful to history or my Penssy fleet would be losing money from 1948 onward.

Cheers!

For the other side of the coin, here are my thoughts:

The Magic of Three Rail Track! (warrenvillerailroad.com)

Not to stray too far from the subject, but I often thought about switching to two rail myself, if I wasn’t so intrenched into 3 rail, but, what I’ve found to be the most fun from my perspective ( and a few of us on here as well ) is modifying my 3 rail equipment to better represent scale stuff, ….scale pilot wheels, lowering stuff, adding details, closing tender gaps, etc, etc, ……it’s become another dimension for us in the 3 rail hobby, ……plus, you can’t beat the ruggedness that 3 rail does offer,…..I spent some time on the below example, closed the tender gap ( probably a record holder for the closest 3 rail tender gap ) shaved the tender’s front beam, shaved and modified the deck plate, added scale pilot wheels, and o course, went to Kadees …..it all depends on what you call the enjoyment aspect of it, ……for some of us, beautiful layouts are cool, but building locomotives and rolling stock is the juice ….

Pat

You can have an outstanding layout in either 3 or 2 rail.  There are several 2-rail modelers in the Northern VA / Wash. DC area.  I suggest that you arrange to visit one of them to see their layouts.  I can give you their contact information.  My email is in my profile.  

You can also build an outstanding 3-rail layout.  Neal Schorr and Rich Basttista's layouts come to mind.  Both of them post on this forum and they run large steam.  NH Joe

Here is a YouTube video that I found of Rich's layout.

I switched to 2 rail about 20 years ago. There are some things I miss about 3 rail but for the most part I have no regrets and I am happy I made the switch. There are pros and cons to it. Some of the things I like about 2 rail are, there are mechanical and electrical standards (open protocol of DCC), you can build your own switches and there are tools to help you with that if you want them, track without the center rail looks better (not that 3 rail track looks bad), there are times where 2 rail equipment is very reasonably priced compared to 3 rail  (of course there are times it is the reverse) , and I prefer the operation of Kadee couplers. On the negative side you can get more into the same space with 3 rail due to the equipment needing less of a curvature to turn and the type of switches available, and there is just a lot more available in 3 rail which is actually a positive for me because I don't feel bad if I can't buy something that is released in only 3 rail. Good luck with your decision.

I ran 3 rail O for years, still have my old Lionel Warbonnet F3 passenger set for under the Christmas tree.  But the alure of 2 rail, set in my mind as a boy watching a modular groups layout with All Nation F3 sets and big steamers lingers.  Its those memories that drive my shift to 2 rail. Granted sound and DCC are not my reasons for it, far from that.  I am more old school and enjoy the vintage side of 2 rail Ow5 trains.  All Nation, Lobaugh and all the other early brands of O scale is what I seek out.  We each have our reasons.  Right now I am in the slow gathering phase.  Our current home does not have the space for a 2 rail layout.  But we hope to change that in the next 4-6 years.  Till then I am trying to restart a local modular group in my area of Indiana.   

If you really want to get confused and go broke faster, I will mention the beauty of Lionel's (3-rail) hard to find and expensive T-Rail track. Good luck whichever way you go.

Tom

@Robbin posted:

Wow!  Thank you all so much!  This is extremely helpful!  It will take some time to digest but really great information.  I appreciate it so much. I had not even thought about running the implications of an EM-1, M1a or J1 (2-10-4) with drive wheels that all have flanges around curves(gulp!).  May need some scale states worth of space (MD, PA, NJ) to support that kind of realism

I actually had not considered outside third.  I know that was John Armstrong's approach.  I think that looks really pretty good!

As a famous philosopher said "Life is full of tough choices, innit"?  I may be headed for some compromises... After all, I would not want to be too faithful to history or my Penssy fleet would be losing money from 1948 onward.

Cheers!

