Misperceptions of narow gauge - Model Train Forum - the complete model train resource
Model Train Forum - the complete model train resource

Go Back   Model Train Forum - the complete model train resource > Scale Specific Model Train Forum > Other Scales
Forgotten your password?

Other Scales TT, T, HOn3, Narrow Gauge


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2017, 02:51 PM   #1
Shdwdrgn
Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 870
Misperceptions of narow gauge

I've been working on both standard and narrow gauge HO, and after building a 30' HOn3 flat car, I started getting this nagging feeling that narrow gauge was going to look like an N-scale train running on the HO track. I know, I know... it's the same scale, but every time I saw that n flat car sitting next to my 50' standard gauge car, it just kept reinforcing the perception.

Last night I'd had enough. I have a 2-8-0 loco kit in the works, so I set up the shell on the base, and sat it on the track next to my 0-6-0. Ahhhhh such relief to see that they really are similar-sized. Yes the narrow gauge has smaller drivers and the tender is only about half the size, but scale-wise when they are together on the track it is much easier to see that I'm really dealing with the same scale. Of course adding other details like an engineer in the cab would also help reinforce that.

Now I really need to get that 2-8-0 finished and running on the track!
Shdwdrgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-10-2017, 10:53 AM   #2
time warp
Dispatcher
 
time warp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brazil, Indiana. 10 klicks from the Chinook mine
Posts: 2,172
Scales Modeled: Old School HO and British OO
When AHM first introduced Minitrains HOn2 1/2, I liked the fact that the N gauge track had wide spaced, irregular ties. It completed the picture. For me, the appeal of narrow gauge starts with the track.
When you add the tiny wheels, seemingly oversized cabs, and overhanging bodywork it really starts to come together.
I guess what I'm saying is that the appeal of narrow gauge is more readily apparent when the elements compliment one another. There's really nothing else like it.
time warp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 11:18 AM   #3
Shdwdrgn
Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 870
It will definitely be fun working with as I build the new layout, but it looks like I'll be building everything from kit. I think the hardest piece I'm working on though is trying to route the narrow gauge track around a double-slip turnout. Considering the era, I may just try to build a dual-gauge double-slip as a stub turnout. Oh what fun...
Shdwdrgn is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 01-11-2017, 06:19 PM   #4
J.C.
Brakeman
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: arizona
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shdwdrgn View Post
It will definitely be fun working with as I build the new layout, but it looks like I'll be building everything from kit. I think the hardest piece I'm working on though is trying to route the narrow gauge track around a double-slip turnout. Considering the era, I may just try to build a dual-gauge double-slip as a stub turnout. Oh what fun...

hand built two double slips on last layout there buggers to build but is you are just running the N/G through on one-track shouldn't be too bad (maybe only one bottle of scotch ) you should try this in duel gauge if you want a mess to build, I've been trying to figure it out for two rail, just about decided to make it a electric line for warehouse district on layout.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg gauge6.jpg (57.5 KB, 27 views)
J.C. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 07:39 PM   #5
Shdwdrgn
Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 870
I actually figured out a way to eliminate the double-slip bottleneck, so things are looking a lot better now. Still fighting with my grades, it simply amazes me that in a 12x12 layout I'm having trouble even keeping the grades below 3%. I'm only trying to rise up 4.5 inches but apparently that is too much to ask. Ah well, at least I got most of them down to a 2% grade.

Working turnouts through a paved road... wow that's just a whole new ballgame. I don't even want to consider that. If your track is early enough, maybe consider using stubs instead of points?
Shdwdrgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 10:42 PM   #6
J.C.
Brakeman
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: arizona
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shdwdrgn View Post
I actually figured out a way to eliminate the double-slip bottleneck, so things are looking a lot better now. Still fighting with my grades, it simply amazes me that in a 12x12 layout I'm having trouble even keeping the grades below 3%. I'm only trying to rise up 4.5 inches but apparently that is too much to ask. Ah well, at least I got most of them down to a 2% grade.

Working turnouts through a paved road... wow that's just a whole new ballgame. I don't even want to consider that. If your track is early enough, maybe consider using stubs instead of points?
why the grades is it to pass over another track? if so have you thought about dropping the track that goes under down like 1% or .5%, even at .5 it would drop required grade to go over .5% less. just a thought

as for the lap turnout , the turnout it self is not a problem got a working model on bench , the big problem is two rail electrical and keeping a small 4 driver loco from staling, that's why I'm thinking about a live overhead , then the rails would all be common. the reason that I'm doing it that way is the same as the proto photo, cross streets in a warehouse district.

Ps going to put a HOe on layout at later date collecting parts to build a 2-4-4-0 for motive power.
J.C. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:13 AM   #7
Shdwdrgn
Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 870
The track that passes underneath has already been dropped to -1.0 inch, so the total difference would be about 5.5 inches. The pass is meant to be a large trestle bridge, so the larger the difference between tracks, the more impressive the trestle will look. But also this is supposed to be a mountain pass, and it's hard to make that look impressive when you can't get the train to climb more then 4.5 inches.
Shdwdrgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:39 AM   #8
J.C.
Brakeman
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: arizona
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shdwdrgn View Post
The track that passes underneath has already been dropped to -1.0 inch, so the total difference would be about 5.5 inches. The pass is meant to be a large trestle bridge, so the larger the difference between tracks, the more impressive the trestle will look. But also this is supposed to be a mountain pass, and it's hard to make that look impressive when you can't get the train to climb more then 4.5 inches.
well you could do like the real ones and pick a long climb with a loop back.
J.C. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 12:59 AM   #9
Shdwdrgn
Engineer
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 870
oh I've looped it as much as I can. The best I can hope for now is to make adjustments based on actual loads once I start setting up the track.
Shdwdrgn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2017, 02:30 AM   #10
J.C.
Brakeman
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: arizona
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shdwdrgn View Post
oh I've looped it as much as I can. The best I can hope for now is to make adjustments based on actual loads once I start setting up the track.
one alternative would to be like the one that run out of Silverton and use switch backs that would limit you to short trains though.
J.C. is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


» Visit These Sites:
LGB World

Or Our European Train Website ModelRailForum




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.