 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
The O Gauge Railroading On-Line Forum The "3RS" Forum WARNING: Posting to this forum can be dangerous to your hobby!|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
I use realtrax too... 3RS is all in the eyes of the beholder imho Is it real, or is it K-line TCA - 06-60013 |
||||
|
Alex W,
I got ALL THOSE SUBJECTS off the O gauge forum in the last 30 minutes!!! |
||||
|
Paul, Yes, you are in the club. Now next time you buy an MTH diesel think seriously about one with fixed pilots. Next time you buy an Atlas diesel do the same. And let both companies know you would like three railers to have the option out of the box (MTH is almost there, but there's still the problem of having to swap wheels). As for those short corrugated autoracks, they are the only game in town. Lower them, move the trucks to where they belong and even consider Kadee couplers. As for your track, it sounds to me like you've licked the age-old problem of hiding the third rail. RM |
||||
|
Quote - "I get it. Our thoughts are crap and your thoughts are opinions. But points for your classy style."
You are welcome. I was coarse on purpose. It takes a lot before I write anything negative - and then I don't preface a criticism with a disingenuous statement saying how my post isn't personal... Quote - "I see you are new to the forum and off to a good start. Don't be so quick to pop into the forum and be judge and jury." Why? Because only the forum bully can be judge and jury - and lecture? Guys like you are always the same - and every forum seems to have at least one of you. What number of posts are necessary before the rest of us can be permitted to recognize your bad behavior for what it is? Thanks, but I've seen enough - at least for a while. Jeff C |
||||
|
More than 22. What say ye, the rest of the forum? Am I the big bad mean bully? I have to say, your contributions up to this point have been...stellar. We'll miss you. Jonathan and I were indeed having an "interesting" exchange, and we have seemed to have worked it out. You fired the first volley at me, but... Just in case you did not read the rest, as I made an attempt: The purchase of the first run -2 MTH SD70ACe does not solve the gap problem, as the engine still has a large gap between the trucks and frame. I and many of us pushed MTH hard to correct this for quite some time on the 3R board, and took much grief. (As a matter of fact, took a lot of grief over the years on the 3R Board, which will help explain to you our efforts here). First, understand that the MTH SD70ACe did in fact measure up pretty close to scale in regards to height and length, which was a good thing. But, MTH chose to narrow the ibeam that runs along the length of the frame by half in order to accomodate the trucks on this engine to take 4% grades or more. The two rail guys filed down the nubs on the top of the truck mounts to eliminate the gap, but left them with a "non scale" engine. If you purchased the 2nd run of the SD70ACe, this may have eliminated the gap between the trucks and frame, but left another problem, not solved but compounded. The engine did not scale to the correct height. (Of course not noticed by the naked eye) While the engine rides lower, the narrow ibeam became more of an eye sore. Compare it to your Lionel (which I have done somewhere on here) and you'll see the difference right away. Lionel has the correct width. (Jeff--any idea why Lionel may have improved the gap on this model? Wink ) ( I think all my gap archives are gone, but you missed the E7 "excitement" So, for 3RS, a purchase of either of these models did not solve a problem. MTH is still working the kinks out. While the fixed pilot does visually hide the gap better, most of the problem now lies with missing under body details for many new models. This is what we have to work on the manufactures next. I do think a 3RS fixed pilot engine (an Atlas or the new MTH Dash 8)would look even better than a Lionel floating pilot loc around those wide curves and stud rail track! We've heard time and again about how 3RS cannot be defined or cannot be defined narrowly because of all the divergent viewpoints. 3RS must be defined, at least more rigidly than it is now. This does not mean there cannot be many different opinions on modeling etc. Kadee couplers, fixed pilots, scale dimensions, etc. are mandatory for 3RS. Some models simply aren't 3RS, like the Lionel SD70ACe. Does not mean I don't love it or own one, but it is not 3RS. Fix the pilot and add a scale coupler, it's the best model out there. Attempting to torpedo or refuse to acknowledge the definition does not change the facts that many models are not accurate representations of the prototype. How can anyone argue that huge hi-rail couplers and swinging pilots with gaps (of any size?) are the "best possible scale model railroading within the limits of the 3-rail world ", Big Grin when we already have three-rail models that use Kadees and fixed pilots? This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pete Kruimer, |
||||
|
I think that the negative attitudes you describe can be found among model railroaders in many scales. Those that strive for scale fidelity the most tend to be the most intolerant of opposing view points and of anything that doesn't meet the level of accuracy that they feel is necessary to be true scale model railroaders. This isn't always the case, but if you have ever read Model Railroader, which I used to subscribe to, you will always read someone's comments bashing other modelers efforts. It's unfortunate that some people can't accept those that don't model at the same level. I don't think it will ever change. I just disregard the negatives and enjoy my hobby the way I want to enjoy it. It's my money, my hobby, I don't care what others think I should be doing. You are right on target with your post.
