Track height - 'High-rail' certainly fits!

I guess, the center of gravity is low regarding locomotives and rail cars, that they don't fall over on the side?

But, what about the behemoth auto carriers, which are high?!

Ralph

Yes....our toy train rail is too tall.....O-27 track is too tall and Standard O is way tall!!!

But the rail under 1218 is old yard rail and a bit on the small side....no problem 1218 is never under steam or pounding it at 60 mph. Modern mainline rail is a LOT heavier than the old yard rails shown.

But 100% correct scale rail is mode for O scale.....but you may have to hand lay it all!  I find that Gargraves painted and ballested looks pretty real......when you consider we accept 3 rails side by side.......

PRR used 155# rail on their main line.  This would scale out to code 172.  For reference purposes, Atlas O two rail is code 148 meant to represent more typical and lighter weight mainline track in the 130# range.  Branch line track could be even lighter while specialty tracks (like at a steel mill) could be even heavier.

The dynamics at work on the prototype are entirely different than those on a model.

Rusty

I like the look of Gargraves track better then the regular tubular track, only wish that Gargraves would make a solid rail instead of hollow rail.

While 031 to 072 track might be too tall for scale it works better then some of the track with roadbed installed that I have used in the past nine years or so.

Handlaided track is probably the most realistic and close to scale but time consuming to do on a layout, especially the switches or turnouts.

Lee Fritz

Posted by AMC Dave:

 

But the rail under 1218 is old yard rail and a bit on the small side

I don't have a head on shot but below is a more realistic rail look of Class 1 rail lines.

And, this is my O27, which I appreciate just because of its low profile.

PRR used 155# rail on their main line.  This would scale out to code 172.  For reference purposes, Atlas O two rail is code 148 meant to represent more typical and lighter weight mainline track in the 130# range.

Chuck is correct.  Most of today's main lines have rail weighing 132 to 136 pounds per yard that is well represented by code 148.  However, the new AREMA standard 141 pound per yard rail is taller and scales out to code 155.

The more the world changes the closer it gets to ScaleTrax. 

This is interesting.  While I knew model RR track was not scale I did not know all these detail.

I'm most concerned not with the scale, but with the "realistic look" of track on my layout: ballasted by not too neatly, a bit of grime, dirty/rusty rails, etc. 

I -believe- that Atlas 3-rail track is code 215; I thought that it was the same as the

2-rail track (148), but it seems that it is not. I can't confirm the number.

A couple of years ago I had a piece of GG and a piece of Atlas 3-rail sitting side by side 

on a table. I was surprised to see that from bottom of ties to top of rails the GG was actually shorter/lower than the Atlas. I like Atlas; I use GG - Atlas 3-rail wasn't around back in the 80's - but I believe that on a new layout I would stick to the GG, big ties

and hard-to-paint chrome rails (Why? Why, oh, why can't they offer ALL the rails in

black? I'd pony up a bit more money!) and all. It's friendly.

Unless I was lured away by that ultra-cool-looking MTH Scaletrax...so low, so sleek.

We're beginning to look forward to hopefully buying a new house and starting a new layout in the future. Frankly, I'm rethinking my track selection but still leaning towards Scaletrax due to the size of it as discussed here. I have on hand samples of all three 'contenders' and have to admit - Atlas is some fine looking track. However, I still find it 'bulky' and it appears crowded with the oversized rails, especially with the third one in the mix. 

As you can see for this photo below, Atlas is still quite large compared to scaletrax. The center 'blade' in scaletrax is the best solution to that problem. It is also darkened. GG has the availability with Ross of having the greatest selection of switches but the ties are WAY too big as is the rail itself. 

I agree with the Scaletrax statement, much better looking IMHO.  The Atlas is just a beast even after it's ballasted, not to mention the Atlas flex is a bear to actually flex compared to the Scaletrax.  Just have to wait for folks to get the Scaletrax switches back in stock.

Atlas O two rail is Code 148 which is a very close match to modern main line rail used in NA.  The ties are correct size and spaced properly.  The only trouble is it is TWO rail and you would have to add the third rail yourself.

Scale Trax vs Atlas O 3 3rail

Atlas O 3 rail v Gargraves

Atlas O 3 rail has the same profile as Gargarves but is solid rail and has ties that are the correct width and spacing.  They are too tall but they match GG/Ross which means you can use Ross Switches with only having to use adaptor pins.

Here are the three solid rail tracks in profile.

You know I've heard the arguments for years and years in all scales.  I was a HO scale guy for thirty some odd years and an O scaler full-time for the past many years.

