I will start it off:
1) A Gear ratio conversion kit for China drives to convert from 10:1 to 20:1 All it might take is a new layshaft/worm gear and replacement motor with new 2 start worm.
2) Rail joiners that actually fit and work for code 125 and 148 rail. Like the OLD Atlas/Roco style that look like current Atlas HO and N joiners (I've seen the old Atlas 6041 joiners go for as much as $20 for a pack of 48)
3) I can only come up with two items.
Discuss
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The Milwaukee SDL39 that is coming
Milwaukee SD40-2 that is coming as well
Dick
1. REASONABLY PRICED TRACK!!
2. Deleted
3. Single motor double-truck drives become standard (like a CLW drive, for example).
4. An affordable SDL39; like an MTH Premier 2-rail could have been, for example.
Hi Jim, for code .125" you might want to try Peco code 138 joiners from Ted at Rails Unlimited 847 697 5353, he just got some more in.
I filed a slight taper on the base of piece of rail to make it slip on. Snug but it works. Also somewhat doable on early Atlas flex. Tight but better than the sloppy fit of late Atlas joiners.
If you want I will send you complementary sample card of the Peco joiners.
Also if you want a reasonable single digit price on late model Atlas .148 just ask, contact in in my profile.
Die cast drop-bottom gons for under $100 - see Ulrich in HO for how to design them.
1.) Mass produced high quality passenger trucks such as the CUDO and 41N series with mounting areas in the center and offset for the modeler to use as applicable his/her conversion.
2.) A P&D Hobbies style six axle EMD and GE style truck with gear tower that could be used for conversions.
3.) A top quality RTR GP38, GP38-2, GP40, GP40-2, U36B, B36-7, F40PH, SDP40F, and P30CH that are tooled specifically for O Scale 2 Rail (with easy P48 conversions) that have tower drives and DCC Sound. *I think RTR in some variants would help grow our 2 Rail side and scale and running fidelity out of the box would make the transition for some wanting to jump ship from other scales.
*I would love to see how the Peco Rail Joiners worked out. I bought some of them from Ted at the O Scale Meet last year and haven't got around to trying them yet.
Interesting title i must admit.
Complete re-run of all the Atlas California Zephyr lineup!
Of course it's fun to try and fill in the holes too... 
Chuck
Railthunder, I have NOT been able to fit the Peco joiners onto the late model .148" Atlas track due to it's hefty size.
However, code .125" and early .158" Atlas/Roco with it's trim profile can use them with some TLC.
1) Atlas to offer their endcab SW switchers, again.
I'm pretty good on everything else.
1) someone buys MTH and continues 2 rail releases
2) someone buys MTH and continues 2 rail releases
A decent and reasonably affordable modular turn-key drive system with all the components that could be installed into diesel locos.
An emergence of the Wagner (Current Line) trolley and traction supplies company from wherever it is now.
More (any!) early era (pre-1920) steam and passenger cars.
As I’ve started more seriously pursuing O scale proto 48, I realize the scale lacks so much that is easily available in HO. I’d like to see.
1. More modern 4 axle locomotives.
2. More modern rail cars.
Full range of freight and passenger car truck types that will work for both 2 and easily adaptable for 3 rail. Still searching for a really good set of Dalman trucks that don't cost a fortune (or at least more than the car they support).
Same thing for freight car doors. Not sure how someone could manage it being each model maker uses different methods of securing the doors to the cars. I'm fine with the doors not moving, but they would have to be prototypical for the car. And if these already exist, give a decent description of the item to help the modeler determine what will fit, just a picture won't do anymore.
More off-the-shelf cabooses that match southern RR prototypes.
My days of scratch building are about over; arthritis in my hands, bone deterioration, arthritis, inflammation, torn ligaments, and bone chips in my shoulder have taken their toll. Got a reverse joint replacement coming up, but I'm trying to wait for the urologist to remove an 8mm kidney stone before I have my right arm put in a sling.
A third item, NO MORE CHINA DRIVES!
Dick
@mwb posted:A decent and reasonably affordable modular turn-key drive system with all the components that could be installed into diesel locos.
An emergence of the Wagner (Current Line) trolley and traction supplies company from wherever it is now.
More (any!) early era (pre-1920) steam and passenger cars.
The Stanton drives are 'available' in OW5, P48, On3 and more with varying wheelbases.
I should have gotten a Stanton drive for my SAL motorcar!!! Still possible I guess, will have to do some calculations.
How do you mount the sideframes?
@Jim Scorse posted:The Stanton drives are 'available' in OW5, P48, On3 and more with varying wheelbases.
Thanks for the info - would be nice if NWSL might do a bit of advertising about such stuff.
But the rest of the Wagner/Current Line catalog is still needed; sideframes, interior/exterior details, underbody sets, etc.
1) 36 inch version of the Intermountain wheel set.
2) 70 ton roller bearing version of the Intermountain truck.
3) 100 ton roller bearing version of the Intermountain truck.
Jim; most vertical drive motors have 'double lead' worms on them. (which you probably know) Changing to a single lead worm effectively reduces the ratio by doubling it, Some time ago I bought that spec worm and worm gear set from NWSL to experiment with. It works! Toughest part was getting the OEM worm off the motor shaft!
My wishes:
An affordable kit to build a GP7/9, (ala Kemtron).
An affordable higher amperage DCC decoder w sound.
World Peace!
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...9#154167236017511529
Jim - I had thought about using Stanton Drives for my ALCO C-415 build, but just don’t know enough about them. If I used two powered drives, would this be sufficient to pull a dozen cars or so up a grade? Second question - are there four wires from each motor - two for pickup two for motor? Or are the pick-ups something you have to add yourself? My concern, and I base this on experience with the original HO Bachman 44 toners with two separate self contained drives, is if one looses contact on a frog... I’d like to be able to tie all the feeds together and then send back to motors via decoder.
1) A well-engineered branch line/shortline steam locomotive, preferably a Cuban or Panama mogul, a 2-6-2, a 4-6-0, or even a 2-8-0 (like the Sierra Rlwy #24 or the V&T/Nevada Copper Belt #5), and preferably in plastic.
2) A plastic GE 44-ton, 70-ton, Whitcomb center-cab, and/or Atlas to release their SW switcher.
3) A nice plastic version of a “typical” (if there is any such thing) steam era wood-bodied caboose.
And I’ll add a fourth:
4) Greater availability of late steam/transition era freight equipment in road names of Texas and the Southwestern US railroads.
Kyle
Retrofit/ upgraded replacement truck/motor drives for Weaver Ultraline diesels, the Korean E8's in particular. Ones that don't die (gear lock) after 20-30 hours of use, perhaps having some form of lateral thrust support for the spur/worm tower axle?
Maybe just better design and metalurgy or perhaps drives derived for 2-rail 1:48 instead of high rail, mmmmm that's a thought.
As far as the latest PRC built "twinky" decent GP-30, GP-38 and F40's would be nice too.
1) Wheels with large flanges.
2) Lobster claw couplers.
3) A third rail.
Ah, just teasing you fellas. I might get there some day. I've already eliminated some need for a center rail with my BPRC engines.
Have Fun.
Ron
@Jim Scorse posted:I will start it off:
1) A Gear ratio conversion kit for China drives to convert from 10:1 to 20:1 All it might take is a new layshaft/worm gear and replacement motor with new 2 start worm.
Discuss
Personally I would love to see #1 happen but I think there is so much loathing and hatred among 2 railers for the China Drive that even if someone came out with the kit to change the drive ratio IMHO no one would buy it. The first reason of course is because of the hate for the China Drive and the second reason is since most 2 railers hate the China Drive so much they wouldn't be caught dead owning any. Why would they need a conversion kit for something they do not own? ALL OPINION.
My wish list would be:
1) someone buys MTH and continues 2 rail releases
2) someone buys MTH and continues 2 rail releases
[copied from Engineer Joe--I hope you don't mind Joe]
I would dearly love a logging 2-6-2 with a fat boiler and small drivers for my logging fleet. They made a few in HO but only Pecos River did a 2-6-2 and it’s all wrong for a logger.
Other than that I’m good, thanks.
Peter
@Peter E B posted:I would dearly love a logging 2-6-2 with a fat boiler and small drivers for my logging fleet.
Peter
That's a good one. Or a similarly sized 2-8-2. There were lots of those used in my area, back in the day...
Mark in Oregon
Some people have mentioned products and others have mentioned items such as more space. This what I think that 2-rail needs to expand its base.
1. A major manufacturer to support 2-rail scale with engines, cars and track that is affordable to most modelers. $1,000 plus engines are not, in my opinion, really affordable for most people. All engines would come with DCC and sound installed.
2. A prolific author who writes about his or her O scale layout in major model railroad magazines such as Tony Koester does for HO. 2-rail O scale had Frank Ellison and Lorel Joiner but sadly they are both long gone.
3. All models including engines being built to go around 36 inch radius curves. I believe that if highly detailed models such as the new Lionel Vision Line GS class locomotives can be built to operate on 36 inch radius (O-72) curves so can their 2-rail counterparts. (Suggestion: All 2-rail modelers should check out the various forum posts and videos of these models. I think that many 2-rail modelers would buy a 2-rail version of the these models if it would go around a 36 inch radius curve. Lack of space for large radius curves is one of the primary reasons new 2-rail O scale layouts are not being built by clubs or individuals.)
