One spike head per side (2 per plate) is prototypical except in certain situations. There is even a certain correct orientation as I've noted which is detailed in the link I provided. Atlas did get this wrong though as it should be symmetrical as seen from rail centerline above.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
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.

However...not every railroad used tie plates that resulted in a mirror image of the spike placement. The New York Central's 105, 112, and 127 lb. Dudley rail used tie plates that looked like this:



Notice that these plates are punched such that the spikes holding the base of the rail cannot possibly be installed to permit a mirror image across the track centerline.

That's interesting. I guess if someone wants to get really picky, they can go research what the railroad that they are modelling actually did. The link I posted which showed them symmetrical also matches the UP mainline down here. Every once in a while there is a backwards set though. I haven't looked at the BNSF tracks here yet. The reality is that this detail is so small on an O scale track (or smaller) that the only person that would probably even notice this is the person who owns it and anyone else they told.

I got half of the ballast done. It's a little too large but still looks great. I'll finish it up tonight. I've looked at both Code 148 and Code 100 as a center rail by just setting it in the middle. I've also played with black vs painted like the outer rails are. Strangely enough I'm actually leaning towards the Code 148 center rail. I need to get a good piece of nickel silver Code 100 though. I only have a steel piece off of a cheap piece of HO flex track and the color is wrong which may be affecting my perception of it.

I've always used Shutterfly to post pictures to other sites but I can't figure it out for here. I guess I'll have to try Flickr. Then hopefully I can get some pictures up.

Let's see if this works now:

Blurry picture showing random track pieces that I've been looking at. Scaletrax X, handlaid O-27 piece that I did, Atlas 2 Rail ties (I robbed the rail for the new piece), and an Old Pullman #4.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4074431758/

I drew out a few different tie spacings in CAD. Actually I did about 7 of them. Here is 3 with an Atlas Box Car sitting on top to show they are to scale.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4073673157/

CAD drawn #4 using all Code 148 rail.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4073672619/

CAD drawn #4 using Code 148 main and Code 100 center rail.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4073672781/

Gluing tie plates down to hand cut ties.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4073673445/

Code 148 rail sitting on tie plates. Not spiked down. Atlas Box Car for reference. Yes I know it has a giant coupler on it! It now has MTH scale wheels and Kadee couplers on it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4074432150/

Slightly lower view. The wheels are sitting a tad low since the rails aren't spiked down and are getting pushed out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4073673889/

Wider ties and tie spacing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4073673585/

I now have the track all spiked and detailed. The ballasting is down but the glue is drying. Tomorrow night I'll finish doing some weathering and then take more pictures. It looks WAY WAY nicer than the above in constuction photos show!

I'm starting to think that my overly long posts have run everyone off. If anyone is still paying attention, here are the pics. Finally! Please forgive the poor picture quality. I don't have a very good camera right now. The captions tell what is what. The track is currently just 2 rail. Any center rail pictures are just rail set in place.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076809310/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076809500/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076056265/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076056443/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076810100/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076810306/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076810500/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076057175/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076810950/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076057763/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076811694/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076815904/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076062663/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076061899/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076815144/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076814716/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076060843/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076060481/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076060107/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076813220/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076059301/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076058947/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44365983@N08/4076812074/

My track doesn't look a whole lot different in geometry than the Atlas 2 rail although in person it is MUCH nicer looking. You can see what Atlas 2R track looks like with a center rail too. This actually reinforces what I thought originally. Scaletrax with Atlas 2R ties would be just about right although the Code 148 really does look good!

I guess I lost everyone

Very Nice work.

For anyone thinking mass market production, I think black makes the center rail stick out even more. Also, I think thinner center rail (HO) is needed. And perhaps recessed into the ties.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
I guess I lost everyone

Naw, ya didn't lose everybody, we were just "evaluating". Very nice work, BTW.

Here are my comments.

This photo from your site pretty much shows your track as it would look in a "production" setting, with a blackened center rail.



Here is a couple of other photos from a low angle of three commercial track systems from similar angles.

ScaleTrax shamelessly stolen from one of Rich Battista's threads.



Atlas track as photographed on Hot Water's Central Connecting.



Ross / Gargraves track on the IHMD Modular Railroad





In my opinion, yes, code 148 rail looks outstanding, even with our pizza cutter flanges. However, even with the code 100 center rail, the third rail still "glows" to use a description from Chris R from a past thread.

