A Finer Scale Track

[Ian Holmes]

Hi People,
I am looking to build a small 4ft layout, already having one with code 80 track. I am looking for a more realistic profile, I have looked at code 55 and at a company called British Fine Scale who work in code 40. The only problem is the thickness and spacing of the sleepers, they don't look right in 009. Any info most welcome.
Thanks Guys
Ian Holmes

[Hobby]

You want Julien Webb, no doubt he'll be along in a minute!

In the meantime I'll give you my thoughts. At Welshpool last year someone had a layout based on the WLLR using code 40 and it was lovely, that's what to aim for. However Peco code 60 is fine as well (it depends on what rail size you are trying to represent) and is easily obtainable. I've used it for TTe (1:120/760mm gauge) and it look right so should be fine for OO9. Both Julien and I use copper clad sleepers, I think Julien uses 3mm Society ones, though you can use the lengths and cut them down.

For OO9 anything looks better than Crazytrack! I can't understand now that Peco have made the "Mainline" track which is spot on for modern HOe they can't do a finer scale OO9 track using the code 60 rail, it would be such an improvement on the CT range...

[B.Meldon]

For OO9 anything looks better than Crazytrack! I can't understand now that Peco have made the "Mainline" track which is spot on for modern HOe they can't do a finer scale OO9 track using the code 60 rail, it would be such an improvement on the CT range...

Probably because their own 009/N gauge wheel flanges would be too large so none of their 009 vehicles could run on it.

Brian Meldon

[Graeme Dunbar]

Shinohara track intrigues me.  https://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Track___Pointwork__HOn2_5_.html

I don't think I've ever seen it "in the flesh". It says code 60 but the photo suggests a variation on crazy track for the flexible lengths at least.

[Hobby]

For OO9 anything looks better than Crazytrack! I can't understand now that Peco have made the "Mainline" track which is spot on for modern HOe they can't do a finer scale OO9 track using the code 60 rail, it would be such an improvement on the CT range...

Probably because their own 009/N gauge wheel flanges would be too large so none of their 009 vehicles could run on it.

Brian Meldon

I'm pretty certain that anything they currently sell will run on code 60, Brian. Perhaps some OO9 modellers with some old wheels from the 60s and 70s might struggle but everyone else would be fine.

[B.Meldon]

For OO9 anything looks better than Crazytrack! I can't understand now that Peco have made the "Mainline" track which is spot on for modern HOe they can't do a finer scale OO9 track using the code 60 rail, it would be such an improvement on the CT range...

Probably because their own 009/N gauge wheel flanges would be too large so none of their 009 vehicles could run on it.

Brian Meldon

I'm pretty certain that anything they currently sell will run on code 60, Brian. Perhaps some OO9 modellers with some old wheels from the 60s and 70s might struggle but everyone else would be fine.

Code 60 rail is 1.5mm
The peco plastic chairs are 0.8mm
The max flange size would be 0.7mm

As an example the Fleischmann 7000 0-4-0 has 0.8mm flanges, so that would not work.

I suppose they could try to make the chairs smaller, but that would reduce the strength somewhat.

I know of several 009 modellers that have tried to use the Shinohara code 60 track and have found issues with many N gauge wheels. Not just those made in the 1970

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Ian,

You raise a very interesting point, and one that divides the Model railway community in a lot of ways! That is happening because of personal preferences and priorities; and you only provide a vague clue as to yours.

The preceding comments already identify the key problem: wheel flanges and their standards, or rather lack of standardisation!

Rail, track, wheels and chassis form a system that has to work together; change one, and you have to change the others too. I have seen proto-N-gauge, but to get 0,15mm flanges to hold the track you need fully compensated chassis, which on a 2-10-0 in 1:160 is only for the skilled watchmaker.   ;D

Thus I recommend a bit of soul searching:
Are you prepared to turn down flanges on all your rolling stock?

