I am in the planning stages of building an On30 “Island” pike. I am considering adding a probably non-operating section of O scale track. I say probably since I don’t play the lottery and I don’t think Santa will bring me an O scale small steam non-high rail loco, but then again, it could happen. My problem is building/installing a few dual gauge turnouts. To be quite frank, I have never even seen one. Any help would be appreciated. Oh, by the way, I tried using the Search bar and didn’t find anything. Thanks
Kevin
There is a sampling of dual-gauge turnouts at this site:
http://www.railwayeng.com/turnouts.htm
This photo includes dual-gauge turnout and dual-gauge crossing.
Mark
Thanks, That is just what I needed. Since they are a bit pricey, I either need to break out the tools, or win the lottery. Once again, thanks for the info, and sorry it took so long for me to reply to your answer
Kevin
The problem with O/On30 dual gauge is that it just doesn’t look right. With O gauge being slightly wider than scale (scales to 60" gauge) and On30 representing 30" gauge (actually scales to 31.2"), dual gauge O/On30 ends looking like 3 rail O with the narrow gague rail running exactly in the center, instead of being offset from center on a 64%/36% basis of the prototype.
A while ago in a thread, I had stated that when considering switching to O/On30 from HO/HOn3, the difference between On30 and On3 bothered me even more than the incorrect dimension of O standard gauge or the 3rd rail of 3 Rail O. But I hadn’t been able to explain why until a couple of months ago when I realized that O/On30 would just look out of proportion to each other in any scene where both gauges were visible.
Bottom line is that dual gauge O/On30 is pretty much out from an appearance perspective. You also probably want to have objects between any parallel O and On30 tracks - like a trans-loading platform - so that direct visual comparison of the O and On30 gauge is not readily available to viewers.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Thanks for your insight Fred. My idea was to run only On30 and O/On30 dual gauge - No single gauge O. I didn’t realize how “3rd Rail” it would look. Oh well, another idea dashed by reality. Once again, thanks for your insight
Kevin
Kevin
Sorry - I didn’t want to crash your dream like that.
As I suggested, a platform with 2 rail O on one side and On30 on the other would look pretty good. The O could be a dummy piece of track - long enough to hold a flatcar, boxcar, and/or gondola or two. The On30 track could be raised slightly so that the boxcar floor heights would be equal for easier movement of freight across the platform. The platform and cars would represent the interchange where freight was moved from standard to narrow gauge, and vice versa. Perhaps a crane on the platform to assist with the trans-loading, and maybe a shed for goods that needed to be kept dry. That’s exactly the scene I’m creating in HO and HOn3 - no dual gauge planned at this time.
In the prototype world, separate track for standard and narrow gauge was more common than dual gauge track.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Fred
No apologies are necessary. I think one of the values of these forums is to learn from others. Many times I have sketched a track plan, thinking it will be great, only to find my turnouts are too tight, grades too steep, or not enough room to add structures that I can see in my mind but flat out will not fit. Fortunately, a scale or full size drawing prevented the expending of time, effort and hard earned railroad dollars from creating something unworkable. Those who answer questions in forums will constantly be faced with the issue of how to respond to topics that may not always be well thought out. There is a line out there that we should not cross (and you certainly did not cross it). Or in the words of my Dad, “You can’t stop stupid. All you can do is try to point out the pitfalls along the path”. (NOTE: This advice was given about parenting/mentoring, not model railroading specifically, but isn’t what people try to accomplish in this forum mentoring.) Once again thanks for all the advice all of you give.
Kevin
Hi, Kevin,
If the object is to have a standard gauge connection that is primarily scenic/non-operating, you could minimize the ‘wide gauge’ look by narrowing the standard gauge by 1/16" - scale 4’9" rather than 5’0".
Another possibility, on three-rail running track, would be to use heavier rail on the outer rails and a lighter rail section on the narrow gauge’s center rail. Late in the Grande’s dual gauge era, the standard gauge rails between Alamosa and Antonito were re-laid with heavier rail. From then until the dual gauge was ripped out, the narrow gauge trains rolled along with a distinct list, on one tall rail and one short rail. The counterweights of the outside-frame locomotives only cleared the top of the other tall rail by about 3/8"
There were lots of 2’6" gauge prototypes (I have two of them in my master plan) but, unfortunately, most of them weren’t on the North American continent.
In my own modeling, as with the prototypes I follow, there won’t be a millimeter of dual-gauge track.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - 1067mm and 762mm prototype track gauges)
Alternatively, one could construct a list in the platform as was done at Owenyo, CA where the SP interchanged between its standard (Owenyo/Lone Pine/Jawbone Branch) and narrow gauge (Keeler/Owens Valley Branch) lines. The platform looked like it was about 15 feet wide. Since traffic was mostly loads out (narrow to standard gauge), workers usually had gravity working against them. There was no dual-gauge trackage at this location.
Mark
Kevin, years ago, I had never scratchbuilt a turnout, single or dual gauge, but at the train club at McGuire AFB, we wanted to put in a dual gauge yard and an HOn3 logging line. In my ignorance, I volunteered to build the turnouts from scratch. The first thing I found was each one had three frogs, two standard ones and a special one that I’ve only seen in the dual gauge turnouts.
The standard frogs are toward the right bottom, and the special one is slightly left and up from them. Then, since we wanted the whole thing to be operational on both gauges, insulation became an issue. I made the common rail one side and the other two the other side, going to the power supply. Hard to see, but on the lower, standard frog, there is a strip of thin fiberglass epoxied in and the flangeway cut with a hacksaw blade.
Other special work is a “change common rail” section (left), as well as a “split dual gauge” track. Neither of these have moving parts, the guardrail make them work. Several trips to the East Broad Top gave me views of how the prototype did this.
All this is Code 70 rail, with the standard gauge mainlin laid with Code 100. The layout is gone, but they gave me the yard and special work. I hope to work it into my next layout expansion.
The message is that you never know what you can do until you try.
As evidenced in earlier photos, dual-gauge turnouts, depending on routing, can have two or three moveable points, or no moveable points at all, and one, two, or three frogs. The easiest of all to build is where the narrow gauge turns off from the dual-gauge route with the third rail on the opposite side to the frog. This requires merely a narrow-gauge turnout and a guard rail on the standard gauge rail.
Start with a simple turnout, later a crossing and dual gauge turnouts.
A friend wanted this turnout - and it took me 4 1/2 hours to solder. - And it was fun.
Wolfgang
