I believe the above statement to be true, but like with any truth, it cuts many ways. Now that I've got your attention let me explain how this statement reflects both the negative and positive aspects that have occured in the introduction of this fourm.

In the beginning this forum was the most exciting thing to hit OGR in the short time I’ve been a member, but unfortunately like so many things in real life, the charm quickly devolved into a discussion of what is ‘right’ to post on this forum and what is ‘wrong’.

It seems after many posts that the basic definition that was posted by the webmaster is likely the best description of what this really is all about, “The 3RS movement is dedicated to promoting the very best possible scale model railroading within the limits of the 3-rail world.” It is very hard to beat this definition as it fully describes what this adventure truly is. We live with a third rail and no matter how hard we try to make it go away, it is the fundamental lifeline under which our trains operate. By its very nature, 3RS is a compromise and the third rail is just the beginning. 072 curves have been debated at length on this forum, but let’s face it, scale GG1s look absolutely ridiculous on such a curve since they are articulated near the center. In that sense 072 is yet another compromise. If we are looking for true model fidelity, we are really ought to be in a two rail world and drop the pretense of the 3rd rail altogether.

It is difficult to post anything that violates the unwritten status quo of this forum. Dissenting opinions are quickly mocked and asked to post elsewhere. This is truly unfortunate, because without a good debate nothing innovative can really ever occur. I find this the greatest irony when in my profession everything I design at scale gets built at 1:1. Fidelity becomes a real issue when your scale drawings are translated into real creations. To me, we need to move beyond the singular issues of fixed pilots and scale couplers. These are no doubt laudable goals, but in a 3R world it not always possible or necessary to expect models of perfect fidelity straight from a manufacturer. This market represents the most niche of niche markets and to expect manufacturers to cater to these needs is unrealistic at best. I personally would prefer that manufacturers not exactly model my niche as the personal touch of detailing, weathering, or painting is something that the modeler needs to determine for themselves. I would easily take a very good model at a lower price point that I could make into a great model anyday over having a great model to start that does not represent fully the model I am trying to achieve.

However, these goals are certainly worthy ones. Changing to Kadee style couplers is worthwhile, but is it absolutely necessary? It is interesting to see that manufacturers are providing the coupler pockets required for a conversion with some models and hopefully this trend will continue. Fixed pilots are easily modeled with aftermarket parts or simply by using scratch building materials and details to model the prototype more accurately than a manufacturer ever could.

Standards are important to the extent that they make our hobby more enjoyable, not less so. If manufacturers would simply implement the NMRA standards that have become so prevalent in HO, we wouldn’t even be having most of these discussions. However, certain standards without a range of tolerance create an environment where it is not possible to get the most out of the hobby we all value so much.

As first mentioned, the truth is that everything has three sides, your point of view, my point of view and ultimately the truth. I don’t know where the truth is and neither do you. However, I can say with confidence the following items that have come out of my readings of this forum that have furthered my hobby for the better:

1. I am looking to sell a majority of my non 1:48 train items, which is honestly a small portion of my O collection.

2. When evaluating new purchases, I ask myself, “How will this ultimately fit into my modeling needs?” “Is it the correct scale?” “Is it an accurate representation of the prototype?” “Does it fit with one of the time periods I model?”

3. I am limiting my new rolling stock purchases to accurate scale offerings from the likes of GGD, Weaver, Atlas and the occasional MTH premier item.

4. As funds permit, my primarily Williams fleet of diesels (less than 10) is being upgraded with Atlas offerings as I feel they offer the highest fidelity models for the roads I model.

5. Modeling primarily heavy electric, I have been served well by MTH offerings and while DCS is probably not in my future, they have offered good running models of the railroads I model. One item worth pursuing in this forum is a ‘universal control system’. It is as important, or even more so than the fidelity of the model. All our trains should run together in any configuration we can imagine, like the prototype.

6. I have decided to pre-order for the first time in my life and it is from 3rd Rail as they offer true fidelity in modeling and do it a reasonable price compared to the competition.

