Since the Ross track thread veered into this, I thought it more appropriate that it have it's own thread for discussion. That thread got into what would be the ultimate 3RS track system. Ideas such as a studrail system were thrown out there as was rail code and which current systems look better in certain ways than others. The consensus seems to be that the best current 3RS track system option would be MTH Scaletrax although we all agree there are things about it that aren't correct. Atlas 2 rail track has been the basis of a custom studrail system and seem the ultimate goal in looks as it has better looking tie spacing and tie plate detail. From that it would seem the ultimate 3RS track system would be a combination of Scaletrax with Atlas 2 rail ties. I decided to look more into this by spending some of my own time and money on the quest to figure out what the ultimate 3RS track system might look like if it were ever made.

Starting off I came to the conclusion that while a studrail system may be the ultimate expression to some, to others the sliders as well as potentially converting wheelsets over isn't worth it. This led me back to the name, 3RS, which is 3 RAIL scale. That right there should mean that is needs a center rail. Those so interested in a studrail system that nothing else looks correct should probably just go to 2 rail O. That would be the easiest way to run O trains without a center rail! I will concede that it may be beneficial to develop a stud system that installs under Atlas 2 rail track and switches for those who insist on doing it. This would be easy to produce and even I could do it and make it worthwhile if there were demand.

Since a center rail was now approved, that led me to rail code. Code 148 is 2 rail O track but not all 3R wheelsets ride on it, my Lionel SD70ACe being a good example. 2 rail track standards through switches also don't work for 3R wheelsets. Scaletrax seems to be the only one to figure out how to get 2R and 3R wheelsets to work on their track so they've got a design which should be studied. Particularly in the guard rail and frog sections of switches.

Code 148 just isn't going to work for all 3R wheelsets although it may for most. This leaves it as a potential for a 3RS track system as only some rolling stock would have to be modified to work on it. The other main rail that is easily available would be Code 205. It is much taller but all 3R wheels could be made to run through it. It has been reported that this is what Scaletrax is but my results below seem to indicate differently. Code 172 would be great but the rail is hard to find. That gets us to the following.

I've been playing around with handlaying some track on a scrap piece of wood to see what the ultimate 3RS track would look like. I went out and measured some real ties and tie spacing and even bought a couple of Scaletrax #4 turnouts as well as some Atlas 2 rail track so I could get an idea of what would be the best combination. I also picked up some balsa wood, some Code 148 rail (for now as code 205 is on order) as well as some O gauge tie plates from Old Pullman and some prototypical O scale spikes from Proto87.com as they also sell S/O spikes that look like the real thing. That's alot of effort for someone who is curious but I figure if we want someone to produce something, we need to show it to them. I know good and well that no one probably will but if I can cast it myself and make molds, I'll have a bunch for myself! That's the easy part. Getting to the mold stage is hard! I also got out the dial caliper and took some measurements.

Here are some things I've learned.

Atlas 2 rail and Scaletrax ties are almost exactly the same width and height.
Atlas .160" H x .182" D
Scaletrax .162" H x .187" D

Atlas 2 rail ties are 2-1/4" long while Scaletrax ties are 2-1/8" long.

Spacing between Atlas 2 rail ties is 7/16".
Spacing between Scaletrax ties is a wider 19/32" (.580").

Atlas 2 rail, rail height measures .148" (code 148)
Scaletrax rail height measures .190"

Scaletrax center rail thickness measures .029"
Atlas HO Code 100 rail width at railhead measures .040"
Atlas HO Code 83 rail width at railhead measures .039"
Atlas N Scale Code 55 rail width at railhead measures .025"

Old NMRA O Scale track standards that I found for outside 3rd rail track which was used on Frank Ellison's Delta Lines:

Ties should be 2-1/4" long as Atlas did.

Tie spacing should be .6" center to center which is basically what Scaletrax is at .580".

Tie height should be 1/8" (.125"

Tie width should be 1/4" (.250)

I haven't bothered to look up current NMRA track standards but from the measurements I took of some real track here in Houston, the old NMRA standard seems about right.

I started to lay some track on a 1X4 that is 4 feet long. I want to do several of these with slightly different tie spaces and rail size differences between Code 148 and Code 205. I also want to play with 3 of the same sized rails as well as a center rail made from Code 100.

What I've started laying uses 1/4" wide x 1/8" tall x 2-1/4" long ties spaced 5/8" apart for simplicity sake since it allows me to use a 3/8" spacer between the ties. I'm using O scale tie plates as well. The ties are stained a deep walnut. What little bit I have done looks beautiful. It's strange how Atlas 2 rail track has always looked more natural to me than Scaletrax based on it's tie size and spacing but now that I do this I see that the Scaletrax tie spacing looks more accurate while the Atlas is too closely spaced! The thing that throws it off is the tie widths. Both are too narrow. If Scaletrax ties were 1/4" wide and 2-1/4" long on the same spacing, they'd have it about as good as it can get. GarGraves and Ross ties incidentally are too wide at roughly 3/8".

The current piece I'm working on will use Code 148 rail in all 3 locations although I will leave it loose in the middle so I can compare Code 100 for a center rail. From what I've seen so far I actually prefer the Code 148 center rail. Once I get the whole length done I'll get a better idea of which I think looks nicer.

After this section is done, I'll do the next one in Code 205 rail and then directly compare them side by side. I may even adjust tie spacing with the larger rail. While it wouldn't be prototypical, neither is the rail height of Code 205 rail and the important thing is the illusion rather than what is perfect in the real world. This is why the Atlas 2R track looks so nice. The skinnier ties are closer together and don't look out of place. That's what makes Scaletrax ties look awkward although their spacing is good. Their width is too skinny.

I know this was a long post but it has purpose. I want to design the perfect 3RS track system. I'm not saying I'll produce it but I'd like to see an actual sample of what would be a good 3RS track for someone to produce. This would give companies something to design around should they deem it worthwhile someday. I will also post pictures of my progress to get your feedback on what looks best to you.

In the end I think there are 2 approaches to a 3RS track system that could be pursued depending on how wild the end user wants to do. One system based on the way that I will hopefully ultimately figure out and the other based on a stud system that installs through the roadbed under Atlas 2R track. I'll keep you posted and will try to get the first shots up this week.

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

Fred - I applaud you on your efforts. I agree on many points.

For me the ultimate 3RS track would have the lowest profile that a majority of 3R cars and locomotives could negotiate. That does leave out some trains, particularly my JLC GG1, but after putting a brass 2R caboose with scale flanges on some ridiculously small code 100 track (i.e. 55 pound rail or so), I was really taken back by how much better the trains look on smaller rail. While that represents an extreme, I'd like to see the ultimate 3RS track start at code 148 for the mainlines and offer smaller size rail for the branch lines. Code 125 for single track branch line or older mains would be very interesting. What is the minimum track size before you start riding the tie plates?

