6959 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I have some Hornby Dublo 2-rail straight track sections that have nickel silver rail and brown 'wooden' sleepers. They are in as-new good condition so need a suitable use. The Hornby Dublo sleepers are 1.189 inch {1-3/16 inch nominal} [30,18 mm] overall width by .130 inch [3,33 mm] wide on .322 inch [8,18 mm] pitch. By comparison, PECO Setrack dimensions are 1.153 [29,30 mm] x .114 [2,90] x .300 [7,57 mm]. When Hornby Dublo track is joined to PECO Setrack, or Hornby (ex- Tri-ang System 6) equivalent, the rail top is flush and the joiners fit each other's rail but the overall height differs because the Hornby Dublo sleeper base is thicker (Hornby Dublo = 2,08 compared to PECO = 1,84) so the joint needs packing under the PECO rail. There have been many complaints about UK track being HO rather than OO so how near to OO-scale is the Hornby Dublo 2-rail track regarding sleeper sizes and pitch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shedmaster83G Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I have some Hornby Dublo 2-rail straight track sections that have nickel silver rail and brown 'wooden' sleepers. They are in as-new good condition so need a suitable use. The Hornby Dublo sleepers are 1.189 inch {1-3/16 inch nominal} [30,18 mm] overall width by .130 inch [3,33 mm] wide on .322 inch [8,18 mm] pitch. By comparison, PECO Setrack dimensions are 1.153 [29,30 mm] x .114 [2,90] x .300 [7,57 mm]. When Hornby Dublo track is joined to PECO Setrack, or Hornby (ex- Tri-ang System 6) equivalent, the rail top is flush and the joiners fit each other's rail but the overall height differs because the Hornby Dublo sleeper base is thicker (Hornby Dublo = 2,08 compared to PECO = 1,84) so the joint needs packing under the PECO rail. There have been many complaints about UK track being HO rather than OO so how near to OO-scale is the Hornby Dublo 2-rail track regarding sleeper sizes and pitch? It was said that Hornby Dublo set out to provide a relatively accurate 2-rail track and I can recall comment at the time suggested it was. The problem with the product was the brittle nature of the plastic sleepers, the rail fixings breaking very easily especially when handled by children. This, and the decision to adopt live frog points, created an over-complicated system. I have a considerable stock of Dublo 2-rail track, much of it unused and still in its boxes for when I finally get around to assembling my 'heritage' layout, and I was asked by a friend if I could spare some lengths of straight track for display purposes. He was of the opinion it was the nearest in terms of accuracy and I would agree it creates a better impression but I cannot offer any help regarding actual dimensions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5050 Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 I seem to recollect that the rail is a slightly strange profile with a very rounded top compared to Peco etc. Otherwise it looks OK but the curves are a bit tight! Didn't GEM or someone make some compatible flexible track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dublodad Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Hi Many Dublo operators mix Dublo and Peco code 100 "randomly" with no operational problems, but much of the modern rolling stock is unhappy with the Dublo points. Although Dublo will run perfectly through code 100. Dublo standard radius track is 15 inch radius as are the points, large radius are 17.28 inch radius (same as second radius. 6959, this of course does not answer your question by I don't know the answer Terry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Typical British wooden sleepers* are 8' 6" x 10" x 6" spaced at 2'6" (2.3" at rail joints) (Many variations between companies etc.) Reducing the length to compensate for the narrow track gauge - personal opinion as to what looks right but a couple of millimetres seems reasonable to me gives 32 x 3.3 x 2 (the depth is hidden in the ballast so can be ignored) at 10mm spacing. I feel the close spacing can be ignored as the coaches are short too, so it's not too bad scalewise. The rail section is actually code 110 but the 10 thou. difference doesn't worry the rolling stock too much. The round section comes from tinplate practice and helps with the angular Dublo wheel profile The Dublo sleeper base is moulded in polystyrene, which is really too delicate. Peco's polythene is far more robust. Modern rolling stock has BRMSB/NMRA** wheels, which never were too happy on Dublo track, due to gauge variations (the wider Dublo tyres have no trouble with these). (Poor quality control allowing back to back variations doesn't help!) * Crossing timbers are 12" wide, but track manufacturers seem to ignore/be ignorant of this. ** Not quite the same thing but more or less compatible. Dublo radii are 15" and 17.25". Tri-ang* adopted the latter as their standard radius for Super 4 track, when they bought out Hornby. Using this radius for points meant that a crossover required a slightly larger track spacing than Dublo's 15" radius points, so the smaller radius is even less than Dublo at 14. 625". All the dimensions were originally Imperial, which accounts for the strange numbers on conversion to Metric. Later on these became !st, 2nd etc. radius. Super 4 marked a change in Tri-ang's track geometry from 30 degree curves to 45 degree. Standard and Series 3 track required a large spacing between tracks, due to the points being a whole 30 degree curve rather than 22½ degrees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dublodad Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 6959 I wonder if you have some of the Dublo starter set track as that was more ruggedly built. From memory the sleepers are deeper on this track. I will dig out a piece of "standard" Dublo 2-rail track tomorrow and check the sleeper thickness. I don't have any starter set track. Terry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 The starter set curves are 45 degrees. In all my earlier waffling, I forgot that 2 rail Dublo curves are 30 degree, requiring all sorts of short rails to compensate. It's also quite cheap, as not particularly sought after (with the exception of the 'Simplec' points, which, being 'dead frog', we don't want anyway. With care* the base can be bent down sufficiently to release the rails for cleaning. (Even nickel-silver tarnishes in fifty odd years!) *Great care is needed because the rail fixings are very delicate. This is especially true for the various isolating rails. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dublodad Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Hi I have just checked the sleeper thickness at 2mm so you do have standard Dublo track. Ignore the difference and just connect them. I does work in practice. Terry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Emily Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 I've found the plastic base too brittle for use. My stocks are used as the track to put models on in display cabinets. I do use the outer radius curves as templates to get the curve of my Peco setrack right though - I lay the Hornby Dublo track upside down on top of the Peco then bend the Peco gently to fit the curve before removing the HD track for reuse on the next section. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Typical British wooden sleepers* are 8' 6" x 10" x 6" spaced at 2'6" (2.3" at rail joints) (Many variations between companies etc.) Reducing the length to compensate for the narrow track gauge - personal opinion as to what looks right but a couple of millimetres seems reasonable to me gives 32 x 3.3 x 2 (the depth is hidden in the ballast so can be ignored) at 10mm spacing. I feel the close spacing can be ignored as the coaches are short too, so it's not too bad scalewise. The rail section is actually code 110 but the 10 thou. difference doesn't worry the rolling stock too much. The round section comes from tinplate practice and helps with the angular Dublo wheel profile The Dublo sleeper base is moulded in polystyrene, which is really too delicate. Peco's polythene is far more robust. Modern rolling stock has BRMSB/NMRA** wheels, which never were too happy on Dublo track, due to gauge variations (the wider Dublo tyres have no trouble with these). (Poor quality control allowing back to back variations doesn't help!) * Crossing timbers are 12" wide, but track manufacturers seem to ignore/be ignorant of this. ** Not quite the same thing but more or less compatible. Dublo radii are 15" and 17.25". Tri-ang* adopted the latter as their standard radius for Super 4 track, when they bought out Hornby. Using this radius for points meant that a crossover required a slightly larger track spacing than Dublo's 15" radius points, so the smaller radius is even less than Dublo at 14. 625". All the dimensions were originally Imperial, which accounts for the strange numbers on conversion to Metric. Later on these became !st, 2nd etc. radius. Super 4 marked a change in Tri-ang's track geometry from 30 degree curves to 45 degree. Standard and Series 3 track required a large spacing between tracks, due to the points being a whole 30 degree curve rather than 22½ degrees. I should point out that Super 4 Track was introduced in 1962, and Lines Bros. (Tri-ang) didn't take over Meccano Ltd (Hornby Dublo etc.) until Febuary 1964...."Amalgamating" Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang Railways to form Tri-ang Hornby in May 1965. Therefore, the radius question pre-dates the takeover....but there may well have been some "inspiration" at work.... The "Starter Set" track sections have steel rails instead of the standard Nickel-Silver. The base sleepers are meant to be stronger made. I have some Hornby Dublo track sections with steel rail, but the sleeper base looks the same to my tired old eyes! Also the curves are the same, 12 to a circle, as the "Standard" HD curves... Did HD make "standard" track sections with steel rails? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 A bit off topic, In the very distant past (In my youth in fact) I cut the webs between the sleepers on some HD two rail track and had my first experience of Flexi track. At the time some track was still manufactured with a fibre base, there was even a fibre base that took small staples for building EM gauge track. Happy days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted March 14, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 14, 2015 I've been looking for a couple of lengths of HD track to go with my Mail Car operating section. The sleeper difference makes it hard to fiddle Peco to work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 803 I'm not aware of any Dublo 2 rail standard track with steel rail, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any. Using up some left over rail from the starter sets, would not have been impossible! I've not tried it (I've never used my 2 rail TPO unit*), but cutting the webs of the Peco track should enable the sleeper spacing to be fiddled to fit, otherwise the best bet is eBay. (I don't know how common 2 rail Dublo track is in Canada - it's much harder to find than 3 rail even here.) *I need to modify a 3 rail TPO coach to 2 rail first (or find a 2 rail version, but I don't need another one, I've got two already). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5050 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 there was even a fibre base that took small staples for building EM gauge track. Happy days Jim Russell's 'Little Western' track base. I bought a load unused at Preston Exhibition the other week. Approx. 5 metres worth for £1.00. A bit of a bargain I reckon. I just hope the staple size is still made! It'll come in for some P4 fiddle yard track in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoingUnderground Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Tri-ang Standard and Series 3 2nd radius track have the same radius as Super 4, System 6, modern Hornby and Peco Setrack 2nd Radius curves at 17 1/4 inches. When Tri-ang introduced Super 4 track they increased the radius of the 1st radius curves, changed the radius of the points from using 1st radius curvature to 2nd radius curvature, and went to 16 to a circle instead of the Standard/Series 3 track 12 to a circle, and this reduced the double track spacing. So in my mind there is no question of Tri-ang 2nd radius curves being "inspired" by the Hornby Dublo track geometry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The inspiration (if any) lies in the change from 30 degree curves (ie 12 to a circle) (possibly copied from Trix - the 13.5" radius is the same) to 45 degree (ie 8 to a circle*) and from using the full 30 degree curve as the pointwork 'standard' to a 22 1/2 degree 'standard'. Dublo 2 rail has 30 degree curves, but 22 1/2 degree points dimensionally identical to the 3 rail). Probably coincidentally, the Tri-ang and Dublo large radii are the same at 17 1/4 inches (2nd radius). Since the Super 4 points are based on the large radius curve, it results in 1st radius being slightly smaller than Dublo's 15 inches. * I believe Tri-ang called this a double curve, but supplied it as a standard unit in sets etc. 132 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.