I consider myself a 3RS modeler. I probably won't post much to this forum because I feel that there are many that will not accept anything less than Command Control, high end locos and rolling stock and Ross switches as being true 3RS. I have all scale or very close to scale items. However, my locos are mostly Williams, I don't have TMCC or DCS and don't ever plan on going that route. I use tube track on one layout and will use my Gargraves on another. I do detail my loco's to make them a little more accurate, but I'm not a rivet counter. I do plan on scenicing my layout to the highest level of detail that I can achieve, though I don't expect it to win any awards. I have learned a lot by being a member of this forum and enjoy participating. I think I will stay with the 3-rail forum though, I have found it to meet my needs. Good luck to all of you that strive for something more. Perhaps it will enrich the hobby for all of us. Be Specific, Ship Union Pacific! Mike DeSandro |
||||
|
 |
Jeff, Yes, this can be a tough place to visit and I've checked out myself for a while as has been duly noted a few times in this thread. However, know you are always welcome here. As Pete mentioned, we indeed had a lively exhange and we may not agree 100% on everything, but that is okay. However, please don't misinterpret this conversation in anything more than people who are extremely passionate about this aspect of the hobby. Are we so passionate about this that tempers flare on occassion? Absolutely! I don't fully appreciate what it has taken to get O manufacturers to even get to the point as I have not been in 0 that long. And really why should they? With PWC, Conventional Classics and Railking products flying off the shelves the bottom line is that without a strong and sometimes brutal lobby to keep scale front and center, we wouldn't have anything close to affordable in this scale. I can't agree more that we vote with our wallet in our choices as that is the market at work. Think of it like the Monty Python Argument Sketch and I think this whole thread makes sense. Did I post this thread to stur the pot. Of course I did, there is no denying that! However, the conversation that has come out of this has helped define more of what this is about and I do want to be a part of it even in my sometimes rambling and contradictory ways. So Jeff, come back soon and participate. The last thing anyone wants to do here is alienate someone from asking for better quality models from our favorite manufacturers. Mike, in spite of all this, if memory serves me (and it doesn't always), I don't think anyone has said this forum is a modeling competition. Certainly I would like to think I'm a master modeler and sometimes I am. Other times ... not so much so. I use a photography analogy again - "The difference between a professional photographer and an amateur photographer is that the professional knows when to throw something away." That squarely puts me in the amateur column on many an occassion. It's great to hear you are happy with your modeling. Enjoying your hobby is the purpose of all of this in the end. As usual, I have neither been brief, nor concise. I need to work on that. Jonathan Peiffer TCA 01-53047 Modeling the Arizona Subdivisions of the CNJ and PRR  |
|||
|
I do enjoy reading and educating myself with this and other topics found on this forum. I was thinking of starting another thread on this but I will place my question here. I wonder whether the passion towards scale fidelity is because one may be a passionate rail fan taking trips to see real 1:1 trains and others may be less passionate because they seldom see a real train? I for one enjoy the detail and history of trains; however, I am not motivated currently to research the prototype or take a train excusion (unless I trip over it in the course of doing something else) and I purchased the glacier Z6 GN knowing that GN only had that engine in black. I liked the appearance of the engine more in a its colorfull scheme. I did purchase the Acela, the DC PCC, and have the Orient Express on preorder because I have ridden those trains and I purchased a CSX diesel because I see them weekly. I select engines to purchase because of a desire to have models of the many types of engines (steam or diesel) that have made our country great.
