3-Rail track could be redesigned to look more like 2-rail


ChinaHaun19

Active Member
I never thought of this before but when watching my O gauge train run today, I realized something. All 3 rails are several millimeters high as you all know... Maybe 7mm or so. I thought that maybe they could shorten the middle (3rd) rail significantly so that it is just 2 millimeters high. All this would require is that the pickup wheels under the locomotive would extend further down under the engine. So this would still be 3-rail track but the 3rd rail would be so short that it just looks like an elegant metal stripe running down the center between the two prominent rails.
 
And every time you hit a turnout, it would tear the pickup wheels out from under the center of the locomotive, or derail it.
Back in the 1940s or so, people moved the third rail outside the gauge of the track, and mounted it to one side. It was still there, but not as noticeable.

 
And every time you hit a turnout, it would tear the pickup wheels out from under the center of the locomotive, or derail it.
Back in the 1940s or so, people moved the third rail outside the gauge of the track, and mounted it to one side. It was still there, but not as noticeable.


Thanks for this video. That is a serious and old school layout club... I could not easily see the 3rd rail in the video due to distance of the shot.

So, you are basically saying that the laws of physics are in the way of using a short 3rd rail in center because the differing heights cause a snag at some point as the engine enters into a turnout?

In the whole year I have run model trains, I have yet to ever put in a switch in the layout. It has always been a simple loop of differing size and shape. Part of this I think is the cost of a switch of any kind. The good ones are $50 to $100 and the idea has never sounded good.
 
I believe Marklin is basically third rail but with studs instead of a rail.
Love the sound in that video Terry, you can almost feel the heft of the cars!
 
I believe Marklin is basically third rail but with studs instead of a rail.
Love the sound in that video Terry, you can almost feel the heft of the cars!
I was going to mention this. Very hard to tell the power is from the center of the rails.
 
Back in the 1940s or so, people moved the third rail outside the gauge of the track, and mounted it to one side. It was still there, but not as noticeable.
I always found it just as noticeable just in a different way. Before I realize what they were, I had always wondered why they they put "rail" fences down both sides of the track.
 
I was going to suggest taking a look at Marklin too, but y'all beat me to it. I had a small Marklin HO set when I was younger, track looked just like this:

marklin1.jpg
 
I was going to suggest taking a look at Marklin too, but y'all beat me to it. I had a small Marklin HO set when I was younger, track looked just like this:

View attachment 146340

There is a man who responded to a threat I posted in another forum. I plead forgiveness for linking to another forum but this forum is for Large Scale only... and the reason I am linking you to it is because in the few comments in it is a link from a nice dude who wrote a whole book about model trains and their scales and track... and he also discusses the Marklin 3 rail with the barely visible studs. From the link you may download his book which is cool and only takes a couple hours to read because it is short.


This may have something to do with why I suggested they do something similar for O gauge. I just did not see any reason why they could not design a really short 3rd rail if it works already for HO
 
There is a man who responded to a threat I posted in another forum. I plead forgiveness for linking to another forum but this forum is for Large Scale only... and the reason I am linking you to it is because in the few comments in it is a link from a nice dude who wrote a whole book about model trains and their scales and track... and he also discusses the Marklin 3 rail with the barely visible studs. From the link you may download his book which is cool and only takes a couple hours to read because it is short.


This may have something to do with why I suggested they do something similar for O gauge. I just did not see any reason why they could not design a really short 3rd rail if it works already for HO
3 rail O gauge is a model train "thing" all in it's own right and regarded as "classic" model trains. You can't come along with your hi-falutin ideas and upset the applecart now, after all these years. Sacrilege, Heresy, they'll accuse you of. Burn him at the stake, hang, draw and quarter him. ( and that might actually see you tied to a steam engine's driver wheel ) (just hope they don't tie you to the end where all the rods and pistons are) They'll make more than "Threats" to you!
 
3 rail O gauge is a model train "thing" all in it's own right and regarded as "classic" model trains. You can't come along with your hi-falutin ideas and upset the applecart now, after all these years. Sacrilege, Heresy, they'll accuse you of. Burn him at the stake, hang, draw and quarter him. ( and that might actually see you tied to a steam engine's driver wheel ) (just hope they don't tie you to the end where all the rods and pistons are) They'll make more than "Threats" to you!

Thread. Not threat. It was supposed to say "Thread". And I enjay my idea of a low height 3rd rail!
 
So many of us got our start in model railroading with Lionel 3 Rail track. There are those who with continue with the "Standard" or "Classic" three rail no manner what's offered in choices of 3 rail design.

Toot's comments about O Gauge really sums it all up.

Greg

#################
 
So many of us got our start in model railroading with Lionel 3 Rail track. There are those who with continue with the "Standard" or "Classic" three rail no manner what's offered in choices of 3 rail design.

Toot's comments about O Gauge really sums it all up.

Greg

#################
Maybe. I definitely don't have much to argue about the tradition of 3 rail and its appreciation.

I think what my real intentions were was that, should a 3 rail track with a really low profile central rail become available, some people might enjoy that. But I can get behind the idea that it would not be convincing to the majority of O gauge people out there, and would at most be a niche, much like 2-rail O.

We already have 2-rail O though. And if you wanted to put out a 3-rail track with a low profile center rail, this actually means your train would need to be designed slightly differently and as such, it would be going out on quite a limb to try and put this out. It is a much bigger deal than just designing a new track.

A better way that I could have phrased this would be "How come they didn't do X at the beginning" and not "Well, it has been done this way for many decades but now is the time to start doing it differently". And seeing the variety of options out there, it is just by chance that institutional inertia resulted in O gauge being dominated by a design that features 3 equal rails. I did not want to imply that anything is seriously wrong with that, and was rather just conveying a thought quickly without going through all the facts in my head.

