A Finer Scale Track

[Ian Holmes]

Boy!!! I did not realise I would open a can of worms, but my proposed track would hope to be a little more realistic than the present code 80. A simple terminus with basic goods facilities and an engine shed. All my  locos have either n drive chassis or kato for the 2 tram engines, with goods and passenger stock having been re-wheeled with Dundas wheels. Hope this makes things a little clearer. The help and pointers received so far have given me much food for thought and I am grateful for the observations and ideas received. I have found another thread to follow on a site called 2fs who do some narrow gauge track components, I am not adverse to building my own turnouts etc. Hope this may have made thigs a little clearer. so thanks again for your help so far.
Ian H

[JulienW]

Yes, standards can be a bit of a can of worms! ;D

I have a feeling that "2fs" relates to the 2 mm Association's set of finescale track & wheel standards which the N-gauge wheels on the Kato and N-drive chassis may not like (the wheels may be too coarse), though that being said the modern Japanese stuff seems to be a bit finer than some (and the same could be said of Neville Kent's wheel sets).  It may well be an idea to check the standards published on the 2 mm Association's own website against the wheelsets you have, particularly the flanges versus flangeways (digital or dial calipers will be useful) and back to backs before going to the effort of building any track and points and finding that you also need to faff about modifying/ replacing wheels too.

Strangely the 2 mm scale Narrow Gauge guys I think use Z scale standards for their usual 6.5 mm gauge track (certainly I think the 'Narrow Gauge' track gauges for 6.5 mm gauge and Code 30 rail the 2mm Association sell use Z standards), so it may be worth checking things out from that angle as well, just in case.

That's not to say that the finer 2 mm Association standards have not been used for 4 mm scale Narrow Gauge as there's is an exhibition layout - Borth-y-Guest - that uses 2fs standards and a gauge of 7.83 mm to represent the Ffestiniog railway and I know of some 009 modellers who are experimenting with 6 mm gauge & the same standards for models of 18" gauge.

However, contrary to what some people may have you think it is quite possible to make 009 track with a better appearance using a finer rail section that Peco's standard offering without having to change or modify all your wheels, especially if you get hold of one of the turned roller gauges specified for N gauge that will set the flangeways to those that the wheelsets are designed for.

[Graeme Dunbar]

Rail "code" is not the only factor in determining how coarse the track looks. The width of the rail head affects appearance and not all code 80 rail is the same. If I recall correctly, Peco code 80 has a narrower head than some equivalent HOe track.

Also Peco Crazy Track does not make it easy for itself - self-consciously rustic sleepers and chunky "rail spikes" all contrive to make it look over-scale. I suspect the rail removed from the track and soldered neatly to PCB sleepers would look significantly finer.

[duttonbay]

Rail "code" is not the only factor in determining how coarse the track looks. The width of the rail head affects appearance and not all code 80 rail is the same. If I recall correctly, Peco code 80 has a narrower head than some equivalent HOe track.

Yes. The first section of the Dutton Bay used hand-laid code 70 track, but for reasons lost in the mist of time, on the triangle Peco crazy track was used. Looking from above the code 80 Peco looks much finer than the code 70 rail, because it is narrower.

[JulienW]

I'd agree that the width of the rail head is also a factor in the track's appearance.  The Peco conductor rail - IL-1 and code 60 (just checked!) - has a comparitively wide head so may not be the best choice if looking for a 'finer scale' 009 track.

[Hobby]

It looks ok in TTe so I can't see any problems with OO9... TBH the most noticeable thing when compared with Crazytrack and others like Roco, Bemo and Tillig, is the rail height rather than the size of the rail head. Looking at layouts which have used code 60 or 55 that's the thing that I always notice first, they look much more like the track I see on most British NG lines simply for that reason. Weathering will also enhance the looks, though as said the same can apply to RTR track with code 80 if done well.