Not quite 00 or H0

[AndyID]

Being new here, I thought I might get away with this, so here goes:

 

What might happen if a manufacturer was to sell 16.5 or 16.2 mm gauge flexible track that represented British bullhead and/or flatbottom practice, but in all other respects was scaled somewhere between 4 mm/foot and 3.5 mm/foot, say 3.75 mm/foot?

 

Might this be viewed as a reasonable aesthetic compromise, or would it immediately become a "dead duck"?

 

Personally I would like it because I could build pointwork to match.

 

 

Answers on a postcard please

[roythebus]

You an already get 16.5mm bullhead flexible track ready- made.

[AndyID]

Ah yes! SMP for example. I have quite a lot of that. This would be scaled a bit smaller but still to the same gauge. Slightly narrower sleepers and more sleepers per length.

 

It's an attempt to mask the reduced gauge compared with the real thing. The track would probably look quite good on its own, but it might look a bit underscale when there was rolling stock on it.

[47137]

I like the C&L and SMP "4mm 00" track in a display cabinet where I'm looking at the edge of it, but it tends to look a bit chunky to me when viewed from above.

 

I would have probably bought your suggested track if it had been on the market two months ago, and the rail matched up with Peco code 75 FB. It would be excellent for micro layouts where people often use Peco points (or copy them) because they are physically compact, but of course such layout builders only buy a yard or two at a time.

 

For my own layout, I have Peco track with the sleepers spaced out to around a 29-inch pitch at 1:87 scale. This way I have a roughly scale model of the track (albeit HO) which "looks right" on its own and, when there is a train on top of it, I can't see much of it anyway. However, my layout will be largely scenic with few man-made structures or model people to define the scale of the landscape. I'm not a finescale modeller - I'm more wanting a nice 3D picture to look at, and a playground for my 00 trains, and other opinions will vary a lot from this. I remember Fleischmann tried some UK outline at an intermediate scale many years ago and I don't think they sold very well.

 

- Richard.

[mightbe]

We already have that.

 

C&L flex. The sleepers are scaled in both length and spacing. They'd be 8'3" in real life and are spaced in proportion to this trimmed length (I believe, or they are spaced closer at a slightly different proportion).

[AndyID]

We already have that.

 

C&L flex. The sleepers are scaled in both length and spacing. They'd be 8'3" in real life and are spaced in proportion to this trimmed length (I believe, or they are spaced closer at a slightly different proportion).

I hope you are right, but I could be slightly more convinced if C&L seemed to appreciate that 16.5 mm is equivalent to four feet, one and one half inch (4.125 feet) rather than four feet, and three inches (4.25 feet)

[47137]

I have an length of C&L 00 gauge flexi track

Sleeper width = 3.57 mm representing 10.7 inches about 7% oversize at 1:76 (sorry only time to measure one sample)

Sleeper pitch: 10 sleepers take 88 mm so 8.8 mm representing 26 inches, about 11% underscale from the expected 30 inches

Sleeper length 32 mm to suit the reduced gauge

 

I still prefer my modified Peco, but this is probably because I want to use some Peco points, I want FB rail and I've got some HO scale trains as well as 00. I suspect, given the C&L dimensions I've measured, the intermediate scale you suggest would be too close for many people to see the difference.

 

- Richard.

[hayfield]

We already have that.

 

C&L flex. The sleepers are scaled in both length and spacing. They'd be 8'3" in real life and are spaced in proportion to this trimmed length (I believe, or they are spaced closer at a slightly different proportion).

 

 

You are correct as their EM & P4 track has a slightly wider spacing. C&L are at Alley Pally this weekend and will have both C&L , Exactoscale and Peco flexi track on their stand.

 

I see no need to reduce the sleeper width to 3.75 mm scale though

[mightbe]

I see no need to reduce the sleeper width to 3.75 mm scale though

 

Of course not; 7% overscale isn't noticeable to the vast majority. And the track pairs well with rolling stock in photos.

 

However--I can usually tell the difference between C&L EM and OO flexi even when not side by side. That's probably due to the sleepers' width. 

