Can anyone offer any advice on widths of OO ready to run stock?
I'm currently track laying and have got to the station end and I am using a Lima Mk1 coach as a reference for the platform edges.
Are there any "wider" models than this? On my wish list is a Bachmann Crab and a Hornby Black 5 & 8F and I was wondering if the cylinders would catch on the platform edge. Again the same with some wagons/cranes etc.
I know in real life Olton Hall had problems in Scotland, but do models have the same issue?
Certainly some Hall models are as wide as their full size counterparts. Managed to knock the cylinders off one while running it through platforms on an HO layout (on which most other OO stock fits fine, except continental stock built to OO scale). In terms of width, if you're got curves, you might also want to try using a Hornby mk4 or similar (anything fairly long), to check the overhang both on the inside of the curve (at the centre of the coach) and the outside of the curve (at the ends).
=>In terms of width, if you're got curves, you might also want to try =>using a Hornby mk4 or similar (anything fairly long), to check the =>overhang both on the inside of the curve (at the centre of the coach) =>and the outside of the curve (at the ends). =>--
On straight track, track should be spaced 2" or more centre to centre (an easy way to measure this is to measure the distance between the two righthand or the two lefthand rails.) It's possible to go closer than this without side-swiping cars, but thorough testing is advisable before you do so. On curves, tracks must be spaced more widely because of the overhang mentioned by Spyke. NMRA recommends 2-1/4" min for 18" radius curves. Since OO UK coaches are almost exactly the same size as HO US/Canadian coaches, their recommendations should work well with OO.
I suggest you make a "gauging car" by cutting a piece of 5mm ply or similar to the exact dimensions of your longest car, and mounting bogies on it (use suitable sized stripwood as a bolster.) If you ensure the top of the deck is the same as platform height, you can use it as platform height gauge, too. And you can cut a 20-30mm thick piece of wood to the "clearance diagram" for OO (there is a standard out there somewhere - sorry, I can't recall where), and place it on top the car. The block will have to allow for the height of the deck, of course. Then you can use the gauging car to check such things as clearances to trackside buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc. Very handy tool. I know! -- If some locomotives are wider than the coaches, make another gauging car to suit.
One loco to keep any eye on is the Bachmann 08 shunter - the coupling rods do stick out a bit and I've seen them catch on platforms (especially at the ramp ends) before now.
The Eurostar, because of its long nose, is ideal for this. Pass two in opposite directions round the curved double track, and if they hit each other you need to move them further apart.
=>What's wrong with scaling prototype dimensions on straight track? After all, =>we're modelling the prototype, not modelling the NMRA!
Well, er, actually the NMRA recommendations for track spacing are based on prototype practice. :-)
Centre to centre track spacing in N. America is specified at 13ft _minimum_ (about 1.8" in HO), and in practice routinely exceeds this. This spacing was established back when cars were only 8 to 9ft in width, and so gave 4 to 5 ft clearance between adjacent cars - quite safe for yard workers who had to walk between the trains to un/couple the cars. But when the cars are 10ft wide or more, the clearance is dangerously small, and by the late 1800s even yard tracks were generally spaced 15ft and wider. Mainline passing tracks are often spaced wider still. The railroads had rules for widening the spacing on curves. The NMRA 2" recommendation scales out to about 15ft in HO, which is well within the prototypical range, and if anything at the lower end of that range..
The "6ft way" in the UK produces a minimum track spacing of about 11ft. This was also a minimum standard from the early days of railways, and was routinely exceeded by the late 1800s. 2" scales to about 12-1/2ft in OO, which IMO is also within the prototypical range.
IIRC, the track spacing for the TGV lines is about 20ft.
That would suppose one consistant prototype - you don't even have a singular US prototype, let alone an international one. :-)
My mininimum mainline spacing is 3.75m (12'4"+/-) = HO 43mm (1.7") Two inches is too wide for my prototype!
I understand the process.
So, basing your track spacing initially on your prototype is preferable! ;-)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that one should start with the prototype dimension in mind and make all the relevant adjustments from that point, rather than starting with a preset model dimension and then checking it falls within prototype variances. Your NMRA standard ignores/avoids understanding of all the relevant adjustments required.
=>I guess what I'm trying to say is that one should start with the prototype =>dimension in mind and make all the relevant adjustments from that point, rather =>than starting with a preset model dimension and then checking it falls within =>prototype variances. Your NMRA standard ignores/avoids understanding of all the =>relevant adjustments required.