You don’t need a states worth of space to run big steam. I run almost all steam, including the EM-1, WM M2 and big Decapods, B&O and N&W 4-8-2’s, etc. in a modest sized basement. There’s very little I can’t run on my layout. I know several other 2-railers with similar experiences.

For what it’s worth, as a PRR modeler, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at the equipment available and the price point at the Strasburg 2-rail shows. There’s PRR galore! I have found that with the price increases of HO, 2-rail is about the same cost with 4x the mass! I’ve been in 2-rail since 2021. Converted from HO, and was a hi-railer for over a decade before HO. I’ve never regretted the decision to model in 2-rail O.

To piggy back on what Ryan said I plan to have either a 49.5" R (O99 for you 3 rail folks) or 54" R (O108) as a minimum radius. I should be able to run everything except a fully flanged 2-10-4. I don't have any of those engines so I am not worried about it.

Also beware of certain myths of 2 rail O. Yes, it is slightly harder to wire if you have a reverse loop but once you learn how to do it, it isn't really that hard. The HO guys do it all the time. Another myth is that you have to have perfect track work to have the trains run reliably. With the size of the rail and flanges on 3 rail track and equipment 3 rail track is easier and more forgiving. However, with 2 rail you do have to be a little more precise to have trains run reliably but you don't have to drive yourself crazy.

@Hudson J1e posted:

Also beware of certain myths of 2 rail O.

@Hudson J1e posted:

To piggy back on what Ryan said I plan to have either a 49.5" R (O99 for you 3 rail folks) or 54" R (O108) as a minimum radius. I should be able to run everything except a fully flanged 2-10-4. I don't have any of those engines so I am not worried about it.

Also beware of certain myths of 2 rail O. Yes, it is slightly harder to wire if you have a reverse loop but once you learn how to do it, it isn't really that hard. The HO guys do it all the time. Another myth is that you have to have perfect track work to have the trains run reliably. With the size of the rail and flanges on 3 rail track and equipment 3 rail track is easier and more forgiving. However, with 2 rail you do have to be a little more precise to have trains run reliably but you don't have to drive yourself crazy.

This is a fully flanged Scalecraft/CLW 4-8-4 and it is not even close on my52” radius as a reference!!

The three rail scale stuff might make it, I guess it depends on the loco, but just saying as you go big and keep flanges, you need bigger radius quick!!

granted this loco is 15” by itself and the driver wheelbase is 5.5”. Anyway it is what it is!!

Thanks Dennis

that is very helpful.  My loft that I am looking to do the next layout is only 16x28 so moving to radius curves that would support larger steam looks like it might fit but it would definitely be driving the track plan and may not even at that.

BTW not sure what old broke things you like but we adopted an old broke grocery store with attached house https://broadst608beaufort.weebly.com/ .  It now had the garage with the loft behind it.

Again I really appreciate all the information!  It is very generous of you and all the folks on this thread to share you experience and information.

When I planned my current 2-rail layout, I wanted to be able to run large engines without having them look too awkward, so I settled on very-large-radius curves, which in turn dictated a simple track plan. In the beginning, I ran some of the 2-rail articulated engines I had acquired, but over time I have stepped down a little to  A-B-B-A sets of F units and a couple of 4-8-4s. Now the curves are larger than "necessary" in some sense, but the trains look great as they flow through easements into sweeping turns. I have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of my 2-rail model trains, even without having a complex or elaborate layout. That's one of the compromises usually required by 2-rail, but there's a whole different set of rewards available.

@Lionelski posted:

For the other side if the coin, here are my thoughts:

The Magic of Three Rail Track! (warrenvillerailroad.com)

the old myth that three rail is superior to two rail regarding wiring reverse loops, wyes and turntables is no longer true. with todays electronics its a simple solution using these:

I like the realism of 2 rail myself, but it is up to you so just have fun!

@harley rider posted:

I like the realism of 2 rail myself, but it is up to you so just have fun!

Very sound advice!!