 

SMP OO almost always looks too narrow (even without stock) because of the full-length sleepers, but I suppose it would be fine to represent pre-grouping track.

 

Deciding between an OO-SF turnout (8'3" sleepers) and an EM one is a total crapshoot.

 

My half-solution is C&L OO with finer replacement wheels on pony trucks*. The overall image is acceptable. Even if the wheels are still a bit close at least they aren't sitting pretty like a pair of buck teeth.

 

*Warning: I use OO-SF. This might not work if you're using OO-BF, and I'd venture to guess that it won't work reliably even if you set the B2B correctly.

[Bernard Lamb]

Of course not; 7% overscale isn't noticeable to the vast majority. And the track pairs well with rolling stock in photos.

 

However--I can usually tell the difference between C&L EM and OO flexi even when not side by side. That's probably due to the sleepers' width. 

 

SMP OO almost always looks too narrow (even without stock) because of the full-length sleepers, but I suppose it would be fine to represent pre-grouping track.

 

 

Indeed scale length and width sleepers do look odd in 00 gauge.

I can't see a possibility of getting track like this in RTL form.

Bernard

[AndyID]

Now here's a funny thing:

 

I thought I might as well build a turnout to my proposed scale and modify some SMP to match just to get an idea how it actually looks. (Templot lets you force any scale and gauge you want.)

 

So I set the scale at 1:82 (3.72 mm/foot), gauge at 16.2 mm, 8.5 foot sleepers and created a template for a gently curved turnout with plain track at both ends. To get an idea of how much work I was going to have to do on the SMP sleepers, I laid a piece of SMP on the template. The SMP track almost exactly lined up with the template!

 

The sleeper lengths are correct. They are a tiny bit too wide, and they are spaced just a little wider than the template, but not enough that anyone would ever notice.

 

The nice thing is that, on the template at least, the turnout looks a lot less "narrow gauge" than a 4mm/foot template. The effective gauge is 4' 4.25", so it should look better. I was concerned that at this scale the turnouts would look a bit strange alongside the SMP plain-track, but it looks as if they should actually look better than 4mm/foot turnouts.

 

Next thing to do is build the turnout and see how everything looks with stock sitting on it.

[mightbe]

I'm thoroughly confused. Technically, you've created scale narrow gauge track to 4'4.25" by using nonscale standard gauge track (which is what the SMP is). How on earth can the sleeper lengths match? 

 

Unless you're interpreting the 1:82 track as 1435 mm. But still, SMP sleepers are 34 mm long, and the sleepers on your track should be 30 mm long. C&L's should be 33 mm long. (all of this is rough math, which I will admit is not a strong suit). C&L doesn't look correct because only the distance from rail to the outside end of the sleeper is kept to scale. If all was scaled to 3.5 mm/ft (to match the gauge), then the sleepers would be 30 mm long. But somehow you've made 34mm=30mm?

 

[AndyID]

Not to worry. It all comes out in the wash

 

The SMP is OO gauge and the sleepers (on the sample I have in front of me) are 31.5 mm long and 3.4 mm wide. The gauge is, of course, 16.5 mm.

 

Multiplying those dimensions by 82 translates to 8 feet 5.5 inches long, 11 inches wide and a gauge of 4 feet and 5.25 inches.

 

So, at that scale, the sleepers are a very close approximation to an 8'6" sleeper, the sleeper is an inch too wide, and the gauge is only three and a quarter inches less than it should be, which is a lot better than the 7 inch difference you see with a scale of 1:76.2 (4mm/foot)

 

It depends a bit on how you look at it, but SMP seems to be already somewhere between OO and HO. Anyway, I think it's common practice for people to construct turnouts that are scaled at 1:76.2 in every respect except the gauge and sleeper length. I believe the turnouts will be more aesthetically pleasing if they are scaled at somewhere around 1:82, and at that scale they will look quite correct when combined with SMP track.

 

We already know SMP and OO rolling stock look pretty good together, so why not build the turnouts to match?