I end this on a positive note as I feel this forum can continue to have important discussions about the models and not get stuck on the fundamentals that should be basic to us all. Recent posts such as the best quality PS-1 boxcar or the smaller locomotives that could run on 027 track and be candidates for future 3RS layouts are exactly the kinds of discussions this forum needs. If there is any hope of having manufacturers respect that there is a market for more 2R like locomotives in a 3R world then this forum needs more readers, more traffic and more voices to promote this segment of the hobby. If posters are continually asked to post elsewhere, then the whole forum becomes irrelevant. I am one person who feels that this forum can and should be an important part of the whole 3R modeling discussion.

There really can be no wrong or right question when posting to any forum and this one should be no exception. While it may be appropriate to point someone towards another forum after providing the best answer we have, I think it is our duty as responsible forum members to be as helpful as possible before doing so.

Join with me in welcoming all who wander in here with the best benefit of our knowledge and promote a positive spirit of model railroading in its purest forms.

Thanks for reading.

Jonathan, well said!

John

I concur. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts.

GG-1 4877 wrote:

quote:

6. I have decided to pre-order for the first time in my life and it is from 3rd Rail as they offer true fidelity in modeling and do it a reasonable price compared to the competition.

Jonathan,
Can I take a wild stab in the dark and guess that you are ordering the GG-1 offed by 3rd Rail ?

Yep, I basically only buy 3rd rail and Atlas. Also some 2 rail car kits.

In short, I'd like to see this sub-forum focus more on people's projects and methods of making good looking scale cars out of 3 rail cars and also fixing some of the issues we have with loco's.

For example I shorten the draw bars on all my steamers. I get away with that because I stick to all O81 and greater curves and #5 and #7.5 switches. One of my next projects is figuring a way to get fixed pilots mounted to my older MTH premier F units.

I'm very much so not concerned with the definition of 3RS and what is and isn't included. I'm much more interested and the what and hows of things people are building. I tend to ignore all the posts on "defining 3rs".

Jonathan,

Your posts are always among my favorite posts on the OGR Forum.
In addition to loving the GG-1, I am always interested in the quality of the discussions you promote and, to date, your post comparing GG-1's is the best thread I have seen on OGR.

And that includes mine !

eliot

Eliot,

Thanks for the kind words. Off course when I posted this last night, my simple thought is that we all have received our fair share of criticism on this forum, some deserved and some not. That can really turn someone off the the greatest hobby on earth.

On the flip side, this can be 'dangerous to you hobby' because moving towards higher quality models simply means spending more money and that I have done! I think twice before purchasing these days based on the criteria I posted above. It has certainly led to the notion that more is not better.

Jim - you are correct. I know this would be your surprised face, but I currently have two 4800s pre-ordered and I will likely add the other three shortly on an 'installment' plan. It is too important a model for my collection to risk finding used.

Well said Jonathan

quote:

Originally posted by GG-1 4877:
It is difficult to post anything that violates the unwritten status quo of this forum. Dissenting opinions are quickly mocked and asked to post elsewhere. This is truly unfortunate, because without a good debate nothing innovative can really ever occur...

When I read this part of the post I was beginning to question why I wondered over here, let alone should I even post here. I came to 3-rail from N. I still do N - but years ago I purchased my first Atlas O 3-rail SW-9. Like others, I liked the visible details and heft, but the original control system left a lot to be desired and was problematic.

Then TA Studios offered the conversion to TMCC. I had that done, purchased a Cab1 and Command base and was hooked. But I was amazed at the lack of prototypical modeling in rolling stock from some manufacturers, let alone the toy-like diesel offerings from Lionel. I was just contemplating last night why for so many years Lionel made beautiful scale steam engines but only relatively recently began to produce scale diesels? It seems that only recently have the major 3-rail companies offered the same freight car in multiple road numbers where it is common in HO and N (even though in N you nearly always need a magnifier to read them). It still seems that a LOT of their "standard size" offerings are pure fantasy. Maybe that sells - but not to me.

GG-1 4877 wrote on 1 September 2008:

quote:

Well, this sums it up for me. I'm done with this forum. I expected to learn much here and have come away with so little.

Welcome back.

quote:

It seems after many posts that the basic definition that was posted by the webmaster is likely the best description of what this really is all about, “The 3RS movement is dedicated to promoting the very best possible scale model railroading within the limits of the 3-rail world.”

