In the book Basic Model Railroading on page 74 is an article titled “Give Operation a Try”. It was written by our own Andy Sperandeo and featured a layout called the Drago and East Ridge Ry.
Here is a link that shows a part of the article and the layout in mind.
My problem is this. Usually I am a HO scale person but am considering this plan as my next O Gauge plan. Accustomed to grades in HO along with radius and wyes, I found myself comfounded by the necessary engineering that might be necessary to accomodate O Gauge problems of Wye, clearances and gradient vs availible pulling ability of engines.
Does anyone have any thoughts on up-converting from HO to O or has tried it before?
Im leaning towards Atlas Two rail because it is closest to HO scale thinking and the equiptment suits me fine.
Am I about to commit a great mistake or is this something that can be done?
Well HO means “Half O” so if you double all the dimensions it will give you some numbers to work with. So if a section of the layout is 15" wide on the HO plan, you’ll need about 30" to do the same thing in O.
One option would be to do it as an On3 or On30 layout…On30 uses the same gauge track as HO track. You’d still need to allow for clearances of the larger equipment both horizontally and vertically but it can be done. I’ve known of HO railroaders who converted an existing layout to O narrow gauge without much trouble.
O two-rail equipment is generally going to need a larger min. radius than 3-rail O will. Lionel and Atlas make full-scale O three-rail equipment that can do 0-42 or even O-36 (i.e. 42" or 36" diameter) curves.
I have often observed that the actual minimum radius is not that different among the popular scales. In particular, the 12.5-inch radius of 3-rail O27 track is a bit sharper than most folks would use for HO. But you also have available 14.142 inches (O31) and 15.75 inches (O34). What is the shortest radius that you were contemplating?
Another consideration is length of trains. If you are willing to accept it, much 3-rail equipment is made with scale width and height, but shortened in length, so that an O-gauge train may not be much longer than an HO train with the same number of cars.
It looks like the Drago and East Ridge has a lot of track in a small space !! Remember an O scale car is going to be twice as wide as an HO one, so you’re not going to be able to put tracks very close to each other…that is, if you want to try doing this track plan in the same space as the HO one, same radius curves etc.
The curves are doable; and there seems to be room to keep the parallel tracks about 3 inches apart on centers. I think the show-stopper is going to be the grades. It looks like about 5 feet for a rise of 4 inches at the very least, or over 6 percent. Perhaps the points where the lower tracks go under the upper ones could be pushed to the left by a foot or two, to get the grade down to a tolerable 4 percent.
If I double say… 4x8 table more or less to O gauge, Im dealing with about 8 by 16 am I not? That should reduce the amount of gradient involved. I am accustomed to thinking 4 inches in HO for up and over the track below, O gauge seems to be much higher… 6 inches? Even 8?
I have not yet thought about equiptment. This is where I run into trouble. The Atlas two rail track seems workable at 36 inch radius minimum. I think a RS-1 or a GP7/9 will be the primary engine for the road. If necessary I might add a SW type 4 axle switcher. However the wallet will only do so much.
Would I need to get two engines to work together on the entire layout due to the grades? Following the article as a example, the train would probably be about 6 cars more or less. Keeping in mind the actual lengths involved of O gauge that is plenty big.
If I look at 3 rail, Im looking at maybe 6 feet diameter minimum for a 180 curve. Some equiptment will not handle this very well. Then again you might not see a very large engine on here.
Long time ago Gargraves track was the cat’s meow in flex form, however the switches were… tight. I guess thinking in terms of degrees, I can hammer out that wye and make it work. But finding room for that switch to create a passing track at the upper station is going to cost me in terms of space.
I have not considered On30. I will have to sit down and look over the current offerings in that scale. Being able to use HO track might be the way to go since I am already “Up to here” in the stuff.
I suppose the last thing I need to consider is the grades, traction ability of engines. Maybe 8 cars plus a caboose is the absolute maximum train I would want to run on here. I will need to think in terms of train lengths and accomodations of various tracks.
Would I need to settle for three rail and shorter equiptment? I can do so but… for the money involved, I think I rather stick to scale O gauge. Fortuna
Doubling the size of the entire layout would be overshooting a bit: O scale (1/48) is only about 80 percent larger than HO (1/87), which is actually half of the British 7-millimeter O scale.
You can get by with about 4-inch vertical clearance in O if you avoid double-stacks, hi-cubes, Superliners, and stuff like that and run only “Plate C” equipment (15.5 feet high).
With 3-rail steel track, you also have the option of Magnetraction, to handle steeper grades. Lionel GP7s and SW2s both came with Magnetraction and can handle the 12.5-inch O27 radius.
Consider using spiral curves to get the look of a long radius in a small space. For example, O72-O34-O72 for a 90-degree corner looks much gentler than it is.
Very little 3-rail equipment will not handle a 6-foot diameter. That is considered a very gentle curve in the 3-rail world.
If you do go with two-rail scale O, you will probably get a lot better technical help on the Model Railroader forum than here, where we specialize in tinplate.
I use 2 7/8-inch spacing in my main yard. A prototype train is 10 feet 8 inches wide, or 2 2/3 inches in O scale.
I’m an exHO guy, now into O27. Just curious: In HO, do you operate individual cab control on single or dual track lines with sidings and blocks or are you running single trains, each on its own independent track? Are you inclined to go scenic or functional on the O plan?
When I went “larger” I had to consider a couple of things. Aside from the obvious “space” consideration, I had to really think about (you should pardon the expression)‘cost’ as the bigger stuff will hit the wallet more. (But, then again, it is a hobby)
I was not able to ‘duplicate’ the full operational aspects that I enjoyed with HO so I went into a ‘play’ mode with the O27.
My [2c]: If you take your time and budget wisely, your idea “can be done”. It will be a rewarding adventure and I wish you all the best. I’d like to hear of your progress and, if possible, post some pictures.
The cost total of the project is somewhat manageable because I am moving into this knowing already what an engine will cost and average of the cars.
Regarding the scenery, I hope to do it scale. I suppose I might be on the wrong forum about that part of the construction. Functionally speaking the layout will handle a train. I don’t expect to run more than one or two engines with or without trains at the most.
I tend to wire a layout that will handle the old fashioned block control but also able to run DCC. My previous HO scale layout was a sort of proving ground for that. As long as I had the right power supply and control hooked up (NEVER both kinds at the same time…) I could run either way.
Keep in mind the dual mode engines with QSI in HO scale allowed some measure of enjoyment with either method of power. I hope to enjoy the same thing in O.
The driving force behind my decision to migrate from HO into the larger scales is the reality that vision isnt what it’s used to be and I intend to enjoy trains in the hobby regardless. Also O gauge is more sturdy and can withstand bad days where fine motor control is a challenge as well.
Maybe one day I will get construction underway with some form of final plan based on this one. I have many plans that I considered and always came back to this one because with the one part of the loop buried the scenery is doeable and the operation potential is quite good for a small plan.