[hayfield]

Now here's a funny thing:

 

I thought I might as well build a turnout to my proposed scale and modify some SMP to match just to get an idea how it actually looks. (Templot lets you force any scale and gauge you want.)

 

So I set the scale at 1:82 (3.72 mm/foot), gauge at 16.2 mm, 8.5 foot sleepers and created a template for a gently curved turnout with plain track at both ends. To get an idea of how much work I was going to have to do on the SMP sleepers, I laid a piece of SMP on the template. The SMP track almost exactly lined up with the template!

 

The sleeper lengths are correct. They are a tiny bit too wide, and they are spaced just a little wider than the template, but not enough that anyone would ever notice.

 

The nice thing is that, on the template at least, the turnout looks a lot less "narrow gauge" than a 4mm/foot template. The effective gauge is 4' 4.25", so it should look better. I was concerned that at this scale the turnouts would look a bit strange alongside the SMP plain-track, but it looks as if they should actually look better than 4mm/foot turnouts.

 

Next thing to do is build the turnout and see how everything looks with stock sitting on it.

 

 

It's your layout, and anything is better than standard RTR offerings

[47137]

If you can use FB rail, there is another possible dodge by using something like Peco N gauge code 80 rail instead of their 00/HO code 75. The N gauge rail has a narrower base, so the visible width of sleeper between the rails will be that little bit greater.

 

- Richard.

[AndyID]

Thanks Richard.

 

I'm in the US, so it might be tricky/expensive to source that here, but it would be interesting to see how it looks. I suppose I could make a jig and file down some code 75.

 

In pirate speak, I'm "shaving me timbers" for my prototype at the moment (down to about 3.75 mm). I will use code 75 FB for the turnout - two reasons, I have a lot of it, and I think it might look more convincing with soldered construction than BH without the chairs.

 

Hopefully I'll post some pix of how it's coming along later this week.

 

Cheers,

Andy

[Jeff Smith]

I've posted this photo a couple of times. From top to bottom, Peco code 75, C&L P4, SMP OO. It all depends on your commitment (and maybe investment) to OO but rather than spending a lot of effort trying to improve OO track why not buy the dimensionally correct 4mm track and put the effort into re-wheeling! Tip, P4 is easier and better looking than EM.....

 

[AndyID]

I've posted this photo a couple of times. From top to bottom, Peco code 75, C&L P4, SMP OO. It all depends on your commitment (and maybe investment) to OO but rather than spending a lot of effort trying to improve OO track why not buy the dimensionally correct 4mm track and put the effort into re-wheeling! Tip, P4 is easier and better looking than EM.....

 

post-7723-0-84849100-1426780959.jpg

That's easy!

 

a ) Too much stuff

 

b ) I'd probably go with EM if I didn't have too much stuff

 

I suppose a third reason is that I think somebody (perhaps even Peco) could produce turnouts for OO that were a much better representation of British practice than anything that's currently available. The manufacturers are never going to abandon 16.5 mm gauge, but I believe they could produce something that's a lot more convincing. 

 

I have at least made a start

 

[AndyID]

If this works out as well as I hope it will, I might even try to persuade Martin to make it a standard option on Templot

[hayfield]

AndyID

 

You are quite right in what you have said.

 

Yes the modern RTR is out of proportion for 4 mm scale, gaps far too coarse for modern stock and the design is far from UK prototype.

 

Many have too much stock to convert gauge

 

Building your own track has many benefits and no where as hard as some fear. There was a super layout at Alley Pally (small hall behind the MERG stand)  I think in 00 gauge beautifully built track in copperclad and the lack of chairs was not apparent. 

 

May I suggest you cut the isolation gaps before you start soldering, I find it much easier and neater, plus you can test under power whilst building

[AndyID]

 

May I suggest you cut the isolation gaps before you start soldering, I find it much easier and neater, plus you can test under power whilst building

Thanks for the encouragement!

 

re: the gaps, I usually grind off rather large areas of copper with a cutoff disk in a Dremel tool after soldering. I feather the edges of the copper so that the gaps are hardly visible after the timbers are painted.