|
||||
|
Win,
Would have been a great thread. I have always lived near the WestShore, and "accidently" can see 6 trains a day. My Uncle worked for the railroad, as well as my grandfather, who was also a Trolley Car "driver". 2 Good friends of mine are engineers, and I have taken many a cab ride on the Suzie Q. My boys and I spend many days at the yards but mostly on the mainline when we are all off from sports together. In my N Scale days, I would carefully photograph many freight cars, as Micro Trains would manufacture the road name if you provided them with complete detailed marking info. |
||||
|
Nice story Pete. I understand your attention to detail. I only have three train memories other than the packages I would get at Christmas: My grandfather taking me from the Silver Spring station with its very large B&O (I think) steamer to go to the Charlestown race track with the noise of the steamer they attached (I assume at Brunswick to up to Charlestown), the GG1 that fell into the Union Station basement, and when at Engain Les Bains (north of Paris) train station I tried to look down the stack of a steamer and got a face full of soot.
 |
||||
|
 |
No wonder why you won't go on a train excursion unless you trip over it! Johnathan, Thank you for explaining what a "Loonie" is. I appreciate the info. 2 railer but respectful to 3 railers! Happy Railroading Everyone! Stilll waiting for 1:48 scaled autos.... Phil |
|||
|
Mike, I've thus far avoided stepping into this quagmire, but I feel I should respond to your sentiments. Pete's manifesto lays it all out in these two sentences: "...3RS is all about the trains and nothing but the trains. A 3RS locomotive or car will be 3RS irrespective of its environment, whether it is operated on a completely detailed and scenicked HiRail layout, run on a circle of tubular track on a bare floor, or just sitting on its flanges on a shelf." You are into hi-rail. All hi-railers are not necessarily into 3RS although they certainly could be. The flip side is that those into 3RS are not necessarily hi-railers. |
||||
|
Dennis, Hi-rail has typically been defined as running toy trains in a realistic setting. I don't have any semi-scale trains or toy like operating accessories and I am building a highly detailed fully sceniced layout. I have considered myself a hi-railer since I got back into 3-rail about eight years ago, until the '3RS' idea was introduced. I now consider myself a 3-rail scale modeler because that title fits my approach much better.
