Track

But would correct 1:76 scale sleeper spacing look correct with a 16.5mm gauge that represents 4' 1.37"?

What is "true OO"? 4mm/ft (1:76) on 16.5mm gauge isn't true anything.

People spend large amounts of money and effort buying or building "accurate" 4mm stock, then run it on track that is ~2.2mm under scale - unless they go all the way with EM of Scale Four.

I accept the compromise, and it's my decision not to try and make my layout as "realistic" as possible, since it's beyond my skills and means in any case. I admire those who can do so.

Yes, I know that and it appears to be quite good, even though really expensive.

Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find confirmation through Google.

But thats the point, you decide whats important to yourself, what you have the resources to do and accept it else you'll never be happy. Bit like life really.

cheers, Simon

I notice they've just introduced a 90-degree crossing in their code 83 line. I assume they'll bring out other angles (60, 45 and 30 degrees) later on. It's a shame they don't do a scissors crossover, however. I had to buy three of them from that well-known Irish track manufacturer Shin O'Hara.

Probably because prototype rail is measured by weight per yard and not in inches.

You may find this table of interest.

There's also Andy May's page on the UK S scale site.

"Alistair Wright" wrote

I think you'll find it was code 75, not 65.

John.

So, rail over 150lb/yd is 8 inches high, or Code 92 in HO. That's what CN & CP must be using around here, as there many heavy freights every day.

Useful references. Thanks.

Quite possible Martin, though I'm not familiar with Coburgh.

I'll try to remember my tape measure next time I walk by the crossing.

More importantly, can they ever manage to be correct????? ;-)

To be fair, theyre often near enough for 00 - will not be drawn on EM or P4 cos got other things more interested in. However the slight clunk at points let alone derail is a hint that B2B needs a check. Got a Flying Scotsman out the other day, the first loco I bought as an adult. Quite a quiet runner despite tender drive. Sure enough the tender did clunk through points and a quick look revealed a missing traction tyre.

cheers, Simon

Actually it was me that first mentioned SMP/Marcway! The reason it hasn't caught on, I would venture, is that for 00 it looks awful/wrong and is not over robust. Sometimes, well always for 00 track, codging things to look right rather than being exact is more important. SMP/Markway EM track, assuming they still make it, looks just fine.

For your info, I model in 0 and make everything - including the track, using Templot. My only RTR item is a Lima Mk.1 that will be going under the surgeons knife before use.......

Cheers Richard

"beamends" wrote

I used it years ago and it worked and looked fine, but these days I don't have the time to start building points using the copper clad method. It was the lack of compatible ready-to-use pointwork which was its only failing - otherwise I'd still be using it today.

John.

Formoway.

Who?