Why isn't O Scale 2-Rail more popular with model railroaders? What can be done to increase 2RS's popularity?

With respect to SF Bay Area, the locals do not really have that much disposable cash for the high cost of O scale.  The Bay Area  is an incredibly expensive place to live. I’m surprised that there is any active group left.

The other issue maybe lack of skills to work on the electronics, model building, machining and carpentry.  I challenge you to find a high school, particularly the Bay Area, that offers a shop class.  It really is a sad testament that high schools do not offer such classes any more.  Not sure it bodes well for the future for the US. Lack of building skills is perhaps why a Chinese firm was brought in to replace part of the Bay bridge.

@falconservice posted:

The problem is the increased chance of short circuits for limited space operations with reverse loops.

Folks in G,S,HO,N and Z don't seem to have a problem.

People need to have large buildings with a vast amount of room for the track plans to be realistic in 2-rail O scale.

False.  Tony Koester's Wingate modules disprove that.  You make an assumption that everyone wants to build a massive model railroad and run nothing but large locomotives and long trains.

The trend towards tiny houses is the opposite is what is needed for the construction of a home 2-Rail O scale track layout for a model railroad.

Not everyone buys into the tiny house theory of life.

People are going to need a large model railroad club building for 2-rail O scale model railroads.

False.  Again Tony Koester's Wingate.  It may not be a massive empire, but it is an O Scale model railroad.

Andrew

Rusty

If everything between 3-rail and 2-rail trains was "equal", it seems logical that most of us would've made the switch years ago to 2-rail O-scale. No 3-rail track system looks better than realistic 2-rail track, ballasted of course. But, being able to run large engines on 2-rail track requires even larger curves than 3-rail train equivalent - that's a good thing for realism but challenging for many of us with limited space. I read years ago that large 2-rail engines require something like 120" +- diameter curves - is that accurate? That's not terribly large ~ 10 ft., but it does limit market appeal. Smaller engines can get by on less of course.

I always liked the outside 3rd rail that the "Greats" like Frank Ellison and John Armstrong used on their scale layouts...that track systems looked much better than inside 3rd rail but I can only speculate it had it's challenges as well.

One thing I was wondered about 2-rail: can the curves be super-elevated without affecting conductivity? I imagine if the sub-roadbed is laid perfectly it would function.

I wrote this about 10 years ago and I think it shows you can have an O scale 2 rail layout in 20’ x 20', with certain compromises.

In O scale we tend to "think big" when the subject of curve radii comes up, 60" plus seems about "minimum".  Obviously large 2-10-4 or large articulated locomotive need that or more.  I don't know why we do this as most of us, if we do have a layout at all, can't get that high with the room we have.   For you folks out there with an Oscale layout in an HO scale space you might think 48" is minimum even with smaller locomotives.  When I designed my existing layout, I wanted a peninsula to increase the mainline run and wanted to keep it as narrow as possible to maintain a decent aisle way. 48" radius would make it over 8' wide and 42" 7' etc.  How about 36", making it just over 6'. This area will not be visible so my concern was purely mechanical, not visual.  No way any O scale steamer can do it, right?

Wrong.

I filmed my unmodified Glacier Park 2-8-0 on a torture track made into a 36" radius "S" curve, code 100, fast track jigs.

The videos are not super but prove the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...ture=em-upload_owner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...ture=em-upload_owner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...ture=em-upload_owner

I had decided to do 42" until I tested this locomotive.  I also have a Glacier Park 4-6-0 that will do it with a 1/4 longer drawbar and removal of those "plow like" things (?) by the front truck. Since making the video I tested all my locomotives and they all passed, a 2-8-2T Minaret, a 2-4-4-2 Little River and a 2-6-6-2 Samson all small loggers.

Since writing this I have finished all the track and started on some scenery. Here are a few random pictures and videos.  All the locomotives shown will handle the one 36" radius curve on the peninsula.

Peter

O 2-rail and S are competing for the same modellers.  That's always going to be a limiting factor in both scales.

@Rusty Traque posted:

 

@falconservice posted:

The problem is the increased chance of short circuits for limited space operations with reverse loops.

Folks in G,S,HO,N and Z don't seem to have a problem.

People need to have large buildings with a vast amount of room for the track plans to be realistic in 2-rail O scale.

False.  Tony Koester's Wingate modules disprove that.  You make an assumption that everyone wants to build a massive model railroad and run nothing but large locomotives and long trains.

The trend towards tiny houses is the opposite is what is needed for the construction of a home 2-Rail O scale track layout for a model railroad.

Not everyone buys into the tiny house theory of life.

People are going to need a large model railroad club building for 2-rail O scale model railroads.

False.  Again Tony Koester's Wingate.  It may not be a massive empire, but it is an O Scale model railroad.

