You are correct, but 3.5scale inches on track compared the gross third rail and out of scale wheels.
Stephen
Some interesting thoughts. I have long understood that 'scale' modelling when using 3 rail pickup was confined to stud, outside third or overhead, unless you were modelling a centre third electric line.
Essentially the layout used couplers, track and wheel standards similar to existing 2 rail layouts but used a less intrusive 3rd rail to enable them to keep the advantages they saw with using 3 rail pickup. The Canandaigua Southern layout comes to mind as one example of a scale 3rail layout.
regards
Bob
"an attitude that derives satisfaction and fun" are the key words" What an excellent response.
Bob Delbridge posted:layout built by Tony Lash would by definition qualify as 3 Rail Scale then, correct Allan?
I've got a DVD showing his layout and I wouldn't consider it anything but a toy train layout packed full of animation. Nice and big for what it is, but not what Allan said here:
Again, the intent is to make this designation inclusive of those striving to achieve a high level of realism with their 3-rail equipment, layouts, and operations, without including details that would, in effect, once again make things overly restrictive.
Sounds like there's more clarification needed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope this isn't the direction this sub-forum will take
I've seen the Lash layout AND I have seen even larger 2-rail O layouts. Both are fabulous. Tony's COULD be operated point-to-point, with most of the operator's time being spent switching out hopper cars by that fabulous coal mine. The last giant 2-rail O layout I saw was being run in a giant loop (although many trains were being run via DCC which somewhat disguised that fact.)
Two-rail scale O looks fabulous. It really does. The dirty little secret is that the track and turnouts need MUCH MORE attention to keep things operating well. Do you want to spend a big portion of your time troubleshooting and doing track maintenance, or running trains?
The 2-railers will NEVER "like" us monster-claw-coupler guys completely. Let's face it: most 3-rail OPERATORS are round-robin "loop-runners." Many of the 2-railers attempt 100% proto operating. Some of the ones I've met ARE elitists, employing VERY expensive brass models (we have elitists in our camp too, though I'd NEVER include Tony in that camp.) Are they having fun yet? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Actually,I'd generalize by saying that most of the 2-railers I've met are HO-modelers with poorer eyesight now, or non-compromising prototypers who will never understand "the magic of Lionel trains." Maybe they started life with a Lionel under the tree, but that was centuries ago--if they'll even admit it. (More likely, it was a Tyco HO set.)
I personally can appreciate both camps without joining either.
OGR was, once upon a time, OSR. There's a sliding scale between 2-rail scale and 3 rail O-gauge tinplate trackers. Where you are along that continuum is up to you.
To quote our Webmaster at the start of this topic: "The intent in 3-Rail Scale is to continually strive for as much prototype realism as possible within the limitations of time, talent, and available space." Realism in coupler size? In rail height or number of rails? In method of operating trains (loop or point to point) ? Where you are along that continuum is up to you.
BurlingtonBill posted:Bob Delbridge posted:layout built by Tony Lash would by definition qualify as 3 Rail Scale then, correct Allan?
I've got a DVD showing his layout and I wouldn't consider it anything but a toy train layout packed full of animation. Nice and big for what it is, but not what Allan said here:
Again, the intent is to make this designation inclusive of those striving to achieve a high level of realism with their 3-rail equipment, layouts, and operations, without including details that would, in effect, once again make things overly restrictive.
Sounds like there's more clarification needed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope this isn't the direction this sub-forum will take
I've seen the Lash layout AND I have seen even larger 2-rail O layouts. Both are fabulous. Tony's COULD be operated point-to-point, with most of the operator's time being spent switching out hopper cars by that fabulous coal mine. The last giant 2-rail O layout I saw was being run in a giant loop (although many trains were being run via DCC which somewhat disguised that fact.)
Two-rail scale O looks fabulous. It really does. The dirty little secret is that the track and turnouts need MUCH MORE attention to keep things operating well. Do you want to spend a big portion of your time troubleshooting and doing track maintenance, or running trains?
The 2-railers will NEVER "like" us monster-claw-coupler guys completely. Let's face it: most 3-rail OPERATORS are round-robin "loop-runners." Many of the 2-railers attempt 100% proto operating. Some of the ones I've met ARE elitists, employing VERY expensive brass models (we have elitists in our camp too, though I'd NEVER include Tony in that camp.) Are they having fun yet? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Actually,I'd generalize by saying that most of the 2-railers I've met are HO-modelers with poorer eyesight now, or non-compromising prototypers who will never understand "the magic of Lionel trains." Maybe they started life with a Lionel under the tree, but that was centuries ago--if they'll even admit it. (More likely, it was a Tyco HO set.)
