How many would be interested in a stud-rail system for atlas 2-rail track if this hybrid system could be made to work?

The stud-rail would fit under the Atlas two-rail track with the studs just higher than the ties. The stud-rail would have to run underneath the ties, so by using a roadbed that comes in two halves, the modeler can allow a "slot" between the roadbed for the stud-rail below the track center. The slot would be covered by ballast by the modeler, so would not be visible.

Then for switches and crossings, Atlas would adapt its 3-rail switches, but with cut-down or ground-down middle rail at the ends, in order to create a smooth transition between the lower studs on connecting track sections, and the conventional-height 3rd rail through the switch itself.

Create a "snap-on" shoe to go over the 3rd-rail rollers, or to replace the rollers. No other rolling-stock modifications necessary.

This hybrid would look better than 3-rail, and no worse than 3-rail through the switches and crossings. Seems like it wouldn't be too expensive for the manufacturer to produce since it builds on existing product. If this could be made to work, how many would consider?

Any problems you can think of?

I really would like to see stud-rail track - if you look at Maerklin's C-track, the studs are almost invisible. However, to get an easy handling IMHO a stud-rail track should be designed to be used with 'carpet'-layout's, too. That means, the stud-rail should be at level on the lower side. Also, Maerklin does not need center-rails at switches - the studs are just higher there, I believe.
I think, Lionel's Fasttrak would be a better starting point. I've read several times that Maerklin offered a license of their stud-rail-system to Lionel with no effect. Hope that the increasing popularity of 3RS will finally force one of the major manufactures to offer a stud-rail system at a reasonable price. Perhaps a company like NWSL would offer sliding shoes as replacement parts for the rollers.
Anyone modified Lionel's Fasttrak into stud-rail-track?

Regards
Norman

It's funny that this topic has appeared because I've been casually working on a stud rail system to work with 2 rail Gar Graves track using very small copper boat nails like these.
That's all I'm going to say about it for the time being other than my initial test show a lot of promise.

quote:

I've read several times that Maerklin offered a license of their stud-rail-system to Lionel with no effect.

I don't see where a license would be needed.

The stud rail system was written about in the December 1948 issue of Model Railroader by a W. P. Morrison of New York City. This was well before Märklin introduced their stud rail system.

I don't know if Märklin ever read or saw Mr. Morrison's letter but it seems they could have. Mr Morrison addresses all the key features of the system including the shoes, keeping the stud heads just above tie level and raising them at track switches (turnouts). Mr. Morrison references having heard about an English system that used pins centered between the running rails. So if Mr. Morrison's description constitutes "prior art" to Märklin's use of the concept, then some English inventor had even earlier "prior art" which inspired Mr. Morrison.

At any rate, by the time Märklin introduced the stud contact system, they were hardly the first to do so although they were probably the first mass-manufacturer of such a system.

Ken,
Studrail track with Atlas code 148 2-rail track works. I got into it a few years ago after reading about it here on the forum- much of it was developed by Hugo Pallesen and Lisa Marie Tahtaras, who now both run pure 2-rail O. I purchased the remaining studrail Hugo had left from his studrail layout, and set up a test loop with a siding to evaluate its performance. The 3-rail engines I ran on it had slider shoes fitted over the roller pick ups, and other than a bit of contact noise (not audible when any sound is on) the performance was identical to a train on 3-rail track.

I too saw the beauty of this alternative track system- it's similar appearance to scale 2-rail track, the ability to run 3-rail equipment on it, a more realistic appearance than any 3-rail track system, and decided this is the track for me. I dismantled my 20 x 20 L-shaped layout, began designing a new track plan, and have started buying cases of cork roadbed, as well as 2-rail Atlas track and switches. I would have had at a least a mainline up and running, but my trainroom is currently being used by my sister-in-law, so the new layout will have to wait until the room is clear.

The two biggest issues I see with studrail are the fabrication of the studrail itself and the premium cost of Atlas track. The studrail is actually not that complicated- it's about 1/2" tall, made of sheetmetal, and has squares knocked out of it on the top edge to leave a row of studs which protrude between the ties. But what I've found in the year or so I've tried to get this simple part manufactured is that every fab and sheetmetal shop I've been to wants to charge me at least $2/ft. to make it- too much money for studrail to be economically viable. I'm currently shopping for a punch press and a shop to make the tooling for me, so I can make it more economically.

Atlas 2-rail track seems to increase in cost 10% every 2 years or so- at that rate the street cost of a 40" flextrack section will cost over $10 very soon- if you plan to get into studrail now is the time to stock up on track and switches, since Old Pullman and Micro Engineering will more than likely raise their prices to match Atlas.


