Can OO Gauge Track be a Scale Model?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2024
- Despite the inherent inaccuracy in OO Gauge, it can indeed be made as a scale representation of real track. Put down the foreign HO, and use some real 4mm/ft scale track on your next project.
In this video I have a look at a few different track types, and build some Exactoscale FastTrack Concrete Sleeper Flat-Bottom Code 83, the track I will be using for my mainline scenes.
0:00 Peco Streamline - the "default" track
0:38 Bullhead track - scale track for the Steam era
1:21 Flat Bottom track - scale mainline track for the 1960s onwards
2:10 Assembling Exactoscale FastTrack
3:10 Scale points: The harder part of the problem
3:58 An eBay score: Salvaged Bullhead Points
5:19 Missing product: Flat bottom track on wooden sleepers
6:02 Sneak Peek: Baulk Road for the Bridge - Наука та технологія
Really informative video. Thanks for sharing. I'll get round to your other videos asap mate
You are completely right that we've become so accustomed to the appearance of the 'default' toy-like track, with its chunky sleepers and close spacing. To be fair, it's designed to be tough, durable and easy to use, and to the untrained eye it can look great with a bit of weathering. I have to admit my current layout is using mostly peco streamline 100 or Hornby flex track, but once ballasted and painted it does look ok to my eye. The real difficulty is the availability of points and crossovers for the bullhead track.
Durable track could easily be made with the correct sleeper spacing -- Tri-Ang Super 4 track was durable train-set track with a focus on being tough when played with by kids, but still had correct sleeper spacing. I don't know why Triang-Hornby's Series 6 track swapped to HO European sleeper dimensions and spacing, but everything has developed from that decision forward.
You're right that ready-to-lay points and crossings is a problem, although it's starting to get solved now for Bullhead. PECO appear to have seen the light, and now have left and right hand large radius points, a diamond crossing and a single slip, with a double slip and medium radius points on the way. And Marcway will happily sell you almost anything that can be drawn, although that's more of a build-to-order service than a traditional manufacturer and some of it is very expensive.
The market is wide open for someone to come out with a Code 83 flatbottom range...
@@DongitsModelRailway I agree.
Can OO Gauge Track be a scale model? Only if you model 4' 1.5" gauge railways.
Top reply.
Enjoyed your video thanks for sharing and like DD.
You can make 'oo' look a lot better by making your own track or buying code 75 bullhead track from Peco. But whilst the track looks the part the points still look awful with massive gaps between the point rails and there's no way to make things better. The only correct way for 'scale' modelling in 4mm scale is P4.
The proverbial elephant in the room for me is; what to do about oversized flanges on older OO equipment? Are there replacement wheels available, or must I always use code 100 track? Here in the States my options are limited unless parts can be shipped.
That depends how old the stock is, and what changes you are willing to make.
A significant proportion of my stock dates from around 2000-2005. These all run fine on Code 75.
I do have some earlier stock. My 1970s era Airfix coaches were trivial to pop the axles out and swap them for modern axles with the same diameter wheels, which both Hornby and Bachmann sell in packs. I found the Hornby ones to work better in these as the angle of the pin-point bearing was sharper.
I also have some 1980s Lima wagons and coaches. Lima used a shorter axle compared to other British outline manufacturers, and as such, drop-in replacements for Lima are not as easy to find.
Locos (particularly steam locos) are a more difficult problem to solve -- you can't pop the axles out on a steam loco and expect to source a drop-in replacement. If you do want to run older models on finer track, you may have to get the flanges turned down to modern standards. This is something that is possible, and there are services to do it.
OTOH, if the point of your layout is to run old stock and locos, sticking with era-appropriate track too might be the preferred solution.
Thank you you’ve just solved a problem that I’ve got I’m running a 3 line Main like I want the 3 lines continuing on to the loop Im trying to get all 3 lines at the some point going around and braking off in to my station any idea would be greatly appreciate. Ps keep up the good work
The question you have to ask yourself is "What are the three lines for?". Not in terms of the model, but in terms of what the real railway would be doing with them. A three track mainline is relatively rare IRL, particularly in Britain where mainlines tend not to be reversible unless absolutely necessary. It is much more common to have two tracks (up/down) or four tracks (either up/down fast + up/down slow or up slow, up fast, down fast, down slow). A genuinely three track mainline suggests either a lengthy goods loop (perhaps in an industrial area with lots of connections to customers on one side of the line), or a tight width restriction in the centre of a city where four lines would not fit.