I personally can appreciate both camps without joining either.
OGR was, once upon a time, OSR. There's a sliding scale between 2-rail scale and 3 rail O-gauge tinplate trackers. Where you are along that continuum is up to you.
I don't have to do anything to my 2 rail layout! It has been down for years. I don't know why you would say that it is hard to maintain???
Does three rail do something for self maintenance????
BurlingtonBill posted:Bob Delbridge posted:layout built by Tony Lash would by definition qualify as 3 Rail Scale then, correct Allan?
I've got a DVD showing his layout and I wouldn't consider it anything but a toy train layout packed full of animation. Nice and big for what it is, but not what Allan said here:
Again, the intent is to make this designation inclusive of those striving to achieve a high level of realism with their 3-rail equipment, layouts, and operations, without including details that would, in effect, once again make things overly restrictive.
Sounds like there's more clarification needed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope this isn't the direction this sub-forum will take
I've seen the Lash layout AND I have seen even larger 2-rail O layouts. Both are fabulous. Tony's COULD be operated point-to-point, with most of the operator's time being spent switching out hopper cars by that fabulous coal mine. The last giant 2-rail O layout I saw was being run in a giant loop (although many trains were being run via DCC which somewhat disguised that fact.)
Two-rail scale O looks fabulous. It really does. The dirty little secret is that the track and turnouts need MUCH MORE attention to keep things operating well. Do you want to spend a big portion of your time troubleshooting and doing track maintenance, or running trains?
The 2-railers will NEVER "like" us monster-claw-coupler guys completely. Let's face it: most 3-rail OPERATORS are round-robin "loop-runners." Many of the 2-railers attempt 100% proto operating. Some of the ones I've met ARE elitists, employing VERY expensive brass models (we have elitists in our camp too, though I'd NEVER include Tony in that camp.) Are they having fun yet? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Actually,I'd generalize by saying that most of the 2-railers I've met are HO-modelers with poorer eyesight now, or non-compromising prototypers who will never understand "the magic of Lionel trains." Maybe they started life with a Lionel under the tree, but that was centuries ago--if they'll even admit it. (More likely, it was a Tyco HO set.)
I personally can appreciate both camps without joining either.
OGR was, once upon a time, OSR. There's a sliding scale between 2-rail scale and 3 rail O-gauge tinplate trackers. Where you are along that continuum is up to you.
This post couldn't be further from the truth. There are a lot of rash generalizations that are simply wrong. Maintenance is the same since it is mostly the same manufacturers who make a bulk of the 2 and 3 rail product. It is simply a question of what someone enjoys in this vast big umbrella of model and toy trains. I do not personally see magic about postwar Lionel Trains. Never have and never will. However I have lots for respect for fellow TCA members and friends who have spent a lifetime collecting and operating Lionel.
However the post is correct in one manner, my first set was Tyco.
Modeling in 2 and 3 rail O there are reasons to enjoy both. Am I having fun? 42 years of continuously playing with trains in HO, N, O and standard gauge might be a clue that is all fun and I'm not even 50 yet.
Regardless, this forum is about modelers who enjoy prototypical realism. Why make false judgements about others who model differently?
Burlington Bill. Seems to me model railroading in general and O scale in particular plays out something like the old Barnum and Bailey 3 ring circus. Lots of different types of acts in the rings and all around the sides all doing their thing appealing to a variety of interests. Like the circus there's something enjoyable for everyone no matter which scale and number of tracks. So why not just sit back and enjoy the variety various modelers bring your way? Huh?
I regret that I do have one issue with what you said. I think you're totally wrong above on the relative reliability between 3RS and 0 scale 2 rail. Until 2012 I was a 3 rail scale guy using Atlas O 3 rail track and Lionel Legacy, TMCC and MTH DCS. In 2012 re-using only the benchwork sub structure I completely re-did my layout and switched to 2 rail 0 scale using Atlas O 2 rail track and a major brand DCS system. Five years later I can objectively say that both both layouts were/are equally reliable in all categories. I feel compelled to say your wrong because I think there are a lot of guys out there who would really like to switch to 0 scale 2 rail but they hear guys like you and it discourages them from switching. I never looked back and am really happy. I still greatly enjoy my friends' 3RS layouts and greatly admire their modelling abilities and they seem to enjoy mine. Same for our HO buddies. It's all good -- like the circus.