If no, stick with the rails from off-the-shelf systems, where Bemo, Shinohara, and Tillig are probably the better options. If you're happy to splash the cash, here is a tip: MaeTrix Z-gauge rail is about the same heights, but thinner, i.e. looks smaller, but still accommodates most N-gauge wheels. Alternatively, doing away with rail-chairs allows reduced-heights rail, i.e. soldering the rails to PCB sleepers.
If you're happy to rework wheels, you have to contemplate how far you want to go. Going proto you are talking somewhere less than 0,3mm flange heights, and for that to work realistically you need fully compensated chassis on every item of rolling stock as no wheel must lift off the track at any circumstance! (Unless you build the perfectly flat layout that never ever will warp). Of course, you also will need to built or rework every switch to match those wheels!

If you want to go down the latter route I strongly recommend to get yourself a copy of the NMRA RP25 (RP= recommended practise). It is sort of halfway to proto, providing reliable running qualities. More importantly, you can buy wheels and track made to that standard, i.e. make life a bit easier for yourself.

Another tip: Eishindo (T-gauge) rails are readily available (at a reasonable price; see https://www.tgauge.com/section/3/1/track/1f5faac2878ec19165c270b8982fa6c4; order No R-4010: 10 X 500mm = 5m rail

[JulienW]

Hi People,
I am looking to build a small 4ft layout, already having one with code 80 track. I am looking for a more realistic profile, I have looked at code 55 and at a company called British Fine Scale who work in code 40. The only problem is the thickness and spacing of the sleepers, they don't look right in 009. Any info most welcome.
Thanks Guys
Ian Holmes

A couple of thoughts if I may Ian...

I'll start off with a question - what type of railway are you trying to 'realistically' represent? An industrial line using small 4 wheel locos (like a brick works) is likely to have used a lighter section - 20 to 25 lb/yd -  with heavier industries with bigger 4, 6 or 8 coupled locos and possibly bogie stock (along the lines of Bowaters) would have used a heavier section - say 40-50 lb/yd - as would a common carrier line when built. With a preserved line they are more likely to be using second hand standard gauge rail, so that would be 75 lb/yd and heavier (they may even be using some 95lb/yd). It's also worth noting that some lines - the Ffestiniog comes to mind - used bullhead rails as opposed to the more usual flat bottom section.

I recall a comparison chart of real rail weight versus 'code, section somewhere (one of the 009 handbooks?) and whilst I have a feeling that Code 40 equates to 40 lb/yd I can't be 100% sure or recall if it was a linear relationship (so code 75 = 75 lb/yd) or not.

Secondly, are you looking for ready to lay track, or are you planning on hand laying? I'll come to the latter in a bit, but if you are wanting ready to lay then a few pointers.  Shinohara HOn30 uses code 60 rail and is sold by Scale link (who sell points and flexitrack). I have a feeling that Microenginering in the US used to sell code 55 (and code 40?) HOn30 but I have a feeling that they no longer do so (a quick look on the internet only brings up their 10.5 mm gauge HOn3), but the do seem to still do N flexitrack in Codes and 40 & 45 and points on Code 55. Avoid Peco's code 55 as this has a funny rail section with a double foot.

With using N scale track unless enbedding it in a road it will look 'wrong' unless you do something about the underscale sleepers. You could try the old dodge of removing alternate sleepers, but that may be a lot of work of not much benefit as the remaining sleepers may still look too short and narrow.

That brings me on to handbuilding your own track, which is not as hard as many people think and is possibly worth a go (in my experience many things seem 'too hard' until one tries). I was pleasantly surprised myself with my 8' by 2' Latham's Brewery (Mk 2), and a 4ft layout is probably going to be a much more achieveable prospect.

Another advantage of hand building things is that the tracks will 'flow' better as, just like the real thing the rails can go where you want them too rather then where Peco (or whoever) dictate with their set radii, and if you want 'odd' things- double curved points or 3 way jobs - that Peco & their ilk do not make then these can be built.

There is a reasonable selection of fine section rails available. The finest that I know of is the 2 mm Association's Code 30 strip rail, but you would need to be an association member to order a coil (or know a member who can order for you). They also sell Code 40 rail (flat bottom, bullhead and strip), but Code 40 FB is also available from C&L finescale (if it isn't shown on their website try e-mailing them), and they also sell Code 55 FB. Next up is the 4 mm scale 'conductor rail' sold by Peco which is either Code 60 or 65 and matches what thy use in their Z-scale track.