Geno

A few of us have had operating stud rail systems already. Mine was made to use with House of Duddy / Micro Engineering track. I had two lengths of studs made, one tall and one that just cleared the ties. The tall ones were tapered after they were installed. The studs were painted to match the ballast, than the paint was removed from the top surface. My track was laid on Homabed brand roadbed, that comes in two pieces. I was not crazy about clip on slider shoes, because some locos don't have the clearance for them. At first, I made shoes that were soldered to brass tubing. The rollers were removed at the rivet that they roll on and replaced with the new part. After a while I just ground a flat spot on the existing rollers and soldered the slider directly to it. The soldering was not done on the loco. The parts were removed first . The system works as well as standard 3 rail track and modified locos can still operate on standard 3 rail track.


The outcome of the whole thing was I still did not like the look around switches, crossing and road crossings. I really wanted the look of 2 rail track. Now I have it. Most of the stud rail has been removed. Most of my locos have been converted to 2 rail operation. I am still using TMCC. If you are thinking about going to the trouble of converting to stud rail, I recommend going all the way to 2 rail. It is not that much more difficult. If you put the effort into converting the same locos to 2 rail, they can negotiate the same curves that they did when they were 3 rail locos, unless you add flanges to all of the drivers and larger wheels to the lead and trailing truck of steam engines. All of this is only my opinion. The most important thing is that you enjoy what you are doing.

Lisa Marie,
Do you have any photos of your conversion? I just wondering about the necessary length of the slider shoe. Keeping Maerklin's design in mind their slider shoes typically stretched over a length of four ties (well designed for really sharp radii, too).
Although I have only about 20 3-rail locos (steam & diesel) it would be too much effort to modify them into 2-rail.

Many thanks in advance

Norman

Hi Norman,

My shoes were 1 to 1 1/2 inches long. 4 ties is about right. I started out with more than 20 engines to convert. It takes a while, but you can't run them all at once anyway. If you do decide to convert engines to 2 rail, with TMCC, I can show you some of the things that I have learned about doing them. Joe, has done most of my steam machining. I have done all of my diesel work so far. 4 axle Diesels, can usually be done for under $50 each.

pgbsr,
Many thanks for your helpful advice.
Thought the thread deals with stud rail - reading it is voluntary.
Thought there would be more acceptance about this idea in the 3RS column.
Well, since I'm new to 3RS it seems the same situation as in other scales from H0 to 7 1/4" - it's easier to be polemic than to have good ideas. Anything creative you have to share?

Sorry for posting about stud-rails .....

Norman

Don't be sorry Norman. You have a right to feel and post whatever you like. I was just trying to add a little dry hummor because it seems this subject comes up a lot and I can't understand why someone would go to all the trouble to try and make 3RS look like something it's not. I would think it would be easier to change to O Scale and be done with it. Even using Kadees would be easier if you were an O Scaler, (this subject comes up quite often also). I use to be into HO and built all my rolling stock and engines from photo's with all the details. Now it is nice not to be so "By the Ruler and Every Nut and Bolt" type of modeling. Don't get me wrong, I like scale but if it looks scale I don't feel the need to measure it. Same with the track. The center rail is blackend and that is good enough for me. I truly wish you all the luck in the world with your "Stud Rail System" and getting it to work for you.
PS You could be running trains already if you leave the track alone. I'm Joking Norman, don't get upset.
Pete

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pgbsr,

Norman,

I don't mean to be putting you down. I was just as excited as you are about stud rail some years back. My main line goes around an aria that is about 16 by 24 feet. 1 1/2 times. It was first installed as stud rail. I have done the labor and paid the money to have the studrail manufactured and had it totally operational. It is a viable system. After my experience, I decided to go to 2 rail. Converting to 2 rail is just as easy as building a studrail layout. I think that the overall cost will be about the same. I still have studrail track in places on my layout. They are inside a mountain where it doesn't show and in the back of my layout where it does not show. The most important thing, is to enjoy your model rail railroading. Keep up the good work.

The best thing about studrail is that you can run either 3-rail engines or more extreme 3RS engines with fixed pilots, scale wheels and couplers on it, and it is still 3-rail. I get the look of 2-rail trains and track but I can still run any of it on 3-rail after switching to hirail wheels (the scale wheels will actually work on Atlas 3-rail track but tends to derail on looser Gargraves). I also belong to a 3-rail club as well, so converting all of my engines to 2-rail doesn't work for me. Studrail gives me the best of both worlds and is ideally suited to both Atlas' 2-rail TMCC and MTH's 3/2 convertible DCS engines.

Geno