I would take my time and design 2 layouts. One in 2 rail and one using 3 rail track to fit your given space. Take your time and put your list of must haves in both of them. I know it’s hard to envision running trains looking at a piece of paper. But if you can. See which one gives you more of what you want as far as operations.

As you said. By going battery power you can get your 2 rail layout and fit it in a 3 rail track plan. Yes the middle rail will be gone. But the curves will still be sharp and some of your engines may need a taller rail.

I watched a 2 series video on You Tube the other night with Brian Scace. O scale 2 rail design. I believe it was called Givens and Druthers of building a layout. It was a good watch with some good tips.

@Hudson J1e posted:

Another myth is that you have to have perfect track work to have the trains run reliably.

Oh dear. No one told me that. I guess my layout (still unfinished scenically) shouldn't work at all....

And that really rough siding does work reliably, even at speed...

https://youtu.be/6bOf8f9iZlY?si=n1bIXmq_WHxLITnV

Admittedly, my stock is all diesels, and only 4-axle types & the old Atlas/Roco Plymouths can take that siding - my 6-axle Atlas SD40 derails on it, steam locos would have no chance.

@SundayShunter posted:

Oh dear. No one told me that. I guess my layout (still unfinished scenically) shouldn't work at all.... And that really rough siding does work reliably, even at speed...

https://youtu.be/6bOf8f9iZlY?si=n1bIXmq_WHxLITnV

...snip... "steam locos would have no chance"

" even at speed", I have seen that video before, on the UK's RMweb, I believe; it is impressive!

"steam locos would have no chance", This one would:

and maybe this one:

It is also a three-axle drive; but, as I remember, the Atlas/Roco's center axle has blind drivers.

Robbin Said

"My loft that I am looking to do the next layout is only 16x28 so moving to radius curves that would support larger steam looks like it might fit but it would definitely be driving the track plan and may not even at that."

So solve your two problems, want 2 rail and only have 16X28 by  going to S gauge.  S gauge is considered the ideal sized gauge by many.

Charlie

@SundayShunter Congrats on your realistic looking track!

Tom

The nice thing about this hobby is you only have to please yourself. I like 2 rail scale, but if you like 3 rail, good for you.

@PRRMP54 posted:

" even at speed", I have seen that video before, on the UK's RMweb, I believe; it is impressive!

"steam locos would have no chance", This one would:

and maybe this one:

It is also a three-axle drive; but, as I remember, the Atlas/Roco's center axle has blind drivers.

Hi Dave, yes guilty as charged; "F-UnitMad" on RMweb.

Yes your 0-4-0 docksider would manage my track probably, but I have 2 8750 Panniers (1 each of Dapol & Minerva) and no, they can't.

Cheers, Jordan.

@PRR8976 posted:

@SundayShunter Congrats on your realistic looking track!

Tom

Thank you!

Hi Robbin

My entry into O scale 2 rail model railroading began 50 years ago after visiting John Armstrong's layout in the DC area.  At the time I was collecting Lionel while building HO Pennsy models.  After seeing O scale in action, I sold off both and went for mid- sized 2 rail brass PRR steam (C1, L1, K4, M1) imported by US Hobbies.  All ran nicely on a modest sized layout with 48" minimum radius curves.   Since then, the products and possibilities for modelling the PRR in O scale 2 rail have mushroomed beyond any of my expectations.  Check my story (and good friend John Sethian's) in recent cover articles featuring O scale 2 rail layouts - both in VA.  While I have a layout with 4 track mainline operations, I derive equal enjoyment from operations on a PRR prototype theme, tight radius branch line.     

Thanks for the note Ed

I have read and reread the article about your layout and short history and John's.  I love the cover shot of the J1!  I also went back to layout planning 2019 for more info on the 2 rail multi level L&N.

I was thinking about the 4 track mainline as I went DC to New York and Springfield today (looking out the back window of the last car (nice view with no baggage car or Acela engine)).