NH Joe
Simon
Here are my wishes for two rail:
1) A major manufacturer either introduces or obtains the rights (business) to the two rail products previously offered by MTH.
2) A manufacturer of locomotives to realize that there should be a price differential between a small industrial switcher, a 44-tonner, and a 6-axle 4000+ HP mainline freight diesel., and also a differential for 4-axle vs 6-axle diesel models.
3) That manufacturer to realize that there is some resistance to the purchase of diesels, since either two or three are required for prototypical operation, and for this reason why a quantity discount and multiple road number should be considered.
4) A major manufacturer offers a cost effective two rail, completely assembled and ready for installation, motorized turnout in at least two sizes, one closest to 072 and another scale turnout, say a #5, and these turnouts are compatible with Microscale Engineering and Atlas two rail track systems. And the motor is reliable, trouble free, and works well.
5) Selection of track metal and wheel metal to discourage wheel to rail contamination, and the subsequent need for frequent cleaning.
6) A snap relay rated higher than 2 amps that is not junk. Engines with 8 car passenger trains generally required four amps with incandescent lighting.
7) A reasonably priced signal system, with capabilities similar to that previously offered by Custom Signals/Atlas, and this would include signal bridges that would permit adjustment for various track center rail dimensions with adjustments possible for four track mainlines.
8) Fairly priced passenger equipment with the following features:
-Scale length, and prototypical with regard to window size and spacing, door height, etc. (I don't need doors that open, etc.)
-Correct paint schemes, both inside and out. (A "no-brainer".)
-LED lighting, either golden glow or blue-white as appropriate to the age of the equipment modeled, with a hold up feature for operation over rail gaps and for station stops. Lighting to operate and be visible in a voltage range from 12 volts to 18 volts, with a greater range if possible to a 6 volt minimum. Lighting to work with either DC or AC. Cars to be suitable for 2 rail and also 3 rail to reduce overall project cost (and price).
-A weight limit for each car, probably to not exceed 2-1/2 lb.
-Insulated wheelsets (one side) with NO wipers to wear grooves in the wheels.
-An on-off switch for interior lights.
-Predrilled for Kadee couplers at the correct height
-Harder/higher quality wheels and axles, and side frames sufficiently hard that the axles will not wear ovals in the side frames with extended use. Some MTH and Lionel cars have either a metal boss on the inside of the side frame, or a pressed in bronze insert, to prevent this wear pattern.
-Diaphragms that won't crumble with age.
-The ability to easily disassemble a car for the purpose of adding figures.
-Recessed windows with a prototypical appearance. Window film to be one piece on each side of the car, and located with a channel and not an adhesive, in order to prevent individual window panes falling inside the car as the adhesive dries out.
-A finished interior that is exactly prototypically correct. ( I recently considered adding figures to my "prototypically correct" passenger train, and realized that the interior seat spacing was not even close to correct. My HO friend has the same train, and his are perfect to the prototype....)
@New Haven Joe posted:Some people have mentioned products and others have mentioned items such as more space. This what I think that 2-rail needs to expand its base.
1. A major manufacturer to support 2-rail scale with engines, cars and track that is affordable to most modelers. $1,000 plus engines are not, in my opinion, really affordable for most people. All engines would come with DCC and sound installed.
2. A prolific author who writes about his or her O scale layout in major model railroad magazines such as Tony Koester does for HO. 2-rail O scale had Frank Ellison and Lorel Joiner but sadly they are both long gone.
3. All models including engines being built to go around 36 inch radius curves. I believe that if highly detailed models such as the new Lionel Vision Line GS class locomotives can be built to operate on 36 inch radius (O-72) curves so can their 2-rail counterparts. (Suggestion: All 2-rail modelers should check out the various forum posts and videos of these models. I think that many 2-rail modelers would buy a 2-rail version of the these models if it would go around a 36 inch radius curve. Lack of space for large radius curves is one of the primary reasons new 2-rail O scale layouts are not being built by clubs or individuals.)
NH Joe
NH Joe, I like your #3 idea but I would amend it slightly by saying many but not all locomotives. Steam engines with 10 or 12 drivers are not going to look good or operate well on 36” radius curves. I think there are a lot of smaller steam locomotives that can make a 36”R curve without making major modifications to the model to do so. Currently Mr. Muffins Trains is offering a Lionel Pacific in the Road name I collect. If, that model could be ordered with scale flanges, scale wheels, Kadee coupler pads, 2 rail capability, and DCC I would buy it. The problem is most 2 railers wouldn’t. Any model that ever so slightly looks a little bit toward the toy side of the hobby will be shunned by most 2 railers. Sometimes the name of Lionel alone will cause 2 railers to look away. This is why some of the MTH scale wheeled steam locomotives had such low production numbers. This is basically the niche MTH was filling although the MTH steam locomotives did not always have the ability to handle such a tight radius. One thing to remember is if Lionel offered such a locomotive that doesn’t mean that more prototypically correct/more expensive locomotives requiring larger radii can’t be offered by other companies. I agree with you that such a line would slightly expand 2 rail O. And any expansion in our little niche of a hobby is a good thing. All opinion.
And as Bob has often said the center rail has nothing to do with the ability to negotiate a given radius.
@PRR Man posted:Some time ago I bought that spec worm and worm gear set from NWSL to experiment with. It works! Toughest part was getting the OEM worm off the motor shaft!
I was able to get ONE Atlas worm off the shaft using a homemade induction heater (the gears are sweated on) before the heater circuit blew up due to using underrated components from my electronics junk box.
You are correct about the dual start worms.
@Hudson J1e posted:NH Joe, I like your #3 idea but I would amend it slightly by saying many but not all locomotives. Steam engines with 10 or 12 drivers are not going to look good or operate well on 36” radius curves.
And as Bob has often said the center rail has nothing to do with the ability to negotiate a given radius.
And Simon says Bob's engines have swinging pilots, blind drivers, and look STUPID going around tight curves. You need to look at S or HO! You can't get 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag
Simon
@Simon Winter posted:And Simon says Bob's engines have swinging pilots, blind drivers, and look STUPID going around tight curves. You need to look at S or HO! You can't get 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag
Simon
Who the heck said anything about swinging pilots or blind drivers? Not me. You go to HO or S. I am fine where I am.
The three things thread made me think a little deeper about what the O Scale 2 Rail industry could use to really boost the scale and the potential. Aside from my earlier "wish list" reply here's some additional thoughts. This is NOT attacking the beautiful craftsman ship that exist in kit form or the wonderful custom built drives - they are certainly works of art and excellence.
1.) Track has already been mentioned. First, there are some beautiful looking track that is available, but it’s build it yourself. Certainly not a bad thing, but then again if someone wants to build a large railroad in a quicker fashion their only real alternative is via Atlas. I've got a consortium of ties, rails, and frogs waiting for my soldering iron to turn them into track. They will be beautiful, but when you have quite a few to build it can be daunting to get started.
- Atlas is nice stuff out of the box and will certainly get you started, however it could still use some tweaking (especially those huge frogs!) and you're very limited. In fact, I've got some replacement frogs to try and cut out the huge Atlas ones!
- What about something similar to Bachmann, Atlas HO, and Kato HO &N where the roadbed is already in place with the ties? It would certainly not be a choice of experienced folks (myself included), however it would be a good way to run stuff if a layout wasn’t convenient or that circle around the Christmas tree, and of course that display track here and there. This would also help sell the scale in hobby shops where customers could see trains operating on 2 Rail track.
2.) I would propose a 2 Rail Chassis system that could have the same four and six axle trucks with the same gear configurations with the ability to swap/change out the tower height. The chassis could be made to handle the existing manufacturer shell (Lionel, MTH etc.). Included in the chassis system would be the drive shafts and high quality can motor. The assembly would take a typical one evening of construction. In addition, make the correct pilots that are scale for select models such as Lionel SD and GP series as well as MTH ones. These would come with the chassis. This basically would mean if you purchase a whole locomotive in 3 rail you could simply take the shell off and sell the chassis outright. With the existing and seemingly never ending parts challenges one could recuperate some of the costs for the 2 Rail conversion. On the flip side the chassis system could also be used for just shell only purchases which are also possible in some runs. The bolster conversions could be designed for different manufacturers. The win-win is the truck gear ratio could be consistent. If you bought a GP40 and converted it over with the chassis system and then and SD35 etc. you would have the same speed match once both were completed. Not to be outdone, the chassis could also have a mount for a decoder and speakers. For those modeling in P48 could also use the same chassis but with the P48 wheels that would be available and easily interchangeable.
- The chassis conversion systems would be designed for the complete array of manufacturers 3-Rail products that are scale such as Lionel, MTH, Atlas, Overland, Sunset, CLW, etc. The outright swapping of the whole chassis fills the parts gap that seemingly exists for periods of time from all of the major players.
- The same system could be used to change out a China Drive system to a tower drive system as well.
- This isn’t to decry some of the excellent and amazing craftsmanship that exists in the hobby in repowering projects. In fact, I absolutely LOVE the four that have been done for me. The chassis system is just a quick way to get 2 Rail power that looks and runs great in both four and six axle designs and takes the headache out of all the fitting etc. It also allows for a conversion without delay. This satisfies both sides as the 3 Rail folks could have their parts in whole fashion.
I would be remissed if I didn't also mention fuel tanks for the chassis. Manufacturers have consistently stuck with one size fuel tank. There would be applicable fuel tank sizes available that would match the prototype.