Burlington Bill. Seems to me model railroading in general and O scale in particular plays out something like the old Barnum and Bailey 3 ring circus. Lots of different types of acts in the rings and all around the sides all doing their thing appealing to a variety of interests. Like the circus there's something enjoyable for everyone no matter which scale and number of tracks. So why not just sit back and enjoy the variety various modelers bring your way? Huh?
I think you're totally wrong above on the relative reliability between 3RS and 0 scale 2 rail. Until 2012 I was a 3 rail scale guy using Atlas O 3 rail track and Lionel Legacy, TMCC and MTH DCS. In 2012 re-using only the benchwork sub structure I completely re-did my layout and switched to 2 rail 0 scale using Atlas O 2 rail track and a major brand DCS system. Five years later I can objectively say that both both layouts were/are equally reliable in all categories. I feel compelled to say your wrong because I think there are a lot of guys out there who would really like to switch to 0 scale 2 rail but they hear guys like you and it discourages them from switching. I never looked back and am really happy. I still greatly enjoy my friends' 3RS layouts and greatly admire their modelling abilities and they seem to enjoy mine. Same for our HO buddies. It's all good -- like the circus.
I have a huge scale 3 rail collection and have built a pretty large layout that runs primarily scale 3 rail although it's a hybrid toy train layout with opportunity for operation but gets the loop running in full effect. I love my 3 Rail stuff and I love running our layout. I flip that switch, grab a remote and bring that 58 foot by 16 foot behemoth of a layout to life and the worlds shrinks to 1/48 scale with the third rail powering the fun. But there are certain things about 3 rail that drive me nuts and push me towards 2 rail. Mostly it's the track and the compromises to the model to make em 3 rail. If I'm going to get all this nice 3 rail scale stuff, why not go all in and do it in 2 rail and get rid of all those silly compromises
I can't believe this discussion or argument, 3 rail scale is as it is described. Look at Norm's layout. I've seen very few layouts two or three rail that rival it for ambience, scenery and operations. Look at laid off Sick's layout, very very good. I've invested a lot of time on custom 3 rail track and making my locomotives scale, but it is for my enjoyment, my pleasure and my time as is everyone else who participates in this hobby. I just like it all when it is well done.
Ron, I've thought about doing the custom 3 rail track too. I love the 3 rail and I love the scale equipment. There's some beautiful 3 rail layouts out there. I've just deciding that if I'm going to eliminate the compromises of the 18" tall rail, the compromises to the model, I might as well get rid of that center rail as well.
Matt,
That is the same place I've arrived, I've just had a hard time finding the time to implement the layout portion. Been slowly collecting the equipment since 2012, but need to find the time and figure out how to fit a 2 rail layout into my space. I do so hate duck unders and all the 2R is roughly mid 50's NY&LB based - CNJ / PRR. I think I can get away with an 48" radius on the inside track. That might work. And since it is a commuter road, It will be a loop with two mainlines like the real road with the various turnouts that served some of the industries along the way on the minimal freight service the PRR and CNJ provided.
I picked up an old Brass Alco NE5 New Haven caboose at a show a many years ago for $50.00 and it is gorgeous. The scale flanges sold me.
My home 3R layout is just simple modules that were given to me. A nice running layout, but nothing special in terms of the true art of model railroading. Since I won't be able to build what I want for a while, my 3R club has a wonderful scale oriented layout that is very enjoyable regardless of how many rails it has. It is not Kadee friendly though. I've dropped a few too many passengers at prior to their destinations in the dips. 
I've got designs on an around the basement dual track main that runs on a shelf about 42 inches hit or so with a few industries here and there and a small yard at one end of the basement but I plan on buying another property in a few years so maybe I won't even get there. My 2 Rail collection is in its infancy. I got some locos on order and a GGD 37 Super Chief I got off Richard plusc a few Atlas freight cars. I've got the Twin Cities Model Railroad Museum I can go run my 2 Rail at so I'll work with that for now but I've got plans to convert my 3rd Rail diesels all over to 2 rail eventually
I always thought of it as 3-rail track and trains running through o-scale scenery, with o-scale buildings, accessories, etc. Some 3-rail operating accessories if they fit into the scale goal.