As I posted in the other thread which seems to have generated so much angst for you and others, many do not feel that the basic definition fits the original intent and purpose of the forum. Personally, I'd rather see Pete Kruimer's 3 Rail Scale Manifesto posted at the top of this forum. It best sums up why I'm here.

quote:

By its very nature, 3RS is a compromise and the third rail is just the beginning. 072 curves have been debated at length on this forum, but let’s face it, scale GG1s look absolutely ridiculous on such a curve since they are articulated near the center. In that sense 072 is yet another compromise. If we are looking for true model fidelity, we are really ought to be in a two rail world and drop the pretense of the 3rd rail altogether.

A real GP9 is capable of going around a 39 degree curve (150' radius) when coupled to a 40' car, or a 21 degree curve (274' radius) when coupled to another GP9. Dividing those radius numbers by 48 gives a radius of 37.5" (O-75) when coupled with a 40' car, and 68.5" (O-137) radius when coupled with another GP9. So, using your analogy, even a two railer should throw any hope of scale fidelity to the wind if he isn't prepared to creep around those radii at 5 MPH, and tolerate a sound system that has flange squealing blaring out of the speaker overriding every other sound. And forget about those 85' passenger cars!

One of the many reasons that I haven't tossed in the towel on three rail is I do like the flexibility offered with sharper curves, and that most out of the box three rail scale equipment can tolerate sharper curves than the equivalent two rail brethern.

This picture sums up for me what three rail scale is all about. Scale size equipment, with some limited compromises, going around an O-88 (44" radius) curve. The two rail guys with an equivalent Oriental Limited loco would need O-120 (60" radius). Look hard and you will see the oversize couplers. They are on their way out, the speed of which that occurs depends on time, motivation, and resources. The overhang is a compromise I can live with, my HO R-2 doesn't look that much better going around my 36" miniumum radius curves, and certainly doesn't have the "presence" of this scale.

quote:

It is difficult to post anything that violates the unwritten status quo of this forum. Dissenting opinions are quickly mocked and asked to post elsewhere. This is truly unfortunate, because without a good debate nothing innovative can really ever occur.

You must have been reading a different forum than I had for the last 1.5 months. Even the thread which popped your safety valve was for the most part what I considered to be level headed discussion, with people on both sides of the issue providing their viewpoint. What is amazing about that thread is when people that have never posted in this forum all of a sudden felt the need to show up and become judge, jury, and executioner. I had to put up with that crap on the other forum. I don't post there anymore. I'm not about to put up with that here.

quote:

To me, we need to move beyond the singular issues of fixed pilots and scale couplers. These are no doubt laudable goals, but in a 3R world it not always possible or necessary to expect models of perfect fidelity straight from a manufacturer. This market represents the most niche of niche markets and to expect manufacturers to cater to these needs is unrealistic at best.

Sorry, but your viewpoint, and mine, are quite opposite on this subject. Yes, I am willing to accept compromises necessary to see a Great Northern R-2 class articulated go around an O-88 curve. I'm also willing to accept compromise at this point to suffer with our current hirail flanges, with the ultimate goal of getting those down to something that isn't quite so obnoxious (but still not NRMA RP compliant, which I can't tolerate in my modular endeavours). I am NOT willing to suffer models where the importer obviously didn't care to sweat the details, expecially with the amount of green us hobbiests lay out to acquire those pieces. Here is an example:

Five years ago, the HO modelers got this:



Luckily, today, due to incessant lobbying by many people, with Pete Kriumer being one of the most active lobbiests, we don't have to put up with three rail models as discussed in This Thread, as a fixed pilot version is available (and almost sold out).

quote:

I personally would prefer that manufacturers not exactly model my niche as the personal touch of detailing, weathering, or painting is something that the modeler needs to determine for themselves. I would easily take a very good model at a lower price point that I could make into a great model anyday over having a great model to start that does not represent fully the model I am trying to achieve.