The chassis system sounds like a tall order, but with modern technology such as CAD, laser cutting, die cutting etc. It's plausible that chassis could be made to order in a couple weeks and sent to the modeler. The expense would be in the technology and manufacturing, not so much of producing a ton and having them sit around on shelves etc. This would also be a way for an entreprenuerial type to buy shells, construct chassis for retail sale and/or custom orders. No matter how many folks would build these to sell there would be consistency between all of them with detail and high performance. Probably the largest up front expense would be the powered trucks as there would be Blombergs, AAR, HTC, Adirondack, etc. etc.
3.) In addition to the drive chassis we need a new manufacturer that is solely dedicated to O Scale 2 Rail / P48 that will make high quality locomotives with tower drives and not just limited runs, but multiple runs spread out of several years etc. which can also be the same model in different road names. The possibilities are exciting.
With a chassis type system of retrofit it would make a diesel conversion easy and consistent for a win. The 3 rail chassis could be sold so there would be opportunity to recover some of the 2-Rail chassis costs for another win. Between a chassis company and a new company with highly detailed and performing units it could run the corner for the 2 Rail market with availability.
Availability and patience are a large part of the challenge in 2 Rail modeling once you have the focus of where and what you want to model. Then it's finding it and the subsequent 2 rail conversion or drive improvement. If this can be overcome in a quicker fashion and getting away from consistent limited runs with repeated runs every several years it could change the course of the market to a brighter future.
I'm not defracting those whom enjoy doing the 3 to 2 Rail conversions. In the greater picture of needs vs. wish list things like this could give the scale some much needed growth, economy, consistency, and satisfaction all in one. In today's world many lifestyles are at a faster pace and time for hobbies is not what it used to be and if we can trim the painful part (3 to 2 Rail Conversions and daunting track construction of many turnouts at once) we can retain more and get more in the scale in the long run.
Happy Modeling!
RTR US PROTOTYPE fully detailed flex track in O and P:48 in rail sizes from code 100 up to 148.
RTR US PROTOTYPE fully detailed switches in O and P:48 in sizes from #4 to #20 in rail sizes from code 100 up to code 148.
RTR US PROTOTYPE fully detailed crossings in all degrees in O and P:48 in rail sizes from code 100 to 148.
None of those 3 exist today in a package like a 21st century fusion of snap track and the old Shinohara track line. Yes I know of the ROW flex track and the custom switches made which are very nice but have holes in the concept when compared to a “track system” like snap track. And most require you to “roll your own” with things like all of the rail braces on real track and switches.
A modular highly detailed track system.
If I ran into money they WOULD exist.
@Hudson J1e posted:Who the heck said anything about swinging pilots or blind drivers? Not me. You go to HO or S. I am fine where I am.
If you want to run stuff on 36" radius it's that or all smaller engines.
Simon
@Rule292 posted:If I ran into money they WOULD exist.
That is the requirement for most of the ideas in this thread. Someone has to supply the $$$.
Rusty
@Simon Winter posted:If you want to run stuff on 36" radius it's that or all smaller engines.
Simon
There's nothing wrong with smaller engines be they steam or diesel, or trolleys and traction.
@Simon Winter posted:If you want to run stuff on 36" radius it's that or all smaller engines.
Simon
Somewhat agree. First of all I want to be clear that I am not advocating for swinging pilots or blind drivers. It is my opinion that many mid-size steam engines could be built to run on 36"R curves without the need for blind drivers, or incorrect sized driving wheels (diameter wise). All 4 axle diesels can already make a 36"R without the need for swinging pilots. Obviously the larger engines can't do it without the 3 rail compromises and for that the user will have to go to larger radius but one can have a lot of fun with mid size steam locomotives and 4 axle diesels and not to mention it is cheaper. It is my opinion that this might bring some interest into O scale 2R and possibly some people. I believe model railroading as a hobby is doing fine, however O scale (3 and 2 rail) seem to be losing more people than it gains. Anything to create interest in our scale is a good thing to me.
@Rusty Traque posted:That is the requirement for most of the ideas in this thread. Someone has to supply the $$$.
Rusty
But even if someone had the $$$$ (and it would not be cheap) wouldn't that person want to know that they are at the very least going to break even? If it were me and I had the money for some of the things in this thread I would really study the market to try to gauge what the real interest is in these products. While I wouldn't mind a small loss I would not want to lose all the money I put into something just to have a lot of stock laying around that no one wants.
For instance Atlas sells their switches for almost $100 and we all know what the short comings of the Atlas switches are. If someone wanted to mass produce a fully detailed line of switches in O and P:48 in sizes from #4 to #20 in rail sizes from code 100 up to code 148 without the short comings that Atlas has what would the cost be to the enthusiast? $125 per switch $150 per switch? I have trouble affording the Atlas switches which is why I bought a jig from Fast Tracks. When the time comes I can roll my own switch for $30 for materials. That is a 70% savings over the Atlas switch and yes it won't be as detailed as Atlas or other switches but when you need 15 switches that savings is a large chunk of change.
This thread has been a fun read. Let's not forget that we are dreaming here, myself included, I hate to be negative but I don't see any of these things actually happening in the future. I would love to be wrong about that.
Last batch of turnouts I got from Signature Switch were right around $100 each by the time shipping/tax was added. Flawless is about the best description I can give. I tried making my own, some things are better left to the professionals.
I don't care if they are 2 or 3 rail but I would really like to have some ore jennies from PRR, PC, or Conrail.
Dave
About ten years ago, on an HO forum I was on, a few people were complaining about locomotives and rolling stock being manufactured in China. They thought someone (it’s always someone else) should start making HO locomotives in the the good old USA. After some mixed responses, yeah and nay, a model railroader who happened to own a US injection molding business, chimed in, and posted a spreadsheet showing what it would cost to manufacture in the US, and it worked out to be somewhere between $700-800 for a plastic locomotive, and that’s was with a meager profit margin, and the assumption that sales would be in the thousands. So that leaves dealing with China, and I’m thinking not many people would want to even bother given the limited 2-rail market, and with all the headaches in design and production, and with the current shipping mess due to the container shortage. I’m not even sure why people even bothered with those very limited brass runs of late. It doesn’t seam worthwhile for the quantity of locomotives being made, even at $1500 or whatever it is each. How much do those guys end up making an hour on that? I’m guessing its a labor of love, or a retirement job? Don’t get me wrong, I admire anyone that manufactures anything in 2rail and would support them if I could without paying for a divorce too. And, I actually don’t see a problem with the price, other than it obviously puts a lot of us out of the market, but nice things cost money. I think the only thing we can do is a create a market, where there is a financial incentive for Atlas, or Intermountain, or whomever, to make an effort in 2rail. Promoting this scale is the way to go about that. I’m a lifelong HO model railroader that switched (still work on a little HO too) to O scale 2r at 52. I don’t find it anymore expensive than HO, thanks to the Strasburg show, and occasionally eBay. Obviously, the lack of product which we are talking about here, is a bit frustrating, especially in the 1968-76 era I model. Club Shows, articles in MR and RMC, modular groups, blogs and YouTube, etc might get a lot more HO folks interested and create a demand?
Dear Jim and others,
Nicely detailed 1/48 1940 / 50's era residential coal delivery trucks/ Cement trucks/ Oil trucks.
Baldwin baby face cab units
Baldwin AS-16 / Rs-12 / AS-616 series road switchers
Great fun thread !!!!
John
04/17/2021 Strasburg Show
Don’t forget - part of this hobby is doing it yourself if you cannot buy it for reasonable.
My thought about track has nothing to do with swinging pilots and blind drivers. I merely point out that the center rail is not what enables sharp corners.
Commercial O Scale is market-driven. No market, no product. Sunset has an interesting plan - apparently enough reservations and they will import anything.
Getting really good models for cheap is a dream - nobody wants to subsidize the hobby of folks they do not know well.
Opinion. Of course.
John,
I am with you on all three wishes, esssspecially the Babyface.
@mwb posted:There's nothing wrong with smaller engines be they steam or diesel, or trolleys and traction.
Never said there was! I like it ALL! Just saying 36" radius restricts you to smaller stuff unless you don't mind it looking silly/having caveats. I wish there were more small and medium stuff!
Simon
Regarding 36” radii curves it seems to me the more expensive locomotives such as Glacier Park or Division Point will handle tighter radii than say locomotives from Third Rail. I have heard their SP 2-6-0 will barely handle 48” radius. Here’s a short video of a Glacier Park 2-8-0 negotiating an S curve of 36” radius without any transition between the curves.
Peter
@Peter E B posted:Regarding 36” radii curves it seems to me the more expensive locomotives such as Glacier Park or Division Point will handle tighter radii than say locomotives from Third Rail. I have heard their SP 2-6-0 will barely handle 48” radius. Here’s a short video of a Glacier Park 2-8-0 negotiating an S curve of 36” radius without any transition between the curves.
Peter
here's the video for easier viewing:
My three wishes
1) Mundane mid 50's four door Chevy Sedans. The kind regular working folks drove. Not Belairs. Not two tone. A 210 would be perfect. A 150 fine. Maybe even a station wagon (not a Nomad or Belair). Prefer 55 or 56, but will gladly take a year earlier or later. 1/43 scale is fine, but make them decent models.
2) Mundane mid 50's four door Plymouths. Same as above. Except models become Savoy, Belvedere.
