Why 3 rail?

[fredswain]

No this isn't asking why anyone would do it or what it is. I know good an well. This is a post to show why TO do it. The great Frank Ellison with his Delta Lines was a true pioneer in model railroading. He wrote many good articles over his years and his layout and techniques are a huge inspiration to me. I'm even on the friends of the Delta Lines yahoo group. The question of why outside 3rd rail came up and a fantastic response was posted in Frank's own words from his book from 1952 called "Frank Ellison on Model Railroads". Once I read this quote, I had to find the book and did, paying a pretty penny for it. Although Frank modelled in outside third rail and his writing is aimed at it, it is equally as applicable to any 3 rail based layout and I thought I would share his view on why 3 rail. I hope many of you will appreciate it as well.

A subchapter entitled, "About Outside Third Rail" (page 97) is followed by
Frank's take on the subject:

"It seems to me that, in their laudable zeal for perfection, some
good-intentioned folks have overlooked the physical laws and seek to regiment
all thinking into one ideology. This is especially true of advocates of two rail
wiring, for no unbiased analysis of third rail has been published since 1942 -
nearly 13 years. Third rail has been damned by silence - intentionally damned.

All of us certainly prefer two-rail's better appearance. And in elementary
layouts with but a small and simple loop and a few simple turnouts, it is easier
to string a pair of wires than to build a third rail. Beyond this point,
however, two-rail circuits become progressively incomprehensible to many men, as
constant repetition of
explanatory literature testifies.

I admire the many fine two-rail circuits that have developed through 15 years of
experimentation. But two-rail is still complex for the non-technical man, and I
do not believe that the mere absence of the third rail itself is sufficient
encouragement for him to take on these complexities, the insulating hazzards,
and the constant servicing and experiments necessary to produce the simple act
of running a train.

Thousands of two-rail layouts have never been operated because these
non-technical model rails cannot grasp or apply its wiring principles. They are
stymied by crossings and crossovers and reversing loops and turning wyes and
innumerable other situations, for these have been oversimplified in diagrams.
They grow timid when shorts occur at engine trucks, cylinders, couplers, car
trucks and burned-out wheel insulation because they cannot understand what
causes them or how to cure them. And railroad signalling has become a lost art
in two-rail. The awkward "clock and counter-clock" direction controls, reverse
tracks, and so forth, are confusing. Electricity to them will always remain an
enigma. Many layouts are abandoned and owners turn to simpler hobbies.

This is a pity for, as I see it, model railroading's chief function is
railroading, not just building models. It is essentially a mechanical enterprise
in which electric circuiting is a means to an end. Many a chap looks upon wiring
- all wiring - as a necessary evil which should be held to minimum.

If a man has no appetite or aptitude for electricy, it seems to me that we
should at least offer him the choice of a simpler system - and third rail
wiring, without reservation, is as simple as a doorbell circuit. It has only one
rule for wiring; not many. It has no insulating or polarity problems, no power
pickup troubles; it gives him track occupancy signals without special apparatus;
and it is practically free from maintenance. It runs a train, a signal, or an
entire railroad system with minimum know-how.

The message in this article is realism and it is true that outside third rail
offends this realism in some situations - though not in all by any means. But as
in every other department of model railroading, we must sometimes make
concessions to practicalities. Where there must be a choice, operation should be
considered of greater importance than scenic perfection.

At any rate, no article on track can be said to be complete if it does not
contain some basic third-rail construction data, and this follows."

That sums it up pretty nicely to me and I can't think of a better response. It is simple. There is far less complexity. Admittedly in the earlier days of 2 rail model railroading, far less was understood about blocks, wiring through turnouts, crossovers, reverse loops, etc. Today turnouts come pre wired for us and there are volumes of books on the subject of wiring. It still isn't terribly easy on large layouts but is better understood. It was only fairly recently in the game when DCC came into it's own that certain issues were really solved in 2 rail. We have polarity switching circuits for reverse loops and wyes. We have fancy electronics for realistic signalling. What was once complicated is now much easier to do. With the internet and knowledge of others, almost anything can be figured out anymore.

3 rail is still simpler. There was no need to have digital controls for reverse loops. There was no need to have complicated block detection or IR sensors for realistic signalling. Insulate a rail and let the wheels bridge the gap to trigger what you wanted to do whether it was crossing gates or a whimsical fun accessory aimed at kids. Tha'ts what made old postwar layouts so fun to watch. It is still that simple. The digital age has allowed us to add sounds and other little things but in reality even the simplest of 3 rail setups can have some very fun accessories added to it with no other electronics. A simple transformer can blow a whistle, ring a bell, and a few track insulators can control accessories. Nothing extra added and no wiring tricks.

