009 finescale?

[Sven]

I see in other scales true to scale tracks, sleepers and wheels, but didn't really came across this in 009. I have standard Peco 009 track now, but I guess this is too high? What should be the real scale height of the track? And is this available? I can solder my own track, just are interested in the rails.

[Graeme Dunbar]

Contrariwise, other scales and gauges also have grossly over-scale and inaccurate components. Indeed modellers do create finescale narrow gauge in 4 mm scale just as modellers build to finer standards in standard gauge.

However standard gauge railways are built to national standards whereas narrow gauge railways were built to local requirements. Therefore it depends which prototype you are modelling.

I guess there must be an equivalent "lbs/yard to rail height code" for 4 mm scale similar to this one for S scale:
http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm

Perhaps someone can post it please?

However, given that 009 is used to represent a wide range of gauges from just under 2 foot to 2'6" then unless you are modelling a 2'3" prototype rail height is perhaps not too critical in terms of relative accuracy. Anything smaller than code 80 will look lighter. For something readily available, how about Peco Individualy code 60? On the other hand, some people join the 2 mm Scale Association just for the components.

[petersmith1942]

I understand Svens question and agree with Grahams answer. 009 is doing just fine (no pun intended) without being drawn into "finescale". This issue plagued OO and to some degree O scale and mainly for the benefit of a very few and to the detriment of many more.
There are so many variables re narrow gauge depending on time period etc etc and generally what looks right is right. Of equal relevance is tie (sleeper) width ballast cover (or not) and as is often stated todays ng track on most preserved railways is not remotely like the track was in times past
Peter Smith

[JulienW]

The 'problem' with finescale standards is that few of the full size NG railways in the UK used the same track and wheel standards. Looking specifically at 9 mm gauge, which equates to 2' 3" at full size, we have the Talyllyn (TR), Corris CR) and Cambeltown & Macrihanish (C&M).  Whilst the full size standards for the TR and CR might have been the same (did any of the corris stock need their wheels re-profiling to run on the TR?) I suspect that the 'standards' for the C&M were different. That's before we get to the variety of track gauges used in the UK, and given that '009' models can have a full size track gauge of between 2' 8" (even 3') at the widest and 1' 10" (or even 1' 6") at the narrowest taht's quite a variation in track gauge.

That's not to say that '009 finescale' does not exist.  Check out Paul Holm's "Borth-y-Guest" which uses 7.83 mm gauge and 2 mm Association standards for a model of the Ffestiniog in 4 mm: 1 foot. Also Pete Wilson made an 8 mm gauge welsh slate quarry ("Chwarel cwm Bach") and there are a number of 009 modelers who use 12 mm gauge for the 3' gauge Irish and Isle of Man lines.

There was a "4 mm scale Fine Scale Narrow Gauge Study Group" (that was initially part of the Scalefour Society).  The chap who set it up (Lyndon Emery?) unfortunately died before he could finish his layout, but they advocated using 2 mm association standards for gauges of less than 2' 6" (i.e. less than 10 mm) and Protofour standards for 2' 6" and upwards (10 mm and over).

As to rail height (code) comparisons to full size rail weight try http://www.modelrailforum.com/wiki/index.php/Rail_heights

[Sven]

Thanks for the insightful replies. I didn't know industrial railways could have lower rail than the main track. I guess I'll stick to code 75, then.

[JulienW]

Sven, don't forget that narrow gauge lines have (generally) lighter locomotives and stock compared to standard gauge, whether they are industrial or not. Lets face it, the Ffestiniog Railway was, essentially, an industrial railway carrying slate from the quarries in the hills to the ships at Porthmadoc that happened to carry passengers too, and many narrow gauge lines only really 'upgraded' to heavier rail sections due to the availablility of second-hand main line rails, particularly during the preservation era when traffic levels (and train weights) increased.

The table I linked to really refers to standard gauge lines, and looking at the entries for Code 75, Code 55 and Code 40 we get full-size rail weights of 90 lbs/yard, 60 lbs/yard and 28lbs/yard respectivley. For a narrow gauge line, 30 lbs/yard was fairly common and used for surprisingly 'heavy' applications such as the Barsi light railway in India, designed by E.R. Calthrop, who also designed the Leek & Manifold in the UK, famous for being the only UK line to use transporter wagons for carrying standard gauge stock! It thus follows that for a 'scale' model for the Leek & Manifold the use of Code 40 rail would be best, even with the carrying of standard gauge milk tank wagons on the back of narrow gauge transporter wagons.  Even some of the heavyweight Irish lines (County Donegal and Swilly) probably used 60 lbs/yard rail despite having locos that were as big as some UK standard gauge tank locos...

To be honest though if you wanted to use the finer rail sections you will probably end up building the track yourself, though some code 55 ready to use track (and points) are available from the USA (designed for HOn30 use but still 9 mm gauge), as are code 40 rails, which can also be bought in the UK from the 2 mm Association (but one has to be a member to access their sales department).  The advantage of sticking with Code 75 is that most rolling stock wheels will be able to run over it without issues, and that it is fairly easily available.

I suspect, though, that most people looking at a narrow gauge model railway do not study the track in any detail (i.e. with a micrometer!!!), and if painted and ballasted in the right way the height of the rail on the model can be disguised.

