Accidental forced perspective

[47137]

My new layout has Peco track with the sleepers 'gapped' to give a lighter appearance. My usual spacing is 5 mm between sleepers, giving a pitch of about 8.5 mm i.e. 28 inches in HO scale. Needless to say I didn't bother to do this on a track which will be inside a tunnel.

 

The transition from 'gapped' to 'standard' sleeper pitch seems to trick the eye quite well into thinking the track is longer than it is. This was never my intention but it should help a small layout look bigger.

 

- Richard.

 

[Colin_McLeod]

I can never understand how HO track sitting by itself with nothing else to scale it, should not "look right"

 

The only thing that the sleeper spacing can be compared with is the track gauge.

 

So if the ratio of the sleeper spacing to track gauge is correct, then the track should in the absence of a train "look right" whatever the scale.

 

It makes me wonder whether Peco track is even HO. I do recall, though I can't find any example, that in the early days of Peco Streamline they advertised that the sleeper spacing was designed to "make the track look longer" The only way this could be done would be by moving the sleepers closer together.

 

47137's picture where he has connected OO track to Peco demonstrates very clearly that the Peco track does indeed look longer. (farther away)

 

Just an obvservation.

[PatB]

I can never understand how HO track sitting by itself with nothing else to scale it, should not "look right"

 

The only thing that the sleeper spacing can be compared with is the track gauge.

 

So if the ratio of the sleeper spacing to track gauge is correct, then the track should in the absence of a train "look right" whatever the scale.

 

It makes me wonder whether Peco track is even HO. I do recall, though I can't find any example, that in the early days of Peco Streamline they advertised that the sleeper spacing was designed to "make the track look longer" The only way this could be done would be by moving the sleepers closer together.

 

47137's picture where he has connected OO track to Peco demonstrates very clearly that the Peco track does indeed look longer. (farther away)

 

Just an obvservation.

 

"The track with the fine scale longer look" if I remember the ads correctly .

[47137]

The only thing that the sleeper spacing can be compared with is the track gauge.

 

So if the ratio of the sleeper spacing to track gauge is correct, then the track should in the absence of a train "look right" whatever the scale.

 

It makes me wonder whether Peco track is even HO. I do recall, though I can't find any example, that in the early days of Peco Streamline they advertised that the sleeper spacing was designed to "make the track look longer" The only way this could be done would be by moving the sleepers closer together.

 

47137's picture where he has connected OO track to Peco demonstrates very clearly that the Peco track does indeed look longer. (farther away)

 

We can also compare sleeper spacing with the width of the sleepers. When you look at a length of British railway, the gaps between the sleepers are a bit wider than the widths of the sleepers. I think this is what gives British track its character.

 

Peco track seems to be an HO scale model of USA track. If you widen the gaps between the sleepers, you can make something more representative of British practice. It's still far from a scale model of real track, but the overall impression is better.

 

For clarity - all of the track in my photo (post #1) is the same 'Peco Streamline'. The track nearer the camera has the sleepers set about 5 mm apart. The track in the distance is unmodified.

 

- Richard.