This does not come from any experience of trying this yet as I still run on GarGraves track for the time being, but I am dreaming like many of a much better system to run 3RS trains on. I also agree that by the time you go to stud rail, 2 rail might really be the better option.

As to Lionel and their size issue on flanges, I think they simply need to get the message to get in the game or simply give up. Put the Lionel and MTH SD70 ACe side by side and they are both excellent models. The real difference is in the flanges only in my mind.

2R wheels ride on Code 100 rail just fine. No 3R wheelset does though. I haven't tried code 125 for 3R wheels but they are so close to hitting the spikes on Code 148 as is so I doubt they'd work on it. I actually don't know how they miss. That's how close they get! 3R wheels are spaced in pretty far and if you try to line their flanges up according to a wheel gauge, they are about .06" (1.53 mm) too narrow and need to be spaced out. Due to the extreme taper of 3R wheels, this causes them to ride below spike level but due to them being inward of the spikes, will miss them. They still sit above the ties though. As the wheels move outward on the tread, the diameter gets larger and the flanges ride up over the tie plates and spikes. It's luck no matter how you look at it!

If all wheelsets were basically 2R, I'd agree that multicode would be the way to go for mainline vs branchline and sidings. Basically Code 148 for mainlines, Code 125 for branchlines and Code 100 for sidings. That just isn't going to work for 3R wheels though so it will probably have to be either all Code 148 or larger for mainlines with the 148 reserved for branchlines or sidings. I personally wouldn't prefer this.

A minimum radius should probably be established. The problem with going to 2R for many people is with the minimum radius requirements. I know that personally I can't do 36" radius (O-72) track. I don't have the room. My diminuitive room would be an oval that I stand inside! Kadee couplers can be made to work on tighter curves. It depends on the length of the rolling stock. For those rare situations, some may still prefer to have the truck mounted anyways although not preferred. I'd be tempted to say that 21" radius (O-42) would be a good minimum radius to make although 27" (O-54) may be a good choice too. Obviously these users should understand that they probably aren't going to run a Big Boy followed by 50 foot cars but 3RS really is a compromise between Hi-Rail and 2 rail anyways so things like this should be understood. I've never seen a 3RS fan yet who didn't compromise in some way or another. This is up for discussion and feedback. What kind of minimum radius would everyone feel is appropriate for 3RS?

My first concern is to make straight track that looks right. I'll get to corners later.

Obviously looking forward to what you come up with.

Curves are the big question mark. several of my true scale passenger cars flinch on all but the best aligned 072 track, so my minimum mainline will be 080 or 088 at this point. I had 072 / 080 and have redesigned for bigger curves. 088 is about my limit unless I do a complete around the room loop. Not wanting any lift bridges, I don't have that option.

Just out of curiosity, what size loco can you get to go around an 042 curve? I run body mounted Kadees on 40' freight cars that handle 054 just fine, but anything larger tends to leave the rail surface.

Again - I'm just asking questions and commend you for your efforts. Hand laid 3RS track sounds like an interesting proposition.

For O-42 little things like a Lionel 0-6-0 and the K-Line 0-4-0 Porter work. I'm not entirely sure what else does. That's where someone with an interest in pursuing a 3RS aspect of the hobby in a limited space may be able to compromise a little bit by truck mounting Kadee or equivalent couplers. If done right it doesn't look all that bad and if space is at a premium may not be that big of a deal.

I think offering a sharper curve than 2R track at 36" rad. would be beneficial. Then again they also have flextrack but I'm not going to go to the trouble of figuring out how to hand lay flextrack! Finding the minimum acceptable radius limit is the problem. I've got some small Lionel ore cars that I installed 2R trucks on and they can go around O-36 just fine with a 0-4-0. That's pretty minimalist though and I feel a bit too extreme. I'd say O42 or O54 at a minimum but that's up for debate.

I just tried the SD70ACe on the Code 148 again. The problem is with those huge flanges on the non traction tire wheels. The only way they'd work on Code 148 is if there were no tie plates or spikes. What fun would that be! I actually turned some Lionel flanges down on an old steamer using nothing more than a file and a drill and it looked and worked just fine so I know I can do it with this engine too. No lathe needed.

Anything not working is a minor issue and easy to fix so I may just concentrate on the Code 148 for now until something leads me to think otherwise. I'll build a few pieces and run my small selection through to see what issues there will be. I don't foresee the big issues coming until I get to the switches. I expect those to be a nightmare!

I looked into the design of the switches a bit. I think I'm going to try handlaying a #4 to start since I can compare it to my Scaletrax #4's. If I use Code 148 and lay according to a handlay jig, I should only have to adjust the guard rail and frog spacing a bit wider to allow the 3R wheels to clear. That should do it. If this works, I wonder if I could convince Fast Tracks to build the jig? It would be pretty neat to have a set of jigs available for 3 railers! It doesn't hurt to ask I guess and I'm sure the first one would cost quite a bit.

One thing I did notice with the Scaletrax frog areas is the need for the ramp. This design is really a compromise but one that appears necessary. If the guard rails were closer according to standard, the 3R wheels wouldn't roll through them. With the guard rails farther out though, there doesn't seem to be enough support for 2R wheels crossing the gap and it appears they may rely on this ramp to support the flange as it crosses. I need to look at it closer tonight or tomorrow to be sure. I just played with it really quickly before I left this morning for work. The bad thing is that the 3R flanges do ride up the ramps a bit and I'm sure the Lionel engine would be extremely bad about it. Perhaps a removable ramp could be used depending on what wheelsets are primarily used?

I may be completely off base on all of this as I just looked really quick this morning. When I get a chance I'll study it better to be clear. I'm sure some Scaletrax users such as Rich or Al can chime in on this.

I'm actually not trying to copy anyone. I am doing research to see other companies approaches to issues but ultimately I'm trying to design this on my own based partially on existing standards but also on necessary compromise. My end goal is to make molds of the tie/plates/spikes that are tied together so all I have to do is insert rail and paint them. Basically a section of track much like any other. I'd like to cast them in either brown or black too. I think I know how the mold will be made but there are a couple of little things that need to be worked out. So many ideas, only 1 of me to try only 1 at a time. I don't want to give up on this. I just don't know how long it will take me to get it all done. One piece at a time.

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

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
I just tried the SD70ACe on the Code 148 again. The problem is with those huge flanges on the non traction tire wheels.

Perhaps trying to include that abnormal sized wheel is skewing your findings.
Go with the wheel sets that people say they find to be the correct size, the non Lionel SD70s. Atlas O engines and MTH engines.

I've mostly been using standard Lionel 3R wheelsets from a couple of modern and a few postwar cars. They seem to all be the same. I've also been using 3 different 2R wheelsets from MTH, Atlas, and K-Line. The SD70ACe isn't the determining factor but I am trying it out since it is the most extreme. If I could make something that it could work on, there shouldn't be anything that wouldn't work. However if I can't make that engine work, it's not a dealbreaker as long as everything else I try works. That engine seems to be the anomaly. If I need to, I'll modify the wheels on that engine. I'm thinking about converting them over to 2R wheels anyways.