Would I purchase a commercial track system if it was offered with the code 148 rail and code 100 center rail? Yes, I would consider it, but only if the pricing is comparable with the other commercial offerings. Yes, I would pay Ross prices if the product was made in the USA.

At the end of the day, we are still making compromises with the third rail. Painting the track makes a difference, but it is still there is all it's glory. I can live with that, or I wouldn't be modeling in 3RS.

If I was that concerned with the track look, I would have stayed exclusively in HO, where the two rails looked just fine also.



The track in the photo is code 83, which is a bit large for GN in 1952. Code 70 would have been a better fit, with code 55 in sidings, but, I really didn't care about that in HO either.

Regards,
Jerry

Pete, I actually agree with the black center rail sticking out more. I took one piece and painted it gray like the ballast and it was a much nicer look. I also played qith a piece of code 83 center. It looks fine. My biggest concern is what would turnouts look like with the necessary work to raise the center rail?

Although I have stayed out of commenting on this subject since I already have a layout (Atlas O) and am NOT about to tear out everything to change the track system. That said, I can't agree with the "sunken into the ties" concept for the center third rail. Just think how difficult switches and road crossings would be!

I want everyones comments. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not even saying I'd produce a system although if it didn't need tie plates it could actually be worthwhile as could a stud system for use with Atlas 2R track.

You've done some nice work. Looks good. Have you looked at Code 83 or Code 70 for the center rail? Code 55 (N scale) might work, but could be problematic as you're looking at a pretty small railhead.

I have code 55 and code 80 n-scale track, code 83 and code 100 HO track that I've taken rail out of, and code 148 rail to play with. The n scale track is pretty darned small. It's not so much a rail width issue but rather a height issue. MTH Scaletrax has a center rail width somewhere slightly smaller than code 83 but obviously it's taller. The code 83 or 100 seem like the best bet although I actually don't mind the equal sized code 148 center rail either. This is 3 rail. Embrace the center rail!

Part of me wonders that if real track were all 3 rail, what would the center rail look like? I'm kind of thinking it would be 3 equal rails with tie plates. Then again outside 3rd rail is totally different so who knows.

How many of you like Ross or Gargraves track? The reason I ask is because it doesn't have tie plates or realistic looking spikes (if at all). For me to build track for others using tie plates and scale spikes is VERY time consuming and would have to be pricey to be worth it. However to hand lay this same track in a style more like those tracks without tie plates could be worthwhile. Again, I'm not saying I'd actually do it. First I'm really seeing it anyone would even use it or if there would be a demand for it.

I still think the Scaletrax looks the best. Once the track is weathered the ribbon rail disappears more than another same sized rail placed down the center of the track, weather it is silver or black.IMHO

handlaid


Scaletrax weathered

I disagree that Scaletrax looks nicer. Then again I'm sure I'm biased for mine and you are biased for Scaletrax!

Mine is as accurate a copy for the real thing that I could do with the exception of a center rail. I only have Scaletrax #4 turnouts and a 45* x-over and no one down here caries it so it's not easy for me to just balast and weather some to compare them side by side. I can do that with Atlas 2R and 3R track though.

I do like the look of Scaletrax. I think each track system has it's strengths and weaknesses. Atlas has the most accurate tie size and spacing but the overly large rail makes it look wrong. Scaletrax has a more believable rail size but the ties are too far apart and the tie plate detail is distracting. Combine each strength and it would be pretty nice.

Then we've got the Ross and Gargraves tracks. These look nice with wood ties but they are too wide and there are no tie plates or spikes on the Gargraves. The Ross track has each tie spiked but they aren't believable and there are no tie plates.

None of these issues with each track system are deal breakers. They can all be made to look very nice. The local club down here uses Gargraves with Ross switches and it's a nice looking setup. Once the rest of the scenery is done, your attention isn't really pulled to each track system and that should be the ultimate goal which is to blend in and not draw attention to itself.

The reality is that there is no way that I could produce a wooden tie system with tie plates and scale spikes and have it be cheap enough to be worth my while of sitting there for that long for each piece. It takes too long and time is money. If tie plates weren't needed and spikes could be like Ross track, I could pull it off but I'm not sure anyone would want it.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
I have code 55 and code 80 n-scale track, code 83 and code 100 HO track that I've taken rail out of, and code 148 rail to play with. The n scale track is pretty darned small. It's not so much a rail width issue but rather a height issue. MTH Scaletrax has a center rail width somewhere slightly smaller than code 83 but obviously it's taller. The code 83 or 100 seem like the best bet although I actually don't mind the equal sized code 148 center rail either. This is 3 rail. Embrace the center rail!