Nope, sorry, if I was concerned with price, I would have stayed exclusively in HO (which I still do most of my modeling in), where the models are very close to scale, the price is half, the sound quality is approaching what is available in this scale, and they use an industry standard control system. For the price demanded in this scale, I expect the products to be as accurate as possible within the confines of the compromises required to live with O-72 curves, and high flanges. Now if somebody, like Atlas, wants to back off the detail level and offer Trainman equipment (as long as the stuff is to scale), or people like Weaver want to continue to offer their value products, hey, fine by me. But I'm sure not going to accept stuff like Lionel GP7s with a Great Northern paint job worthy of the MPC era. For the price desired for that product, it should have been right. If Atlas doesn't get their act together and offer fixed pilots and Kadee compatable couplers as a factory installed option saving me the expense and / or time required to convert, I'll be done with Atlas for locomotives after my GP9s and F3s in Northern Pacific livery show up (which I'm spending green to convert).

I've got too many modeling "irons in the fire" to put up with stuff from manufacturers that I have to rework, when they should sweat the details and get it right out of the box.

quote:

However, these goals are certainly worthy ones. Changing to Kadee style couplers is worthwhile, but is it absolutely necessary? It is interesting to see that manufacturers are providing the coupler pockets required for a conversion with some models and hopefully this trend will continue. Fixed pilots are easily modeled with aftermarket parts or simply by using scratch building materials and details to model the prototype more accurately than a manufacturer ever could.

Have you ever tried to convert a GP9 to fixed pilots? Maybe you have the time and intestional fortitude to go through with that conversion, I do not. Having to research, and then figure out how to take apart a $400.00 plus model to do something that should have been done in the first place is not my idea of modeling, it is my idea of a manufacturer not willing to do the research in his design for manufacturability that allows for interchange of components between 2 rail, hirail, and 3 rail scale. Every hour I have to waste doing that work is one less hour building my home railroad, weathering motive power and equipment, or building modules to run my 3RS equipment on.

I can see having to perform that work on a five year old Lionel S-4 (one of the finest diesel models they ever made IMHO), not on something I purchase today.

I'll concede that there is a certain "grey zone" that I don't want to see excluded, such as the great modeling by Drew Madiera. His layout forces him into certain compromises, and that is something that Drew and others can choose to live with, and I most certainly hope they continue to post here. But when others show up recommending Marx switches, and beeps, I don't know whether that is toy train or hirail, but it sure as heck isn't three rail scale, and it sure doesn't belong here.

quote:

Standards are important to the extent that they make our hobby more enjoyable, not less so. If manufacturers would simply implement the NMRA standards that have become so prevalent in HO, we wouldn’t even be having most of these discussions.

Yup, in total agreement here.

quote:

However, certain standards without a range of tolerance create an environment where it is not possible to get the most out of the hobby we all value so much.

Nope, sorry, if I feel that content is diluting the original intent and purpose of this forum, I have just as much right as a forum participant and OGR subscribe to question that content, as long as it is done in a professional and cordial way, as you do in disagreeing with me.

quote:

As first mentioned, the truth is that everything has three sides, your point of view, my point of view and ultimately the truth. I don’t know where the truth is and neither do you. However, I can say with confidence the following items that have come out of my readings of this forum that have furthered my hobby for the better: 1,2,3,4,5,6

Great plan, you and I are headed in the same direction.

quote:

I end this on a positive note as I feel this forum can continue to have important discussions about the models and not get stuck on the fundamentals that should be basic to us all. Recent posts such as the best quality PS-1 boxcar or the smaller locomotives that could run on 027 track and be candidates for future 3RS layouts are exactly the kinds of discussions this forum needs.

Sorry, but your view and mine don't jive here. I'm not prepared to suffer any compromise in a model to allow it to run on O-27. For that matter, where I am headed in this scale, I'm not willing to suffer with O-54 compatability unless the manufacturer offers an easy way to convert to fixed pilots, or offers a factory option that meets my needs.

Yes, the PS-1 box car thread is appropriate, and very interesting. But we shouldn't care if those cars will go around O-27 curves. We SHOULD care about how easy it is to convert that car to Kadees, and a post on just how that is accomplished would be most appreciated.

quote:

If there is any hope of having manufacturers respect that there is a market for more 2R like locomotives in a 3R world then this forum needs more readers, more traffic and more voices to promote this segment of the hobby. If posters are continually asked to post elsewhere, then the whole forum becomes irrelevant. I am one person who feels that this forum can and should be an important part of the whole 3R modeling discussion.