As to sleepers I recall that the Welshpool layout that Hobby mentiones used real wood (walnut iirc) with the rails attached with an impact adhesive. For my own hand built track I have used 3mm scale pre-cut copperclad sleepers from 3mm SMR (1.5 mm deep by 2.5 mm thick and 26 mm long and they also do thicker point timbering that you can cut to length) with C&L's code 55 rail soldered down, though you could try using EM or P4 sleepers cut in half (just like the real preservation lines using cut down standard gauge sleepers) but I suspect that 00 sleepers may be too short to do this with.

You will also need to get hold of some gauges. I've found the "3 point" / triangular gauges that Microengineering sell quite useful as if used the right way round they will automatically add 'gauge widening' on the curves. The key is to get them to match the railhead (from memory they do codes 40, 55 and 75), and get at least 2. It would also be useful to have one or two roller gauges. I have a few that I've picked up from the 009 Second Hand Sales, but I note from the SMP/ Marchway website they sell one for 9mm gauge, but they thing to remember is that the groves for the rail may be wider to hold Code 75/80 so the finer sections you are looking to use will be a loose fit. Remember this when you use them & make sure that the finer sections of rail are in the correct side of the groove before soldering the rail in place as otherwise you could end up with your running rails wider than 9 mm and your check rails in the wrong place.

I'll also recommend the templates that Keith Angus has drawn up based on Peco geometry (9" up to 36" radii with plain track and crossings). These may have been mentioned on this forum and are available from Keith, though a source he has given permission for them to be reproduced and passed on with acknowledgement if you can't get hold of Keith drop me a message and I can email you a set as a PDF.

As Leprechaun/waldschrat mentions you may get issues with the older coarse scale wheels and finer rail sections and the more modern finer N-scale track standards. However if you are using the old 1960s Arnold wheels you'll have problems with Peco's points, and with my own efforts with Code 55 C&L rails and what I think is an SMP gauge I've not had any issues with Dundas wheels (though I do reset the back to backs with an SMP back to back gauge that from memory is 7.4 mm), and I think the Welshpool layout with Code 40 rail also used fairly standard wheelsets (though possibly more modern N chassis rather than stuff from the 1960s and 70s) so I do not think the problems are as bad as he suggests.

Sorry that has ended up as a much longer post that anticipated, but I hope that you find it helpful.
Julien Webb

[duttonbay]

I have a feeling that Microenginering in the US used to sell code 55 (and code 40?) HOn30 but I have a feeling that they no longer do so

MicroEngineering made code 55 HOn30 track (only, not turnouts) but the mold wore out. The HOn30 line was revived but morphed into code 70 rail and with Maine style very long and very close together sleepers. That mold is apparently also worn out, and it has been a long time since any HOn30 was available from them.

[Hobby]

For OO9 anything looks better than Crazytrack! I can't understand now that Peco have made the "Mainline" track which is spot on for modern HOe they can't do a finer scale OO9 track using the code 60 rail, it would be such an improvement on the CT range...

Probably because their own 009/N gauge wheel flanges would be too large so none of their 009 vehicles could run on it.

Brian Meldon

I'm pretty certain that anything they currently sell will run on code 60, Brian. Perhaps some OO9 modellers with some old wheels from the 60s and 70s might struggle but everyone else would be fine.

Code 60 rail is 1.5mm
The peco plastic chairs are 0.8mm
The max flange size would be 0.7mm

As an example the Fleischmann 7000 0-4-0 has 0.8mm flanges, so that would not work.

I suppose they could try to make the chairs smaller, but that would reduce the strength somewhat.

I know of several 009 modellers that have tried to use the Shinohara code 60 track and have found issues with many N gauge wheels. Not just those made in the 1970

[Hobby]

If no, stick with the rails from off-the-shelf systems, where Bemo, Shinohara, and Tillig are probably the better options.

Would agree with the rest of your post, W, but not that bit. Bemo HOe track is strange looking stuff and with unsprung points is more difficult to use as you have to have some way of switching the point, same applies to Tillig and their HOe points are also very delicate with bits liable to break off. I can't comment of Shinohara as I've never used it. For a beginner Peco narrow gauge track is by far the best to use. Of course the downside of the European manufacturers is the use of code 80/83 rail which is exactly the issue being raised. It's OK if you model modern European NG as code 80 is fine for that but for older NG railways then code 80 is far from ideal as it's far too heavy.