3) Mundane mid 50s Pontiacs or Oldsmobile. (The "or" is only because I am allowed three wishes).
@mwb posted:There's nothing wrong with smaller engines be they steam or diesel, or trolleys and traction.
I have an O scale fifty foot box motor that will negotiate a twelve inch radius. I also have two passenger motors that will do the same coupled.
Thanks, Engineer Joe! I forget how you do that!?
Peter
1) Larger sectional track. I am NOT a do-it-your-self-er, and once I am ready to lay track, I am not about to lay individual ties and rail spikes. I know some really enjoy that, and I admire their work, but that just isn't me. I was really hoping Atlas would continue their sectional track a couple more notches. They already have 54-inch radius (I own several boxes), next step would be 58.5 and then 63-inch radius. At that point, having over 60-inch radius, you could run just about anything AND have just about anything look good. Then add two more rungs to the ladder, 67.5 and 72-inch radius, and I think you'd have a complete package. Those 72-inch sections would be about 28 inches long each, which is about the length of their zephyr boxes, so shipping is definitely doable.
2) Larger selection of ready made switches. I would LOVE for Atlas to do their double-slip in 2-rail, would open up SO many more design possibilities for those short on real estate. I have emailed one of the custom builders mentioned often here, but gotten no response.
3) Someone to redo F-7s so I have a chance to get an ARR F-7 #1500-1501.
Good thread. Ive been thinking about this as Ive read the answers pile up:
1. For all of the zero tooling required manufacturing outfits (laser cutters, 3D printers, etc...) to upscale the countless HO kits, bits and accessories out there to O. If your business involves loading material into a machine and pressing a button on a computer, there's no reason to not make it available at 181% its original size. I get the sense a lot of these shops are "on demand" anyways.
2. Continuation of something that can be bought new and ready to run. With MTH headed the way of the Dodo and Atlas doing.... whatever it is they're doing, the options are dwindling. I can tinker, but sometimes its nice to just open a box.
3. This last one.... its just me. I'd like some scale figures running/jogging. There's 1 artistta figure of a woman jogging and thats it.
@lionel1946 posted:1) Larger sectional track. I am NOT a do-it-your-self-er, and once I am ready to lay track, I am not about to lay individual ties and rail spikes. I know some really enjoy that, and I admire their work, but that just isn't me. I was really hoping Atlas would continue their sectional track a couple more notches. They already have 54-inch radius (I own several boxes), next step would be 58.5 and then 63-inch radius. At that point, having over 60-inch radius, you could run just about anything AND have just about anything look good. Then add two more rungs to the ladder, 67.5 and 72-inch radius, and I think you'd have a complete package. Those 72-inch sections would be about 28 inches long each, which is about the length of their zephyr boxes, so shipping is definitely doable.
2) Larger selection of ready made switches. I would LOVE for Atlas to do their double-slip in 2-rail, would open up SO many more design possibilities for those short on real estate. I have emailed one of the custom builders mentioned often here, but gotten no response.
3) Someone to redo F-7s so I have a chance to get an ARR F-7 #1500-1501.
Lenz (Germany) made an Atlas compatible and look-alike #5 double slip (I have two) and 3 way #5 (I have one) also some relatively smallradius curved turnouts I think I heard that Peco has bought the line from Lenz. I don't see anything on the Peco website yet other than the existing bullhead rail double slip, but nothing in flat bottom rail from the Lenz line.
@Jim Scorse posted:Lenz (Germany) made an Atlas compatible and look-alike #5 double slip (I have two) and 3 way #5 (I have one) also some relatively smallradius curved turnouts I think I heard that Peco has bought the line from Lenz. I don't see anything on the Peco website yet other than the existing bullhead rail double slip, but nothing in flat bottom rail from the Lenz line.
I believe Atlas O scale track is based upon Lenz track.
Just think, at one time Atlas made snap track in HO and N scales and lots of it.
Wonder how they managed to make so much in Hillside NJ in days gone by.
Anyway, IMHO track is the most important component in any scale. Build nice RTR track and locos and rolling stock will follow.
I agree with several others - we need "good" track / turnouts / rail joiners; with that the locos and freight / passenger cars will follow
Actually I heard the opposite of Jim's thoughts. Lenz has moved its track production from China to Peco in the UK. Track items will be on the Lenz O Scale website - made by Peco exclusively for Lenz. Also Lenz track was made after Atlas track came out and is very similar. I have the Lenz double slip and it works and looks great with my Atlas track although I still prefer the the Roco #6 turnouts over the current Atlas 2 rail turnouts.
@Jim Scorse posted:Lenz (Germany) made an Atlas compatible and look-alike #5 double slip (I have two) and 3 way #5 (I have one) also some relatively smallradius curved turnouts I think I heard that Peco has bought the line from Lenz. I don't see anything on the Peco website yet other than the existing bullhead rail double slip, but nothing in flat bottom rail from the Lenz line.
You just gave me a new eBay search! Thanks! Looking forward to finding a few.
@Jim Scorse posted:The Stanton drives are 'available' in OW5, P48, On3 and more with varying wheelbases.
Thanks for the heads up. That drive would work well with an unpowered Gas-Electric I have in my collection if I can figure out how to work the side frames.
As for my wish list:
My 3 Wants:-
1. A decent CF7, made in the style of the old Red Caboose GP9. Preferably available undecorated so those of us who freelance a Short Line can go nuts.
2. A decent GP38-2, as per Red Caboose style, but factory painted in Soo Line Red & White would suit me.
3. Modern ARMN-type reefers, and/or updated versions of the Weaver 57ft mechanical reefer, with the external fridge motor.
As for 36" radius curves, and what can/can't go round them, and does/doesn't look ok doing so, I'll just leave this here.....
My Atlas SD40 taking the 36" curves at one end of my unfinished layout. First car in the train is an MTH Centrebeam Flat with Atlas roller-bearing trucks.
I grant it looks better viewed from inside the curve than outside, but an outside view is impossible in my location anyway!!!
Like this one SundayShunter? If you don’t mind a little soldering and extra bracing here and there the Pecos River Brass version is a good runner, having the guts of the PSC S series switchers!
Peter
Nice... what an odd looking thing. 😁
Mark in Oregon
I wish a variety of good can motors ( Pittman etc. ) were readily available for reasonable prices. I'm tired of the oddball stuff typically found on Ebay.
Bob
@Strummer posted:Nice... what an odd looking thing. 😁
Mark in Oregon
First time I saw one, I told the CMO I thought you said we didn't have any GE's on the property. He told me what a CF-7 actually was and then commented I guess it does look kinda' like a GE from the road. They are even odder to look at from the inside of the electrical cabinet. As always, Tom Dempsey
@Peter E B posted:Like this one SundayShunter? If you don’t mind a little soldering and extra bracing here and there the Pecos River Brass version is a good runner, having the guts of the PSC S series switchers!
Peter
Yes, just like that one. The one teeny problem being that Pecos River CF7s are as rare as hen's teeth, and very expensive if they do turn up, especially to ship across The Puddle to the U.K. 
It does surprise me how few US railfans/modellers seem to know about them. There is great interest here in Britain, in American Short Lines. We have just nothing like them over here, despite once again having a Privatised rail network, after years of a national "British Rail". Short Lines are an answer to a modeller's prayer - especially modellers short of space, like most of us are in the UK!! As the CF7 cascaded fron Santa Fe to numerous Short Lines & Regionals, to me it's a natural choice for a versatile model engine.
@Peter E B posted:Like this one SundayShunter? If you don’t mind a little soldering and extra bracing here and there the Pecos River Brass version is a good runner, having the guts of the PSC S series switchers!
Peter
Not to sidetrack this thread, but can you elaborate a little bit on the "little soldering and extra bracing here and there"?
Boilermaker, Pecos River Brass has a reputation for lots of cold solder joints so they tend to "self destruct" with little use. My friend had sold this one and it was returned supposedly damaged (self destructed) in shipment. I offered to try to repair it for him. Once I got it, it was obvious it had been dropped as the coupler was flattened. As a result of this both pilots were detached and steps bent as well as other damage. I've fixed dropped engines before but never saw one come apart so completely. See below.
As I started repairs I noticed there was little to solder the pilots to and no angle bracing or anything. I ended up adding a lot of fairly thick brass to get a good solid joint at both ends, see below.
Last I had to re-solder most of the stanchions and straighten the handrails. A heavy weather job took care of the discolored paint from the soldering. That's about it. Thanks for listening.....
Peter
Oh, my friend sold the unit for a good price and the new owner is very happy with it.
@SundayShunter posted:My 3 Wants:-
1. A decent CF7, made in the style of the old Red Caboose GP9. Preferably available undecorated so those of us who freelance a Short Line can go nuts.
2. A decent GP38-2, as per Red Caboose style, but factory painted in Soo Line Red & White would suit me.
3. Modern ARMN-type reefers, and/or updated versions of the Weaver 57ft mechanical reefer, with the external fridge motor.
As for 36" radius curves, and what can/can't go round them, and does/doesn't look ok doing so, I'll just leave this here.....
My Atlas SD40 taking the 36" curves at one end of my unfinished layout. First car in the train is an MTH Centrebeam Flat with Atlas roller-bearing trucks.
I grant it looks better viewed from inside the curve than outside, but an outside view is impossible in my location anyway!!!
