Stud Rail For O Gauge?

[lionelsoni]

Yes. I remember reading about outside third rail when I was in high school. It was rationalized that some Eastern railroads used third-rail electric locomotives and steam on the same tracks; so its presence was not unprototypical. You were not supposed to notice the shoes on the model steam locomotives (which might well be modified Lionel Hudsons).

See
http://www.marmus.ca/marmus/trainintro.htm
http://www.modelengineers.com/history.html
http://www.hirailers.com/extra1.htm

[cnw1995]

This thread reminds me of another way of powering 0 gauge trains with a third rail-pickup outside the two rails - like on the Canadaiga Southern of John Armstrong. Don't his engines have a pickup shoe outside the drivers. I remember being intrigued by his setup - I have to check my old MR magazines about this. Anyone else remember this?

[FJ and G]

Alan,

I totally agree with you and I'm surprised this hasn't occurred much sooner. RC cars and planes have them and rechargeable batteries have come a long ways. Track cleaning someday will be something only primitives did. Then, you can model your lightly used branch lines with rust on the rail heads as well.

Dave Vergun

[Anonymous]

the 3-rail/2-rail argument is silly

Electric trains that run on electricity from the rails work better with three rails
Steam trains that run on steam or have a motive source independant of the track then dont need a third rail run better with two rails;

I think that we are approaching a time when the power source for the engines will be within the engines and the control will be by RF so the track can be 2-rail. This may not be as far off as you think.

Imagine not needing to power the track. The engine and switches remotely and wireless control... Let's call it PROTO-TMCC-12

Alan

[Anonymous]

I agree that you can't really hide the center rail, you live with it..... Atlas and Gargraves still looks like 3-rail to me. But for the ultimate realism in "three rail" track, a stud system would seem the most effective solution. I wonder why it never caught on?

[FJ and G]

Kent,

I happen to love traditional tubular look and don't understand why anyone would want to buy track with a camouflaged black center rail, which doesn't really hide it that much. For people who want to camouflage the center rail even more than Atlas and Gargraves attempt to do, but not go thru the hassle of buying all new 2 rail stuff or making difficult modifications to the axles, stud rail might be a solution.

I might try it for a future layout. I emailed pictures to folks already; if anyone wants to see the stud rail track, just email me.

[Anonymous]

If I was going to go to a more realistic track, I would just switch to 2-rail, especially since sound and TMCC is available for it anyway. But like most people, I'm already comfortable with three rails, and would not want to switch. Stud rail has potential as a compromise solution, but I can't imagine it becoming a majority in O gauge.

Now if Lionel would have brought back Super-O instead of Fastrack, I would be happy.

[FJ and G]

Oliver,

Welcome to the forum. I agree with you and would like to perform more testing. I did make my own stud rail but never got around to making the sliders. A friend of mine gave me photos of his homemade studrail. Shoot me an email at [e-mail] and I'll share them with you (or anyone else).

Dave Vergun

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ChesBchRy

...Marklin switches and crossings, etc have overcome this problem
in exactly the manner that you described ..This is a pretty neat setup from an electrical point of view as you have the near-prototype (scale) appearance of HO/2-rail and the electrical versatility of tinplate/3-rail...Electrical circuits are easy to construct and wiring is not as complicated as with 2-rail DC. No relays, IC boards, or DPDT switch gear is required. Reversing loops and block wiring is very simple. It's a shame that Marklin never caught on over here.

Sir! I tip my hat to you! An honest, unbiased 'practical engineering' viewpoint and comments. Stud contact is by far the most sensible, practical and simply system.
That is..., for the average modeller with the average layout...one with crossings, wyes and return loops.

Now, whilst the good folks are filling their flame-throwers, let me say that I did not come to this viewpoint 'out of the blue'.
I'm 51 and have at least 43 years of Model Railroading under my belt (it shows!), AND, am a Mechanic, Inventor, Handyman and Electronics Experimenter...all self-taught. This is not bragging, I mention it because I can and do look at the hobby from different perspectives than some.

In my opinion, with consideration given to appearance, construction, reliability, repairability, physics and money...stud contact wins.

(By the way, the 'problem' of sliders (or 'skates', as they were sometimes called) clearing the rails is no problem. The studs (usually #2 round-head brass wood screws for 'home-built' O scale) sit well below the rail head on tangent track, and rise gradually over a few feet to clear the railhead by roughly 1/8". They are connected electrically under the layout or above by soldering a fine wire to each screw.
Peco still sells a stud contact strip for HO scale Streamline, but in spite of rumors about O scale strip, I've been unable to track down any...)

I intend to build a small 'industrial' layout to test some aspects of stud contact, and hope to take it to shows for 'demo' purposes, as I think it's a simply brilliant concept that was deliberately 'lost'.

Oliver T.
(Donning his flameproof cloak)

[Anonymous]

being longer than the roller, would cause a short. Right?

Not necessarily. The closure rails on a 3 rail switch do not have to be powered and therefore will not cause a short. The same reason rollers will not cause a short in the same situation. If you have 2 rollers on an engine, they are both tied to the motor. If one roller is on the closure rail, and the other on the center rail, in your scenerio, you will have a dead short. The stock rails can handle all of the outside rail power needs and the closure rails need not be powered.

If you power the closure rails through the points, then you still will not get a short. When the diverging route is thrown, then the rail you are crossing with the slider is not powered because the point is not touching the opposing stock rail. The same happens when you run straight through. The other point and closure rail is not powered.

You can also power the closure rails through the switch machine alternately. I am not sure how Lionel does it. I use Ross switches.

Try putting one of your engines on the switch with one roller on the closure rail, and the other on the center rail. It should not short because there is no power on the closure rail. Now do the same with the rollers and cross a wire from the stock rail to the open point and now you will get a short.

