I have a web article on HO track for On30 at:
http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/ho_track/
Thank you if you visit
Harold
Wasn’t that what On30 intended to have used
Being somewhat familiar with 1:1 scale 30" (762mm) gauge, HO track under a twice-as-big car looks like a laid-down picket fence.
Of course, if you bury the ties in dirt or smother them in weeds, who can tell? Unfortunately, both the Kurobe and the Kiso had main lines built like the Norfolk and Western - including nice, clean crushed limestone ballast. And the Kiso built logging branches on trestlework, not on the ground…
When I add the small representations of both to my 1:80 scale pike, I will NOT be using N-scale flex to model their trackwork.
Just my [2c]. Other opinions will surely differ - especially if they’ve never seen the prototype.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - including 762mm gauge feeder lines)
You didn’t read the article to find out what I am doing did you, Chuck.
Love Forums
Harold
I love your work, Harold, but I don’t agree on this point.
I tried using stock HO track for On30, but I just couldn’t convince myself it was credible.
As I said in the article I am more toward perceived appearance rather than exactness. Art versus science. I am trying for a 36" gauge “look”. When I handlaid the correct track, it looked like 30" track. Wow, that should have been a suprise. I tried several combos to make it look like 3 foot track, like shorter ties which really looked clunky, etc.
If a 30/36 proportion is applied to oversize HO track it almost gives the right proportions for faux three foot track.
Harold
I like it better too. I model Sn3, and I have some PBL Sn3 flex track. When I compare it to Atlas code 83 (Sn3.5), the HO track looks more like what I “think” the full size track looks like, but when I take both kinds and compare them to the prototype track, the PBL track is a lot closer to being correct.
cheers,
Ken
I think it has something to do with the compression factor. If you realize that a 2x8 section of railroad is 96 FEET x 384 FEET in O scale which is smaller than the cul-de-sac i live on. And using the universal area measument of football fields, smaller in area than a football field with end zones.
Harold
Good points, Harold. Most On30ers aren’t rivet counters anyway.
That’s what I meant–I didn’t buy that it “looked” like narrow gauge track.
Obviously it does to some people.
I should have been more specific, I like the “oversize high-rail track that pretends to be HO track” for On30 but that was too long of a title.
Harold
LOL![;)]
Doesn’t HO Code 100 rail work out to be about 50 lb rail in O scale? If so, I would think that would be about right for some of the more established narrow gauge mainlines.
Code 83 is 60 pound, 100 is 85 pound.
I always like this as an example of narrow gauge track:
from:
http://www.urbaneagle.com/orin-sp/orin-index.html
Harold
Yes, it does. I was expressing my opinion.
What looks good in the real world doesn’t always look good when scaled down. This holds true for dimensions too. If you don’t think this is so, stand back and have a look at your layout through binoculars sometime. If it looks good through binoculars, it looks good for real. If something looks wrong through binoculars, it looks wrong for real too. Binoculars move everything closer together in terms of depth. It’s pretty neat how that works. Try it! If it looks good in binoculars, it also looks good in pictures.
The problem with nit picking over what it prototypical is that On30 is inherently not prototypical. At least not when it comes to using it to represent 36" rail spacing. If you use ties that are prototypical for a 30" narrow gauge line, it’s going to look wrong when the illusion is a 36" spacing. Your ties will be too big and spaced too far apart. HO scale tie sizes and spacing when used on O scale means that you are in fact using smaller ties than standard gauge which is correct. The whole point of using HO track on an On30 layout is not to have a prototypical ties size and spacing for a 30" railroad. That would look wrong. The point is to better blend the tie sizes and perceived spacing in relation to the rolling stock used. You can’t complain about something not prototypical not being held to prototypical standards. You need to get a little creative. The whole point of modeling, especially when you want realism, is knowing how to give it the illusion of realism. It doesn’t have to be exactly prototypically proportioned to look like it.
The most important thing is what do your eyes tell you. It’s not about what is most prototypically accurate. I know some people would say that if it isn’t 100% prototypical that it isn’t accurate to their eyes. The funny thing is that if you modeled something, let’s say a town, prototypically right down the last dimension, it probably wouldn’t look good on the layout. Prototypical accuracy is o
This oversized “HO track” visually works with the smaller Bachmann On30 equipment as 3 foot narrow gauge because of the proportions. The ratio of 30" to 36" is .833. The Model Power HO track is almost to that ratio as O scale narrow gauge track. If you take a the Bachmann On30 cars you have the same ratio with a later larger 3 foot car. Visually the On30 cars appear as three foot equipment. That is my story and I am sticking with it. Art versus Science.
Harold
LOL![(-D]
One of the things that is drawing me towards On30 is the sparse tie look of the ME On30 track. (or the hand laid work) I feel it looks like it fits the time period better. I don’t like the look of hand laid or Fast Track stuff for HO with it’s lack of tie plate detail. But I think it fits right in on a narrow gauge layout. But as mentioned, it really depends on a persons artistic viewpoint.
What rail size DO most On30 guys use? 100? 83?