Is that your video? If so, can you E-mail me a photo of the bottom of the converted center beam car. I've converted four of them and would prefer to just modify the MTH trucks with Intermountain wheels rather than fabricate new bolsters and use Weaver trucks. Thanks.
By the way, like your list. I occasionally see the UP/ARMN reefers (BNSF also has some) and at 82 feet, the the largest ones are huge.
In response to queries about the Stanton Drive. The DCC version comes prewired for rail pickup and motor control. NWSL include clear instructions on wiring and suggestions on how to install these drives taking into consideration nearly every locomotive could be different. There is a U shaped slot molded into each side of the casing holding the drive - this doesn't seem to show clearly in available advertising material. You can use this slot to make up an attachment to hold the truck sideframes. How you go about this will depend on the type of sideframes as it will be important to line up the center of the axle boxes with the axles of the drive.
I have successfully used two powered Stanton Drives to repower a Weaver RS3 (or RS2) and used the above slot to make an attachment for the sideframes. I had already reworked the Weaver drive along the lines of an article that appeared in OST and even though there was an improvement in operation I was not happy so decided repower using Stanton Drives. While the locomotive is a little noisy running light it runs a lot quieter when hauling a train. It does not have sound.
I'm now using two drives to repower a Custom Brass S1. Like the RS3 I tried to improve the original drive but it didn't work out very well. An advantage in this case is that after discarding the original motor and fittings I have plenty of room to install a sound decoder. I intend using the U shaped slot to hold an attachment to the sideframes but the Blunt trucks throw up a different set of problems which I will get to after installing the decoder.
I'm using two powered drives because I have a 2.5% grade on my short line.
Trust this helps with some of the queries.
Ian
@Peter E B posted:Boilermaker, Pecos River Brass has a reputation for lots of cold solder joints so they tend to "self destruct" with little use.
Peter
Peter, You might want to aim that comment at the builder, not the Importer. PRB imported MANY models of excellent quality, that did not fall apart. They used MANY different builders. Some were excellent and some as you illustrate, but it's simply not fair to imply everything they imported was poorly built.
Simon
@AGHRMatt posted:Is that your video? If so, can you E-mail me a photo of the bottom of the converted center beam car. I've converted four of them and would prefer to just modify the MTH trucks with Intermountain wheels rather than fabricate new bolsters and use Weaver trucks. Thanks.
By the way, like your list. I occasionally see the UP/ARMN reefers (BNSF also has some) and at 82 feet, the the largest ones are huge.
It is indeed my video, taken on my 17ft x 8ft layout.
There's not much to show on the underside of my MTH centerbeam, to be honest. It's a very rough'n'ready conversion - I chop off the MTH bolster, and open the mounting hole out, to 4mm dia. I think, then use a nut and bolt to fit the Atlas trucks, with a small washer to fill the Atlas mounting hole. As Atlas trucks have a tall center boss removing the car bolster keeps the ride height about right.
That brown one is the later version with trucks in the right location. The green one that brings up the rear in that video is an older one with the trucks right at the ends of the car. It still has MTH 2-rail trucks, but when I finally get round to relocating the trucks to the correct place I also intend to modify the underframe to remove the unprototypical big channel section MTH use.
I use Atlas trucks when I can as I like the rotating bearing caps.
@SundayShunter posted:It is indeed my video, taken on my 17ft x 8ft layout.
There's not much to show on the underside of my MTH centerbeam, to be honest. It's a very rough'n'ready conversion - I chop off the MTH bolster, and open the mounting hole out, to 4mm dia. I think, then use a nut and bolt to fit the Atlas trucks, with a small washer to fill the Atlas mounting hole. As Atlas trucks have a tall center boss removing the car bolster keeps the ride height about right.
That brown one is the later version with trucks in the right location. The green one that brings up the rear in that video is an older one with the trucks right at the ends of the car. It still has MTH 2-rail trucks, but when I finally get round to relocating the trucks to the correct place I also intend to modify the underframe to remove the unprototypical big channel section MTH use.
I use Atlas trucks when I can as I like the rotating bearing caps.
Thanks. I owe you one.
Simon, point well made. Their freight cars in brass ARE excellent models. The CF7 is notorious as are other diesels they imported. Not sure about the steam locomotives. As I don’t know who the builder is and they did import and sell them I’m afraid I might have painted with too wide a brush!
Peter
@Peter E B posted:Simon, point well made. Their freight cars in brass ARE excellent models. The CF7 is notorious as are other diesels they imported. Not sure about the steam locomotives. As I don’t know who the builder is and they did import and sell them I’m afraid I might have painted with too wide a brush!
Peter
Peter,
PRB had a bunch of different builders! John Smith, the owner, wrote a column titled "Crapola from the Cupola" in early issues of "O Scale Trains" and it gave a pretty decent picture of the Brass business in South Korea, and his experiences over there in general. I highly recommend it. The brass business started in Japan after WWII, and shifted to South Korea when the Japanese economy started to recover after the end of WWII. J.S. looks at not only the nuts and bolts of the business, but the human side of it.
Simon
@PRR Man posted:Jim; most vertical drive motors have 'double lead' worms on them. (which you probably know) Changing to a single lead worm effectively reduces the ratio by doubling it, Some time ago I bought that spec worm and worm gear set from NWSL to experiment with. It works! Toughest part was getting the OEM worm off the motor shaft!
Hi Chris,
Can you supply a link or part number to this NWSL worm gear set? This would be great if I could run my Atlas units back to parallel wiring and get good speed control. What do you believe makes it so tough to get off of the motor shaft, e.g. do you think they used some type of Loctite or is it just some crazy-tight interference press fit?
Thanks.
Scott
@Peter E B posted:Thanks, Engineer Joe! I forget how you do that!?
Peter
How to EMBED a YouTube Video Here | O Gauge Railroading On Line Forum (ogaugerr.com)
@Engineer-Joe posted:1) someone buys MTH and continues 2 rail releases
2) someone buys MTH and continues 2 rail releases
careful what you wish for.... it may come true! 
While I've already commented on the top three items on my wish list to start operating in 2R if I'm looking at locomotives specific to true 2 rail it would be:
I'd do a second list on passenger cars and a third on freight cars, but I have more than a lifetime of projects already for the ones on my wish list. That was the gist of my original posting to this thread.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I want 2R steam with WowSound decoders and smoke units installed from the factory.
What would I settle for? Any Erie, PRR, or B&O smaller steam. Also, diesel switchers from 25T up through MPs with LokSound decoders.
Frisco 1522 4-8-2
An FP7A in the $250 to $275 price range
Atlas and MTH separate sale 2 rail pilots
This msg is intended for everyone who wants to expand two-rail modeling, and that includes me. For every one of you who "hates" the "China Drive", be aware that elimination of a "China Drive" on a diesel of any size would probably reduce the number of modelers who model in two rail "by about half", since a tower drive cannot accommodate the same minimum curve radius that two vertical and separate motors provide, and a smaller curve radius is almost mandatory for many two rail layouts due to space considerations. The only advantage of a tower drive that I am aware of is that it permits a fully detailed cab. I am not aware that there are ANY advantages to the use of a tower drive on a diesel other than what I identified above. For steam guys, this discussion is moot. My opinion.
Couldn’t the early Weaver engines take pretty tight curves? The 2 and 3 rail drives were identical.
@Hudson5432 posted:....For every one of you who "hates" the "China Drive", be aware that elimination of a "China Drive" on a diesel of any size would probably reduce the number of modelers who model in two rail "by about half", since a tower drive cannot accommodate the same minimum curve radius that two vertical and separate motors provide, and a smaller curve radius is almost mandatory for many two rail layouts due to space considerations. The only advantage of a tower drive that I am aware of is that it permits a fully detailed cab. I am not aware that there are ANY advantages to the use of a tower drive on a diesel other than what I identified above. For steam guys, this discussion is moot. My opinion.
Sorry but in my opinion your post seems like pure speculation, and you do say "probably". The huge advantage of a single motor tower drive over twin motors is smoothness of drive at crawling speeds; pretty essential for a smaller layout with emphasis on switching.
My Weaver Geeps with tower drive take 36" radius curves just fine, as does my Red Caboose GP9 (early Atlas/Roco tower drive) and my Atlas SW1200RS, with central motor etc.
Does this issue arise in HO & N Scales? As far as I know, all diesel locos in those scales are central motor/tower drive, and in HO they take 18" curves ok, even if it's usually in hidden staging. Minimum radius is just a non-issue.
Honestly, some of the fretting that goes on in American O - both 2- & 3-rail - anyone would think that smaller scales had never been invented or run successfully!!!
The funny part is I just received a MTH 2 rail NH GP9 from the last run by the current owner. It has the latest MTH DCC decoder software and I was amazed that even with the so-called China drive, it creeps perfectly starting at one speed step and and is extremely smooth. I have used it for yard switching and it is at least as good as the Atlas switcher and far superior to the Weaver single motor drives. So maybe the issue is not a single cause but relates to DCC decoder software, motor quality and drive components. I rate the Pittman motor in the Weaver model as the best motor but the other variables do play a part such as plastic chain and cheap gears in the Weaver model (and no they aren't cracked which is common).
Just saying that there are several variables and common issues with some early DCC decoder's software.