Frank mentioned that while a 3rd rail detracts some from absolute realism, by no means is it objectionable and to him the added rail's negative visual cue is more than offset by the simplicity with wiring. A 3rd rail isn't that bad looking and I'm personally pursuing studrail on my permanent layout. Now I can have the benefits of 3 rail with the looks of 2 rail. However even if studrail wasn't going to be a reality, I'd still run 3 rail. I know there are lots of 2 rail items out there today and we can do pretty much anything we want in 2 rail now. I am a fan of simple and of tradition. I am tolerant of tubular track with a particular love of O-27 track but also like the nicest hand laid 2 rail. I think the disparity in O scale is unnecessary and that everyone should be tolerant of the variety in the hobby in general. I don't care if it's Marx, Ives, Lionel, MTH, or Atlas, prewar, postwar, 2 rail or 3 rail. I have my personal preference and know what I personally want but I like it all.

However when someone who doesn't share my openess towards 3 rail asks why 3 rail, I think of the above. It has it's place and for me, Frank summed it up perfectly.

[arkady]

Well...you're preaching to the choir, here I think. This is a 3-rail board (with apologies to the AF folks), so I kind of doubt that anyone here needed 14 paragraphs to convince them that 3-rail is okay.

[fredswain]

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I just thought it was a good read.

[DennisB-1]

Well said. It's an excellent piece. Thank you, Fred.

[sir james I]

This is a three rail board and with flyer fans welcome so what was the reason for all that?

[Texas Pete]

 Wow, was that ever long-winded.  Obviously written by guys who enjoy the sound of their own fingers typing.  It could have been lots more compact.  I'll give it a shot: "Use the three-rail system because it's much easier to wire than two-rail."  There, I fixed it.  Next!

Pete

 

[Prairietype]

One other simple reason:  It's fun.

One another tangent:  The only thing that all other train modelers ever bring up about Lionel, and three-rail, is the 3-rail.  And if that's the best they can do, I don't care. 

 

[cnw1995]

I like to read more about what Frank Ellison thought about model railroading. I have some wartime Lionel magazines with his articles on modeling and the Delta Lines.

[Hiway]

 I enjoyed your post. I've been in N, HO and now O. Much of what was written is very true.

 Brian

[lionelsoni]

"This is a three rail board..."

I don't think so; I believe that it is a toy-train forum.  Toy trains include those that run on three rails, like Lionel, Maerklin, and pre-war American Flyer, and those that run on two rails, like Lionel 2 7/8-inch and some OO-gauge post-war American Flyer, and all wind-up trains, for examples.

[dbaker48]

 Fredswain,

Thanks for the post and thread!!  I totally enjoyed reading the article, and your comments.

Its unfortunate others have to have such condescending comments, I mean after all, you could always stop reading and jump to a different thread.  Why put a guy down?

GEEZZZZ  !!! 

I give it 5 stars.

[fifedog]

dbaker ---> Ditto.

A lot of us model railroaders today are following in Ellison's footsteps.  The Hi-Rail flow chart starts with him.  I enjoy reading about him, and found the DELTA Lines article in CTT this past year was one of the most enjoyable.

Keep posting Freddy.

[PhilaKnight]

With 3 rail it's easier to lick the outside and inside rail to get a buzz. Like licking a 9 volt battery t see if it's good. Who needs a multi tester anyway.

[lionelsoni]

Or a track-cleaning car?...;-)

[DMUinCT]

Lets make it easy !!!

When J. Lionel Cowen went into the train business in 1900 his first, hand built  power rail car was on two rail track.  When he went into production he wanted to be "realistic" with Center Third Rail.

Starting in 1895 to its being outlawed by Connecticut in 1906, The New Haven Railroad was electrifying with "Center Third Rail" both in the Boston area and from Hartford CT to New Britain, Berlin, and Bristol, totaling 32 Route miles.  In 1900, 3 rail  was the "Wave of the Future".  The New York Central went with "Outside Third Rail" for entrance into New York City.

[lionelsoni]

Don, are you sure about New York Central's "Outside" third rail?  Here is a picture of their first electric locomotive, which used an overhead third rail.  It explains the tiny pantographs seen on so many prewar model locomotives:

[traindaddy1]

Just my :  Not too long ago, now, I stepped out of the 2-rail 'HO' world into the 3-rail 'O' world and, specifically. the "Classic Toy Train" world.  In my mind, right or wrong, the classic toy train was a 'toy' train running on a 3-rail track while the smaller 2-rail stuff was more for a 'modeler' than a 'player' which I am.  (I do, however, admire 3-rail 'O' modelers' layouts and the talent and time devoted to their projects.)

Bottom line, I wonder if "really matters" if one just enjoys the hobby.

PS.  Come to think about 'real life' trains: My New York City Subway System runs on three rails.

[DMUinCT]

lionelsoni

Don, are you sure about New York Central's "Outside" third rail?  Here is a picture of their first electric locomotive, which used an overhead third rail.  It explains the tiny pantographs seen on so many prewar model locomotives:

It's Third Rail.  The small "pantograph" on the top of the New York Central and New Haven locomotives (including the NH EP5 "Jets") was to bridge the gaps in the Third Rail such as going through the switches in Grand Central Station (Terminal).  Note the Third Rail Pickup located just ahead of the Drivers between the drivers and Pilot Truck.

[Boyd]

 Why 3 rail? 4 rails was too many.