Good luck, Ian!

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Hobby,

Looks is a matter of taste to me, and cultural background. Thus you disagreeing is no surprise.

To me Shinohara looks 'funny' too as it uses US-American sleeper rules, which looks odd to me in the same way as Hornby, PECO, and Triang, which use British sleeper patterns. However, my recommendation was made on the basis of running qualities, where those 2 (Bemo track is made by Shinohara following German sleeper patterns) are best amongst the narrow gauge lot. Of course, it has code 80 rail as the prototype used those rail sizes! The point I tried to emphasis was that opting for code 60 or 40 calls for more than just a different rail, wheels (flanges), chassis (compensation), and track (DIY) are knock-on effects that require work as a result. If you shirk that, stick with good quality ready made track.

As we visually tend to gauge rail size by the running surface, I mentioned MaeTrix z-rail (or Rokuhan), while still code 80 or so they look daintier, especially once painted. because of the narrower rail-head (and you can buy the sleeper strips separately from Bemo or Tillig).   ;D

Which highlights another aspect touched on by various other comments:
N-gauge sleepers are almost correct to scale for the set-track sold by the likes of Koppel, Decauville, and Hudson. Auhagen does a mediocre, but to scale representation of such track in plastic, and you'll find their sleepers are even smaller than some N-gauge! If you're modelling (WW I) trench lines or quarries or farm railways, that would not be out of place.
The Ffestiniog, like a lot of museum railways, use standard gauge rails today (and sleepers probably too) as it massively reduces track maintenance (and cost, if you use 2nd hand rail).
We started out with salvaged Koppel track from sawmills etc., but re-laid our running lines with standard gauge rails before public running commenced. Maintaining track alignment with Spaghetti-rails was a nightmare. Once you put a 7t engine on those set-tracks they go bananas, even with the best of ballasting!   :laugh:
25 years of no maintenance before the first derailment occurred.   ;D

Thus, N-gauge is not necessarily out of order, if you adjust the sleeper spacing, nor are the flowing lines of flexi-track necessarily prototypical! But I did not comment as these aspects were outside the topic and beyond the question asked.   ;D

Tip 1: those proto N-gaugers cut their own sleepers to scale from PCB board, only to find that their saw blades didn't last. PCB board is frequently resin with glass fibre reinforcement, where glass is an euphemism for see-though sand. Use a knife with changeable blades, its cheaper; you don't have to cut all the way through, it works like cutting glass, through the copper into the resin is enough to get a reasonably clean break.   ;D

Tip 2: if you use Krause rail clips, they gauge your rails accurately for any size rail, providing the same gauge widening in curves like the 3-point gauges mentioned.   :D

Of course, if you're using PECO's Wham-Bam earth-shakers to switch your turnouts, than the springs are essential; but if you do, why bother with code 40? Prototypical rails but unprototypical switch operation?  ???


Just some observations.   ::)

Waldschrat

[Hobby]

Peco "Mainline" HOe track is based on Modern European Narrow Gauge practice in HO scale, same as Tillig. Bemo HOe track doesn't bear any resemblance to any modern track I've seen, though like Crazytrack has been around for many years so that would figure. Code 80/83 equates to about a 6.5" rail depth in Real Life  and only recent narrow gauge track has used such heavy rail (such as Ziller, JHMD, and other German and Austrian private operators). The stuff we saw on the Steyr last year (a preserved line) and other preserved lines in Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria was much lighter and code 80/83 is too heavy to represent their track, code 60 or 55 would be fine for many of them, though. BTW I took the time to measure the rails being used so am able to speak from some knowledge of this.

I will agree to differ with you regarding track preferences, for OO9/HOe I've always found that Peco track is the best of the "big 4" bunch (Bemo, Peco, Tillig and Roco), bear in mind, as I said this not just about running qualities but also ease of use. It's personal preference though, neither is right or wrong, I just prefer the ease of use and realism. For me there are only two choices of realistic track, Peco Mainline or Tillig, the rest are not very good for the modern European railways I model.