Based on "Pete's manifesto", at what point is a car or locomotive deemed '3RS'? Why are we basing everything on Pete's definition and not the one Rich posted?  The '3RS' moniker would suggest that it is an idea above hi-rail. That hasn't really been agreed upon since the whole '3RS' thing really took off. I say this because according to what Rich posted; "The 3RS movement is dedicated to promoting the very best possible scale model railroading within the limits of the 3-rail world", and what you posted as "Pete's Manifesto", these definitions don't agree. "The very best possible scale model railroading", doesn't mean everything that rolls on the tracks, it means everything in the environment. Scenery, track, structures, operations, etc., are all part of the model railroading environment. It would seem that '3RS' would be all scale equipment, scale structures, and scale vehicles and be accurately sceniced, whereas hi-rail would have toylike operating accessories and semi-scale equipment mixed with scale items and somewhat accurate scenery. Basically the way I see it, '3RS' is just like the two rail scale world but with a third rail. Jonathan, I didn't say this forum was a modeling competition, nor was it implied. Basically what I said is that there will be those that will make it that way and that's why I'll stay at a safe distance and proceed with caution here. I've seen it for a long time in the two-rail world, which I've been in since I was about seven years old, that's about 31 years ago. I'm not bashing anyone for striving for something better, but invariably there will be comments that will offend some and possibly discourage those that visit here. That was the jist of my post. It would seem that you and Dennis have taken offense to my comments. I can't imagine why you would as I didn't feel there was any inflammatory content. I posted again to clarify my position and to get some clarification to the whole '3RS' thing, which based on the numerous definitions floating around still seems a little vague. Be Specific, Ship Union Pacific! Mike DeSandro |
||||
|
|
|
Mike, Absolutely no offense was taken whatsoever. No worries there! I re-read my response and I meant it to be encouraging. I can certainly see now that it was not communicated well. Suffice it to say, this imperfect form of communication relies on our skills as writers. Scary  En Paz, Jonathan Peiffer TCA 01-53047 Modeling the Arizona Subdivisions of the CNJ and PRR |
|||
|
Wow, Mike, you totally misconstrued my intent. Like Jonathan, I did not take offense at your comments. I was only trying to clarify something. You're right about one thing. Pete's definition and the one posted by Rich are different however they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Like I said, Pete's definition is all about the model. It has nothing to do with the environment. And I've cited Pete's definition because he's the one who pushed for this forum. No offense meant to Rich but his definition causes exactly the kind of confusion that you're having right now. I'm an avid hi-railer. And I consider my layout scale except for the three rail track. I don't care for the oversize couplers and large wheel flanges but I do try to use only scale sized equipment. However, I'm not about to convert my scale rolling stock to Kadee couplers so I'm not 3RS. As I see it, for me 3RS would be extreme hi-rail. For my take on Hi-Rail, check out my article in the November (next)issue of CTT. Dennis Brennan |
||||
|
There are good and bad on both sides of the equation. On the HO side, there is definitely the short issue. On my HO railroad, most of the time this is the result of somebody (including me) running into a closed switch. I purposely cut my gaps as close to the frog as possible to minimize these occurances. On one of my friends layout, he paints yellow on the sides of the rails so that everybody knows where the fouling points are, and they are well ahead of the gaps. I've spent a fair amount of time "tuning" my switches to keep back to back shorts to a minimum. I have zero issues with this on my railroad with diesels, and only occasionally on my steam with trailing trucks on reverse moves. I do not have any "DCC friendly" switches installed at this time, nor do I wire the frogs for better electrical conductivity. All of my rolling stock has metal wheels, which I check with an NMRA gauge. Most of my rolling stock is weighted to NMRA standards, or even a little heavier. Kadees are all checked with a height gauge. Any operational problems with a car, and the car gets switched out to the RIP track for a going over. HO, and I would assume On30 need more attention to ensure reliable operation. Now on to the three rail. On reverse moves, I have more problems with the three rail stuff, largely because of the truck mounted couplers, and on my my steam engines, with the trailing truck jackknifing because the drawbar is connected to the trailing truck, and not the frame. I would like to body mount the drawbar, but need to do some tests to ensure that I can still get through an O-72 curve without problem. I lamented enough about what I feel is the better reliability of DCC vs. TMCC / DCS. I'm a little less vocal about that now, as I and others that I model with are gaining quite a bit of experience with the quirks of these two systems, and what needs to be done to minimize or eliminate problems. One issue where three rail wins hands down is the issue of "size does matter". The older I get, the harder it is to detail HO scale models, place the cars on the track, and for that matter, even see the details. In this regard, O wins hands down. Both scales are a lot of fun. But if I absolutely had to choose between the two, I'd still choose HO. There is simply way too much more variety in equipment available, and the stuff I purchase is as close to scale as it can be within the limitations required when scaling down something 87 times, and making it operate on a 30" minimum radius (some of my steam requires that). regards, Jerry Zeman |