Part of me wonders that if real track were all 3 rail, what would the center rail look like? I'm kind of thinking it would be 3 equal rails with tie plates. Then again outside 3rd rail is totally different so who knows.

How many of you like Ross or Gargraves track? The reason I ask is because it doesn't have tie plates or realistic looking spikes (if at all). For me to build track for others using tie plates and scale spikes is VERY time consuming and would have to be pricey to be worth it. However to hand lay this same track in a style more like those tracks without tie plates could be worthwhile. Again, I'm not saying I'd actually do it. First I'm really seeing it anyone would even use it or if there would be a demand for it.

There's another option if you wanted to use tie plates and spikes on all threee rails -- dual gauge O/On30. The center rail could also be Code 148, wouldn't have to be blackened, and would be offset just enough to support the On30 equipment, but not so far that a third-rail pickup roller would miss it. You'd have some issues with turnouts, but dual-gauge operators have already been dealing with that for years.

Just a thought.

Fred,

I like the look of your track. I think the detail in the tie plates and the wood ties really give it a nice appearance. The center rail will always be the center rail, but overall you have a very believable system.

I need to take it out in direct sunlight and get pictures of it there. The fact that my camera isn't the best doesn't help but combine that with poor lighting and it's just a disaster. I like the track so much that I actually can't stop staring at it! This piece will end up as a display piece for an engine.

I am ordering a jig for straight track and 36" and 41" radiuses so I can lay those. I will probably have to build a jig that will allow me to line up the tie plates. This part is pretty slow to do although it doesn't sound hard. The scale spikes I don't know how to do any faster though. Those guys are just tough. I've lost a few. They are hard to see when looking straight at them. When one goes flying or falls in the carpet, don't even bother looking for it. They are so small that you won't even step on them. They fall through the carpet and are gone forever. I'm also out of tie plates. I only bought enough to get through the test pieces.

Once I get straights and curves down to a reasonable pace, I'll work on turnouts. I also don't see any easy way to join track pieces together other than conventional rail joiners. It's going to be more like N-scale or HO track in that you lay it down and attach it to your bench work. This just isn't going to be snap together track Since I don't have track pins like Ross, Gargraves, or Lionel, the joiners won't hold the track together in their own.

Matt, I think if someone had an integrated dual gauge layout that doing what you suggest may be possible with a little creative wiring. However people that aren't modelling narrow or dual gauges probably wouldn't want it. I model the Iowa countryside and it just won't work for me.

My friend Craig has a large dual gauge O scale layout but all of his track is Code 100 rail which is a bit light for most but looks great for him.

I forgot to mention that I did play with a code 148 piece that didn't have tie plates and instead used ME medium sized spikes. The 3R wheels hit the spike heads. Just barely. They barely miss my scale spikes with tie plates. I need to find some ME small spike to see if they hit those but code 148 with ME medium spikes isn't very promising. It might come down to individual wheel sets though as my Atlas 3R wheels hit but my Lionel don't although they are very close.

quote:

Originally posted by fredswain:
I forgot to mention that I did play with a code 148 piece that didn't have tie plates and instead used ME medium sized spikes. The 3R wheels hit the spike heads. Just barely. They barely miss my scale spikes with tie plates. I need to find some ME small spike to see if they hit those but code 148 with ME medium spikes isn't very promising. It might come down to individual wheel sets though as my Atlas 3R wheels hit but my Lionel don't although they are very close.

You might try H.O. spikes. Not sure if they'll seat properly in the tie plates, though.

I have used gargraves track with the center rail removed and replace with code 100 HO rail inverted and snaped into the center slot. Most 3 rail engines will run on this without modification. The center rail is barely visible.

How did you deal with the transition at the switches?

quote:

Originally posted by Terry L:
I have used gargraves track with the center rail removed and replace with code 100 HO rail inverted and snaped into the center slot. Most 3 rail engines will run on this without modification. The center rail is barely visible.

Pictures? Please

Regards,
Jerry Zeman

I thought we were having a pretty decent dialog here until I read this from the PC E44 thread the 3R forum. I guess I'm just a little confused?

quote:

I thought the comparisons and complaints about the Lionel vs MTH UP Heritage engines was just as funny. At least it was in the 3RS forum.

