I have been getting to the point where I am almost ready to convert to On30, as there is great commercially available stuff on the market. And, I remember someone said that 42" gauge was most popular in Eastern Canada, and also that 30" gauge was ultra rare in North America. So, someone else mentioned Sn3 1/2 scale, which is S scale on HO track. So I got to tinking it wouldn’t be so hard, take HO locos, plop on S scale cabs and details, and VOILA! And, you could get Sn3 stuff, and swap out the trucks or HO trucks, but then, not many companies make S scale buildings, so, I’ll build my own, as I have become good at scratch building buildings. But would like to know if anyone recommends this, or if there are any modelers in this scale.
Sn3 1/2 or Sn42 is popular in New Zealand and other places with 42" railroads. In the early days it was an easy way to get into 3’ modeling in the U.S. Today there are a number of companies with Sn3 products and Sn42 is no longer popular. But is still remains an economical way to do S narrow gauge using HO track, trucks, mechanisms, etc. A number of companies make structures. See this site for what’s available in structures and other S products http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/sscale.html.
On30 rolling stock is about the size of S standard gauge rolling stock. And Sn3 1/2 will be somewhat smaller. One possible advantage of Sn3 1/2 over On30 is that S buildings are smaller than O buildings so you can have more of a scene beyond trackside with S.
Personally I think S is great for standard gauge and On30 for narrow gauge, mainly because I like the size which about the same for both. But if smaller models appeal to you then Sn3 1/2 may just be the ticket.
Enjoy
Paul
How high would a 63" driver in HO be in S scale? And would Sn3 equipment me the same size as Sn42?
TO convert an HO 63" driver to S, multiply by 64/87. In this case that yields 46.3" in S…
For over seas 3 1/2 railroads, I don’t how their equipment sizes compare to U.S. 3 railroads. But I don’t see why you couldn’t use Sn3 cars with Sn42 (i.e HO) trucks. The gauge is .649 vs .563 inches a difference of .086 inch, but a 3 ft boxcar is a scale 6 to 8 feet wide or 1.1215 to 1,5 inches. So the slightly wider Sn42 shouldn’t cause much of a problem, if any, requiring underbody modification .
Enjoy
Paul
Iron Rooster, do you know of any Sn42 locomotive manufacturers? And do you know if it would be able to purchase second hand, possibly brass, Newfoundland Locos? Maybe you’d know some guys how are closing up shop on their Sn42 railways?
You do realize that we told you all of the stuff in this thread weeks ago when you first proposed Sn42. 
I guess the question I would have to ask is why are you interested in narrow gauge? If you are freelancing and don’t seem to be intent on modeling a specific prototype, why not model standard gauge? You can do still have a railroad isolated on an island, but just make it standard gauge. Imagine if the Newfoundland railroads had been built to standard gauge. You are freelancing, its a valid option. If you are definitely interested in a specific prototype, go for it. But if you aren’t, there may be ways to achieve your goals without artificially creating more barriers and inflating the degree of difficulty.
Going HO standard gauge opens up your options tremendously with regard to being able to use equipment, details, etc., etc. You can still make it as isolated as you want and scratchbuild all your cars if you want. But until you have the time and resources to scratchbuild all those cars, you can use stock, off the shelf equipment.
30" gauge is indeed very rare. But its not really trying to model 30" gauge, its trying to model either 2 ft gauge (also rare) or 3 ft gauge (more common). The critical thing is that the manufacturers can use HO scale mechanisms and track, so it lets them use already built and tooled mechanisms. Its not about how common or popular the guage was at all, its about expediency for the manufacturers.
If you really want to model narrow gauge, go for the gusto. I’ve dabbled in HOn3 myself. But since you are bouncing around between 3 scales (O, S, HO) and 3 gauges (30", 36", 42") you might want to evaluate where you want to go. After all, a railroad is all about going someplace.
I can only second what Dave has stated.
42" gauge was hardly, if ever, used in North America - it was more common in Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Japan and there is very little available in Sn3 1/2 gauge. Adding a bigger cab to a loco will not necessarily give you a plausible engine.
I said I wouldn’t do this, but here I am back again…
I, along with others, think you are about to make a real mistake. I do applaud your ambition, though. But if I were your parents I would be very scared that this will turn into a failed effort. An effort that you will expend lots of money and time on, only to give it up when you run into roadblock after roadblock. No parent wants to see that scenario. What parents want to see is you grow and mature through successful but challenging achievements. That’s why most youth programs - from school to various extra-curricular activities - are carefully structured to provide just the right amount of challenge to the target age group. Too much challenge, and the kids give up in frustration at not being able to achieve. Too little challenge, and the kids get bored and don’t learn or grow.
It’s pretty obvious from your various threads that you have never laid a foot of track, cut into a model locomotive to change it into something else, mounted new couplers, or wired a layout. Yet you are ready to launch into a very obscure scale with very little commercial support. Yes, the Newfoundland Railway was 42" gauge. Possibly there were other 42" gauge railways in Eastern Canada - I don’t pretend to know.
When I was just a few years older than you, I didn’t understand why every model railroader didn’t detail every locomotive, car, and structure to the nth degree. I couldn’t understand why every bolt and rivit head was not modeled every time. My layout was going to advance one year for every year of real time, just 100 years behind the actual date. I would always be updating and changing the layout.
Then I started building the layout. The concept of limited resources - money, time, and space - were drummed into my hard head by life.