My 2-rail layout has been operating reliably for almost 20 years without any problems related to the track or switches. All freight cars are fitted with Intermountain wheelsets riding in Athearn trucks, which don't require lubrication. I don't think I've ever had a Kadee coupler fail, and the worst mechanical problem in recent years was a loose eccentric rod that fell down on the ballast struck and stopped the engine because the small screw holding it to the eccentric crank had fallen out. Fortunately, I located the screw a few feet down the line and was able to put it back in place and secure it with a tiny drop of Loc-Tite. This was on a Sunset/3rd Rail model, so the same thing could have happened with a 3-rail version. Of course the engines need a little oil and grease from time to time, just as their 3-rail cousins do.
GG1 4877 posted:BurlingtonBill posted:Bob Delbridge posted:layout built by Tony Lash would by definition qualify as 3 Rail Scale then, correct Allan?
I've got a DVD showing his layout and I wouldn't consider it anything but a toy train layout packed full of animation. Nice and big for what it is, but not what Allan said here:
Again, the intent is to make this designation inclusive of those striving to achieve a high level of realism with their 3-rail equipment, layouts, and operations, without including details that would, in effect, once again make things overly restrictive.
Sounds like there's more clarification needed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope this isn't the direction this sub-forum will take
I've seen the Lash layout AND I have seen even larger 2-rail O layouts. Both are fabulous. Tony's COULD be operated point-to-point, with most of the operator's time being spent switching out hopper cars by that fabulous coal mine. The last giant 2-rail O layout I saw was being run in a giant loop (although many trains were being run via DCC which somewhat disguised that fact.)
Two-rail scale O looks fabulous. It really does. The dirty little secret is that the track and turnouts need MUCH MORE attention to keep things operating well. Do you want to spend a big portion of your time troubleshooting and doing track maintenance, or running trains?
The 2-railers will NEVER "like" us monster-claw-coupler guys completely. Let's face it: most 3-rail OPERATORS are round-robin "loop-runners." Many of the 2-railers attempt 100% proto operating. Some of the ones I've met ARE elitists, employing VERY expensive brass models (we have elitists in our camp too, though I'd NEVER include Tony in that camp.) Are they having fun yet? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Actually,I'd generalize by saying that most of the 2-railers I've met are HO-modelers with poorer eyesight now, or non-compromising prototypers who will never understand "the magic of Lionel trains." Maybe they started life with a Lionel under the tree, but that was centuries ago--if they'll even admit it. (More likely, it was a Tyco HO set.)
I personally can appreciate both camps without joining either.
OGR was, once upon a time, OSR. There's a sliding scale between 2-rail scale and 3 rail O-gauge tinplate trackers. Where you are along that continuum is up to you.
This post couldn't be further from the truth. There are a lot of rash generalizations that are simply wrong. Maintenance is the same since it is mostly the same manufacturers who make a bulk of the 2 and 3 rail product. It is simply a question of what someone enjoys in this vast big umbrella of model and toy trains. I do not personally see magic about postwar Lionel Trains. Never have and never will. However I have lots for respect for fellow TCA members and friends who have spent a lifetime collecting and operating Lionel.
However the post is correct in one manner, my first set was Tyco.
Modeling in 2 and 3 rail O there are reasons to enjoy both. Am I having fun? 42 years of continuously playing with trains in HO, N, O and standard gauge might be a clue that is all fun and I'm not even 50 yet.
Regardless, this forum is about modelers who enjoy prototypical realism. Why make false judgements about others who model differently?
Sorry Jon, I respectfully disagree. Electrical contact with a smaller railhead, plus one less, to begin with, IS a problem for some pretty large 2-rail layouts I have been around. The DCC signal peters out pretty easily if the rails aren't fed more often then most of us 3-rail guys usually do with our track feeders. The motors on a lot of 2-rail equipment can be more delicate.
There are other issues I won't mention. On one very big layout, the MTH engines (modern ones that came out in 2-rail, NOT modified 3-R engines) seemed to be some of the most reliable.
Go back and re-read my post. I was careful to compliment both camps, but there ARE differences and I think it's naive at best to expect the dyed-in-the-wool modeler to completely respect how most satisfied 3-railers operate. Remember, I was responding to a comment by Bob D. that was being somewhat critical of earlier attempts at defining "3-rail scale."
To wit: "I've got a DVD showing his {Lash's] layout and I wouldn't consider it anything but a toy train layout packed full of animation. Nice and big for what it is, but not what Allan said..."