I'm mostly going to concentrate on Code 148 as I have high hopes that most stuff can be made to work on it. If I find that alot of 3R equipment just doesn't want to work on it, then I'll concentrate larger in rail. I'm going to hold off on the Code 205 test track until I find that Code 148 won't do what I want, assuming it even gets to that point. It's the switches that may be the deciding factor as I'm pretty sure straights and curves will be just fine.

Fred,

Tom has it right, plus you are doing all this for flanges that are out of production. According to Mike (Reagan of Lionel, he says future Lionel engines have been tested successfully with smaller flange wheels. Time will tell when the smaller flange wheels show up on new engines.

The Lionel SD70ACe/GP9 flange was a mistake that is soon to be corrected. Your base design should be new MTH and Atlas engines.

But, the real issue is that Lionel engines are not even 3RS, they have floating pilots among other things. Not sure I get designing a complimentary new 3RS track system for non 3RS equipment? It is also a non starter unless the rails are low profile.

I currently have 5 different types of wheelsets of both 2R and 3R and will gladly use more for reference if I find anymore. The goal is to make them all work on the same track much like they do on Scaletrax. It would be really nice to pull out that postwar equipment every once in a while and let it run around for a bit. My Western Pacific F3's being a prime example. Fixed pilots don't really concern me at this point either as all I care about are wheel flanges riding through. Whether or not a pilot is fixed is up to the owner and ultimately many people fix pilots that weren't originally anyways. I know I will at some point on the SD70. The concern of the track is that most 3R and 2R wheelsets can roll through them. I'm not sure how Code 148 rail wouldn't be considered low profile when it comes to 3R trains. It doesn't get any lower without changing out wheelsets. 3RS is at best a compromise middle ground between traditional 3R and 2R so each wheelset should work if possible. I don't want something designed solely around 3R wheels but at the same time I don't want something that only 2R wheels work on.

I did state that I'm not intending to develop a dedicated 3RS system for sale. Studrail that works with Atlas 2 rail track I could probably do if there was demand for it but manufacturing 3RS track wouldn't be quick, easy, or cheap. If it worked out well and I found a way to build it and make it worth my while, I'd do it. Right now this isn't a priority. It's finding out what the consensus on the perfect 3RS track would be and then to build it to use. Whether or not I could replicate it for others is not an immediate concern. You never know though.

The old NMRA standards for O gauge outside third-rail are for that: Outside third-rail O scale/gauge operation in the 1930's and 1940's.

There are new NMRA 3 rail standards. They were adopted this past July. Do look them up. If any of the current manufacturers are open to following a hobby standard, it would no doubt be a more recent one than something from 60 years ago.

That said, I would think 3 rail could easily run well with flanges half the size that they are, on slightly modified tubular rail as well as prototype profile rail of Code 148 or so.

When Code 172 was common, the large flanges of 3 rail did just fine. But that was before the days of the 'fast-angle wheel' and that rail size is no longer made. The large flange was designed so toy trains could be easily put on the track and run fast around tight curves without unduly flipping off.

As for the major manufacturers of O gauge and O scale trains today, many build things to their own proprietary standard for wheels, track, operating systems, couplers and even scale to some extent.

The spirit behind NMRA standards from their beginning in the 1930's was to assure the interchangablity of cars and locomotives among fellow hobbyists. At one time manufacturers were aware of those standards and followed them to some degree. Especially, concerning the inter-relationship of wheels and track, which is criical.

That has been fading away. Major makers of model trains these days don't care a whit whether their product will work with someone elses' or not. They prefer you to stay 'in-house' with their products as there is no profit for them in following a standard - unless we as buyers insist upon it with our purchases.

Ed Bommer

Ed,

What is the NMRA 3R wheel standard? Does it have a flat profile?

Perhaps this discussion is more about the pursuit of the ultimate 3RS wheel?

quote:

Major makers of model trains these days don't care a whit whether their product will work with someone elses' or not. They prefer you to stay 'in-house' with their products as there is no profit for them in following a standard - unless we as buyers insist upon it with our purchases.

Except for the Purple or Orange box Kool-Aid drinkers I think most people buy the product they like regardless of manufacturer. So this attitude is short-sighted.
The model mag reviewers could, and should, provide the additional service of comparing a model to the standards.

Model railroader has always done that in their thorough reviews. They put the gauge on and measure the model vs. the prototype, how compatible it is with NMRA standards and then test how many cars it pulls for their standard test procedure.

O scale could benefit from such an arrangement.

It is 2 rail scale now, but I had a 3-R MTH Hudson that had insulated wheels and a switch. It ran quite well on .148 2 rail track, even with tinplate flanges. The tender still has the tinplate flanges, but it will get Lionel 700T trucks soon, with insulated steel wheelsets.

If you can be satisfied with MTH products, all you need to do is replace freight car wheels with insulated wheelsets, and then you can use code 148 2-rail track, keeping your relatively big flanges and huge couplers for their operational advantages, and enjoying more or less good looking track. You could even take some .148 rail and glue it down the center, so long as you didn't depend on it for current. If you insist on reverse loops without switching problems, this is obviously not a good solution.

quote:

Originally posted by bob2:
It is 2 rail scale now, but I had a 3-R MTH Hudson that had insulated wheels and a switch. It ran quite well on .148 2 rail track, even with tinplate flanges. The tender still has the tinplate flanges, but it will get Lionel 700T trucks soon, with insulated steel wheelsets.

If you can be satisfied with MTH products, all you need to do is replace freight car wheels with insulated wheelsets, and then you can use code 148 2-rail track, keeping your relatively big flanges and huge couplers for their operational advantages, and enjoying more or less good looking track. You could even take some .148 rail and glue it down the center, so long as you didn't depend on it for current. If you insist on reverse loops without switching problems, this is obviously not a good solution.

The hot ticket would be to start with 2-rail code 148 and tack down a third rail gauged for On2 1/2. A little creative wiring and you can have the best of all three worlds -- 2-rail, 3-rail, and On2 1/2. You'll have to do some fancy fabrication on turnouts and diamonds. Just a thought.

Since I actually have never owned an Atlas car, I decided to go buy one today. My local hobby shop didn't have any Master series in and he only had about 4 cars anyways. All were Trainman. I bought a 40ft PRR box car. It looks pretty darned nice compared to the Lionel cars that are so prevalent and while it may not be the master series, it's not bad at all. A few minor details but that's it. I'll definitely start buying these. I have a few sets of 2R MTH trucks lying around as well as some Kadees which are easy to install. Incidentally witht the 2R trucks installed, the body looks way too high.