I urge you to start in one of the 2 most supported scales - either HO standard gauge or On30. You don
Yes, I realise that On30 is kinda like ceating on On3 and On2, but by being really close, close enough for most people. And I realize that 42" gauge is rare in North America, but type in Narrow gauge in ontario, and you will find much much much more in 42" gauge then anything else. You’ll see that the Toronto, Grey, and Bruce; Toronto and Nipising; The Huntsville and Lake of Bays, etc. And here is this from Wikipedia:
The largest narrow gauge systems in the country were the 3 ft 6 in (1,070 mm) (Cape or Colonial Gauge) lines such as: the Newfoundland Railway and others on the island of Newfoundland (969 mi (1,559 km)); Ontario’s Toronto and Nipissing Railway and Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway (304 mi (489
[quote user=“fwright”]
I said I wouldn’t do this, but here I am back again…
I, along with others, think you are about to make a real mistake. I do applaud your ambition, though. But if I were your parents I would be very scared that this will turn into a failed effort. An effort that you will expend lots of money and time on, only to give it up when you run into roadblock after roadblock. No parent wants to see that scenario. What parents want to see is you grow and mature through successful but challenging achievements. That’s why most youth programs - from school to various extra-curricular activities - are carefully structured to provide just the right amount of challenge to the target age group. Too much challenge, and the kids give up in frustration at not being able to achieve. Too little challenge, and the kids get bored and don’t learn or grow.
It’s pretty obvious from your various threads that you have never laid a foot of track, cut into a model locomotive to change it into something else, mounted new couplers, or wired a layout. Yet you are ready to launch into a very obscure scale with very little commercial support. Yes, the Newfoundland Railway was 42" gauge. Possibly there were other 42" gauge railways in Eastern Canada - I don’t pretend to know.
When I was just a few years older than you, I didn’t understand why every model railroader didn’t detail every locomotive, car, and structure to the nth degree. I couldn’t understand why every bolt and rivit head was not modeled every time. My layout was going to advance one year for every year of real time, just 100 years behind the actual date. I would always be updating and changing the layout.
Then I started building the layout. The concept of limited resources - money, time, and space - were drummed into my hard head by life.
I urge you to start in one of the 2 most supported scales - either HO standa
You certainly did your homework, yessir!
You have to bear in mind, though, that narrow gauge stock was a lot smaller than standard gauge locos and cars. From that point of view, there is not much size difference to standard HO gauge equipment.
By your own history, and more specifically Ontario, all were converted to standard gauge in the 1880s or abandoned soon after. Newfoundland and possibly Prince Edward Island were the exceptions. So what exactly are you modeling and what era? The last I remember, it was Northern Ontario in the 1930s or later.
Modeling Canadian prototype isn’t easy, even in HO. Modeling 19th Century narrow gauge in Canada means good luck finding plans to scratch build from. Personally, I would wait the Sn42 dream until you have experience scratch building in a scale with better commercial support.
Fred W
Since space is not your primary constraint, let the layout size be driven by the other factors. Let money and time determine how big the layout should be. Layout style and layout building skills also play a role. the only constraint you have identified so far is the space. Time, money, tools available, and skills possessed are all constraints on their own.
4x8 benchwork is very simple and relatively cheap to build, but somewhat dictates size unless you have additional skills and lumber for bigger benchwork.
A donut like the HOG is more complex to build benchwork for - costs more and takes more skill and time - but it could be a much more satisfying layout. Note that donuts typically have more track (more expense) than a 4x8.
The brackets to mount a shelf layout are more expensive than legs for a rectangular or donut - but now you have easier access and space available under the layout. Mounting a shelf layout is another step up in skill compared to building the donut or 4x8 benchwork. A shelf layout can be as big or as small as you want - complexity and costs are driven primarily by number of turnouts and number of shelf supports needed.
Unless you’re modelling a very specific prototype, and if you’re talking about jacking up HO models with S scale cabs I’m betting that you’re not, getting all worked up over the 30 inch gauge is a needless distraction. Ironically, the three foot rule is in full effect in this case, as from normal viewing distance you’ll never notice the 1/8 inch discrepancy.
Unless you’re modelling a very specific prototype, and if you’re talking about jacking up HO models with S scale cabs I’m betting that you’re not, getting all worked up over the 30 inch gauge is a needless distraction. Ironically, the three foot rule is in full effect in this case, as from normal viewing distance you’ll never notice the 1/8 inch discrepancy.
Sorry for the double post. My browser must be stuck in 1998 mode again.
[:-^]
I don’t know about others T.O.,
but I am finding it difficult to believe that you are only 13 years old.
Johnboy out…
I don’t…
And why would you say that?
Aside from the sage advice about your direction within the hobby and age discussions, I would like to point out that although 3’ gauge was by far the dominate narrow gauge, 3’ 6" wasn’t unheard of. In Hilton’s book “American Narrow Gauge Railroads” there is a small table on p. 91 that shows total narrow gauge mileage by gauge. 3’ is certainly the most popular at 95.35%, but 3’ 6" comes in at a distant second with 2.63% - over twice as much as 3rd place 2’ gauge with only 1.17%. To round out the table, 3’ 2" is 4th at .45% and 2’ 6" (30" gauge) is 5th with .22%. It is interesting to note that even a railroad as large as the Texas & Pacific was conceived as a narrow gauge, 3’ 6" railroad! I think the reason most people aren’t familiar with this gauge is that there aren’t any famous survivors like there are with 3’ (D&RG and EBT) and the 2’ Maine railroads - not that the railroads survived intact, but they were used relatively late and a fair amount of equipment is preserved and operating.
Having said that, I think Fred W gave some very good, practical advice. Remember, many of us on the forum went through the same things when we were younger! I don’t know how many layouts I built over the years, with varying eras, scales and degrees of completion. Take the opportunity to learn from our experiences and you will progress further and faster than we did!
Sincerely wishing you the best -
James