Andrew

Rusty

1 hour

Rusty,

We're not looking for a single example of a modest O scale layout.  Providing just one example of how something can be accomplished, and has been, is hardly a groundswell of evidence that Andrew is wrong.  You're too quick to type "False".

In my opinion Andrew is largely, even if not completely, correct.

If you want to stick with Tony's example then this needs to transform into an effort to get large numbers of people to follow Tony's lead and to be satisfied with their results.

Is that going to happen?

Are enough of them going to want to walk away from large engines?  I don't think so.

"False" should be "True".

Mike

BTW -- Andrew's logic about the trend toward tiny houses is equally suspect.  Yes, some people are downsizing, but not in massive numbers.

Please, de-couple AC/DC and 3-rail/2-rail. For instance, American Flyer trains are two rail AC, and DCC is a (modulated power) AC signal. Lionel made a DC-powered three rail set, L.A.S.E.R. The earliest Lionel sets ran off of batteries and some wickedly dangerous connection to the DC power in NYC, a picture of it was in a Hollander book.

All of the new houses on former farm fields in Kalamazoo County are so narrow and tight that someone would have to buy a section of unused farmland or former railroad right-of-way for O scale 2-Rail or G gauge 2-rail track layouts that are truly model railroads, not just a section of a industry or a part of a railyard.

Andrew

@Peter E B Wow! Great layout and modeling! I seeing enjoyed pictures of your layout.

I think we would agree that OS2R is a small niche within a niche of the hobby. Maybe the question we should be asking is why has participation in OS2R decreased in recent years?

Speaking only for myself I have a 32' by 17' space for a layout that also must include thew washer and dryer. I don't think this is a particularly large space for a 2 rail layout. My minimum radius mainline curve will be O99 (in 3 rail speak) or 49.5"R. I will also have 54"R curves (O108). I may also go a little wider in some spots. Not sure yet. All of my steam engines will run on these curves however my compromises are that I will not be able to run any 2-10-4s or 2-12-4s unless they are modified and right now I do not want to do that. I should be able to run Big Boys and Challengers due to the articulation but I haven't tested any because I don't have any yet (and the way things are going I may never have any). Obviously all of my diesels will run on these curves. My point is I willing except these compromises so that I can have a 2 rail layout because I much prefer the look of the track.

I have been wanting a layout for 22 years but unfortunately life threw a lot of unexpected stuff my way. It looks like it may finally happen when I retire in 26 months. I can't wait!! Between my cars and the trains I will never be bored.

I think that three of the main reasons that 3-rail is more popular are;

Huge variety of track styles available/simplicity to install

Larger availability of 3 rail "scale" trains from a number of manufacturers/electronics (control, sounds, etc)

Ease of wiring and running reversing loops, etc

@falconservice posted:

All of the new houses on former farm fields in Kalamazoo County are so narrow and tight that someone would have to buy a section of unused farmland or former railroad right-of-way for O scale 2-Rail or G gauge 2-rail track layouts that are truly model railroads, not just a section of a industry or a part of a railyard.

Andrew

...then they should be looking at Z,N or HO.

One thing (I think) gets overlooked in the "2vs3 rail" debate; the surrounding scenery is the same size; too much of the focus is exclusively on track radius... there's a lot more to model railroading than that.

Mark in Oregon

I would propose a slightly different take on this subject.  Does it matter if OS2R is popular?  What matters most is that we enjoy it.  There is plenty of existing product on the market and still enough demand to see new product come to market.

I generally find scale modelers of all scales to be a hardy bunch of individuals who thrive in any environment.  If anything, the March Meet showed me that there are still young people who have an interest in 2 rail O and have a lot of talent and skill.  In my opinion the rest is hyperbole.

In OS2R, curves and switches take a lot of room. I have built 4, 2R layouts in O scale. The largest space for one of them, was 20'x12'. This layout did allow for a continuous loop run, and quite a few industrial sidings. The smallest I have built was in a 10x11 room, that I also used as a home office. The small layout was a switching layout, with no room for a continuous loop. Space for 2R O scale is definitely a big factor, and if I wanted big trains and big engines, it would not be viable. Luckily, my biggest engine is a GE 70 tonner, and I run mostly 40' cars. As we age, our eyes do not much like HO and N scale modeling. I am going to build another 2R layout, but am also building an O gauge, 3 rail, layout. Now that I have a basement, I can have layouts I can see, and equipment/buildings I can actually see to work on. I do wish more was available in 2ROS.

Jeff

Peter EB,

    I grinned when I read your comment that one could build a 2-Rail layout in just 20' x 20' if they used some compromises.

    I believe that it somewhat reflects the mindset of all 2-Railers.

    But, I think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would say, "What?   Your telling me that I have to sacrifice 400 square feet of my house for the table, and another 200 square feet or more for  walkaround and work space, . . . just to have a toy train?"

   "Forget it!"

    That is why I think it is unpopular.