This one is a 3R car. It's flanges are nearly identical to the 3R Lionel wheelsets I've been using. I now have Lionel wheels, MTH 2 rail, Atlas 2 rail, K-line 2 rail, and Atlas 3R wheels to go off of. I'll exclude the SD70 since it's pretty much established that it's going to get a wheel transplant at some point in the future anyways. I'll worry about all that stuff later. Right now it's about the track.

All of the various trucks that I have seem to work on the Code 148. At least on a straight they do. I'll finish this piece and then work on curves where they should still work. A switch will come last and most likely where the real work will have to be done but at least this code is promising. The low rail height really looks nice with the scale sized car. I actually really like the old standard tie spacing. It looks very nice. I have a handlaid track template coming so I'll try those ties and spacings as well. As I originally said, multiple models to see what looks best.

My prototypical spikes came in today and I have to say that anyone hand laying something that small with that much detail is downright nuts! They are too small. You can barely see them and handling them is nothing short of a talent. Needless to say it's one that I don't have. I'm going to go pick up some different ones this week that are actually functional. This is ridiculous.

I was looking at NMRA's site for current standards and I can find all about turnouts and rail height but I couldn't find tie spacing or tie size standards anywhere. I'd definitely look into it if I could find it but that website either doesn't have everything listed or the people who created those standards neglected a very important part of trackwork! The reality is that I'm not concerned with getting absolute perfect NMRA standards. There aren't any 3RS standards so this track would be a couple of standards combined into one track anyways.

The first piece I'm doing will continue on with the 1/4" wide ties that are spaced 3/8" (.375")apart. It's half done now anyways. It looks good although when I drew a few different tie spacings up in AutoCAD at work, the one I liked best was the old standard with ever so slightly closer ties at .350" between them. I also drew it up with 1/4" spacing but it just looks way too busy. I won't be able to touch anything tomorrow so Wednesday hopefully I'll make some more progress. I've got a little more to go before I get a picture of the current piece to show.

Went back to go over my notes from the prototypical ties and spacings that I measured. If scaled down to 1/48 scale, the results got interesting. An O scale tie would be 3/16" wide which is what Scaletrax ties are as well as 2-1/8" long which is again what Scaletrax is. They are on to something with their name. The spacing between ties would be 1/4". Scaletrax is right at 3/8" so it's a bit wide and one reason why that track looks a little wrong. Tie plates too of course. The illusion I mentioned is why the track I'm laying looks good to me. Although the ties are spaced farther apart, they are also wider so from a ratio of tie length to width to spacing, they look right. It's not always about what is real. It's what looks good.

The Atlas 2R track does have the correct tie width and spacing but is 1/8" too long. That's not really as issue as that's really close. Basically a 3 rail or stud rail version of Atlas 2R track would be the perfect 3RS track. It's neat to see how perception changes as more info is learned!

But realistic track has to be measured in 17/64, which means the ties should be an eighth of an inch longer (nominally). Otherwise, with our too-wide gauge, the parts outboard of the rails will look non-prototypical.

Matt - since the only remaining reason for the center rail is nostalgia, it has to be in the middle. The original reason was the same as outside third - insulation was just too darn difficult in 1930.

quote:

keeping your relatively big flanges and huge couplers for their operational advantages,

Bob,

You are not on the 3R forum but the 3RS forum. One of the basic mantras is scale couplers. No one here uses huge couplers, that would be 3R, and not 3RS. As an aside, the other reason for not using them, are their operational disadvantages. What in the world would make a tinplate coupler more reliable than a kadee?

The only thing here that would separate us from 2 rail, would be the powered 3rd Rail (which we hope to "hide" better one day) and the flanges (which we hope to reduce one day).

Good point Bob. I forgot about the track being a little wide on the gauge. So 2-1/4" long ties are good then. Atlas did get it right with their 2R track.

I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into a "you're not 3RS" type of thread again as that's always a thread killer. The fact of the matter is that many 3RS people still run 3R wheels so those wheels need to be able to run on 3RS track. The track has no idea if you have truck mounted couplers, fixed pilots or not, and has no idea if you are running Lionel, Atlas, MTH, or otherwise. A good 3RS track would work equally well with 2R wheels or 3R wheels much like Scaletrax does. Both wheelsets get used by 3RS modellers so it needs to accomodate both. Save the "what is 3RS" argument for another thread. 3RS is a compromise standard even in the most strict of aspects and is quite variable and interpretive yet many treat it as though certain aspects are a law that can't be broken. I've got my own views but I'll save them for another thread. This however is about the track and what would be a good 3RS, hence compromise between 2R and 3R, track system. My goal is to find that track and then build it to use. I am hoping that others can provide good feedback and we can come up with a consensus that for the most part agrees. There will always be a few that don't though but that's life.

Back to the topic at hand. I have an Old Pullman #4 2 rail switch. Yes I have lots of random stuff! It's tie spacing and tie widths are different yet. I think that with a little playing by moving the guardrails out to clear the 3R wheels that it would work just fine. You could potentially make a new frog for Atlas 2 rail switches and move their guard rails and accomplish the same thing. Lay a center rail or a stud system and that should be it. That's actually not very hard to do. I've spent enough money already. I don't want to go buy an Atlas 2 rail switch now too!

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

I really need to get back to work as I keep playing around with the idea but I don't see any reason why an NMRA compliant 3RS system couldn't be done although that wasn't my concern. If using Fast Tracks jigs from handlaidtrack.com for 2 rail O and using their ties and spacing, it would be NMRA compliant. Change the frog and guard rail areas on the switches to match the NMRA standards for Hi-rail scales and you'd have it. Then it would just be a matter of selecting a center rail (or stud) standard. This actually might not be that difficult. The hardest part about hand laying a switch though is with tie plates which is why you don't see them on GarGraves or Ross switches. Would people be willing to accept an NMRA complaint 3RS track system that didn't have tie plates?

Fred,

Bob is a 2 railer and we go way back, I was just trying to help him with his understanding of the movement. But since you pointed out, have a look.

http://ogaugerr.infopop.cc/eve...21021474/m/872106611

The most basic features that differentiate a 3RS locomotive from a 3-Rail loco is the concept of fixed pilots and scale couplers. While this may not make a diesel a great 3RS model, it is the basic starting point to consider a diesel 3RS. The same holds true for a steam locomotive. Equipped with scale couplers, proper class lights etc., many 3-rail steam locomotives can be modified into a good 3RS locomotive. Equipping your rolling stock with scale couplers is a step towards 3RS.

So, really 3RS is not even about track. While old Lionel may run on a new complimentary track system for 3RS equipment, anything with a floating pilot or a tinplate coupler, is obviously not scale. And if the track system accommodates turns tighter than 072, than the equipment that runs on it could not be considered 3 Rail Scale, as fixed pilots and kadees do not work on anything else.