[duttonbay]

... some code 55 ready to use track (and points) are available from the USA (designed for HOn30 use but still 9 mm gauge) ...

The only supplier in the US I am aware of is Micro-Engineering, and their code 55 HOn30 flex track was discontinued ten years ago, or longer. A group of modellers convinced M-E to produce a new version of HOn30, but by majority vote it was built using code 70 rail, and has Maine-style sleepers - very long and very close together. My web page here:
http://members.optushome.com.au/duttonbay/dbttrack.html
has a photo showing the differences.

Sadly, if you want code 55 rail now you either hand-lay or use N scale flex and bury the sleepers.

[petersmith1942]

Those pics are very helpful
I do Maine type ng and would love some ME track code 70 but too late now and Peco main line has to do. I think code 70 was a wise choice for ME and think codes 55 or even 40 would be very challenging. I have some sidings in Peco N code 55 with ties buried and like the spindly look but tend to use barrier stock when switching so my locos dont run far on it. Some Maine track had wide ties in anticipation of gauge widening which never happened, just used available ties after Maine Central control or mixed them as available. The wide ties are far more characteristic of Maine than rail gauge
I have code 70 on my HOn3 layout and my sidings look completely different to the main line just in the way the rails are painted and ballasted
Dual gauge is another issue and in Cuba all rail was as for standard gauge wherever I saw it
Peter Smith

[Cambridge Paul]

did any of the corris stock need their wheels re-profiling to run on the TR?

Read "A Railway Adventure" to appreciate the "fun" they had with the finer standards of the Corris Locos on the original trackwork. The loco actually fell between the rails at times.

[rod335]

Whilst Corris 3 did indeed fall between the rails, it was only partly because of narrower wheel treads. It was also caused by the then Talyllyn practiise of laying track to '2' 3" and a thumb' gauge to ease the passage of (particularly) Talyllyn round curves. Both Talyllyn and Dolgoch had particularly long (fixed in the case of Talyllyn) wheelbases which caused damage to both locos and track without this expedient. Indeed, during the late 50s/early 60s, the flanges were removed from Talyllyn's rear drivers for just this reason, although later reinstated when the trailing axle, previously fixed, was given some sideplay.

Returning to the Corris stock, it is likely that both wheel profiles, and the Talyllyn track, were so worn that, apart from as mentioned above, no compatability problems were encountered. Certainly wheels from ex-Corris stock were used indiscriminately for new build/reconstruction work on additional vehicles with no apparent ill effects. However, it is amusing to note that, as someone who I cannot now recall observed, 'the Talyllyn Railway must be unique in having a locomotive that will not stay on the track if it is out of gauge (Sir Haydn) and another that will not stay on the track if it is in gauge (Talyllyn).'

Rod

[rod335]

Returning to the original point regarding finescale track, my own layout is laid with standard Peco 009 track, 'mainline' for the visible portion with Crazy track points, and mainly N gauge (for convenience- it was to hand) for the hidden portions. Although it must be said that the track in the visible portion is so heavily ballasted I wonder why I went to the trouble of buying Mainline track! Although I am quite happy with the appearance 'in the flesh', whenever I see photographs of the layout, the size of the rail leaps out and hits me and I can't ignore it. If I were to do it again (which I'm not!) I would build the track using 2mm association code 40 rail, which would still be oversize but would undoubtedly look a lot better.

Rod

[B.Meldon]

I do wonder if the visual difference between using Peco 009 track and making fine scale track would be that noticeable on a layout. I can recall Pete Wilson

[Graeme Dunbar]

There is almost certainly something in what you say. Bare "crazy" track looks raw and chunky. With rail "sweated" to PCB sleepers the large rail retaining lug "rail spikes" are missing and the combination of ballasting, painting and toning down the whole lot recedes into the ground making it less noticeable.

Perhaps without the plastic lugs to get in the way of wheel flanges it is possible to get away with lower profile rail too?

[D J Mason]

Narrow Gauge track

This is always very light and in most cases the sleepers would be covered

009 has always been a happy compromise if you wish to go down the "fine scale route" use 2 foot 3 inch prototypes in 4mm scale or 1:87 for 760mm  Be aware that to be true to scale your model railway would need to be many hundreds of yards long!

Why not use peco N gauge code 55 track and cover the sleepers up the geometry is spot on.

See also fremo recommendations for H0e

Build what YOU like and run whatever YOU like it's YOUR railway  GET SOMETHING RUNNING 

[Krizzy]

I agree with the previous post. To go down the 'finescale' road means much commitment in time, materials and dedication to the task. As previous posters mention you are also limited to three prototype railways if that is what you want, so much research would also be required. 009 has and always will be a compromise. As D J Mason urges get on with what is widely available and get something running. By all means study the historical prototype for inspiration as many people who come into 009 know little or nothing regarding modelling narrow gauge. Think of a layout to model that has authenticity about it instead of being something beyond the toy stage. You  must also remember that narrow gauge railways were essentially surface lines. Very few had significant engineering works unles they were absolutely necessary. The whole essence of a narrow railway was to reduce costs in both building and running.

Regarding my comment on people knowing little or nothing about narrow gauge and 009 one only has to look on other forums in the Peco rtr topics and read through a few posts. Especially the 'box shifters' who openly admit they have not modelled in 009 because either they can't or won't be bothered to sit down and assemble a kit but they 'like' the concept of 009.

Roger