 

BTW, I'm using FR4 double sided glass/epoxy laminate. It's not easy to find phenolic paper (SRB?) here.

 

And now to bed. (It's half past midnight!)

[hayfield]

Thanks for the encouragement!

 

re: the gaps, I usually grind off rather large areas of copper with a cutoff disk in a Dremel tool after soldering. I feather the edges of the copper so that the gaps are hardly visible after the timbers are painted.

 

May still be easier doing before the rails get in the way, a rotary sanding disc could do the same job. I just use a junior hacksaw, mark the cuts using a ruler and pen and a few passes with the blade cuts the foil. A bit of filler left to harden over night and a quick sand

 

BTW, I'm using FR4 double sided glass/epoxy laminate. It's not easy to find phenolic paper (SRB?) here.

 

??  I thought copperclad was universal, I just buy the pre-cut strips

 

And now to bed. (It's half past midnight!)

 

 

[martin_wynne]

If this works out as well as I hope it will, I might even try to persuade Martin to make it a standard option on Templot

 

Hi Andy,

 

Happy to do that -- but if it is not 4mm/ft you must not call it 00-SF. This is one of the reasons the 00 standards are such a confusing mess -- over the years folks have published many different ideas, but still called them simply 00. Each idea needs its own name, so that everyone knows what is being meant.

 

NMRA N scale is 1:160, so for 1:80 you could call it "DN" or Double-N (the same idea as H0 is "Half-0"). If it is intended for 00 models, you could coin the designation 00-DN for this in Templot. Or whatever you want to call it, but not 00-SF, which means something else. For 1:82 scale it could perhaps be 00-82.

 

For myself I much prefer the traditional BRMSB approach. 00 rolling stock is built for 4ft-1.5in gauge at 4mm/ft, so the obvious thing is to build a 4mm scale model of 4ft-1.5in track for it to run on. If you build the track to some other scale, it looks daft when 4mm scale models are placed on it. I know there is very little prototype track at 4ft-1.5in gauge, but there would be if prototype trains were built to that gauge!

 

Furthermore the track components are for 4mm/ft scale, rail and chairs, so look out of proportion when used on smaller scale track.

 

There is a constant wail about 00 track being under-scale, but the same folks happily buy 00 RTR models without constantly complaining that it is under gauge. If 4ft-1.5in gauge is acceptable for the trains, the logic is that it should be acceptable for the track.

 

The 00 settings in Templot do that and create the timber sizes and spacings at 4mm/ft, sleepers being 8ft-0in length to match the track gauge, as would be the case for prototype 4ft-1.5in gauge track.

 

Each to his own of course.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

Hi Martin,

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one

 

I don't mind what it's called, but nobody is going to win the argument on the basis of "scale". If OO is a scale then 16.5 mm gauge track should be referred to as OO-GS (for Glasgow Subway). If scale dominates, when modelling railways on the British mainland, 1:87 or P4 would be better choices.

 

As you say, the whole thing is a mess, and it's also completely subjective. I agree that OO equipment looks bad on the likes of Peco track, but in my opinion it looks pretty good on SMP. However, I happen to think turnouts scaled so that the gauge is equivalent to 4.125 feet don't look right at all. To me they are always slightly reminiscent of the RH&DR.

 

Whatever we do with "OO" it's always going to be a compromise. I'm attempting to adjust the turnouts to make them look less "narrow gauge". I'll reserve judgement until I see the result and I hope you will do the same.

 

Cheers,

Andy

[AndyID]

 

BTW, I'm using FR4 double sided glass/epoxy laminate. It's not easy to find phenolic paper (SRB?) here.

 

??  I thought copperclad was universal, I just buy the pre-cut strips

 

 

 

Those strips are not so easy to find in the US. I think the ones you can buy in the UK are typically made from single-sided phenolic-paper copper clad laminate (also known as FR-2). That material is hard to find in the US, but FR-4 is easy to find. FR-4 is copper clad glass reinforced epoxy. It does not shear as nicely as FR-2 so I have to clean it up with a file, but it has the advantage that the copper is a bit less prone to delamination with heat compared with FR-2.