Yes, my post does contain speculation, since I do not know how many operators of smaller scale layouts with relatively sharp curves use diesels. My comments regarding the ability of a two rail "China drive" locomotive to negotiate a sharper curve than a single motor locomotive with universal joints is not speculation, it is fact based on the engineering mechanics of the driveline. Design guides for universal joints state that, for non-slip joints, the max misalignment of a universal should be limited to ten degrees or less to avoid vibration and generally poor performance.. For a vertical motor not connected to another vertical motor, the rotational misalignment can be "just about anything you want" and whatever the flanges and track will permit. I am still wondering why the two vertical motor arrangement is called a "China drive". My understanding is that it was first used by Lionel, and is thus afflicted with the "cannot operate at low speed" claim?
As for the ability of a locomotive to operate smoothly at a very low speed, it does depend on the motor and the driveline, and also the control system used. I have heard that the models of the MTH 44 ton locomotive have a carbody hood width that is prototypical, and that previous and more expensive models of this locomotive required wider hoods due to the power arrangement. I do know that MTH locomotives will operate at a minimum speed of 3 smph, and run-in locomotives will operate at 2 smph using the MTH DCS system. I suspect that any DCC system can do as well. I have switchers with a single motor and a chain drive, and their low speed performance isn't even close, although these engines have no electronics.
Bottom line, their is a much greater chance that 2 rail scale will survive and perhaps even expand if a major player's products are also available. If that doesn't happen, we will be as limited with regard to motive power as we are now to track and turnouts. Again, my opinion.
Hudson5432, my layout has 2 areas where the radii is 36”. While I mainly run steam, largest being a large SP 2-8-0 I do have a number of Diesel engines. A GP 10, a CF 7, a BL2, a couple of SW 1s and a Whitcomb switcher. All are 4 axle and will easily handle the 36" radii. I’d guess a 6 axle unit might have trouble. My layout is posted in the 2 rail layout video thread.
Peter
@Hudson5432 posted:Yes, my post does contain speculation, since I do not know how many operators of smaller scale layouts with relatively sharp curves use diesels. My comments regarding the ability of a two rail "China drive" locomotive to negotiate a sharper curve than a single motor locomotive with universal joints is not speculation, it is fact based on the engineering mechanics of the driveline. Design guides for universal joints state that, for non-slip joints, the max misalignment of a universal should be limited to ten degrees or less to avoid vibration and generally poor performance.. For a vertical motor not connected to another vertical motor, the rotational misalignment can be "just about anything you want" and whatever the flanges and track will permit. I am still wondering why the two vertical motor arrangement is called a "China drive". My understanding is that it was first used by Lionel, and is thus afflicted with the "cannot operate at low speed" claim?
As for the ability of a locomotive to operate smoothly at a very low speed, it does depend on the motor and the driveline, and also the control system used. I have heard that the models of the MTH 44 ton locomotive have a carbody hood width that is prototypical, and that previous and more expensive models of this locomotive required wider hoods due to the power arrangement. I do know that MTH locomotives will operate at a minimum speed of 3 smph, and run-in locomotives will operate at 2 smph using the MTH DCS system. I suspect that any DCC system can do as well. I have switchers with a single motor and a chain drive, and their low speed performance isn't even close, although these engines have no electronics.
Bottom line, their is a much greater chance that 2 rail scale will survive and perhaps even expand if a major player's products are also available. If that doesn't happen, we will be as limited with regard to motive power as we are now to track and turnouts. Again, my opinion.
Yes China-drives will take silly-radius 3-rail curves, I grant that, but the generally accepted minimum radius in 2-rail is 36", and tower drives will take that quite easily, at least with 4-axle diesels. My 6-axle Atlas SD40 also can take 36" radius, but it's a China drive, I don't have experience of 6-axle tower drives, but I suspect that if space is tight (my layout is 17ft x 8ft) the owner won't be looking to use huge engines anyway.
Where I do agree with you totally is that there needs to be a major manufacturer of decent 2-rail stuff at sensible prices.
@Hudson5432 posted:Yes, my post does contain speculation, since I do not know how many operators of smaller scale layouts with relatively sharp curves use diesels. My comments regarding the ability of a two rail "China drive" locomotive to negotiate a sharper curve than a single motor locomotive with universal joints is not speculation, it is fact based on the engineering mechanics of the driveline. Design guides for universal joints state that, for non-slip joints, the max misalignment of a universal should be limited to ten degrees or less to avoid vibration and generally poor performance.. For a vertical motor not connected to another vertical motor, the rotational misalignment can be "just about anything you want" and whatever the flanges and track will permit. I am still wondering why the two vertical motor arrangement is called a "China drive". My understanding is that it was first used by Lionel, and is thus afflicted with the "cannot operate at low speed" claim?
As for the ability of a locomotive to operate smoothly at a very low speed, it does depend on the motor and the driveline, and also the control system used. I have heard that the models of the MTH 44 ton locomotive have a carbody hood width that is prototypical, and that previous and more expensive models of this locomotive required wider hoods due to the power arrangement. I do know that MTH locomotives will operate at a minimum speed of 3 smph, and run-in locomotives will operate at 2 smph using the MTH DCS system. I suspect that any DCC system can do as well. I have switchers with a single motor and a chain drive, and their low speed performance isn't even close, although these engines have no electronics.
Bottom line, their is a much greater chance that 2 rail scale will survive and perhaps even expand if a major player's products are also available. If that doesn't happen, we will be as limited with regard to motive power as we are now to track and turnouts. Again, my opinion.
I think the big complaint with the 'China Drive' is not so much the slow speed performance but the jack rabbit start from 0 to 2 MPH mostly caused by the slot car gearing of the drives. In my experience China Drives run at around 200 Scale MPH. With a more favorable gear ratio you will see the start up performance improve. Perhaps someone like Atlas will get the message to offer an optional gear set (extra purchase, but "screwdriver bolt in") with a 20:1 or 25:1 ratio over the 10:1 ratio currently supplied. I attempted to work with NWSL's previous owner on a scheme to do this but he had no real interest and wanted $22,000 to begin looking at the problem.
'Can you supply a link or part number to this NWSL worm gear set?'
Scott, after a long technical conversation via email with NWSL (this was years ago), they suggested their set for the G scale 'Delton Doozie' would do the job. Their part # is 2119-6. It contains the worm and axle worm gear. The worm is a single lead.
Getting the OEM worm off the motor shaft was a major undertaking. I tried a gear/wheel puller. Nope. Then heat. No good either. I was very concerned about ruining the motor with too much effort or heat. I finally used a cutting wheel to slice the worm lengthwise.
The axle gear was a perfect friction fit. The worm needed Loctite to stay on the shaft snugly. The operational result was pleasing. However I declined to do three more trucks for the A-A set I was working on.
I believe the worm is highly heated at the factory, then press fit onto the motor shaft. You'd be best to start with a motor without a worm installed.
I'm with Jim. We have been asking for single lead worm vertical drives for years. It's one small change that has a significant impact.
As an aside. I've changed most of my road units to vertical drives. They last longer at the club for open house running, which lasts hours. With proper lubrication, truck/frame interface mount mods, and decoder adjustment. I get very good starts and slow speed operation.
I wouldn’t mind either “dummy” steam locomotives In 1:48 like the armor guys have in 1:35 or smaller-flanged “Dummy” wheelsets for us narrow-gaugers to convert something like a Lionel/K-Line 0-4-0 into a static locomotive to represent the broad gauge.
i fear that idea wouldn’t appeal to the designers who put up their stuff on what I call “Haystack Central” 3-D market place.
1. Atlas O scale 53' 3-unit Thrall well cars
2. Atlas O scale 40' 5-unit Thrall well cars
3. Atlas O scale Maxi-I 5 unit well cars
Thanks Chris and Jim. That info was very helpful. Let me see if I can find a junker Atlas motor or powered unit and play around with it to start. I have a very fine point Oxy/Propane jewelers torch (the torch nozzle orifice is so small that it needs to be drilled in a ruby with a laser since drills don't go down to that small) so it can produce a very fine concentrated flame that I can try. Obviously have to watch and not overheat and distort the motor shaft. I also have a 13 x 30 lathe that I can potentially either hold the motor rotor in my smaller 5" 6-jaw Set True chuck or, if small enough, use a 5C collet (may have to bore out an emergency collet if the rotor comes out to be an odd size). Then I can just gently turn down the old gear with a real sharp high speed steel tool in the lathe and slip on the new one with some Loctite 603, if it is not a press fit.
Jim,
Thanks for the links. I am familiar with the induction heating units as they use those in CNC machine shrink-fit style end mill holders since these holders produce very little runout.
Thanks again for taking the time to look up that info.
Scott
I have replaced a number of the MTH gears - they actually fail at the ten year point if you run continuously (like in a museum).
It takes two special steel plates with milled space to go between the worm and motor, bolted together for no chance at slippage, and torch heat.
Also, when you tap the shaft, you need a rag to catch the motor as it falls - motors hate shocks.
@bob2 posted:It takes two special steel plates with milled space to go between the worm and motor, bolted together for no chance at slippage, and torch heat.
It takes higher than Bernz-o-matic heat. Maybe Mapp gas?
And by all means - catch the motor.
@Bob Delbridge posted:Still searching for a really good set of Dalman trucks that don't cost a fortune (or at least more than the car they support).
Bob, you might recall my Dalman 2-level truck project of a very long time ago; I slipped off the radar following heart surgery and marriage break-up that knocked me around quite a bit. Well, having beaten the odds and escaped the ex-wife's constant disapproval of my modeling, I am working on finishing that truck at long last!