||||
|
Jerry
Last night I got to run a legacy Big Boy at the outdoor Woodshire RR. I had the inside main while a DCS controlled train ran on the outside main track. Both control systems worked very well together and the combined price is still well below what it would cost to run DCC on a layout that size. I need to get used to Cab II but am getting better with operating it one handed. I am impressed with the potential for prototypical switching operations with DCS and Legacy. When the sun set it was time to tie up the trains. The Woodshire yard is indoors in a garage. To reach it I had to make a reverse move through a crossover (two stainless steel GarGraves O-100 switches) to the outside main and then through the wye (two more GarGraves O-100 switches) and across the viaduct into the yard where I put the train on to an outside track. The yard has an RCS 8 track switch set. I backed the train through at least three facing point and three trailing point switches. I had no derailments making the reverse move, which I regard as typical at the Woodshire. In fact, I recall no derailments at all that evening. My train consisted of about 20 piggyback flat cars. Before anyone suggests this was unprotypical, remember the UP has used a Challenger to pull double stacks. Therefore I feel no worries about using a Big Boy with a TOFC train. I believe the cars were mostly MTH. All had truck mounted post war sized knuckle couplers. I wonder why your experience has been so troublesome. I have rarely seen a rear tender truck derail on a reverse move. Is this happening with the die cast Vanderbilt tender on your R-2? Is it happening on locomotives with relatively light brass tenders? Could the poor slow speed control on the TMCC I in older brass locomotives be compounding that problem? Are derailments happening on older switches? One model RR I run on had chronic problems at crossovers and a yard lead that were largely eliminated with the replacement of some older GarGraves switches with new Ross double slips. If you have specific locomotives or cars that are problem children I'd like to see if I can duplicate the problem. My experience with derailments has been infrequent with newer 3 rail equipment, even when making reverse moves through fairly complicated track work as long as the switches are top quality with good layout design and installation work. I wonder if some of your problems might come from other sources than truck mounted couplers. I’d hate to see you put all the time and effort into changing out couplers and still have operational problems. Check out the current weekend photo fun. Dave H has some O. Winston Link like photos of the Big Boy just before we called it a night. |
||||
|
Kanasket wrote:
To be honest about it, I can't ever remember doing a reverse move with my MTH R-2, haven't run it enough. I think that might have a frame mounted drawbar. My problems are exclusively with Third Rail equipment, specifically my Z-5, Z-6, and Z-8. I THINK that my A class northerns are designed the same way, but I don't remember having problems there. Gotta dig them out of the case. It isn't trackwork. This occurs when I back up on straight track! There is so much force on the drawbar of these locos, transmitted through the trailing truck, that the trailing truck cocks, and the wheels ride up the flange, derail, and then short out across the center to whichever outside rail it decided to ride up on. When I'm making these moves, there is usually at least 20 cars on the train. There is no "alignment control" on the trailing truck, and there is simply too much drawbar force going through this assembly for the design that is used. Today, it is raining like a cow urinating on a flat rock in Chicago, so it is a perfect day to crawl down into the basement and do some research. Hopefully, that research won't involve mopping the basement. As far as the cars, it is strictly a weight issue, and involves Weaver equipment, and one older Intermountain car. If those aren't buried in the back of the train, they will jackknife, once again, because of the excessive drawbar force. regards, Jerry |
||||
|
Jonathan, Dennis, Okay, I see no ill feelings on your part. None on mine either, never was.
"Extreme hi-rail" sounds cool, I like that better than 3RS. I'll stay confused about 3RS a while longer and go finish painting the trucks on my new streamliners. There's no confusion there, they definitely need some work. You know how Williams stuff is. Be Specific, Ship Union Pacific! Mike DeSandro |
||||
|
Jerry,
Thanks for your time and the insightful post. SW |
||||
|
Subsets:
O gauge: O Scale O scale 3RS or O Gauge O Hirail O Scale 3RS? |
||||
|