From layouts that I have seen that use code 60/55/40 rail it does not necessarily mean the use of specially made chassis, compensation, etc. If you read Julien's post you will see that the layout I mentioned earlier of the WLLR that used code 40 also used commercial mechanisms, albeit modern ones. Laid carefully it is possible.

As Julien (and you) say it really depends on what you are modelling. For instance the Festiniog I believe also uses quite heavy bullhead rail as well, now that would be a sod to model realistically as the chairs are very prominent!


Agree about using a knife to cut the copper clad sleepers, I scribe the top and then turn it over and do the same underneath, you get a clean break then.

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Hobby,

That doesn't sound much like competence to me, as there is no such thing as 'continental' or 'Moderm European Narrow Gauge Practise'.   :laugh:
The Prussians used their standard branchline profile on narrow gauge (~code 60), but the privately built lines (which were most) used whatever they fancied (or could afford), typically lighter.
Sachsony built to their own standards (using a lighter profile; ~code 55), but more uniformly as they had only few privately built lines, again typically using the standard gauge branch line profile.
While Bavaria dominated in the South, Wuerttemberg (which are most of the Bemo German rolling stock) worked to their own standards (some of which made it into DRG standards; ~code 55). And the K.u.K. empire had their own standards for narrow gauge. Italy, France, Switzerland all had (and have) different standards, so you can take your pick, which one you think Bemo represents.
In the days of the DRG most lines would be upgraded to S49 (DRG designation, ~ equivalent to code 70).

This statement has to be caveated, as sidings etc. in the German states would have been laid with lighter rails, while 'heavy-duty' lines like the Upper Silesian network use heavier rail! The Prussian/ DRG standard for 'Feldbahn' was S18 (~code 40), but we found 'set-track' with code 35 rails! On that notion, most of our rails came from one quarry from the 1930s, and that was S54 (code 70).   ;D

As to 'modern' track the HSB uses y-sleepers up the Broken (re-opened 1991 with standard sleepers, but re-laid soon after; I was there on the opening day, and I have a packing axe from the track restoration  :laugh:), as do a lot of Swiss narrow gauge lines, but the new extension to Quedlinburg uses 'normal' sleepers; so not even consistency at one operator. To my knowledge y-sleepers are not widely used in Austria.
That said, the code designation is not the full picture, e.g. DRG profiles S49 and S54 are the same heights (code 70), but one is much heavier than the other. So, if you want to go fuzzy about the rails, you have a problem.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Industrial narrow gauge used, and uses, a very wide range, from circa code 25 for mobile track and hand-haulage, farm track and sawmills, to code 125 for mass transport, e.g. open cast mines running 30t axle loads!

Maybe you should study the details better, rather than making generic assumptions?   ;D
So take your pick, what you want to call 'continental' or 'European', but I wouldn't go that far.

Cheers
Waldschrat

[Hobby]

Maybe you should study the details better, rather than making generic assumptions? 

I would respectfully suggest that you read my post again. I said "modern" European practice, which, from visits I've made to many commercially run 760/750mm gauge lines in Germany (this year), Austria (last year) and Czech Republic (many years!) all have been using heavy flat bottomed rail, with a rail depth of around 6.5 inches which in HO scale is about right for code 80/83. Although sleeper spacing isn't entirely consistent (and some lines have also got concrete sleepers) both the Tillig and Peco track are good representations of the majority of track I observed, including basic representations of the plates and bolts used to hold the rail to the sleeper. It is clear that the designers at both companies have done their homework. If you want proof of this track I suggest you look at my threads of my travels in RMWeb and NGRM and you will also see the heavy track I am talking of and which Tillig and Peco model.

Note I didn't talk about track that was laid when the line was built, or in the decades since, or about industrial practice, or about the Harz network (why you mention that when it is metre gauge (HOm) and I was talking about HOe I am not sure) but about track which is used on the main Commercial 750/760mm gauge Railways which Tillig and Peco track represent.

And why I said that if you are representing typical British 2ft/2ft 3in/2ft 6in they are not good at all which is all that really matters for the original poster.

I suggest we leave it at that rather than waste everyone's time having to read a discussion that is pure thread drift and of no relevance to the thread title (for which i apologise).