Having decided what the lines are for, that will inspire how they are to be connected to a station. (Also, what type of station, and how much distance between the junction and the station? A through station and a terminus station will have different requirements, and if there is space for an entire train length between the junction and the station throat or not will also make a difference).
For example: a goods loop doesn't need to be connected to a terminus station at all. A single crossover to get any ECS services using the goods loop onto the mainline before a double junction towards the station will suffice.
Cool vid, think you’re absolutely right on point (pun intended) considering this gap in manufacturing of close to scale track.
However, it is of course the very reason the P4 society and its 4mm to the feet modelers exist.
It’s kind of confusing though, the British standards. Can’t really comprehend the 1000th of an inch differences between code 80, 82 and 83. Code 70 seems at least to be a more stable standard.
Nevertheless, seriously looking into CFL finescale rail chairs as an option to build accurate to scale tunnel track on a channeled concrete roadbed. Of course, people will say, why model tunnel track? Well, that’s just the idea of making the tunnels visible on the layout.
On the other hand, the being slightly off scale of general OO track, has of course pushed British modeling into the excellence it has shown over the years.
Overall, I humbly think modeling a railroad really starts with modeling track. Whatever the methods people use. If you put a self built turnout (even from a layman) next to a manufactured one, the difference in smoothness of running is just too big of a gap (second pun).
After seeing Tim Warris’s CNJ Bronx Terminal layout, I’m an absolute fan of self built track and FastTracks templates and jigs. Even though the soldering is a prototypical compromise, their products really help people understand and build track themselves. And, yes, the results are awesome.
Also, the ability to tweak turnouts, crossovers or diamonds, is an option which so much better than sticking to the readily available products. Especially when we’re talking small footprints.
By the way, love those curved diamonds. Definitely must be self built.
the simple answer to your question is, "No!" since 00 track represents 4'1½" gauge, 7" too narrow! This is why proprietary 00 track has shorter sleepers more closely spaced, so that the proportions are better. One improvement is to abandon PECO/BRMSB/Railway Modeller 2" track centres on straight and gently curved double track using 1.75" instead. For true scale track there is no alternative to P4 standards, so whatever you choose for 00 track, it's a compromise
While you are absolutely correct that the gauge is too narrow, a) that's not the key issue that makes OO gauge track look wrong, and b) that isn't why the sleepers are the wrong size and at the wrong spacing. I strongly disagree with the assertion that they /have/ to be wrong because "the proportions are better that way" -- this is a canard that is frequently trotted out when a proposal for better OO RTR track is made and appears to be a frequent spoiler preventing better scaled sleepers from appearing. The reason people think OO gauge track with properly sized and spaced sleepers "looks wrong" is IMHO just because they are used to looking at Peco Streamline.
There are two different types of track featured in the video, and both look much better than "current standard" HO track that most people still use.
There appears to be no solid reason that using HO scale sleepers at narrower-than-prototype spacing (even for HO) was picked when Tri-ang Hornby created Series 6 track. Perhaps they were hoping to sell it in Europe? Perhaps they were using some tooling that had been developed for the European market? Either way, it does not appear to have been picked for any idea of correct appearance in the UK, nor out of any necessary compromise. Tri-ang's earlier Super 4 track used the correct sleeper spacing for UK track.
I would like to echo your recommendation on track spacing however -- track should be spaced more widely on tight curves and closer together on straight, or close-to-straight sections, and this is another relatively easy step that people can take at the design stage to improve the appearance of their model railway. Thanks for bringing that point up :-)
Regardless of what 4mm gauge you model, joining the EM gauge and /or the P4 societies is more than worth the subscription fees, because of the discounts available from their stores. The EM gauge society manual (free on joining) is worth it's weight in gold to any gauge modeller for the information contained within even if you are committed to 00.
I have been a member of the P4 society in the past, and I did join the EM gauge society to source the Exactoscale track featured in this video. I can confirm both societies provide a lot of information when you sign up.
But unless this is 18.83mm gauge, this is not nearly to scale either.
Technically correct, but the distance between the rails doesn't have nearly the impact that people like to claim it does.
The visual difference between 16.5mm gauge and 18.2mm (or even 18.83mm) is not obvious on a layout. Unless you start measuring stuff you probably won't notice.