A) It's not a standard, but a recommendation (an RP.) And as usual, you impute ignorance where there is none. The NMRA standards and practices are based on the protoitype, and take into account that all modelling requires compromise, especially if interchange is to be achieved. Interchange happens to be a high priority with most people. It means that you don't have to measure and fuss with a model that you buy - just build it and put it on the layout. I note from my reading of product reviews in UK model mags that no two manufacturers use the same wheel stabndards, and some mfrs don't even use the same wheel standards on all their products. What a PITA!
B) Frankly, the degree of protoype fidelity you propose doesn't attract me at all. All modell raildroading is compromise, and I'd rather spend my time on rolling stock than track. To be consistent with your p.o.v, it seems that layouts would have to use curves of 6ft radius and up - the tightest prototype mainline radius in Canada used to be at Boston Bar in the Fraser Canyon (It's since been eased.) It would scale out to 73" radius in HO. The Alberta branchline on which I (loosely) base my layout was almost straight, with wide curves that would scale out to about 20ft radius in HO (lots of room in Alberta.) Industrial and street car trackage was and is much more sharply curved, of course -- like a model railroad. I guess we should all model industrial complexes and street car lines, to be protoypical. :-)
C) Many modelers here do space their yard tracks more narrowly - 13ft scale, in fact. I've done it myself, on couple of previous layouts. But I'm not obsessive about it.
OK, I'm not to concerned about the distinction at this point.
It wasn't my intention to make personal comments.
Stop there! We are talking assorted prototypes with different standards and practices - you can't legitimately bundle them all into one.
I'm well aware - I run horribly tight curves, foreshortened stations and distances, utterly unprototypical couplers etc etc.
Sure, I accept those horrific couplers!
But but but, I _like_ measuring and fussing with the models I buy!!! :-) That's a great part of my pleasure with my hobby!
I guess the UK modellers need to settle on a gauge and scale before they settle on one wheel standard! Now that most manufacturing has gone overseas they are going to get a wheel standard forced on them because the manufacturers won't want to make special tread profiles for just one market.
No, it's a personal thing. My aim is to produce a model railway that looks as much like my prototype as possible, mostly to place my model trains in their correct settings. IMO (note, no H ;-) I cannot judge precise scale dimensions but I can compare proportions - a too big boiler on a small loco sticks out like a sore thumb because I can compare it with other components. Likewise, the distance between two tracks is immediately compared to the gauge - my prototype looks close (gee, is there space for me to stand between two passing trains?) but the recommended spacing almost gives room for half a carriage width - wrong wrong wrong! Proprietry tracks allow enough space for another train or for two HSTs to pass on minimal radius curves. Well, no HSTs run on my layout and my pre 1930 coaches are only 2/3rds the length of modern ones, so I don't need that compromise.
We each have different aims and interests. I'm no more right than you are :-) but we need to recognise that each compromise is a move away from modelling the prototype.
Well, my baseboard is limited to 4' width and there are 16(!) 180 degree turns. I'm of course counting a double track helix and 5 return loops in a staging yard. There is one single 180 degree turn visible with easements and strategic view blocks of trees and cutting, but one can't keep adding tunnel mouths for ever.
I'm obsessive about a lot of things; every item of rolling stock should have couplers, every individual rail should be powered, locomotives should be capable of scale speeds, no unscenicked sections of baseboard should be visible, no hand shunting ... we set our own standards.
My standard is that everything should look as much like and operate as much like my railway's prototype as possible, within the limits of 1:87 scale and the space I have available and within the limits of my modelling capabilities. That requires an awful lot of compromises!
Another respect where proprietary tracks' spacing is wrong is that it is constant, i.e. the spacing between parallel tangent (straight) tracks is the same as the spacing between those minimum radius curves. Just as the prototype uses gauge-widening on curves, it also uses six-foot-way widening. So two parallel straight tracks may be the minimum distance apart, and then when the tracks curve they move further apart (the separation depending on the radius of curvature), returning to the minimum distance when the tracks become straight again.
=>What would you say is the minimum space required for two straight and =>parallel tracks so that all RTR rolling stock can pass by at full speed?
Well, since some of that rolling stock is too wide (I'm thinking of some of ye olde Triang stuff.....) 2" min (51mm)
OTOH, if you stick with recent product, built to real 4mm scale (apart from the gauge), you can probably get away with 1.8" (46mm) or even 1.7" (43mm). Just make sure to widen the spacing on the curves, and to begin the widening at least half a car length before the curve starts.
But I still recommend you make a gauging car as outlined in an earlier post of mine. :-)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.