Yes, forum traffic can promote the perception that 3RS is a growing movement. At the end of the day, what really gets the manufacturer's attention is the almighty dollar. I'm spending my $$ on product that meets my needs. If the manufacturers don't meet my needs, they don't get my $$.

You really don't have to worry about the likes of me driving people away from 3RS. The current HO scale offerings are already doing that, at half the cost, and quantum leaps at scale fidelity as compared to what most offerings look like in three rail dress.

Thanks for reading,

Jerry Zeman

I was thinking of gettin that new Lionel "postwar" GG-1. But with HTOS having a layout with at least O-72 mains, I am looking at getting a Williams scale unit.

Again, the layout size issue crops up. People might buy scale itesm more often IF:

1. They have the room to run them, or a club layout to come to.
2. Scale does not ALWAYS mean 4-8-8-4's. There has been some small scale stuff out there, that is nicely detailed, and can run on prtotypically tight curves.
3. Education about earlier periods, in which the rolling stock was so small one might think of it as "Narrow Gauge", ever though it ran on 56.5" track.
4. would operating a layout like a REAL railroad come under this group?
5. Remember: YOU are the FRA of YOUR railroad, and ONLY your railroad.

4877: Welcome back. Good post.

quote:

Originally posted by GG-1 4877:
If we are looking for true model fidelity, we are really ought to be in a two rail world and drop the pretense of the 3rd rail altogether.

Don't be looking to us for any real sanctuary.

Why, just this morning, I was lamenting the fact I cannot get into the P:48 club because my trains are sporting dependable but unprototypical Kadees.

It'll never end.

-rrick

quote:

4. would operating a layout like a REAL railroad come under this group?

Why wouldn't it?

quote:

I believe the above statement to be true,

I politely disagree. I think your statement further puts people at odds instead of bringing them together. Although, I hope there is some resolution for you and others after they this thread.

quote:

It is difficult to post anything that violates the unwritten status quo of this forum. Dissenting opinions are quickly mocked and asked to post elsewhere. I don’t know where the truth is and neither do you.

And...

quote:

If posters are continually asked to post elsewhere, then the whole forum becomes irrelevant.

I know of this happening one time,to which I still believe it was a misunderstanding. I find the above statement to be an exaggeration.

quote:

5. Modeling primarily heavy electric, I have been served well by MTH offerings and while DCS is probably not in my future, they have offered good running models of the railroads I model. One item worth pursuing in this forum is a ‘universal control system’. It is as important, or even more so than the fidelity of the model. All our trains should run together in any configuration we can imagine, like the prototype.

There is no need to "pursue" the ‘universal control system’ on this forum. I don't know where this subject belongs but it doesn't belong here. Number 1, most of us will probably not live to see the day when there is a ‘universal control system’ in 3 rail trains and number 2) The manufacturers not the hobbyists would have to get together and do this. Right now NONE of them feel it is in their benefit to do this so IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. No sense even talking about it. If you want to discuss it get in touch with the manufacturers by letter or word of mouth. Let us know how you make out. Oh, and be careful if you accomplish something because when you're done doing all the work there will always be those who will be completely unsympathetic for everything you've done for them and the good of the hobby. They will let you know of their displeasure right here.


Johnathan, from reading your post I think you are a nice, sincere guy but I can't help but feeling you've overreacted. Three Rail Scale is not exclusionary by any one person or persons. It can be exclusionary because it requires more space than traditional 3R hi-rail or O27 trains. Is that statement I just wrote true? Yes, for the most part it is. Are there any other views? Yes, there will always be a few folks either interested in traction or some small scale equipment that can do 3RS with smaller curves. My point is if you want to do what most folks are doing in this hobby and do it with 3RS in mind it IS going to require some more space. The only other thing that might be exclusionary in 3RS is money. It might not be in everyone's budget to only buy scale equipment. It does cost more.