[snip]

Still though people on that forum, which btw is a forum where people care about everything about their models until it comes to pizza cutter wheels, complained that their issues with the Lionel engine was with the wheels! The one thing that they aren't supposed to care about!

I believe if you re-read the discussion here, the concern about the wheels on the Lionel locomotives of recent manufacture is that they have deeper flanges than the any of the competition. So much so that they bounce through switches on the likes of ScaleTrax or Atlas. No other manufacturer has made the decision to make the flanges deeper other than the Lionel. I hear they are correcting that and that will be most welcome news.

quote:

In the end it's typically a minority of buyers who nit pick which is why manufacturers don't seem to be listening. Why change if most are happy? It would be nice if they got really obvious things corrected though. When they do, it's typically those little mistakes that turn out to be worth a lot later on.

There was a lengthy discussion on the 3R forum about concerns regarding scale models and obvious things that could be corrected but were not - even in future runs. I think you will find that the manufacturers do listen, but likely do not put as much weight to a forum post over a personal note. One of the goals of this forum is to lobby for better quality scale items in O. In the proper venues, there are results.

I guess I just found it a little surprising that this thread is all about the ultimate pursuit of scale track for three rail use, but the very group that has provided a great deal of input gets this kind of treatment on another forum.

Actually my comments go back to well before this thread to a thread several months ago comparing the Lionel vs MTH engines and the heated discussions there. It had nothing to do with this thread. However, in my opinion the Lionel is the hands down better unit with the sole exception of the wheels. That's why I bought it. I compared them directly side by side.

Back on track...

Jack,

quote:

That said, I can't agree with the "sunken into the ties" concept for the center third rail. Just think how difficult switches and road crossings would be

We were talking about a new track system, so the switches and track would all have this. This concept is crucial to a new system, for looks and even to hide the center rail for photography purposes. Most people are not going to rip up their current layout, but I'm sure one day someone new will either join the hobby and consider building a layout.

Looks like we have it here. What' the point of developing a new system to have the 3rd rail be the same level as the outside rails?

quote:

I have used gargraves track with the center rail removed and replace with code 100 HO rail inverted and snaped into the center slot. Most 3 rail engines will run on this without modification. The center rail is barely visible.

Jon,

I agree with what you just wrote. I read that thread, (surprise, we read the other forums) being a sometime PC modeler. I agree Jon, not cool, talking from both sides of the track. One of many interesting rips from Fred was this

quote:

Still though people on that forum

So, Who would that be?

Good luck with the track system Fred.

It actually wasn't meant as an insult to those people here so if it came across that way then I apologize for that. The context of my post was from a standpoint of what matters to people. When it comes to nitpicking you've got to admit that the 3rs forum is where its at. You wouldn't be pursuing a scale accuracy if you weren't nitpicking! Thats not a bad thing.

What I tried to point out is that certain things matter to some more than others. In the case of the engine it was clear that different people put importance on different aspects of it than others and sometimes even other pieces while others don't care.

If I didn't value the overall opinions of the people here, I wouldn't be asking for it. We've each got differing views on some things though and I shouldn't have to defend myself if I think some of them are a bit silly. Some of them are!

The layout on which I used the modified Gargraves track is long gone. I'll try to dig up some photos. As for Switches and grade crossings I Just ramped the center rail up (about 45 degrees seems to work) and shaped the end of the rail into a pin that inserted into the standard gargraves or right of way switch. As I said earlier most engines work on this with out modification as long as they have enough play in the center pickup. Lighted cars present a problem because they seldom allow for enough movement in the pickups.

Thats actually a pretty neat idea Terry. I'll try a piece like that.

If I knew how to post a photo I would do It.

Terry, at the advice of some here I created an account at flickr.com. I was using shutterfly before but couldn't make it work here. Flickr will walk you through the steps necessary to create an account and load pictures. It's actually very easy and very quick. Then you just click on your picture and copy the link to it from the address bar above and link it to your post here. That's all I did. It only took me about 5 minutes to set up. We'd love to see your track!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44395998@N05/4084201506/

Here is the link to the not so good photo. The effect is muted because you are looking down on the track. At eye level the center rail is barely visible

Terry you have your flickr account set to private. We can't see it. Go into the settings and make it public where others can view and comment on your pictures. Only you can modify them though.