Austin Bill posted:Burlington Bill. Seems to me model railroading in general and O scale in particular plays out something like the old Barnum and Bailey 3 ring circus. Lots of different types of acts in the rings and all around the sides all doing their thing appealing to a variety of interests. Like the circus there's something enjoyable for everyone no matter which scale and number of tracks. So why not just sit back and enjoy the variety various modelers bring your way? Huh?
I think you're totally wrong above on the relative reliability between 3RS and 0 scale 2 rail. Until 2012 I was a 3 rail scale guy using Atlas O 3 rail track and Lionel Legacy, TMCC and MTH DCS. In 2012 re-using only the benchwork sub structure I completely re-did my layout and switched to 2 rail 0 scale using Atlas O 2 rail track and a major brand DCS system. Five years later I can objectively say that both both layouts were/are equally reliable in all categories. I feel compelled to say your wrong because I think there are a lot of guys out there who would really like to switch to 0 scale 2 rail but they hear guys like you and it discourages them from switching. I never looked back and am really happy. I still greatly enjoy my friends' 3RS layouts and greatly admire their modelling abilities and they seem to enjoy mine. Same for our HO buddies. It's all good -- like the circus.
I'm glad that you are happy. I agree that Atlas track is superb and the differences are narrowing to a degree. As I said, I really like the look of the 2-rail layouts I've seen. They are beautiful and if you come to feel that it's time to switch over, great. There are more choices now in the 3-rail world than ever before, that's for sure. I just have too much invested in 3-R and I'm too old to switch over myself. I don't want to be crawling underneath my 2-R layout when I'm 85 !
Bill, I disagree, with the exception of high end brass models most production 2 rail Models these days have the same drive as the 3 rail. The motors are no different. The difference is the control system and DCC has different wiring requirements than TMCC/Legacy or DCS. DCC is a much better system in my opinion and is designed to follow a standard, is universally compatible and specifically suited to running large to very large model railroads. When building large layouts there are certain criteria that need to be met for either 2 rail or 3 rail and wiring is complicated on either camp. I do not think that a smaller rail profile has anything to do with conductivity or current flow and it most certainly does not have any mechanical deficiencies. Track is track and if you do it right it'll be trouble free for life, do it wrong and you'll wish you took the time to do it right
Ted Hikel posted:Show us some realistic trains and make the eye the judge. I enjoy these types of trains just like many of us do.
I'll second that sentiment too.
There are a bunch of talented people that I hope to see post here because I would like to learn from what they are doing and I think that many others could also take away new ideas from some of the most creative people and layouts in the hobby.
I don't know if anyone else here has seen Tony Lash's layout in person. I was able to get to see it first hand on an OGR tour a couple of years ago. Some elements of the layout were out of the best of the toy train tradition. And other elements rank among the best I have seen from a prototype modeling perspective. The large coal mine, power plant and rail to water transloading facility gave all those N&W hoppers a reason to be or, as I heard Ross Custom Switches Steve Brenneisen put it, made the layout a model transportation system. If Mr. Lash would like to post here I'd love it!
I have also learned from operating at Pat Marinari's layout. Pat had a fully kadee equipped roster on his layout but his diesels had, Oh the Horror, swinging pilots. Anyone in any scale could learn from what Pat is doing for prototypical operations. And we here could benefit from his knowledge on coupler conversion on 3 rail O rolling stock. Anyone who saw a swinging pilot in a photo from Pat's layout and complained about it would really be silly and missing out.
I am really glad to see that Norm Charbonneau is interested in posting here. He is doing some of the best modeling in any scale.
If anyone here hangs a big emphasis on any one element of modeling and a post by someone else doesn't contain enough of you favorite thing just look at what is there. You know, that "glass half full" kind of attitude. Or, from a modeling viewpoint, if weathering is a high priority for you and someone else posts photos of unweathered models just think of them as a can of krylon primer away from being just your style.
Ted, I absolutely LOVE what you said. My "sin" was not starting at the top of this topic and slogging thru all that was said up to your post. You NAILED it.
OGR started from OSR and back in that day there were far fewer 2-railers out there. When it became "OGR," you should have heard the squawking! I have loved, from that day forward, what Myron (and now Rich et al.) in guiding the 3R community towards more realism.
Overall, the way I view it is as a continuum with "O27" at one end and pure 2-rail O (weathering, scale wheels, couplers, fixed pilots, DCC, the whole 9 yards) at the other. Where you are along that line is up to you. I have seen the Lash layout and consider it prototypical to a huge degree. He's happy with it and I would be as well. There is no such thing as "perfection" when it comes to a railroad!
