It is certainly great we have a sponsor. And this is the 3RS forum. Many of us have been asking for, and hoping for new track system that would compliment 3RS equipment, lower profile, recessed 3rd Rail, or stud rail etc. Many of us have written that the proper 3 rail track system has not been made yet, US ties, profile, track spacing, thin hidden, recessed inner rail etc. So, Steve, does deciding to sponsor our forum have anything to so with producing product for us?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pete Kruimer,

I think you could set it up with code #148 track. Problem is......Ross wouldn't know how deep the manufacturer's flanges are. No standard. I am of the opinion that flanges(wheels) do not need to be HALF as deep as they are now.

Any problem with using NMRA 2 rail standard with a better designed third rail? Changing out wheels, while a hassle would make a huge difference in the look of 3RS trains. After picking up my first true 2 rail car with scale flanges ..... they look nice. They just don't track so well on my current track system.

Atlas O two rail track with a center rail made from HO track. Would seem to be a solution AtlasO could make for a test market. Using Flex track.
Just anchor the center rail and let the two outside rails float.

What would be the perfect 3RS track? US ties, tie spacing, and tie plates seem to be the biggest request. What about rail height? What should the 3RS standard be? Should it be the same as 2 rail size and spacing standards but with a center rail or stud system? If so then this would alienate many current 3RS people who run large flange wheels as they'd never get through a 2 rail standard turnout. Should the standard be code 172 so that even the largest flanged Lionel engine could run on it? Should the turnout frogs be closer to 3 rail spacing or 2 rail? If it was far enough apart for 3 rail flanges, then 2 rail wheel profiles would probably derail at the frog or guardrails.

I think before we go asking for a 3RS track standard, we should let them know what that standard should be. In my opinion the 3RS movement is trying to be as accurate as possible while still retaining the electrical properties of 3 rail. To mean that would mean 2 rail track standards with a center or stud rail system. Of course if this were the case then 3 rail engines wouldn't run on it very well. Lot's of issues to overcome and probably the biggest reason why no one has made a 3RS system yet. If the standard should be basically 2 rail systems with a 3rd rail added, perhaps a stud rail kit that could be used with Atlas track and turnouts would be a good answer.

People, be careful what you ask for. In order to use Atlas 2r track in a 3rs environment ALL wheels need to be scale wheels. 3r wheels will NOT run through a 2r Atlas turnout. I have tried. While I know many are thinking MTH scale wheel engines, there are plenty out there that operate 3rs with old Lionel,
K line, Weaver, ect. Any 3rs track system needs to be able to operate deep flanged wheels.

That was the dilemna that I was talking about. If we make it so all deep flange wheels work good, 2R type wheels may have issues through turnouts. If we use 2R standards then deep flange wheels won't clear. What should the standard be?

Here is something for you to consider. I was building a 2r layout but did not care for the issues with keeping 6 axle engines on the track. I also did not care for the control I was getting out of DCC. Got a DCS demo and was hooked. Dumped all the 2r track and converted the cars back over to 3r. I have tried to get over that thid rail but can't. I do however really like DCS, which can run 2r. My solution is to simply remove the couplers on the trucks, modify the axles to insulate them (3r people won't have to do this obviously) and mount Kadees. I am now working at running 2 rail but using all hi rail wheels. I will be using Gargraves track, as they have it available. This got long winded but my point was, why not just use the 3r trucks but remove the couplers?

If keeping 3R flanges would be the most accepted thing to do, the solution would seem simple for a 3RS track then. It would be basically the MTH Scaletrax but with closer tie spacing and American style tieplates. That would seem to do it. Rails slightly larger than prototypical at code 172 but a nice compromise which in the end is what 3RS really is. Maybe that's the perfect 3RS track standard.

quote:

I think before we go asking for a 3RS track standard, we should let them know what that standard should be.

I did in my first post as a start.

quote:

US ties, profile, track spacing, thin hidden, recessed inner

I do not think we are advocating 2 rail standards, but a better job with ties, and the center rail, lower it, thin it or hide it with stud rail.

I posted at the same time as Fred. So I'll edit this. It would seem that Scaletrax missed the boat, close, but still too far off.

Atlas muffed it up too, they came out with a new track system and used a gigantic center rail.

Pete's on to something. Yes, indeed.

We might have to face the fact that a 3RS system might not accept all comers.

