I'm surprised this thread has received so much attention. Is this not yet another chapter in the endless argument of 2-rail vs 3-rail, AC vs DC, mfx vs dcc, etc?

The same old arguments always come up, and the results are always inconclusive.

My own opinion is that 3-rail AC pre-dates (generally) 2 rail DC and is still around because there is enough interest from existing users to keep it going, irrespective of whether it is better or worse. Most manufacturers phased out their 3-rail products years ago in favour of 2-rail versions (Trix, Hornby, Electrotren etc). Nevertheless they continue to satisfy demand by producing AC versions of their 2-rail DC locos.

This thread is like the age old question:

Why do dogs (and cats) lick their bits?

Because they can.

If 3-rail AC is so easy to use from an electrical perspective, why did Marklin go for 2-rail DC for Z gauge? Was it that they couldn't fit the reverse units into such small locos?

Carim

And that is something i cannot understand, having many 3 rail versions of DC locos i think the overprize is too much for the extra work and parts.

Yes, probably in 1972 it was hard to produce a reverse unit that size. And for such small locos it was probably best to keep them as simple as possible. All Z locos are still analogue, which means power goes straight into the motor...

For gauge 1 the reason for using 2-rail was probably esteathic, difficult to hide the studs in 1:32 scale. But they kept AC power - that confuses me... In digital it doesn't matter any more.

The three-conductor track is known as Trix Express and has problems with reversing.
If you want it simple you have to take the two-conductor three-rail track.

With the 3 conductor solution you just connect up the track and your done. No other concerns about shorts and loops. This makes the solution ideal for temporary carpet layouts and youth/child entry.
No messing around with detection zones on reversing loop modules and needing to isolate track sections... that would be a big obstacle to the young and to quickly building a layout on the floor.

I think you have hit the nail on the head Thomas.



For me, it's was no-brainer since I was a kid...

Then I could take 2 M locos, place them front to front at some distance and crash them into eachother - very fun back then... Try that with analog DC...

Juhan, please dont tell our grandkids


Dereck

What is by Trix? I did not test it, but I think it is the same quality as Maerklin. For me it looks like that Maerklin will make Trix more and more to the "2 rail Maerklin system". Because all items offered by Maerklin gets more and more offered by Trix in 2 rail technique with DCC instead Maerklins mfx+.

I bought rolling material from Trix and I see no difference to Maerklin, except design, like color, etc. But this was the reason, I bought Trix.

With Trix rolling stock they sometimes cut off parts from the truck.
I assume they need more space, either for the large flanges or for the large couplers. So far I noticed this with 3xxxx numbers only, not with 2xxxx numbers.

Quite often Trix items have a Trix sticker that covers the engraved Märklin logo.
Sometimes Märklin items have a Märklin sticker that covers the engraved Trix logo.
Some items have been made with engraved Märklin logo or engraved Trix logo as needed.
The Tillig tank cars that came in a Märklin box have Märklin stickers at the bottom. The Fleischmann coaches and the Fleischmann loco that came in Märklin boxes have Märklin engraved at the bottom.

So lots of two-rail rubbish then...

Sometime they cut off parts from the truck frames for the Trix versions.

I don't think so. Just look at the BR 216 #36216. That one most likely has metal axles. I'd expect the same for some models of DHG 500/700.

I meant the qualitative difference between American HO and European HO, both two and three rail in Europe's case.

It's not 3-conductor, but 3-rail! Two rails are as on almost every railroad the ones that the wheels roll on. The third rail is in the center. In M-track the metal railbed is also connecting the 2 outer rails electrically - so it is a 2-conductor track if you use that expression...

Nope, but the tunnels under the oceans are expensive.

I agree with Tom's assessment. The number of conductors remains two (Unless we are talking about the Trix-twin system with separate feeds on each rail and a common third rail). This discussion has become more complicated than it needs to be!