Would someone please like to take a wild guess at how many people have either run and seen my layouts and have commented or cared about rail height?

Can I get an Amen!

The only question that ever came to my mind about rail height or scale was/is: does it look good?

Typo.  Should have been 148.  I'll edit that shortly.

Thanks Chuck.  

The only question that ever came to my mind about rail height or scale was/is: does it look good?

Traditional O gauge track was the least realistic looking stuff this side of Carlisle & Finch.  Tubular track may be fine if you are building a layout and want a toy look.  But it is not good if the objective is building a model railroad.  That is why manufacturers have been trying to come up with more realistic track for over 75 years.

Lionel made two major efforts at more realistic O gauge track.  The first was T-Rail in the 1930s with solid steel rail made to a more realistic cross section.  The second was Super O in the late 50s with brown plastic ties and a thin center rail.

Gargraves track has been around for a very long time.  Combined with Ross switches it is a contending track system for those who desire more realistic track for O gauge model railroads.

Atlas devised their O gauge track system to match the height of Gargraves as we can see in the photo above.  That was a reasonable decision when the track came out back in the 1990s.  A different choice might have been made if the O gauge market of the late 90s was quite as scale oriented back then or if material costs were as high as they are today.  Notice how much thicker the Atlas rail is in cross section when compared to ScaleTrax?  Nickel silver is very expensive today and that thick rail is a contributing factor to the cost of Atlas track.

ScaleTrax has ties that are scale in all three dimensions, a thin center rail and the closest to scale running rails of any three rail track system.  It also works very well with most traditional O gauge trains.  Those are all positive attributes in today's O gauge market.

I am with Sam.  Track that is in proper proportion to our scale trains helps everything look better.  That is why I like ScaleTrax and why I wish we had A Ross scale product line. 

What would be really good to have in the 3 rail world would be to have a stud system for the center rail like Marklin does for HO.  I know that several attempts have been made to design a suitable system.  One of the forum members designed a system a few years back.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.  I suppose converting existing engines from rollers to sliders would be too hard for most people.  

We will never have realistic track as long as we are using a center rail for power.   The best we can do is to ballast the track to make it look good and by happy with what we have.  My own layout has Atlas track with a mixture of Ross and Atlas switches.  

Joe

ScaleTrax in rail height is closer to Atlas 3 rail than it is to Atlas 2 rail.  While the ties are the correct width and height their spacing is so far off it's almost possible to put another tie between the ones that are there and get away with it.  There is no mainline track in NA that has that combination of rail weight and tie spacing.  As to burying it in ballast making it less noticeable that is mainly an issue for the eyes of the beholder.  I find the ties spacing to be more of an issue than the presence of a third rail.  Not everyone feels that way and it's actually nice that we have as many choices as we do.

I've been testing modern rolling stock on the Atlas O 2 rail and nothing I've tested has bottomed out.  I'm still experimenting with HO and N rails to make the third rail.  If it works out that's what I will use where ever track is visible.  

There still is the issue of switches.  RCS are the best, period.  I'm not sure that I can get away with that dramatic a jump visually.  I know that mainline track often has uprated ties and track for switches at places where there is heavy duty and high speed traffic.  I suspect that the real railroads are balancing time and money for maintenance against higher initial costs.  I suspect I will do the same with the added wrinkle of how the stuff looks.

Wood:

I like the example you have shown with your 0-27 track.

My concern with using a combination of track and switches from multiple manufactures is the difference in appearance. Unfortunately, not having a layout yet, I'm not sure if that's a valid concern or not. I see people worry about track appearance, but then they select Atlas, GG or ScaleTrax and mate it to RCS switches. I understand that switches are relatively few compared to the rest of the track, but it still seems like a contradiction. Maybe too, my concern doesn't take into account ballast.

It also seems like a lot of folks use GG because it's cheaper than Atlas or ScaleTrax. I'm trying to convince myself to go with ScaleTrax because it's solid and should be quieter and I like its look, but then I worry about availability.

I used Atlas track because it was readily available when I was building my layout.  I have only seen Scaletrax once here in CA.   I think that Atlas track looks better than GG track.   The difference in appearance between the Atlas track and Ross switches on my layout doesn't bother me.  I used several Ross curved switches on my layout to save space.  Only Ross made the switches that I needed.  I think that all track choices in 3 rail are a compromise between appearance, availability, cost, what others people in your area use, solid or tubular,  and ease of installation.  There is a trade off with each track system and people need to make their own choice.  I know one club that decided on GG track because a large amount of it was donated to them.  The G&O garden railroad uses Atlas because the ties and nickel silver rail will last outside and it is available in CA.   Joe   

Of course you're right, Joe. It is all a compromise of some sort and the availability of specific pieces will drive me to use whatever is available and try to mask the difference in appearance as much as possible. And you're especially right about the RCS curved switches as I plan to use some of those for my yard entrance and maybe elsewhere as my design develops.