I own plenty of stuff that is not 3RS, and I run it. I don't insult myself when I do. Much of the stuff I am working on to get it up to 3RS standards. Some I am not. I don't consider myself a "3RS" guy, there's no such thing. Many of the models I own would pass 3RS standards, much would not. So most of us are 3 Railers, and 3RS modelers. That's why it is really about the trains themselves.

3 Rail is open to interpretation. The reason 3RS was started was not to be open to interpretation. There is nothing that is a variable. Scale is Scale. The nature of 3RS is not to be all inclusive. Means nothing, (except that we don't have a life) good or bad. I include and exclude my own self as I wrote before. I have both 3R stuff and 3RS stuff. We have been through this for before for years. Ask my friend Jonathon! He saw the light a year or two ago.

So, don't take this the wrong way. 3R is 3R, 3RS is as close as you can come to a scale model with the exception of flanges, and all of us are 3 Railers and 3RS guys combined.

Hopefully you didn't take my comments as offensive in any way. They weren't meant that way. I merely didn't want the thread diverting off topic and my little rant was basically intended to show that there are people that still do run 3R equipment on the same track, hence the need in my opinion for compatibility on the same track.

So back to it. If 3RS is meant to be as close as you can come to a scale model with the exception of the wheel flanges then I would think the best 3RS track would also be the closest you could come to a scale model but that would allow the larger 3R flanges to work. I know it's not supposed to be about the track but rather the trains but people keep asking for a 3RS oriented track system so obviously some would like to see it, myself included. Some just don't care. Nothing wrong with that. I personally think the pursuit of realism isn't complete until the total illusion is created. Going to the trouble of acquiring or modifying to 3RS standards just doesn't seem right if it's going to be running on a loop of track on a carpet floor! Then again if that's what you're into, more power to you! Just have fun.

If the ultimate goal of 3RS was to use scale wheels, then things would get simpler in regards to track. We'd all buy Atlas 2 rail track, move the guard rails out a little bit, install a center rail, and we'd be done. Then we'd also have smaller and smaller code rail for branchlines and sidings. True there will always be a few who ultimately long for this but there comes a point where one wants such a fine level of accuracy in their 3 rail trains that if they insist on still running a 3 rail setup they can go buy 2R engines and rolling stock and install a center pickup and use 2R track with studs or a center rail or even hand lay to P:48 standards.

That's the ultimate extreme of course and few are going to do this but my goal is to find the happy medium that would make most people happy. I'm hoping I'm onto that. I definitely wouldn't expect anyone to pull up existing track to retrofit a new one. I just want to know what the perfect 3RS track standard would (could) be if one existed. Some people mention studrail. Others mention wanting a small center rail. Others mention that it's not about the track so they don't care. Some use with Scaletrax. Some use Atlas track. Some want Code 148. Some want smaller. There has got to be a happy medium out there and I personally think there should be a 3RS track standard as for many it is about more than just the trains. If it wasn't then most people wouldn't detail their layouts.

I have to agree with Pete on this one. It took me some time myself to understand this concept when this forum originally came on line. I was much in the same camp as you. However after careful thought, thinking back to my prior modeling days in HO and N, it all began to make sense.

3RS by it's nature is limiting. It is not limiting in an egotisical sense, just simply limited by what is prototype in the model at the commonly accepted 1/48 scale. When the goal is to match a prototype as closely as possible, we are talking about fixed pilots on models of locomotives that actually had fixed pilots. We are talking about scale or at least close to scale couplers and Kadee to date offers the most readily available and best operating scale type coupler in the O gauge market. Body mounted couplers are preferable to truck mounted couplers as you can detail your car and locomotive ends much more accurately. This limits the curve sizes. 072 is the absolute minimum for a body mounted kadee coupler on a 20" passenger car so this is no arbitrary number. Personally, I have been able to run small equipment on 054 track, but that is limited to cars and locomotives no longer in 10" in size.

Many of the regular contributors here are committed to working with manufacturers to produce better models for everyone. MTH has shown some committment now with scale wheel, fixed pilot models while the scale Proto-coupler still proves a bit elusive. MTH has not shown the committment yet to scale cars as closely. Atlas has been more receptive to scale modelers interests, but recently has hit a home run with the CZ car set, while leaving some wondering why the next big thing is a Trainman line locomotive. Lionel, while offering some amazing scale product in the last 5-6 years has proven the least receptive to scale modeling and their wheel flanges are just one example of that. 3rd Rail has done the best in listening to scale modelers interests, but they are not nearly as large as the 'big three'. Weaver equipment tends to interchange fairly easily with little modification.

I own models from all of these manufacturers so I am not in any one manufacturer's pocket. Again 3RS is a goal that we can promote to manufacturers and a goal to be obtained through individual modeling projects. It is that pursuit of prototype fidelity that allows this particular forum to thrive.

As to that track system, that is why we are advocating smaller rail is better. The PRR had the heaviest rail at 155#/yd. which translates to code 167. The heaviest common rail in usage today is in the #132 pound range and translates to code 148. That is why we are saying that for a 3RS compliant track system code 148 is really a maximum. Code 125 is 100# rail which is basic branch line.

If this means that we can't run some our trains on it - so be it. I have plenty of trains myself that will not run on what I consider to be 3RS track. I enjoy them in other ways.

The more I read and the more views I see, the more I am realizing that 3RS is much like any other model railroader whether it be HO or N-scale that buys a nice engine or set of cars and doesn't really care what they run them on whether it's handlaid, detailed, and realistically weathered track, or simple Kato or Atlas snaptrack. Is that an accurate assessment?

Perhaps the goal shouldn't be the ultimate 3RS track but rather to find the ultimate 3 rail track system. Much like many engines and cars in n-scale can't run on the more finely detailed code 55 or code 40 track, 3 rail can be the same way. Of course those n-scalers can always swap wheelsets but so can the O scalers as well. The same applies for HO and it's overly large code 100 vs the more modern code 83 and even code 55 pieces. It all doesn't work but if you absolutely want that look, you'll make the necessary changes.

So hopefully you guys have set me on the correct mindset in that my goal isn't 3RS track but rather scale looking track that just happens to have a 3rd rail (or perhaps stud). Rearrange the wording and it seems to make more sense! Am I (literally) on the right track here? I'm getting to the point that I'm about to just buy some fast track jigs.

If that's the way to ultimately go then the place to start at for rail on the high side would be Code 148. Then get at least 2 smaller sizes depending on if it's branchline or siding. Let's say Code 125 and Code 100. For these rail sizes, switches and x-overs may as well conform to NMRA 2R guidelines (except for a center rail) as 3R wheels aren't going to be able to run on that track anyways. The question becomes the Code 148 pieces. If we use relaxed standards for the guardrails, it would allow 2R and 3R wheels to work fine. Anyone focused on more detail in regards to smaller rail will probably be willing to change their wheelsets to accomodate it. Hopefully I'm getting there.