More than once I have thought of ways trains could be designed differently, including designs which have absolutely no prototypical existence, just because I would like to see it. If I could get my hands on 3-D printer, I might be able to put out some strange trains. But of course, I don't have any prospect of having access to that sort of thing so my ideas will remain just that. I am smart enough to know there is no precedence or demand for ideas I have which would require more than just track being redesigned. As such, if you specifically enjay 3 rail O gauge, I am the last person in the world who would want to stop you, and for good measure I might want to put out a 4 rail train with much larger wheels than a normal steam train. Its why you see emphasis on wheels on today's passenger vehicles. Just for the likes of design. I have a lot of big dreams in my life but due to disabilities I lack the core required to pursue long term goals, even while on all the right meds, because I will unravel 3 months into the process of just working a 25 hour a week job that was intended to garner the funds necessary for this 3-D printer, or any other business item you might think of.

Ideas can change in their potential with time too.
 
Last edited:
I never thought of this before but when watching my O gauge train run today, I realized something. All 3 rails are several millimeters high as you all know... Maybe 7mm or so. I thought that maybe they could shorten the middle (3rd) rail significantly so that it is just 2 millimeters high. All this would require is that the pickup wheels under the locomotive would extend further down under the engine. So this would still be 3-rail track but the 3rd rail would be so short that it just looks like an elegant metal stripe running down the center between the two prominent rails.
No need to reinvent the wheel. You need Lionel Super "O" Track. Produced from 1957 to 1966, it is exactly what you are looking for. A very thin, center rail, buried so far down in the center of the ties (;)), it is far less noticeable than the outer rails.
https://jlmtrains.com/super-o-track/
 
No need to reinvent the wheel. You need Lionel Super "O" Track. Produced from 1957 to 1966, it is exactly what you are looking for. A very thin, center rail, buried so far down in the center of the ties (;)), it is far less noticeable than the outer rails.
https://jlmtrains.com/super-o-track/

I had actually run across this before online but simply forgot. That is quite a beautiful product, and its design is something that, to some extent, later products from Gargraves and Atlas wound up serving.

I don't remember what it was, but if I recall, Lionel Super O was a commercial failure even though I believe it was a good idea.
 
A better way that I could have phrased this would be "How come they didn't do X at the beginning"
Answered in the first reply to your question.

Having the middle rail below the other two, and requiring a pickup that hangs below the other rail heights, would cause problems for turnouts and crossings where the low pickup would hit the rails.
 
So many of us got our start in model railroading with Lionel 3 Rail track.
I was opposite. I've had HO scale since I was about 4 years old. I switched to N scale in 1969 or so, still, until junior high I scoffed at those who would "endure" the ridiculous looking three rail tracks. Then the "collector" inside me engaged as so many Lionel things started showing up at garage sales and auctions, I started picking some up on the cheap. Instead of "displaying" my finds I decided to play with them. I WAS AMAZED. I could throw together a track layout any way I wanted without having to have insulated rail joiners and special wiring. The curves were sharper than what I could do with HO so I could fit a much more interesting track plan in my tiny 8x9 bedroom floor. I was able to easily have working signals and crossing gates and the like, once again without all the complicated stuff required with only 2 rail track. And whistles and bells to boot! I had more fun with those O gauge trains in the first year I had them, than I had in the prior 9 years of all my 2 rail trains combined.

So no argument from be against 3 rail track.
 
I was opposite. I've had HO scale since I was about 4 years old. I switched to N scale in 1969 or so, still, until junior high I scoffed at those who would "endure" the ridiculous looking three rail tracks. Then the "collector" inside me engaged as so many Lionel things started showing up at garage sales and auctions, I started picking some up on the cheap. Instead of "displaying" my finds I decided to play with them. I WAS AMAZED. I could throw together a track layout any way I wanted without having to have insulated rail joiners and special wiring. The curves were sharper than what I could do with HO so I could fit a much more interesting track plan in my tiny 8x9 bedroom floor. I was able to easily have working signals and crossing gates and the like, once again without all the complicated stuff required with only 2 rail track. And whistles and bells to boot! I had more fun with those O gauge trains in the first year I had them, than I had in the prior 9 years of all my 2 rail trains combined.

So no argument from be against 3 rail track.
I model in O gauge 3 rail.

I had a rather large collection of hodge-podge random used O gauge rolling stock and a few locomotives I was tired of. When I bought a G gauge set I decided to shift focus onto that, and so I sold a lot of my less beloved O gauge stuff... But after I did that I was left with the best of my O gauge things I ever had and definitely decided I was going to keep doing O gauge 3 rail.

I use O gauge Realtrax and it is pretty cool stuff... The 3 rails look like some kind of brass although its actually nickel silver so I am not sure why it has a hint of yellow in the color... But it is handsome, and I don't feel any particular need to, you know, switch to 2 rail or anything. Besides I think 2 rail O gauge is the niche of affluent Gen X 'ers, I would guess, so I can't touch it.
 
Thread. Not threat. It was supposed to say "Thread". And I enjay my idea of a low height 3rd rail!
I'm a bit behind the times with this reply but I hope we aren't starting a typo battle, e.g. "enjay"? I should mention too that I also had Märklin center stud track years ago. Because it IS in the center and has the electrical connection running between the studs, it wouldn't suit the modern style of track which is see through. I guess ballasting would cover that, but some ballast is contaminated with metalic (iron) content and might cause shorting. I know it can wreck any speakers mounted in diesel model's fuel tanks. Those connection pieces would all have to be insulated, adding to the overall complexity e.g. cost
 



Back
Top