My wish-list for O-scale in order of preference:
1 - A USRA Light Mike made with injection-moulded styrene, so that we can chop and mod and upgrade to our hearts' content.
2 - Core kits for heavyweight cars, or at least inj-mlded roofs. I can scratch streamliner roofs without too much effort but clerestory roofs are a complete pain in the rear.
3 - A USRA 0-8-0 switcher made in the same way as the light mike.
@PRRMP54 posted:2. An O scale Class 66
Deleted from my list as Dapol in the UK is offering one; I have pre-ordered one.
@Tom D. posted:Couldn’t the early Weaver engines take pretty tight curves? The 2 and 3 rail drives were identical.
The older Weaver, Red Caboose Geep and the Austrian Roco-Atlas F9 will all run on the original Atlas 24"R track. Of course, the F was designed for that radius, and the Geep has pretty much the same chassis. The only "modification" I had to do was to not completely tighten the coupler box screw, to allow it to pivot slightly. Having said that, I suspect they are much happier on the wider curves I'm now using! 🙂
Mark in Oregon
1. Kadee offer a variety of trucks...freight and passenger...in keeping with their quality of the same in HO and large scale.
2. Aftermarket roof walks for 40' and 50' boxcars...et alia...that are see-through, prototypical to various steel/grid styles used up to the time they were ruled out by the FRA. Like the ones on premium cars by Atlas, MTH, Lionel, Intermountain, to name a few. Most of our (1:48) train viewing is bird/drone/plane vantage. Rolling stock, even-or-especially the crummiest, most weathered, graffiti'd, or derelict of all, deserves this bit of celebratory respect! (IMHO, of course)
3. Extruded plastic (Styrene or ABS) code rail molded in a 'rust' color with which to add track guard rails on bridges and trestles, be cut to 39' lengths for stationary or MOW rolling stock rail racks, to lie in l-o-n-g lengths along existing right-of-way in mock anticipation of installation by the MOW crew, to be made into welded-rail bumpers that don't short circuit sidings, to be easily fashioned into dummy turnouts to justify that permanently-parked rolling stock on the siding (ala, Roadside America layout, et al.), ....etc., etc., etc..
--------------------
I can't help myself...these additional two are bunched too close to "the top 3 items"...
4. A variety of scale, operating, lighted wig-wag crossing signals as were so popular throughout this country, more so within the haunts of certain flags.
5. Serious focus on 'Dead Rail'...All areas...from components, packaging, installations, DIY's, to encouragement and intellectual/emotional support. It will be very embarrassing to have this concept take firm root and find lasting success in the HO branch of the hobby before the next logical application...O scale...has led in its further development. (again....IMHO, of course)
Break time....'nuf said.
KD
@Scott Kay posted:Thanks Chris and Jim. That info was very helpful. Let me see if I can find a junker Atlas motor or powered unit and play around with it to start. I have a very fine point Oxy/Propane jewelers torch (the torch nozzle orifice is so small that it needs to be drilled in a ruby with a laser since drills don't go down to that small) so it can produce a very fine concentrated flame that I can try. Obviously have to watch and not overheat and distort the motor shaft. I also have a 13 x 30 lathe that I can potentially either hold the motor rotor in my smaller 5" 6-jaw Set True chuck or, if small enough, use a 5C collet (may have to bore out an emergency collet if the rotor comes out to be an odd size). Then I can just gently turn down the old gear with a real sharp high speed steel tool in the lathe and slip on the new one with some Loctite 603, if it is not a press fit.
Jim,
Thanks for the links. I am familiar with the induction heating units as they use those in CNC machine shrink-fit style end mill holders since these holders produce very little runout.
Thanks again for taking the time to look up that info.
Scott
I machined a custom gear puller out of some cold rolled steel bar for the Atlas motors and it worked perfectly to remove the stock Atlas worm from the motor shaft. It did not even require any heating of the worm to get it to start moving when I used the small pin insert in the start for a little more rigidity due to the shorter pin length. Then moved to the longer tool steel pin insert which is then used to drive the worm off completely. It seems that these worms are potentially just heated and shrink-fit on the motor shaft as the motor shaft seems rather spindly for direct cold press-fit with an arbor press.
Next step is to experiment with the same single-start worms and matching worm gears with the correct lead angle. However, single-start worms will effectively double the gear ratio, which is good for slow speed performance but this will obviously also impact top end. I am a little curious if it will still end up being faster top end than the wiring these dual motor drives in series or basically the same. It has been a fun project nonetheless, with still more to come.
Scott
1) The kinds of stuff I would wish for would cost too much so even if they were available I more than likely would not purchase any.
2) Wish that more people would try their hand at scratch building or at least build up some of the just add detail and paint and letter cars that are available instead of wishing for more Atlas(paint it any rail road that ever existed) crap.
3) I guess I'd agree with the idea of a universal 4 wheel trucks drive unit, I have a number of Hallmark/P&D/and even a couple Lionel shells that could use that. I liked the plastic truck sideframe version of the P&D but they seem to have dried up, but something like that would be fine.
@Scott Kay posted:I am a little curious if it will still end up being faster top end than the wiring these dual motor drives in series or basically the same. It has been a fun project nonetheless, with still more to come.Scott
I think the top end will be just fine with the speed cut in half by the single start worm. These locomotives are geared for the three rail market to they typically have more than enough speed for scale operators. The single start worm will also yield much smoother starting than wiring motors in series.
Aha, the old "three wishes" routine...there be a touch of the Blarney here somewhere! 
1. A small steam switcher at a good entry level price partly because there appear to be none available and also to attract newcomers. More newcomers means a stronger hobby, and every layout could use some smaller switchers.
2. More European steam locos. MTH made some but I seem to have found out about them too late! There appear to be plenty of US and British outline models but SFA Euro stuff. I love variety in my models.
3. More obvious availability. I wouldn't know where to buy stuff, I seem to have to rely on internet sales. I'm happy buying stuff over the web but there don't seem to be many places that sell 2-rail O scale. Everything I buy is mail order to Downunder.
Oh well, that's my three. Added a pic of a British freight loco with a Santa Fe 4-8-4 because we all love trains.
Mick
Kadee makes O SCALE trucks, as requested above, that are cheaper than a brass boxcar!? I want Weaver's trucks reoffered, but not in dissolving zincpest as the last l received, in 2 and 3 rail, but would change out wheelsets. I want McKeen cars, Mack rail buses, and gas electrics (not RR specific), again 2 and 3. Same for small locos: Mikados, ten wheelers, moguls (not RR specific!), 2 & 3, for everybody.
I'd like to see a sd40-2 in correct proportions. I think Scott Mann may be producing this soon. I was disappointed to see Atlas was picking up that bad MTH tooling, but it will never come to 2-rail so whatever.
@Martin H posted:I'd like to see a sd40-2 in correct proportions. I think Scott Mann may be producing this soon. I was disappointed to see Atlas was picking up that bad MTH tooling, but it will never come to 2-rail so whatever.
Martin, you are correct. In the past Atlas always made both a 3R and 2R version of their diesels but I just got an email from Atlas and it said they are doing a run of the MTH SD40-2. I clicked on the link which took me to their website. No 2 rail versions are offered. Just guessing but it seems if MTH didn’t offer a 2 rail version of something Atlas won’t either.
@Hudson J1e posted:Martin, you are correct. In the past Atlas always made both a 3R and 2R version of their diesels but I just got an email from Atlas and it said they are doing a run of the MTH SD40-2. I clicked on the link which took me to their website. No 2 rail versions are offered. Just guessing but it seems if MTH didn’t offer a 2 rail version of something Atlas won’t either.
Yes, it's just too out-of-scale to be worthwhile to produce in 2-rail.
I hope you are right. It wouldn’t be surprised for any train company to make something out of scale.
Does anyone know if the conversion wheel sets Proto scale 3-2 will be produced by Atlas or MTH. I have a couple of locomotives that need changed out, thank you
William
@catnap posted:I'd like to see Erik Stott update his website to let us know if these models will ever be made. I only have one ordered but it would be nice if there was a progress report.
I couldn’t agree more catnap. The last website update was about 21 months ago, which does not give one a warm fuzzy comfort level. I’m particularly concerned because I already paid for the first and second reservation installments for four SD45 models, ($950 x 8), along with a $300 pre-reservation fee for a SD40A back in early 2017, so I’m really hoping these models are still going to be produced.
If you take a Piko # 35040 RC setup and controller which sells for $100 or less and a high end MTO battery for about $80 you will have a package that can make almost any engine creep in switching jobs yet handle a decent load at speed up the grades on your layout.
I have tower drives and China drive diesels running surprisingly well with this basic package. Steam engines and carpet drives are also great with the Piko on board battery system.
This arrangement allows me to run a mix of battery and track power trains in opposite direction on a large single track line with passing siding.
Cotton Belt 819, SF 2-6-2, upper quadrant semaphores, also wig-wag signals would be nice. Have a great day all.
# 1 What other 2 rail modelers want. More space to run larger locomotives.
# 2 Larger locomotives.
# 3 More locomotives
Catnip - Watch for an MMW update coming in due time. Things are still a go. All will be explained due to the virus.
Surprise coming at the Indy show. I have very close ties with Erik.
Stephen
Cool, I hope that's true. I have a B&O (Chessie System) on order with Erik but I think I'm going to change that back to CSX is that's possible. I'll wait for any update before contacting Erik.