I think you'll find great reception towards a rail system that has believable rail profiles and height (Code 148 and less as you mention), accurate tie spacing and width adjusted for the whole OW5 issue, ties plates and two four spikes per plate per US standard procedure and one that can accommodate the smaller 3R wheel profiles. While that may leave out some wheel sets, it is still open enough for most 3R wheels.

That would likely be the ultimate 3RS track system. Like many innovations, it could go on to be the ultimate 3R track system.

I think you've already defined that Code 148 is workable in most situations and probably is a great place for the system. It is regularly accepted as standard mainline rail. As you mention, Code 125 for branch line service is not likely out of reach for many 3 rail cars and locomotives 3RS or not. For what it's worth, code 100 is fairly light in O gauge and was only really found up through the late 30's.

Simply put, tie size and spacing, track plates with a realistic number of spikes, and nearly scale profile rail would go a long way towards promoting a better track system that hopefully one of the manufacturer's will pick up on. Don't feel put off by the scale bent on this forum because if you can succeed in promoting your idea, we all benefit.

So ..... Scott Mann .... do we need to ask you to do all the innovation when it comes to scale O products in 3 rail? I'd love to see a GGD line of track someday and Fred here might just have what you need to get started .....

I took apart a piece of HO scale code 100 flextrack for the rails and laid them over the bare ties that I've laid on one of my test pieces. Like you said, that is really tiny rail!!! The 2R wheelsets do work fine on it though. My friend Craig has a large O scale standard/narrow gauge layout based on the D&RGW and it uses Code 100. It doesn't look out of place on his layout and his trains run fine on it. His switches are handlaid while his track is flextrack. I don't know who made it though. Of course we are talking about 2 rail. Code 125 would be more reasonable and I even found a source for Code 138 rail.

As far as number of spikes, on the rail around here it seems that each tie plate has 2 spikes per. One on each side of the rail catty corner from each other. I haven't seen any that have 4 spikes per plate although I'm not saying it's not out there. Wouldn't it be more accurate to have 2 spikes per plate but offset like what I'm seeing on the prototype lines? It would seem reasonable as I'm looking at the real thing. The tie plates that I bought from Old Pullman are pretty simple. They look good but there isn't the outer layer of spike holes that allow for the plate to be spiked down first. That's not really a deal breaker to me as the scale sized spikes I have are downright impossible to use anyways and don't hold the rail. They are purely decorative and even then you pretty much need a high powered microscope just to see them. That may be a slight exagerration! Right'O Way supposedly makes some very detailed O scale track detail items including cast tie plates so I'm going to look into that. They don't have a website though so I'm not sure how soon I'll get anything.

I didn't mean to offend anybody - just be aware that I am in a vastly different segment of the hobby, and lurk here because your models are more prototypically faithful than mine - except, I suppose, for the flanges. I bet I have more derailments than you do.

But I still have problems understanding why you are so worried about realistic track - Somebody suggested moving that center rail and pretending that you are dual gauge - you could still go with center rail pickup, and you would have a prototype. If you start hand-laying track with four spikes per tie, and lost-wax tie plates with nut/bolt castings, it is time to come on over to the dark side.

Fred

Thanks for investing your time and money and sharing the fruits of you labors with us here. It is always good to have more information about what is out there and brainstorm about what might be possible. Three rail has come so far in the last 20 years it amazes me. That progress has been made thanks to pioneering efforts by individuals, major investments by manufacturers and the contributions of people with experience in other segments of the hobby who have come to love the quality and diversity of equipment available in three rail.

We often seem to get back to the continuing and evolving "what the heck is 3RS anyway" discussion. I'll just say that to me it is scale model railroading with three rail trains. All scales make compromises. Three railers doing scale model railroading accept the middle rail but get the benefit of the wide variety of quality models available thanks to the large 3 rail O market and we get tremendous operational reliability.

I got to be part of an operating session at a BIG 3 rail layout on Tuesday. We had a dispatcher, tower operator, a RFOE, four two man engineer/conductor crews and a three man engineer/conductor/brakeman crew plus spectators. They operated two 8 car passenger trains, a road freight that maxed out at 32 cars, a yard job, made an engine change on one of the passenger trains and the helper crew uncoupled on the fly after working as a rear pusher. It was totally cool.

With all those trains running dozens of scale miles through some very complex track work one thing stands out. There were NO DERAILMENTS! All the locomotives were MTH and the cars were a mix of Atlas, K-Line and MTH. Nearly all were stock three rail cars. However, I contributed a 2 rail Atlas caboose and an MTH car with MTH 2 rail trucks and wheels and Kadee 805s. The track? MTH scaletrax. Dave Hikel did the track work and it looks great and operates extremely reliably.

There has been much good discussion on this thread. I'd like to pick out a couple of comments that stand out after last nights operating fun.

quote:

Perhaps the goal shouldn't be the ultimate 3RS track but rather to find the ultimate 3 rail track system.

I think Fred hit the spike on the head. As his research confirms, there is a lot scale about Scaletrax. The flex is flexible and the switches are well designed and built. There are certainly tricks to working with scaletrax but nothing outside the norm found with other systems. It works well with practically all post war equipment and can handle 2 rail cars well. 2 rail freight car trucks will pitch and yaw but rarely derail on the switches. However, it does need a larger variety of switches to be a more flexible track system.

At the moment, hand laying a scaletrax compatible switch would be the only way to get something like a 72/96 curved switch. I can think of other ways to enjoy my hobby time besides hand laying turnouts but I might give it a crack like Fred to see what can be done. What I would really like are more factory made switches to work with scaletrax. It MTH makes them, great! If Ross came out with something to fit with a scaletrax system I'd buy it.

quote:

I am in a vastly different segment of the hobby, and lurk here because your models are more prototypically faithful than mine - except, I suppose, for the flanges. I bet I have more derailments than you do.

Bob is onto something here. I got to see trains operate that were faithful models of the prototype and they ran very well with no derailments. That is one thing that adds to the attraction of scale model railroading with three rails.

quote:

But I still have problems understanding why you are so worried about realistic track.................
If you start hand-laying track with four spikes per tie, and lost-wax tie plates with nut/bolt castings, it is time to come on over to the dark side.

I think Bob has a good point here too. If you want to run O scale trains on code 100 track you just threw out compatibility with three rail wheels and can expect to see plenty of derailments. I think you will also have taken your self out of any commercial market to supply you with the products you are looking for. I'd hate to see 3RS shrink to a tiny group that is only served by cottage industry.

While three rail scalers may be a relatively small group we seem to punch well above our weight in the marketplace because we buy a lot of trains. If we ask for a track system that can be commercially successful we just might get it.

I think the code 148 rail will work with all but a few wheelsets out there such as the overly large Lionel wheels. This type of track would probably only be used by people who aren't going to be running those few wheels anyways. The mainline track would be just what the marketplace needs. Anything smaller in rail would definitely not be compatible with 3R wheels but then again if someone is so detail oriented that they want their sidings or branchlines to have smaller rail than their mainline, they probably are also going to go to the trouble to run 2R wheels. I don't see that as an issue.