Rail -Code 172 would work, although it's pretty heavy-duty, but I have been unable to find any new rail. There is a Euro company that makes S-ga track with code 172 but they won't sell the rail separately.
-Code 148 works for a lot of 3R locos, looks great, but won't work for all equipment. The old ROCO rail was something like code 156-the pieces I have accepted all my older diesels with bigger flanges.
-If we want more appropriate rail smaller than the gargantuan stuff that ATLAS et al sell the manufacturer will have to develop dies to draw it or we'll have to face wheel modification to accept commercially available code 148. Maybe Ross could comment on die development cost.
-Center rail-if smaller than the running rail there will need to be transition to running rail height at every switch and crossing. Stud rail? OK, but I dread having to come up with sliders for every lighted car and locomotive.

- Switches? Closed frog. Can run anything. If you can live with three rails a closed frog shouldn't upset you all that much.

Ties & tie spacing- what's so hard about designing to a prototype standard? Was some manufacturer not thinking?

quote:

It would seem that Scaletrax missed the boat, close, but still too far off.

Au contraire Pete. You should see what can be done with scaletrax. I'm using it as the basis for the 3RSP48W5 movement!

In all seriousness (and I'm only halfway joking above) scaletrax it the best thing going for 3RS track. If we could get RCS to make code 215 switches we could have the design flexibility of Gargraves/Ross with the look of Scaletrax. I have seen some neat techniques for working with Scaletrax flex and enhancing the look. It is cool stuff.

I think Ross and GG is code 215. I just measured some GG and that number seems to stick in my head. The difference is the tie height.

I'm actually not a fan of GarGraves and Ross ties. They are too big and need to be thinner. Don't get me wrong, it can be made to look pretty nice but if we are getting down to what the perfect 3RS track would be, that isn't it. The best we can seemingly do at this point in Scaletrax but it's not right either. Atlas 2 rail track in regards to tie size and spacing seems to me to be most accurate. At least it's the closest. I'd prefer the sizing and standards set by handlaid track templates but that's just me.

If we could get a track that was basically Scaletrax but with Atlas 2 rail tie size and spacing, that would probably be about as good as it could get. Of course if someone did build it, Mike Wolf would probably sue them! That was wrong I know. I'm sorry. A setup with stud rail would be even nicer but then you'd have to sell slider conversion too which wouldn't be that big of a deal if one company wanted to tackle both issues at the same time.

The perfect 3RS track now exists in my head. The next question is how to build it and will anyone try to? The key is in creating a standard and showing there would be a demand for it. How much would you be willing to pay to actually get it? Obviously it wouldn't work if it were priced twice as much as anything else but would anyone be willing to pay slightly more than what is already out there?

Although I made a comment against Mike Wolf, the reality is that he'd be the most logical one to implement this as it would be a natural evolution of what he already makes. Someone get him to listen!

Fred

There are many things to like about the Gargraves/Ross combo. I agree that tie size is not one of them. Scaletrax has scale ties. If Ross made switches with scale ties and code 215 solid nickel silver rail that matched Scaletrax it would dramatically widen the options in building a Scaletrax layout. Imagine how handy it would be to have curved switches, double slips and a Ross yard set to go with the existing scaletrax options. The spikes currently used by Ross are too big for scale ties. If their CNC spiker could handle scale spikes and ties they might be able to make code 215 solid rail switches at affordable prices.

A three rail scale track system should: A. have three rails and B. accommodate three rail flanges. Center rails could be made thinner. Lower is asking for trouble at switches, crossings and with roller arm travel. And at some point we reach diminishing returns on trying to deal with the 3rd rail and one probably ought to just go to two rails if the center rail bugs you that much. For me stud rail is that point. Putting brass skis on rollers seems to be trying too hard to be something your not, especially considering the noise and other drawbacks.

Until something better comes along I'm going to keep enjoying taking scale model trains out of the box, putting them on Atlas, Gargraves, Lionel, MTH or Ross tack end enjoy dependable operation on any curvature over O-72. That is one of the great benefits of 3RS. Our trains work! They allow us to spend more time operating a scale model railroad and not tinkering with trains at the workbench or struggling to get reliable enough operation to run prototypically.

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

The local o scale club here uses GarGraves/Ross on their permanent layout and it looks really nice. The main reason I stated that the ties were too large is that often times 3RS people seem to be extrememly picky about certain things yet not about others. A main criticism of Scaletrax has been tie spacing and tie plate detail but I haven't seen anyone complain about tie width. Same with Atlas. The main complaint there has been rail thickness but the tie size and spacing has generally been preferred. 2 rail ties and spacing seem to look even nicer. Basically Atlas 2 rail tie spacing and detail with Scaletrax rails would seem to fit the bill. This would allow either 3R or 2R wheelsets to work just fine.