Yes please make the pictures public. Your idea is actually something I thought about doing. Seeing a picture of it would be great.

I think I fixed it. Here is a second photo that gives more of a side view

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44395998@N05/4083781819/

quote:

Originally posted by Terry L:
I think I fixed it

Yup, you sure did. The track looks outstanding.

regards,
GNNPNUT

Impressive track Terry! I love the random tie spacing.

Gargraves track likes to give you random tie spacing on curves whether you like it or not. This was a small modular layout. I have used this system on larger layouts and it looked much better. I didn't get to painting the outside rails before I had to dismantle it.

That's, what we are looking for.

Thats pretty nice looking. I'm definitely going to have to play with that.

Pete

The sunken center rail is asking for trouble. If Lionel won't make new diesels with flange dimensions consistent with everything else they have made for about 70 years how are we going to get manufacturers to make locomotives and illuminated cars with sufficient vertical roller travel? What about existing equipment?

quote:

I'm sure one day someone new will either join the hobby and consider building a layout. .........What' the point of developing a new system to have the 3rd rail be the same level as the outside rails?

At that point you are doubling your efforts for half the gain. Why not just go 2 rail?

2 Rail it is.

Gee Pete, that was easy.

I have to agree. When looking at the pictures with the 2 rail trucks and finely detailed track, I thought I saw a 2 railer trying to come out of the closet.

I thought this thread was about the options for improving 3 rail track not whether 2 rail is more realistic than 3 rail. 3 rail is a compromise right from the get go. The approach I used to lower the center rail is one method. It entails lots of compromises. I never much cared for lighted cars so I didn't mind giving up that. The layout I am planning now will probably use Atlas track because I like the look of at better than Gargraves even when modified. I also want to have more options with the equipment I can run. That being said I am busy sawing off the stock couplers on everything I own and considering the fixed pilot option. It's all a trade off. The lowered center rail does work. It doesn't require much modification to the equipment. to compare any 3 rail system to 2 rail misses the point. There is no one answer. Everyone decides what is important to them and lives with the results.

End of rant

Terry, don't worry about it. That is what the thread is about. I was accused of "talking from the other side of the tracks" because I'm not all or nothing when it comes to my view of 3RS. Keep your pics coming. I'd love to see them as it is giving me great ideas. A good friend of mine is 2 rail O and he thinks 3 rail is silly. I don't care though. I like it all. Do what you want but have fun with it.

I'm not worried. I know this is all just fun for most of us. I've been reading this thread and some of the comments about using stud rail. This method seems to me to be easier with nearly the same appearance and, for sure, a lot less modification to the rolling stock. That being said, I experimented with this about 10 years ago and built two layouts using it but I plan not to use it on my next layout because the current track systems are a lot better that what I had to work with 10 years ago. and 2) the passenger cars and other rolling stock that need power from the track are a lot more appealing now and I don't think I want to take on the task of rebuilding all of that.

But I thought the reason you guys kept the third rail is because you like it? I have to tell you I get envious every time I see Hot Water's railroad. I could live with three rail track if I had that kind of scenery and motive power.

For me, there is only one reason for the center rail, and that is because you like it. 99% of all the other reasons for having a center rail, or even an outside third rail, are no longer applicable.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with 3 rail track, but if you would rather have two rail track, it is in fact available, and the equipment changes are not as complicated as you might think.

Hot water has an awesome layout. The fact that it's easy to go to 2 rail or convert isn't really the issue for most people. It really does come down to just wanting 3 rail for some. Nothing more complex than that. It doesn't mean that you still can't pursue everything else being as realistic as possible though. It's creative license as in this little world, railroads all had 3 rails! Some people like it just because of tradition and others just because of ease of wiring. My DCC n scale layout definitely has more complex wiring than a 3 rail layout!

I like it all. I definitely like 2 rail and operate on a friend's large 2 rail O layout from time to time. He thinks 3 rail is just plain silly. He also doesn't like any model railroad that doesn't have a mountain so I get teased by him often for modelling the Iowa countryside and liking 3 rail. He also picks on me for my "tiny" n-scale layout too. I'm not going to tell him about the small z scale setup that I'm building for a friend!

I have layouts in 3 scales. You never know what I'll do next. A 2 rail might be in my future. Who knows? I've just always liked 3 rail but really enjoy a modelling aspect to "model railroading".