[lionelsoni]

You're quite right, Don.  I imagined that, running mostly in tunnels into and out of Manhattan, an overhead third rail would not have been so difficult to install for the NYC.  I found an article with considerable detail about the whole affair, which even mentions the influence of these locomotives on toy trains:  http://alfredbarten.com/oldmaude.html

Four rails are not too many for the London Underground:

[fredswain]

I apologize for the way that post was formatted. While I do enjoy typing alot, the bulk of that was cut and paste and the forum just so happened to arrange it that way for some reason.

The responses in this thread have shown the disparity between 2 rail and 3 rail though. If you suggest 3 rails is bad, the 3 railers get offended. If you suggest in any way that 3 rails has any advantages to 2 rails, some 2 rail oriented modellers may get offended. Bringing it up is a lose lose in some ways. However this shows clearly why there shouldn't be a disparity. The point of this thread wasn't to convert anyone to do anything they don't want to do. It is only to show that the 3 rail people do have valid reasons for keeping a 3rd rail and it isn't only based on tradition although that may play a role to some.

Frank shows that 3 rail has it's place and explains why quite well. It's not to say it is a better way to do things and it's not to say that 2 rail is bad. They aren't. Neither side should be offended. I personally am going to use 3 rail stud rail with scale wheels but with DCC. Why would I do this when I could just go either full 2 rail DCC or stay 3 rail and use Legacy or DCS? Simple. It's what I want. No further explanation is necessary. However I respect and enjoy it all and fully understand there is no right or wrong way to do things and I hope everyone else feels the same. We all have trains in common.

-Fred

[el-capitan]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

I wonder if Mr. Ellison would still hold the same opinion today? Better manufacturing processes with regards to insulating wheels have really made that a non-issue, as it once was. Alot of other things have changed as well.

I belong to an old RR club that was once outside 3 rail and from what I hear from the old guys, the debate to switch from 3r to 2r was just as heated as the more recent conversion to DCC. Times change, some of us are happy to sit still (I still run DC, happily).

[fredswain]

I actually wonder if Frank would be 3RS today rather than 2 rail? I have several old Lobaugh catalogs that have parts lists for rail. In their 1936 catalog they list an option for insulated wheels for 2 rail operation. Their track parts consist of 4 different sizes of rail and 3rd rail ties and insulators.

Their 1941 catalog still has the same track parts but mentions in it that 56% of all model railroads are 2 rail. It doesn't specify according to scale though. It also briefly mentions HO as being too small so it's origins were pretty early.

By the time their 1950 catalog came out, they only sold code 172 rail and 3rd rail was no longer an option nor were the longer ties or insulators. At some point in the 40's Lobaugh stopped carrying parts to build an outside 3 rail layout. Their trains however still list the options of having insulated or non insulated wheels.

Frank wrote this in 1954. By this point at least one manufacturer has stopped carrying 3 rail parts altogether and I wonder if others had too? It's clear that 2 rail was getting more popular and of course this time period was also the height of Lionel sales. Somewhere in here serious modelling of outside 3rd rail fell off sharply and nearly disappeared except for a few layouts and it also corresponds with the growth of HO. Frank persisted with it though as did a couple of others. John Armstrong being a good example. He died in the 21st century but still had OTR. Then again a large layout that isn't built with 2R in mind may not be worth the hassle of converting to 2R. He did have plans to go DCC before he died though!

Maybe it was due to his lack of understanding of 2 rail wiring but Frank seemed like a sharp individual. He does mentions that everyone prefers the look of 2 rail but also admits conceding in the looks department for electrical simplicity. Since we know how to wire 2 rail today and have electronics that allow us to do so much more than he could back then, would he have embraced this and gone 2 rail or would he have still favored 3 rail? That's a good question.

[el-capitan]

fredswain

Maybe it was due to his lack of understanding of 2 rail wiring but Frank seemed like a sharp individual. He does mentions that everyone prefers the look of 2 rail but also admits conceding in the looks department for electrical simplicity.

I think he had a good knowledge of 2 rail and what the wiring entailed. I think he was reffering to the new guy in the hobby who goes out and buys some track, throws together a layout that has a reversing loop and the thing shorts out. "New guy" becomes frustrated, throws away the track and buys some slot cars, never to return to trains again.

So for the overall health of the hobby, simplicity does have it's advantages.

 

[fredswain]

He probably would be into 2 rail today assuming he was starting out today rather than adding on to a layout decades in the making which is why I suspect John Armstrong kept his OTR. When the Delta Lines was started, OTR was the predominant method for custom builders with 2 rail still much of a mystery. You're right that he probably is making the case for using 3 rail for those who couldn't figure out 2 rail wiring issues but still wanted to get into the hobby. Almost anyone can today and depending on layout complexity some aspects can still be a challenge.

He does mention 2 rail in his book including reversing the direction of the trains by installing a toggle switch in the engine rather than reversing track polarity. He was a hands on kind of guy. One thing I did find neat in that book was how he was talking about developing a new type of roadbed with some friends of his by cutting cork into strips and laying them under the track. Was this the origin of the cork roadbed?