There's no denying that RCS are the best functioning/reliable switches out there, but visually the oversized ties ruin it for me. 

I would assume then that maybe the oversize ties help make the switches work better than others. I guess I'd be willing to compromise on appearance for trouble-free operation.

In my opinion, the only reason Lionel and MTH are still producing 3- rail models is that is what purchasers want.  The market will not support 2-rail products, and trying to make 3-rail track look like 2- rail track would appeal to an even smaller niche than pure 2- rail.  Opinion.

Exactly how (I would imagine) a growing segment of this hobby feels about GG and Ross. 

GG started many years ago as an alternative to Lionel tubular track. Curtis and Ross tailored their designs to mate up to GG which was fine except they started with a design (oversized rail & ties) that was already outdated.

As more of us began to appreciate and move towards a more 'scale orientated' 3 rail experience, GG & Ross were essentially 'left behind' in the current trend. Regrettably, ScaleTrax suffered from a dire mistake made by (supposedly) two employees who were told to "go outside and measure a section of real track" near MTH's building in MD.

According to the story they mistakenly measured a light rail siding that had different (incorrect) spacing between the ties. The molds were made and the die was cast. The rest is history.

Seems if someone could utilize the rails and center blade of ScaleTrax and come up with some ties similar to Atlas', they'd have a real winner. I would venture to say that many of us would start using it and sales would grow. Is this possible?

With so much new technology coming along almost daily, perhaps something like this could be feasible. Could a 3D printer be capable of producing sections of ties similar to the way ScaleTrax is constructed?  Perhaps a deal could be struck with MTH and Atlas to supply the components to a small USA company?

How about 'Made in America'?

Regrettably, ScaleTrax suffered from a dire mistake made by (supposedly) two employees who were told to "go outside and measure a section of real track" near MTH's building in MD.

 

According to the story they mistakenly measured a light rail siding that had different (incorrect) spacing between the ties. The molds were made and the die was cast. The rest is history.

If (a very large IF) that story is true then MTH's research at the time was in some sorry state.  Specifications for tie spacing on prototype main lines were readily available and Micro Engineering was manufacturing track with scale ties and tie spacing in N, HO and O-scales.  MTH has never been bashful about copying, one wonders why they wouldn't have copied a product with the correct spacing.

Now I agree with that, Atlas ties with Scaletrax rails...that would be a great product IMHO.

Lee,

It only takes a couple of reading of Model Railroader magazine to see that the reason so many HO scale layouts look absolutely phonemonal is because everything is in scale.

Everything looks, well…right!  That's because it is all in proportion.

If you look at the recent OGR with the Wheeling & Lake Erie on the cover, It looks "real" because the colors are right, the trees, ground cover, bridge beams, ballast weathering is all correct and true to real life. It doesn't take anymore time to do things realistically, but it does take some research, trial and error. Actually photos are an indispensable tool for matching the real life.

When someone is running traditional O gauge 3 rail tack(Lionel), the whole visual aspect of the tinplate track immediately throws off our perception. Its not right or wrong, just not helping the "realistic look" if someone is looking for that. 

Track height will always been an obstacle with 3 rail due to the large depth of the wheel flanges used by all the manufacturers.

I personally think that MTH missed the boat on being the king of 3 rail track.

Scaletrax….should've been a bit better on tie spacing, some curved switches (120/096, 096/072, even a 072/054, a double slip) add an uncoupling magnet like the ultra small profile of Lionel's Fastrack uncoupler, and they would certainly have it all. Their flex track is a pure joy to work with.

Realtrax…….I realize they had some issues early on, but should've stayed with the solid rail, the hollow is way to noisy. Add the curved switches that never made it to production, and you have a great looking system.

I've never had an issue with the tabs, just gotta take your time.

Sorry for babbling.

So true, a very accurate assessment indeed.

Anyone have expereince with how well the narrow Scaletrax center rail works for roller contact? After working extensively with Atlas switches I sometimes wonder if contact is at times disrupted as the contact pressure changes when the engine rolls through the switch.

No issues at all.