I need to go pick up another piece of Atlas 2R flex track. I only had 1 and I sacrificed it for its rail. Once I get another piece or even a straight and a 36"R curve, I'll draw out in AutoCAD (since that's my job) a stud system that is compatible. As we've seen, someone has done it before. I'll send the drawing over to my friend who runs a large machine shop with some very neat laser and water cutting machines and have him cut a few pieces out to test. My goal actually isn't to develop a studrail system but I think I can do it pretty easily for those who want to adapt it to Atlas 2R track. That's not my immediate concernt but I'll work on it.

I have a couple of strips of ties laid on a couple of test pieces. The first one I did was a 1x4 that I had lying around that is 48" long. That one has the wider ties with the wider spacing than optimal. I looks nice but it's not what I will ultimately use. I'm going to ballast it and add a couple of weeds and use it as a display track. The one I did last night is a little 1/4" x 4" piece of wood that is only 24" long. This is plenty long to get a good idea of look and not to long that I'll be there all day. Remember I'm not using Fast Track jigs or ties. They have a long lead time and nothing has arrived yet so I'm using strip wood that is hand cut one piece at a time. Not even using a mitre saw. It's time consuming but I'm not doing every piece like this. Just the first ones of each type as I have better control over each part.

The one that I did last night is only ties glued down. The ties are 3/16" x 3/16" basswood cut to 2-1/4" long. Spacing between the ties is 1/4". I drew up several different tie spacings in AutoCAD and printed them out. Then I glued the printed template down to the board and just glued my ties down on top of the printed lines. They lined up perfectly. I also drew up a P:48 template and when looked at against the track I laid, you can only tell a difference when the 2 are end to end. Even next to each other its hard to tell a difference.

I don't have rail down or tie plates right now. Just ties on a board. The enxt step will be to get tie plates down. This step is time consuming as it's the first few that are tough to line up. Once I get the first tie done and centered properly, then I'll clamp down a straight edge down 1 row so I can line up the rest of the tie plates on that side. The other side will then be set according to the spacing of my Kadee coupler height/track gauge. I haven't mic'd it to see if it's perfect but it should be close enough. I'll double check that tonight anyways. I actually just glue the tie plates down with a drop of superglue. Simple. I need to go get some better spikes but won't have a chance to do that until at least Friday.

When I get the tie plates down, I'm going to make a mold of the whole assembly. This will allow me to do a couple of things. I could theoretically cast the ties and plates together. As long as I install some stringers between the ties this would be easy. The other thing the mold would allow though is to tie plates to be inserted into it and then ties laid on top of them since the operation would be done upside down. This would speed up laying tie plates on wood ties. We'll see. Maybe that idea will fail horribly. I'm just having fun at this point. If I get a piece done that I think looks nice, would anyone here be willing to let me send one to you to critique?

What was the name of the wooden roadbed that had the ties milled into it and you "only" had to drop the rails onto the tie plates? Probably over simplfying the process.

Would something old like that be ready for a re-introduction ?

Suppose you mounted MTH Scale Trax rails on it?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TAG18,

quote:

What was the name of the wooden roadbed that had the ties milled into it and you "only" had to drop the rails onto the tie plates?

Tru-Scale

You can still get those from Fast Tracks (handlaidtrack.com) and I'm working on getting some but their lead time is a few weeks out. Even their precut ties are out of stock for another 3 weeks or so. I do have the jig on the way that allows you to just place the ties inside it so they are perfectly spaced. That only takes a few minutes. Then you take a piece of tape and cross over the length of the ties and then just pick it up in one piece. This gets glued down to the table and you lay the rail from there. I hope I see that within the next few days but even then as I said the ties that the jig is designed for won't be available for a few weeks yet. I'm doing the best I can with what I can find for now. What I'm building right now ultimately isn't going to get used for anything other than display pieces. I'm trying to figure the look out at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by rex desilets:

quote:

What was the name of the wooden roadbed that had the ties milled into it and you "only" had to drop the rails onto the tie plates?

Tru-Scale

Perhaps "old", but also still available or at least listed on the web:

http://www.troutcreekeng.com/bko.html

TRU-SCALE MODELS, INC.

12874 County Road 314B
Buena Vista, Colorado 81211-9708
719-395-8076

Wow they've got a great selection and good prices too. Hopefully it's still available.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
Wow they've got a great selection and good prices too. Hopefully it's still available.

I too am curious about that although also having no need of their product I have never bothered to even call.

I found this for anyone who is interested. It's more than I ever knew about track:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0ge...dr_a/pdf/tm5_628.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
With the guard rails farther out though, there doesn't seem to be enough support for 2R wheels crossing the gap and it appears they may rely on this ramp to support the flange as it crosses.

Fred,

The frogs do not support the two rail wheels. For my three axle trucks for my scale wheel diesels, there are alway two pairs of wheels on the rails supporting the third through the frog. The wheel just floats over the frog. This is not a problem and it the reason my 3 axil engines do not have a problem.

I did by 2 rail Atlas freight though. They of coarse dip into the frog. They don't derail, they just rock the car a little. To mitigate, I used some thin ~1/16 inch rubber stipping (one sticky side) and cut it to fit at the base of the frog. This makes my 2 rail wheels dip less, and my 3 rail flanges lift a little. Kind of splitting the problem between the two. You can cut it precisely to work for both.

Rich.

Hi Rich I was hoping you'd chime in. I guess mentally I keep thinking in terms of individual wheels rather than connected to a solid axle and through a truck to another axle. That makes sense. Overthinking the problem a little bit.

BTW: I've had your video for about a year and your layout is awesome. Hopefully you'll have a follow up on the new addition soon.

On a past post someone mentioned that the NMRA did not provide standards for spacing ties along the track. That is because each railroad had/has is own standard for that as well as their own standard wooden tie sizes.

Basically, ties along a line are spaced according by the width of the ties being used as well as the intensity of the traffic being carried. The heavier and faster the traffic, the closer the tie spacing. Also the next size heavier tie might be used along with heavier rail.

Ties could be 7x9, 8x10, 9x9 and up to 10x10 for open deck trestles and bridges. They also could be 8 1/2' or 9' in length, depending on a railroad's own standard. Ties on trestles and bridges were also longer, up to 10' in many cases.

If 9" wide ties are used on the ground, spacing would be about 21" center to center of the ties or 12" between the sides of the ties. Tie spacing might be adjusted for curves, placing them an inch or so closer together along the inside of the curve. But 24" center to center might be found on a lightly used branch with 19" center to center tie spacing on a heavy traffic main line.

On trestles and bridges where a 10x10 tie might be used on an open deck, the center to center spacing would be about 18", leaving just 8" between the sides of the ties.