If you want 3RS to include tinplate couplers, tight curves, swinging pilots, gaps between pilots and between frames and trucks then this forum should be deleted right now! "Changing to Kadee style couplers is worthwhile, but is it absolutely necessary?" No, I agree with you that it is not absolutely necessary, however then you are a hi-railer who does not have a passionate interest in 3RS. Does that mean you cannot post here? No, of course not! Does that mean you are any less of modeler or hobbyist? No, of course not! I always say there are many ways to go about this hobby and NONE of them are wrong. If you don't wand KDs that is YOUR CHOICE and you are certainly entitled to it. My point is this forum was created for the guys who DO have a passion for the ultimate scale modeling in 3 rail. If this forum is to contain threads for O27 trains and tinplate couplers then I ask you what is it's purpose here? Then we should go back to the way things were with one 3R forum.

Trevize wrote:

quote:

For example I shorten the draw bars on all my steamers. I get away with that because I stick to all O81 and greater curves and #5 and #7.5 switches. One of my next projects is figuring a way to get fixed pilots mounted to my older MTH premier F units.

I'm very much so not concerned with the definition of 3RS and what is and isn't included. I'm much more interested and the what and hows of things people are building. I tend to ignore all the posts on "defining 3rs".

This is what 3RS is all about folks!!

quote:

Personally, I'd rather see Pete Kruimer's 3 Rail Scale Manifesto posted at the top of this forum. It best sums up why I'm here.

HERE, HERE!! I agree 1,000%!!!

I would also like to disagree with GG-1's comment about dropping 3-rail and moving to 2-rail. When I changed from HO to O scale 3-rail, it was mainly for the sounds! Back in the mid to late 1980s, I was begining to put sound in some of my more expensive brass HO steam locomotive models. I very quickly discovered how expensive it was!!

I then discovered MTH in the early 1990s, and although their sound sometimes was not exactly correct for THAT given model, I quickly began to see the potential of 3-rail scale steam locomotives. Not to mention that, I could lay MTH snap-together track (072 min.) all over the living room floor and our grandson and I could run the SP 4449 and UP Challenger to our heart's content. I also began offering advice to the MTH technical folks concerning CORRECT steam sounds (whistles, 4-chuffs per rev., bells, etc.).

I now have a fair sized 3RS/Os3R layout up stairs with large enough curves to operate large articulated steam locomotives and 21" scale passenger cars, none of which I could afford if they were 2-rail! Plus, the really high end 2-rail brass steam models generally still don't come with sound anyway!

So, the bottom line for me is, when I'm done with a long 3 to 5 week trip on SP 4449, or UP 844/3985, I can take an adult beverage up stairs and STILL operate my 4449, 844, and 3985 with all the correct sounds! I would not be able to do that with 2-rail O scale!

Also, following up on GNNPNUT's comments above, concerning fixed pilots for diesels; I'm not about to waste my modeling time converting the few diesels that I own to fixed pilots! I've read all the posts about that, and frankly I'd rather be working on my steam models or rolling stock. I believe the manufacturers SHOULD indeed offer fixed pilots/scale couplers as an option, which I would be fine with paying extra for!

Maybe the term should be "OS3R" O scale on 3 rails.

quote:

Maybe the term should be "OS3R" O scale on 3 rails.

This what most of us guys that were pushing for wanted to call it, but there were some people thought 3RS sounded better.

quote:

If we are looking for true model fidelity, we are really ought to be in a two rail world and drop the pretense of the 3rd rail altogether.

Sorry Jonathan, but I for one decided to use 3R for operational free hassles. I know a lot of guys running On30 and they have more down time with this short or that short so I say NO to modeling in 2 rail.

quote:

Fixed pilots are easily modeled with aftermarket parts or simply by using scratch building materials and details to model the prototype more accurately than a manufacturer ever could.

Well you might like to make your own pilots etc, but I rather spend my time building my layout and creating buildings to populate it rather than trying to make scale parts the Mfg. already do. I'll tell you what, since you like making this kind of detail, I'll send you 30 engine for you to convert for me.

quote:

It is interesting to see that manufacturers are providing the coupler pockets required for a conversion with some models and hopefully this trend will continue.