[Phil1361]

Good point Dave. If it was very easy to put on and easy to install and cheap it just might take off. Maybe even in kit form. Still a lot of guys out there probably do not want to rip up there existing track.

[FJ and G]

Phil,

I really can't argue w/any of your excellent points.

I think that if an easy to mount slider were provided that mounts by snapping it on the roller in a matter of seconds, then the stud rail thing might take off. However, the track might be too expensive and would indeed be a niche market.

[Phil1361]

K

QUOTE: Originally posted by Joe Polska

Marklin HO has a C track that is stud rail. Although it's really 3 rail, looking at it you would think it was 2 rail. Why can't the O manufacturers come up with something similiar? Why didn't Lionel do this this with the Fastrack?

pax[C=:-)]

That's very easy easy to answer. Lionel knows the market very well and they know there is no market for this stuff. Why? because Lionel knows that a very, very high percentage of 3-Railers either

A) actually like the third rail and wear it as sort of a badge of honor

B) don't really mind the third rail or just don't care about it and simply ignore it. I am constantly reminded (from guys on OGR) that 3-Railers run trains not track.

This is about 92% (and that is being generous-it is probably even higher) of 3-Railers so why would any of the big manufacterers market something that only 8% of the hobbiests are interested in.

These are not my opinions but the facts I have learned from reading the OGR forum.

Bottom line is if you want stud rail you have to build it yourself or somehow adopt the Marklin system.

Disclaimer: I personally dislike the 3rd rail which is why I went with 2-Rail. Not many guys know this but the days of 2-Rail being harder to wire than 3-Rail are gone. With todays technology reverse loops and wyes are no problem. I also feel that trains are an artistic impression of one's self. There is no right or wrong way and I have nothing against anyone who does run 3-Rails or O27 or Disney trains or Hi-Rail or whatever!

[lionelsoni]

The studs don't need to be any higher than a center rail would be. Sliding shoes have often been used with solid center rails. There is nothing on a 3-rail switch for them to short to.

[eZAK]

Ok, Lets see if I got this right.

A shoe is placed over the pick-up roller. The shoe would have to be long enough to span at least the distance of two studs. Right?

What height are the studs at?
When approaching a crossing or switch you would have to ramp up or already be high enough to clear the intersecting rails or the shoe ,being longer than the roller, would cause a short. Right?

Wouldn't this look a little strange with studs sticking up over the rail heads at switches and crossings / diamonds??

I don't know, maybe I do need a pic.
I just can't see this working to well.

[Anonymous]

Marklin switches and crossings, etc have overcome this problem
in exactly the manner that you described. I have a Marklin HO switch
on my bench for test purposes as I am presently the electro-mechanical
factotum for the local museum which has a 200 square foot layout that
is all Marklin. This is a pretty neat setup from an electrical point of view
as you have the near-prototype (scale) appearance of HO/2-rail and the
electrical versatility of tinplate/3-rail. I have seen a few Marklin layouts
in my life, but this is the first hands-on experience, and I must say that
it is very enjoyable. Electrical circuits are easy to construct and wiring
is not as complicated as with 2-rail DC. No relays, IC boards, or DPDT
switch gear is required. Reversing loops and block wiring is very simple.
It's a shame that Marklin never caught on over here. The stuff looks great
and operates great. It also seems to be built more robust than regular
HO that we see here. There are quite a few pieces of 30+ year old rolling
stock still in operation on the museum layout with no major maintenance
required.

[Anonymous]

you may have to run the stud rail on both sides of the track AND the stud rails should probably be taller/higher than the train/wheel rails so the pickups will have clearance when crossong a turnout/switch or whatever it is.

at least thats what i think i've seen on the prototype.

[FJ and G]

Problems with the switch have been overcome. I have 3 photos of successfully laid stud rail (not mine, which I designed differently). If anyone wants to see the photos of the stud rails and sliders, shoot me an email and I'll send to you.

dave vergun

[Anonymous]

"Then there is the problem with the shoe shorting out when it crosses the switch rails."

Why? Is there a need to have the closure rails powered and if so wouldn't it be determined by the position of the switch or by contact through the points? Why don't rollers short in the same manner as you describe? Marklin works fine.

Bill

[eZAK]

Although a good idea, there are a few problems.

One is that it would be dificult to retrofit on an existing layout.

The other is the problem with switches. You would have to make some kind of ramp for the shoe and then hope there is enough room between the underside of the loco and the rail.
Then there is the problem with the shoe shorting out when it crosses the switch rails.

[pennsy_fan]

In dec. '98 issue of ogrr, fellows name is Hugo Pallesen.article entitled "Is this the ultimate 3-rail track?".It does look good, however,I like the third rail[:D]

[pennsy_fan]

I read an article in ogrr about somebody who was developing o-gauge stud rail.
But, i guess it never took off, I cant recall the guys name, but, he also designed a brass slide shoe that snapped over the pick-up roller on traditional 3-rail trains. (IMHO, I still think that super o was the MOST realistic o-gauge track made to date.)

[Roger Bielen]

Dave, which came first, the term stud rail, or Hugo Stud?

[FJ and G]

Experiments have been done by a fellow named Hugo Stud in France and others. Sliders can be made to fit over rollers. I once designed some stud rail track but I never got around to designing the sliders. This is a future project I plan to persue.

Dave V.

[Roger Bielen]

I'm guessing that instead of pick-up rollers you would need to have a shoe that would bridge the distance between studs to enable continuous feed.

[Anonymous]

Marklin HO has a C track that is stud rail. Although it's really 3 rail, looking at it you would think it was 2 rail. Why can't the O manufacturers come up with something similiar? Why didn't Lionel do this this with the Fastrack?

pax[C=:-)]