At switches and crossings, railroads had specific standards for wooden tie sizes and spacing. Ties through a switch are generally not equally spaced. Instead they are somewhat closer together through the points and the frog than eleswhere to better bear stresses on the track work as a train rolls through.

Concrete ties are something else.

Ed Bommer

I've been trying to figure out how to load some pictures but for the life of me I just don't get it.

Nevermind. The help feature is your friend. Unfortunately I don't have the pictures here at work so I'll get to it later.

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

It turns out I don't have permission to post photos. How does one get it?

Permission? Never heard of such a thing. Many of us use PhotoBucket.

You might try Flickr as well. I use both sites now due to blowing the "free" bandwidth every month.

Would love to see some pictures.

Until I figure the whole picture thing out, I may as well give a status update. I finished laying the first 2 foot section down according to NMRA standards for tie spacing. I did figure out how to successfully install the very small scale sized spikes! This is definitely an exercise in patience, using the correct tool for the job, and a little bit of insanity. The result is fantastic looking though! I also do have the Old Pullman ties plates down as well.

The ties for this piece are hand cut from 3/16" basswood which was a pain to do. I did order a track jig from Fast Tracks but it isn't here yet and they won't have ties in stock for at least another week. Then it'll take another couple of weeks for them to arive. I am too impatient to wait that long! This option was more pricey but it's only 2 feet anyways. The ties are stained with Minwax Dark Walnut from a stain pen. Stain the ties before gluing them down as any glue on the sides of the ties don't stain well. Go back for the ends later. I used a piece of 1/4" x 4" piece of basswood for a base.

I drew up the track in AutoCAD and then printed it out as a template. I cut it out and glued it down to the board. Then I glued each tie down on it's drawing counterpart. Once the ties were glued down, I carefully measured where the tie plates would need to go. I used a drop of superglue under the first 2 of them so I would have a reference. I then installed one at the far end and one in the middle. Once these were down I had a few lined up perfectly that I could clamp a straight edge down against. I then proceeded to lay each tie plate down with a drop of superglue until one complete side was done.

Then I laid the Code 148 rail that I took off of a piece of Atlas 2 rail flextrack that I had. I actually only had 1 piece as it was a piece I bought so I could measure it for reference purposes. I slowly spiked these very small spikes down starting with a couple of plates on one end and a couple on the other. Then I went along and did every fourth tie and came back and filled them in. Each ties plate has 2 spikes catty corner from each other.

Next was to do the other side. Now I had a straight rail that I could line a gauge up against. The only gauge I have is my Kadee coupler gauge so hopefully its close enough. Again it took some work to line up the first couple of plates but after that it was the same process as above. Glue the plates down, then spike down the rail.

Next was detailing. I used a small brush to handpaint Model Master Leather colored paint onto the rails and tie plates. Rust color is too red. I'll actually go back when all is said and done and do a grimy black wash. I used a water based paint which made cleanup nice. This was the color used in one of the CTT project layouts to detail Atlas track. The nice thing about hand brushing is that several layers leaves the paintwork a bit rough much like there is an actual rust texture to it. It's very subtle and only visible if you get really really close to it.

That's where the piece currently sits. I still don't have a 3rd rail down yet although I have to admit that it is so pretty as a 2 rail piece that I'm tempted not to! Don't worry. I will though. That's the point of this. I got so wrapped up in this piece that it's not really one that I could copy easily but it will show what is possible for the dedicated 3 railer. You of course could even get more insane than this but this is enough for me.

One thing I did do is something that Atlas got wrong with their spike detail. If you look at the spikes, as I said there is one per rail side catty corner from each other. Lets say you are standing next to a track. The near side of the rail has a spike in the right hole with the left one empty. The opposite side of the rail has the left one done and the right one empty. In other words catty corner. On the Atlas track it is this way for both sides. To be technically correct though if you drew a centerline down the center of the track, much like a center rail, the spike in the opposing rail should be an exact mirror image of the other rail. It's hard to describe but is detailed in the paper I linked a few posts ago. I looked at some real track today and while this was generally true there were a few here and there that were reversed so anyone wanting to be really detailed could mix a few up now and again.

Next is to ballast this piece. I bought some ballast from Arizona Rock and Mineral. This color is called Northern Pacific Medium Gray Granite. I've used their product on N and HO scale layouts and just love it. I will never again touch Woodland Scenics ballast. It is pure junk by comparison and being real rock this won't float away when glued down. The only problem with this ballast is that they make N and HO ballast that is perfect but next up in size is called Large Scale which applies to both O and G scales. The pieces also aren't all perfect little pebbles. Some are jagged and oddly shaped and many are too large for O scale. I'm going to get a sifter out and sift the correct size for what I need. I may even take some of the larger stuff and hammer it into smaller sizes and sift it too. I've gone to this much trouble that I want that part to look good too.

The final decision will be the center rail. Studrail would be cool but I'll save that for another project. I will just lay a Code 148 rail up there at first and take a few pictures to show. Then I'll lay Code 100 rail and again take pictures. By then hopefully I'll have the picture thing sorted out and we can take a vote on it.

As another interesting tidbit, I bought one piece of Atlas 3 rail track. I've got way too many random samples lying around now! That track has always looked like it's ties were to close and too plentiful. They just looked off to me. It turns out that their spacing is exactly the same as the Atlas 2R track. The ties are the same size. They are just thicker but after ballast this isn't noticable anyways. It all goes back to what I said in my first post. It's about the illusion and not necessarily what is technically correct. The rail is so tall and thick that the ties are too small by comparison. For a larger rail to look more correct (less wrong?), a wider tie with a wider spacing is needed. Incidentally my spacing is actually a bit closer than theirs and I thought theirs was originally too close!

More to come.

Dave Hikel has a nice thread going on the three rail forum about his Northwest Trunk Lines project. It may be of interest to readers of this forum as well.

This picture, included in that thread, shows Scaletrax hand laid over a short bridge.

quote:

This picture, included in that thread, shows Scaletrax hand laid over a short bridge.

Actually I believe that Dave just used a piece of Scaletrax flex and removed a section of ties from it and replaced them with the bridge ties/tie plates. This is fairly easy to do in sections like this.

I removed a section of ties from my ash pit elevator seen here and just placed the ash vault below the rails.

quote:

Actually I believe that Dave just used a piece of Scaletrax flex and removed a section of ties from it and replaced them with the bridge ties/tie plates.

and Boy can one se the difference! nice job! NOw if MTH had that spike & plate detail on Scaletrax, I would have been sold!

quote:

NOw if MTH had that spike & plate detail on Scaletrax, I would have been sold!

Actually curve, it does. You can see in Dave's photo and mine that the tie plate is a little thicker that the other ones Dave put in but it's there and also has two spike heads per tie plate on each side of the rail. Atlas only uses a single spike head and that is one thing I don't like about Atlas, because any lateral movement of the rail and that single spike head shears off!