While studrail would be very nice, I don't see it being cheap to produce and at the end of the day I'm not sure how many people would pay more for that track than 3 rail track and then still have to go to the trouble of installing sliders. I think Lisa Marie Tahtaras was on to something when she just went 2 rail. She had a stud rail system for a while as she wanted more and more realism. At the end of the day it wasn't good enough and was far more of a headache. I think that's ultimately what many others would do if going to studrail. They'd get more and more focused on realism that at some point they would't want any center rail or stud system.

The definition of 3RS indicates a trend towards 3 RAIL scale modelling with less emphasis on the track but more on the trains. It leads me back to wanting to see a Scaletrax setup with Atlas 2R ties. I've seen all of the different systems look very nice but I think this combo would be about right for all but the most discriminating 3RS fan.

A stud rail solution wouldn't be very cost effective for anyone to produce a dedicated track around as there just aren't enough buyers out there. The people who really really want it will probably be those that want basically a 2R track with studs. That's fine and dandy but they are few and far between. The best option that would be producable for them would be to sell a stud system that is nothing more than a plate cut that inserts between pieces of cork roadbed that has studs sticking up that is compatible with Atlas 2R track. The rest is up to them. This would actually be pretty easy to do. I could even do that as I'm a CAD mechanical designer for a large company and my good friend runs a water jet capable of very fine work.

If Ross can work with both 2R and 3R wheelsets like Scaletrax can, why is there any need to produce a 3RS standard track? How would it be any different? Would it just be rail height and tie width? I'd be all for it if they did it. Their quality seems top notch. Are you just implying that they make a set of switches that are compatible with Scaletrax?

quote:

Atlas O two rail track with a center rail made from HO track

Close, sink the 3rd rail in bit, does not have to be as high as the 2 outer rails, lower general profile, tie thickness.

quote:

MTH Scaletrax but with closer tie spacing and American style tieplates

Close, again, middle rail can be recessed a bit, and thinner. Scale Trax is almost there.

quote:

Center rail-if smaller than the running rail there will need to be transition to running rail height at every switch and crossing

A new track system should include new switches too.

Still have not heard from Ross, our sponsor?

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kruimer:
Still have not heard from Ross, our sponsor?

I don't think your going too either. Quite honestly I think it is a very small niche market that might be interested. I don't think most 3 railers would jump on this, especially being as they have their layouts already built and would have to tear everything up. I'll ask a question: CSX Al and Rich Battista, you both have great layouts. Would you be willing to tear up your track to replace with a stud rail system?

Don't think we are really talking about stud rail. Wonder if Atlas or Lionel asked Al or Rich when they produced a new track system. New system are for new people, hobbies grow, things change etc. Ask Kadee how their sales of 805 and 806 couplers are growing. Minorities grow also.

We're looking for a response from RCS, not an immediate announcement for a track system.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pete Kruimer,

quote:

I'll ask a question: CSX Al and Rich Battista, you both have great layouts. Would you be willing to tear up your track to replace with a stud rail system?

and the answer is NO

I would agree that for me a stud rail system isn't the answer. At the end of that exercise a two rail layout would be much easier to complete.

However, with the things being discussed here, a closer to scale profile rail, correct rail plates with the right number of spikes and a minimized third rail all complete with switches would be very attractive. I'm not THAT invested in my current track system to not take a look at something like that.

Getting back on track about scale track systems for 3RS equipment, has our sponsor read this thread. I am curious to see what the feedback might be.

Jon,

I'm interested to know what our sponsor's thoughts are too.

quote:

My solution is to simply remove the couplers on the trucks, modify the axles to insulate them (3r people won't have to do this obviously) and mount Kadees.

I agree. There's really no reason not to have insulated wheel sets any longer, especially on rolling stock that has no electrical pickups for lighting or what have you.

There was an article in OST about setting standards, I'll have to go read it again but it sounded like the author had some excellent ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Delbridge:

quote:

My solution is to simply remove the couplers on the trucks, modify the axles to insulate them (3r people won't have to do this obviously) and mount Kadees.

I agree. There's really no reason not to have insulated wheel sets any longer, especially on rolling stock that has no electrical pickups for lighting or what have you.

There was an article in OST about setting standards, I'll have to go read it again but it sounded like the author had some excellent ideas.

I believe many folks still use the uninsulated wheel sets to control signals.

quote:

I believe many folks still use the uninsulated wheel sets to control signals.

That is one of the benefits that three rail track does give you. Controling signals, crossings, etc. is very easy to do with simple blocking. Old-school, but likely the most reliable means to keeping your signals operating properly.