Critics of the 3 rail system should be aware that real life electric trains are (I believe) always 3 rail. The third rail is very often the catenary wire, but in many networks there is a physical rail to provide the power. This rail is very often on the outside of the running rails, but it can sometimes be found in the centre, such as on the London Underground. I can't think of any real system that provides the power through isolated running rails as in 2 rail model railways, though I'm sure that someone will prove me wrong!

It's very simple. There are many railway modellers who don't like the three rail system and wish that it would go away. They consider the look of the third rail or the studs to be unrealistic.

Most of these also firmly believe that there should only be one digital system and that this should be the NMRA DCC standard. It look like currently these "lobbyists" are getting their way on the DCC front, as Marklin has finally been persuaded to include the DCC functionality in their controllers and now also in their locomotive decoders.

There is also the issue of wheel standards, but that is a matter for another discussion...

I totally agree !

Regardless of the rails number , the important thing is not to have a one track mind !

I don't feel that would be a reasonable position for anyone to be in; its akin to you not liking my choice of wallpaper. What effect does it have on the DCC user base if someone wants to run Märklin 3-conductor solutions?

Warning, I'm going down a rabbit hole here... if you want to stay on track stop reading now.

Yes, in general, it would be better for us the consumers, if the world were unified around one standard in a small subset of sizes, but that isn't and won't likely be the case. There are rail gauge standards, but even within that group there are varying standards on the rail height and wheel shape. That's why running H0 scale trams on tram style rails produced in the US and other places is such a pain - Code 100 vs Code 83 vs... There are standards on coupler pockets at least, but the buffers are not standardized so we still have problems with cars into connecting up well and running between some manufacturers.

So we have a gauge - the space between the rails, that is standardized, but then the rolling stock that is on those varies in size as well. So Germany is different than Britain than the US, etc. If there was a smaller variation within the vehicle and rail scales the manufactures could produce to a smaller target set and consumers would have more choices for their chosen gauge/scale. But thats not changing I suspect.

Unrealistic? Again, why is someone so concerned about my wallpaper choice. Don't use it. The entire hobby is a selection of unrealistic elements - we individuals choose to focus our system on those aspects that are most important to us. One person may not like the pukos in Märklin track. I find the rail joiners and solder joints much more distracting looking. There are the rivet counters, who we will never satisfy, but I choose to tune them out. I like my Aral tanker car because its the brand of gas station I recall visiting with my grandfather to get gas in the 1970's in central Germany. I could care one iota about whether the car matches the form of railing or undercarriage of cars of that era.

I'd be happy if I could not have to think about compatibility and running issues between rolling stock from maker A vs maker B vs rail C, well before I think about how the signal is picked up from the track or the digital signalling system.

OK, I'll get off the soap box now. I do feel a bit better, thanks for asking.
I should shut up and get to actually building my layout.

I certainly hope so. I spent a fortune on Marklin trains!

I often wonder what your interest in this forum is.

Goofy, how many times have you changed from 2-rail to 3-rail and back ??

Reading your old posts, and your reasons for changing is quite funny:

One of the times from 2-rail to 3-rail:

https://www.marklin-user...orum/posts/t5146-Im-back

"So this time it will been Marklin forever."

Per.

Trix is a brand of Märklin. LGB is a brand of Märklin.

IMHO anybody who uses anything from the Märklin company qualifies for the forum.

In our household between my son and I, we have N, HO and G with two rail DC, S with two rail AC, HO (mostly marklin) and O (mostly lionel) with 3 rail AC.

That being said I saw a post on a blog about Brawa HO loks being set up to run both on AC and DC. Does anyone have experience with this?
http://blog.lostentry.or...215-117-3-esu-31018.html

Also a topic at local NMRA group that was brought up was running HO scale with RC control. Does anyone have experience with this?
http://www.s-cab.com/
Seems like either concept could change the hobby?

This sentence was totally unnecessary!

But according to yourself, you're still running Märklin.

And you didn't answer my question; how many times have you changed from 2-rail to 3-rail and back ??

Per.