    A conversation that I will never have:   "Hey honey,  can I take up 600 square feet of our house for more of my stuff, that you have zero interest in?"

    Instead, young people who have this much spare room in their houses are routinely using it for work-out rooms, or  big-screen entertainment rooms, or  dedicated home offices.  More and more, basements are becoming integral parts of the family living space.

   Unlike the 1940s through 1960s, men are no longer allowed to claim sole possession of the entire basement for their man-cave hobbies.

   Remember  back then, when so many men had entire wood working shops in their basements?  Not anymore.  :-(

   Mannyrock

@Lionelski posted:

I think that three of the main reasons that 3-rail is more popular are;

Huge variety of track styles available/simplicity to install

Larger availability of 3 rail "scale" trains from a number of manufacturers/electronics (control, sounds, etc)

Ease of wiring and running reversing loops, etc

...which are of minimal deterrence with future growth and acceptance in 'dead rail'/battery powered O scale.   Industry driven standards, maturity, and competitiveness in DCC and sound for the wider 2-rail realm would also be of huge benefit therewith.

As for track choices, at least three of the most popular O3R track manufacturers are already providing O2R components in their product line.

Just a thought...

The Youngstown (OH) Model Railroad Association has large, permanent HO and 2-rail O scale layouts in a facility that is wholly owned by the club. Here are a few photos of the O scale layout taken in recent years (the club did not hold an open house during the Covid peak period). The photo of the planned roundhouse location was taken in 2018. The partially complete roundhouse is pictured in Nov. 2021. The HO club has a very active membership. The O scale section of the club is ALWAYS in need of new members who are willing to participate. At the present time, they rely on some of the HO members to assist with ongoing construction projects. If you live in the area and are interested in joining, just visit the YMRA's website.

I concur with Falconservice: most housing trends are moving away from people to have the space for a medium to large-sized home layout.

Not that two-rail O couldn’t have a future, but I think that future is more in the direction of station scenes and switching layouts at home and portable, modular layouts at shows, exhibitions, and occasional space rentals, with or without fiddle yards at the ends.  The Brits have been working on these concepts for years, not only in O but in OO.

I’ll be rude and say that model locomotive manufacturers haven’t done that much to promote this idea:  the number of two-rail diesel switchers produced in the last decade or so has been limited. Our three-rail friends still have a fair amount of choice available: we, on the other hand, have very little.

In 2023 look for a feature article on my railroad in a pub catering largely to HO/N scalers.  One objective is to showcase O scale 2 rail to a scale model railroading audience that rarely sees it. (I converted to O scale in 1971 after seeing an article on John Armstrong's Canandaigua Southern).  The railroad is a retirement dream layout built on experiences gained along a 75-year model railroading journey.  I envision it will discuss lessons learned from operation of my prior railroad (March 2000 MR cover article), and most recently implementing Layout Command Control (LCC) digital signaling on a DCC railroad.

@falconservice posted:

All of the new houses on former farm fields in Kalamazoo County are so narrow and tight that someone would have to buy a section of unused farmland or former railroad right-of-way for O scale 2-Rail or G gauge 2-rail track layouts that are truly model railroads, not just a section of a industry or a part of a railyard.

Andrew

What one small city in MI , does not really represent  , a national trend

May I respectfully suggest the difference is not so much space available as mind set.  Three rail scale grew from three rail toys when empty nesters had room for larger layouts, the funds for larger layouts, the time for larger layouts and an inventory of three rail cars and locomotives.  The mind set for three rail scale is the same mind set for two rail (and narrow gauge variations), but the starting point is different.  Read the threads leading to the York meet and read the threads leading to The March Meet and I think you will find many obvious differences.  I had a double table inventory of scale cars at The March Meet, one third of those were sold to modelers who were going to repaint the GGD cars.  To me, that percentage would not be the same at a three rail meet.  How many three rail layouts (regardless of size) have hand laid track, turnouts and crossovers?  I submit very few.  How many pieces of rolling stock on three rail layouts have trucks different than those which came from the factory or are on cars built from kits or on cars which were sold without trucks?  How many three rail modelers have weathered more than 50% of their rolling stock and buildings?  Two rail modeling is not the same as three rail modeling by any means. Dining cars, observation cars and private cars on two rail layouts have a chimney on the roof over the cooking area.  Few such cars on three rail layouts have added chimneys because the factory didn't put them on and the owner is worried about resale value of his/her "investment". Granted, three rail scale is a happy medium.  There is no wrong way to have a model railroad, only different ways to enjoy our hobby.  New in the box in a closet, new on the shelf on display, an 18" x 6' diorama, running an 0-27 oval at Christmas time, a 15 x 45 three rail scale or a 40 x 60 two rail fully detailed model railroad empire.  Basically, it is all the same.  In reality, each reflects the mindset and standards of the modeler.  I'll end with the old saying, "It is your railroad, run it the way you want."

John in Lansing, ILL