I understand he's a machinist by trade and the model trains are a side hustle. I'm looking forward to future reports. No doubt, this engine will be the centerpiece of my roster.
1. Atlas O masterline Trinity 52'6" Mill Gondola.
Lionel made a similar Gondola that is 65' but the underside details are molded on and this version is not friendly for tight radius curves.
2. Atlas O masterline 5660 Pressure Differential (PD) Covered Hopper. This is available in HO scale only.
3. Atlas O curved turnouts. This is currently available in 3 rail O and HO only.
Signature Switch makes curved turnouts. Brad does custom work if you want a different radius than what he stocks. They are first rate switches.
@GG1 4877 posted:While I've already commented on the top three items on my wish list to start operating in 2R if I'm looking at locomotives specific to true 2 rail it would be:
- CNJ Atlantic Camelback 592
- CNJ Pacific 831-835 with the correct Wooten firebox
- PRR K2 Pacific
I'd do a second list on passenger cars and a third on freight cars, but I have more than a lifetime of projects already for the ones on my wish list. That was the gist of my original posting to this thread.
Who made the PRR K2?
Well, at least that will make it an even 2 years since the last update. Perhaps biennial updates will be the norm.
mWB-"Another 3 months of waiting for an update?"
NO! "In due time."
If you can name one importer that is going over to Korea or China on a Level 1 travel (just lowered) Restriction, you would understand why updates are not happening. You should read Kohs 6/26/21 current news update. Just plain common sense why things are slowly progressing especially if you are a hands-on Importer. We are not out of the woods yet. China travel along should scare anyone! Patience big grasshopper.
@nw2124 posted:mWB-"Another 3 months of waiting for an update?"
NO! "In due time."
If you can name one importer that is going over to Korea or China on a Level 1 travel (just lowered) Restriction, you would understand why updates are not happening. You should read Kohs 6/26/21 current news update. Just plain common sense why things are slowly progressing especially if you are a hands-on Importer. We are not out of the woods yet. China travel along should scare anyone! Patience big grasshopper.
So tell us oh mighty Goo Roo, how long in total has this thing been going on? I would think a reassuring word to customers on the MWM update page would not be too much to expect.
Simon
@prrhorseshoecurve posted:Who made the PRR K2?
I do not believe the PRR K2 has been done by anyone in O scale. There are those who know a lot more about the history of brass than me here, but I would love to have one for my layout even if it is out of era for my NY&LB modeling.
How many have you ordered? Thinking may just get you in trouble. You seem to instigate. My answer was to Catnap.
Sorry you got confused.
@nw2124 posted:How many have you ordered? Thinking may just get you in trouble. You seem to instigate. My answer was to Catnap.
Sorry you got confused.
You seem to be the one who is confused. Why are you answering questions for Erik Stott? Why should anyone believe anything you say?
Simon
Because I will not lie and am a minister of God who upholds His holy commandments. You tell me how many models you ordered and I will tell you why I can answer for Erik.
Were done!
@nw2124 posted:Because I will not lie and am a minister of God who upholds His holy commandments. You tell me how many models you ordered and I will tell you why I can answer for Erik.
Were done!
Well that does nothing for me and I have more money invested with Erik than anyone else (feel free to ask him about that) BUT, yes travel to Asia is pretty much a non starter for the time being. Everything has to be done via zoom and the ability of the builders to take a sphere and interpret it as a cube is positively amazing. And the shipping costs for a sample is well over $100. I've heard closer to $250 each sample each way.
Just to get back on topic:
1. 2R SW1
2. 2R NW2
3. 2R C415
However with only a very small number of effective manufacturers left I'm not holding my breath. But it would nice to see a switcher suited to the smaller layout.
I don't know what a C415 is, but the NW2 has been done so many times that it simply wouldn't pay for a 2-rail manufacturer to compete with the used market.
All Nation made an SW1 - not totally accurate, and not many out there, but still, an importer or manufacturer would have to come in under $300 to compete. Not likely.
Get MMW to do them.
Burlington Junction C415 701 (ex Mt Hood Scenic 701, Columbia Cowlitz 701) at Burlington IA from my trip Stateside in 2012:
I'm aware both the SW1 and NW2 have been done in the past. Both Precision Scale (in early 1990's) and Oriental Brass (mid 1980's). Fortunately I have one from each of these manufacturers. The NW2 around mid 1980's too? If you can find one you will be paying around about the price someone like Sunset 3rd rail could build one. I'm not aware of anything being produced since, in 2R at least. C415 - wishful thinking. Anyway I'll keep saving....you never know.
If Sunset is the market level you want, I believe you can commission the model and share in the profits (or losses). Sunset would be competing with Atlas used models, at least for the EMD switchers. Probably not economically viable.
On the other hand, the center cab is unique - I bet there is a market.
Opinion.
I've asked Scott about a C415 a couple of times. He says I'm the only one. So, strike up the email and let him know. I'll sign up for a couple.
@Ian Munro posted:Just to get back on topic:
1. 2R SW1
2. 2R NW2
3. 2R C415
However with only a very small number of effective manufacturers left I'm not holding my breath. But it would nice to see a switcher suited to the smaller layout.
Maybe you could suggest to the current incarnation of All Nation to 3D print the shells?
My wish list:
(1) DCC ready two-Rail versions of ALCO-GE S-1, S-2
(2) DCC-ready two-rail versions of ALCO-GE HH-660
(3) DCC-ready two- rail versions of ALCO-GE RS-2
Having seen the modular set-up at the 2021 National O Scale Convention at Denver, I believe that the area most likely to provide future growth in broad-gauge two-rail railroading comprises switching and shelf layouts, either bolted to the walls or done up in something like HO guy David Barrow's "Domino" modular system. This is not to slam people with basements, attics, "mother-in-law" spaces above their garages, or spare buildings, but a lot of model railroaders live in places with concrete slab foundations. just above bare rock.
I admit that my choices for early first-generation switchers may seem annoying for O scale modelers doing later eras. On the other hand, some of the early ALCO S-series switchers had incredibly long lives as industrial locomotives, outlasting cab units and contemporary steam locomotives for as long or longer than half a century.
from Bob2
"If Sunset is the market level you want, I believe you can commission the model and share in the profits (or losses). Sunset would be competing with Atlas used models, at least for the EMD switchers. Probably not economically viable."
xxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
However, I find it interesting that the train shows I visit in Texas that offer O scale seldom offer diesel switchers in either three-rail or two-rail, unless you could the occasional Lionel three-rail NW-2. Also, I find it interesting that good O scale switcher models don't up for sale on the Bay very often. I'm not advocating five thousand plus locomotive runs, but I would think that if new switchers would sell that poorly, we'd already see more of the existing stock of Atlas and brass production up for sale. Maybe there's a room for new runs after all.
I guess you are correct - a quick search shows only one overpriced 2-rail NW2 on eBay today. It just seemed to me that these things were like Varney ten-wheelers - simply everywhere. I sure stocked up when they were $25/pop.
As Bob2 says if you think they will do well risk your money. Scott does not think they will do well enough to risk his money. If about 8-10 people email him DIRECTLY that they will reserve so and so he may well list it and see what happens. Hasn't happened so far. That's what he did with the E60s and they were cancelled. He did the same years ago with E44s and they were cancelled.
I agree with you there. If we want new switchers (Or CF-7s or the RS-2 I’m thinking about), we’ll probably have to make advance deposits, then wait and hope for the best.
No advance deposits would be required for Sunset, just enough pre-orders to cover a run of 350-500 models total in 2 rail and 3 rail in all roads. The challenge is the same as it is for steam though in that there is market perception that smaller means less cost when the cost of design, tooling, fabrication, and construction is the same. The savings in material costs is almost zero.
@GG1 4877 posted:No advance deposits would be required for Sunset, just enough pre-orders to cover a run of 350-500 models total in 2 rail and 3 rail in all roads. The challenge is the same as it is for steam though in that there is market perception that smaller means less cost when the cost of design, tooling, fabrication, and construction is the same. The savings in material costs is almost zero.
You can tell folks that over and again, but it simply does not seem to sink in.
So folks need to pick one that is the overwhelming popular and go for it. If you don't try, it's just another bit of wishful thinking.
I did have a brief exchange with Scott in regards to an SW1. This switcher is perhaps unique amongst EMD switchers due to a number of features; the front and rear 'porches' and distinctive changes over the 15 years this model was produced. From the early phases with the arched front cab window and single headlight to the later phases with the square window and dual headlight. Over 600 were built finding their way into rosters of a large number of railroads.
I believe Sunset 3rd Rail would be the only manufacturer capable of handling such a project. I have an SD9 and GP7 so aware of the quality they would strive to achieve. Even though it is a smaller locomotive I do expect to pay a price similar to the recent geeps, if not more. I'm happy with this. I know Atlas have produced later EMD switchers but future production from this manufacturer is very doubtful. I would like to think that the availability of an SW1 would encourage more to move into O scale with a locomotive that is at home on the smaller layout.
Of course I made a commitment to purchase during my exchange with Scott but I'm in no position to underwrite a production run!
Neither, I bet, is Scott. He seems to be a savvy businessman. Get a group together, pool your money, stick it in an interest-bearing escrow, and get under contract.
If more folks did that, we would have a more vibrant O Scale hobby, and some "skin in the game."
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