I am going to try and do some more homework.  Both on Pennsy and 3 vs 2 rail.  Have a trip (back) to the Penn railroad museum this Saturday and looking at the show up that way in April.  And down the rabbit hole with a bunch of books I got at auction a few weeks ago, Pennsy power 1,2,3 and Pennsy under the wires along with a few other historical books on the railroad.

I am having fun with the 3 rail engines doing my "practice" layout in VA.  And making mistakes.  But I expect that the train loft in NC (which is modest size and can fit 48" radius for certain) will be done sometime this summer so decision time is coming!

Cheers

I am still living in both worlds.  It's easy for now not having a layout, but my CNJ and PRR are mostly 2-rail now with a pinch of NH thrown in while everything else is 3-rail.  That is derived from belonging to an operating club that has an awesome 3 rail layout I can run long trains on.  Having said that, my next home layout will be 2 rail O.  I like the smaller wheel flanges, the smaller track profiles, scale length cars and locomotives, and the more scale like couplers.

@GG1 4877 posted:

1.  I am still living in both worlds...

2.   ...I like the smaller wheel flanges, the smaller track profiles, scale length cars and locomotives, and the more scale like couplers.

1.  You can include me in that world as well; there is often stuff available in 3 rail that simply isn't in 2. I don't hate that center rail so much that it can't be tolerated. Luckily we have the "3 Rail Scale" option. Having said that:

2.  I agree with this too.

Sometimes I miss my old days of HO or N scale(s), where this issue doesn't exist...

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Sometimes I miss my old days of HO or N scale(s), where this issue doesn't exist...

Mark in Oregon

I feel the same way too sometimes, but when I see those scales at train shows there is just no way I could go back to them-especially N. No offense to the HO and N guys but they are just too darn small for me. Even at shows I have to put on my glasses just to see the N scale trains. I can't imagine having to do repairs on a N scale locomotive. I was briefly in N scale as a teenager and I never actually did any repairs on the locomotives I had so maybe it isn't as hard as I think?    I am not knocking N scale. It's a great scale for those who have very limited space.

I also sometimes wonder what would O scale be like today if it never had the center rail from the beginning?

@Hudson J1e posted:

I feel the same way too sometimes, but when I see those scales at train shows there is just no way I could go back to them-especially N. No offense to the HO and N guys but they are just too darn small for me. Even at shows I have to put on my glasses just to see the N scale trains. I can't imagine having to do repairs on a N scale locomotive. I was briefly in N scale as a teenager and I never actually did any repairs on the locomotives I had so maybe it isn't as hard as I think?    I am not knocking N scale. It's a great scale for those who have very limited space.

I also sometimes wonder what would O scale be like today if it never had the center rail from the beginning?

Never really had considered that, but it is an interesting thought.  If Joshua Lionel Cowen had not decided add the center rail in 1906, would some else have?  Even if they did, if they weren't such a "Master of  Marketing" would it have taken hold?  We will never know, but it is a very interesting question.

Update from Pennsylvania RR museum visit.  I was fortunate to go the PA RR museum yesterday (and see a live steam engine pull out of the Strasburg RR across the street).  My wife had a rug hooking event in Lancaster so I was able to just take a few hours and read all the plaques which I never could when visiting with my four boys (no explanation needed there).  It is just a great museum and it was especially turned out to be of value for what I am considering in possibly moving to two rail.

I was able to examine an M1(A or B) up close and noticed that driver 2 and 3 of 4 do not have flanges.  Silly me.  I figured that this was just a feature of my model engine and never dreamed that the real thing also might have to negotiate sharp curves and would not want all the drivers flanged (see photo).  Just for reference the K-4 does have all three flanged but it seems that the four (and assume five driver engines) it might depend on the wheel base of the drivers.  So this definitely clears the way in my mind to having as sharp as O96 or 48" radius curves and two rail engines like an M1 and J1 that I would assume also dont have to have all the drivers flanged!  Just like the real thing.