Well if many of us scale guys, Like Pete didn't push for these improvements I doubt that we would see these today.

quote:

Standards are important to the extent that they make our hobby more enjoyable, not less so. If manufacturers would simply implement the NMRA standards that have become so prevalent in HO, we wouldn’t even be having most of these discussions. However, certain standards without a range of tolerance create an environment where it is not possible to get the most out of the hobby we all value so much.

This has been the entire point we 3RS/Os3R guys are trying to define. With all the differences between manufactures offerings by each of them deciding on setting their own specs on stuff. (i.e Lionel wheels flange depth comes to mind here) and you being an architect should for one understand having a defined set of standards. It would be like someone building a building to whatever they had on hand without any regard to codes.

quote:

Modeling primarily heavy electric, I have been served well by MTH offerings and while DCS is probably not in my future, they have offered good running models of the railroads I model. One item worth pursuing in this forum is a ‘universal control system’. It is as important, or even more so than the fidelity of the model. All our trains should run together in any configuration we can imagine, like the prototype.

Well as many have already posted before me THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! I would also say that the control system part of the equation doesn't involve scale except for maybe operational/ prototypical speeds and would fall under the Control systems section of the forum, not 3RS.

One last note is, I agree with Phil's comment from above quoted here:

quote:

Johnathan, from reading your post I think you are a nice, sincere guy but I can't help but feeling you've overreacted. Three Rail Scale is not exclusionary by any one person or persons. It can be exclusionary because it requires more space than traditional 3R hi-rail or O27 trains. Is that statement I just wrote true? Yes, for the most part it is. Are there any other views? Yes, there will always be a few folks either interested in traction or some small scale equipment that can do 3RS with smaller curves. My point is if you want to do what most folks are doing in this hobby and do it with 3RS in mind it IS going to require some more space. The only other thing that might be exclusionary in 3RS is money. It might not be in everyone's budget to only buy scale equipment. It does cost more.

If you want 3RS to include tinplate couplers, tight curves, swinging pilots, gaps between pilots and between frames and trucks then this forum should be deleted right now! "Changing to Kadee style couplers is worthwhile, but is it absolutely necessary?" No, I agree with you that it is not absolutely necessary, however then you are a hi-railer who does not have a passionate interest in 3RS. Does that mean you cannot post here? No, of course not! Does that mean you are any less of modeler or hobbyist? No, of course not! I always say there are many ways to go about this hobby and NONE of them are wrong. If you don't wand KDs that is YOUR CHOICE and you are certainly entitled to it. My point is this forum was created for the guys who DO have a passion for the ultimate scale modeling in 3 rail. If this forum is to contain threads for O27 trains and tinplate couplers then I ask you what is it's purpose here? Then we should go back to the way things were with one 3R forum.

quote:

If we are looking for true model fidelity, we are really ought to be in a two rail world and drop the pretense of the 3rd rail altogether.

But this questions the very premise of three rail scale, which ought to prompt one to ask why he's even here. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're here and urge you to stay. But arguments like this do nothing to contribute to three rail scale. Its the "close enough" or "they're only toys" mindset that holds back three rail in general and will hold back three rail scale in particular. And THAT is what many of us here on the three rail scale forum object to. Since the third rail is not prototypical (yes, we all get that by now), why bother with scale sized fuel tanks, proper truck placement, flush mounted window glazing, let alone with things like fixed pilot options? The list of things manufacturers could cut corners on in the name of three rail unrealism goes on and on. This forum focuses on what can be done better and more accurately in three rail, both by the manufacturer and the individual hobbyist. And in that sense too, three rail scale is "exclusionary." We ask is it accurate? Can it be better; more accurate? If one is indifferent to those sorts of things, three rail scale probably is not for you.

Yes, there is a third rail under this engine. But why does that render my efforts at "true model fidelity" unworthy or require me to go two rail? Why can't I push the modeling envelope this far without having to rip up my existing track or forfeit the benefits of three rail operation? Pushing the bar as far as possible this way is what three rail scale ultimately is all about. Its not for everyone (and not all my engines have fixed pilots or scale couplers; its not an easy job at all), but its perverse to suggest that greater accuracy is misguided just because the third rail remains.

RM

quote:

Originally posted by tumbleweed381:
Maybe the term should be "OS3R" O scale on 3 rails.

Wholeheartedly agree.

regards,
Jerry Zeman