OTOH, having the correct sleeper width and spacing makes a massive difference, and for me, this is an immediate jump from "train set" to "scale model" territory.
I don't know why there's such resistance to using true sleeper sizes and scaling -- Tri-ang managed to get the sleeper spacing right in Super 4 track in 1962. The awful "default" we have now is as a result of Hornby's System 6 from 1970, and everyone copying it. As far as I can tell, everyone's just got used to looking at it.
@@DongitsModelRailway I'd have to disagree with you, the difference between OO and P4 is very obvious, especially through turnouts and other complex trackwork. If your layout is at eye level and you can only see across the layout then it is very difficult to tell (especially if you use code 75 rail) but, from any other angle you can absolutely tell the difference.
@@jdmodels1968
You are technically correct in that things like the number of sleepers between the end of the blades and the vee are wrong for a given crossing angle in OO, and one of either the crossing angle or curve radius cannot match the prototype because there's less distance for the rail to curve across. As a result, if you are trying to model a prototype formation without compression, doing so in OO will require modifications that will show up when compared to a photo of the real thing. There are also differences in flange gaps, but the bigger change here is between coarse and fine standards, not gauge, and it's disingenuous to compare dead-scale S4 and Hornby Set-track. A more reasonable comparison is between something like EM and OO-SF, which aside from the track gauge are almost identical in other standards. Yet OO-SF hosts RTR wheels and EM requires replacing the axles in every vehicle with wider ones.
BUT it should be noted:
* Very few people model a real railway at all, most create a fictional track-plan to fit their available space.
* Of the people that do model real locations, the vast majority use selective compression, which includes using tighter radius points and curves.
* Of the few true-scale representations with no compression, most are non-functional dioramas.
Modelling a real location to true-scale and having it functional is a niche of a niche of a niche.
Also, very few people would ever contemplate re-wheeling a locomotive to a different gauge. This is, again, a very niche interest.
So now we are in one hell of a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation.
IMHO well over 90% of the appearance issues with track is in the sleeper dimensions and spacing, which I contend can be fixed without changing gauge. The net result of responding to every "Can we have better OO gauge track please" with "But the gauge is wrong" is not to tell people to change gauge -- because they aren't ever going to do that. It's to tell them not to improve because in your opinion there's no point in doing so. That may not be what you intend to communicate, but it is what people hear from this argument.
I contend that the appearance of OO gauge track can indeed be improved beyond what the vast majority of people use, without hitting the wall of needing to change wheels and rebuild steam loco valvegear.
@@DongitsModelRailway Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the appearance of OO gauge track can be vastly improved by doing thinks like changing the sleeper spacing and using code 75 rather than 100 and I wasn't trying to compare set track to P4 at all I was just disagreeing with your assertion that it is difficult to tell OO (even when modified) and P4 track apart. Just to pick up on a point you've just made, EM does not require the replacement of every axle in a vehicle, most modern locos and rolling stock can be modified by simply pushing the existing wheels further out on the existing axles. For what it is worth, I'm building a true scale (with no compression) fully working model of a real location in P4 :)
British Finesacle - Finetrax.
Thanks for the recommendation.
I was not aware that FiNetrax had diversified out of purely N gauge products, but it looks like they are now making kit points for OO gauge as well. Thanks for bringing my attention to that. They don't appear to make flexible track in OO nor any OO gauge RTL product, but I will keep an eye on them and see if anything like that does appear.
Sadly most people will not consider a kit point -- the market really does need an RTL product.
Could be good but the audio is awful,
Can you give me any pointers regarding audio? Something as simple as a timestamp where it's particularly bad, or a quality statement (like "Try not to have both a cold and hayfever while recording voiceover") would be useful. I'm editing the next video at the moment and I'd like to make it better, but if I don't know what's wrong I don't know what to do differently.
Thanks...
Your audio is horrible
Wow, that comment is completely devoid of any useful information.
Even if you can't offer constructive advice on improving the audio, narrowing it down to either a specific type of audio or a specific time period in the video would help.
@@DongitsModelRailway Sorry, but all of it is awful. It's difficult to offer constructive advice without knowing what your set up is.
That's ... actually useful information. If "all of it" is awful, it's probably my voice as that's the only constant throughout the video. Thanks :-)
@@DongitsModelRailway I think they are referring to the fact it sounds like your talking over a mobile phone as there is so much compression