On30 tie spacing question

HOexplorer Feb 3, 2013

  1. HOexplorer

    HOexplorer TrainBoard Supporter

    2,267
    3,219
    70
    Don't know if this should be an HO or On30 question but here goes. Does anyone have answer to why On30 track has such wide tie spacing? Is this a philosophical question and answer, or it just looks cute, or both? Thanks, Jim
     
  2. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    As I recall, most who use it are simulating operations such as Maine 2 Footers. Light equipment, and wider tie spacings.

    What type of On30 track are you referencing? I have used ME.
     
  3. alexkmmll

    alexkmmll TrainBoard Member

    200
    0
    11
    It has to do with the prototypical spacing. You have to remember that, even though On30 uses HO gauge track, it's still O scale. When they laid the tracks on the prototypes, they expected a similar load force on the ties as the real thing, so they used a similar spacing with a similar length of ties. I say similar because the ties are smaller and thinner because there is less load force on the actual track in narrow gauge is less than standard, but comparable. Remember, On30 was made to represent 3ft gauge more than 2 1/2 foot.

    Alex
     
  4. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    If I recall correctly, it actually falls somewhat closer half way in between. Scales out at roughly like 31.65 inches gauge.
     
  5. alexkmmll

    alexkmmll TrainBoard Member

    200
    0
    11
    Correct, it prototypically gauges, with a little bit of smudging, a 2 1/2-foot gauge. This was done to allow for the use of HO track. However, few 2 1/2-foot lines ever existed, with the majority of narrow gauge being 2-foot and 3-foot lines. For this reason, all of the Bachmann stuff accurately represents (besides their gauge, of course) 3-foot narrow gauge prototypes.

    However, many companies have released kits that model more of a 2-foot gauge appearance with much smaller, "cuter" cars. Many On30 modelers tend to pick a side to be on depending on available space for a layout, and some just run a mix of both. Just depends on what you're into, really!

    Alex
     
  6. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    A lot of the guys I know, myself included, are or have gone the whimsical two foot route.
     
  7. HOexplorer

    HOexplorer TrainBoard Supporter

    2,267
    3,219
    70
    Good input thank you. Let's look at this another way. What if I want the layout to run HO and On30. I'm thinking of having O scale buildings fitting over their HO equivalents so I can use all my trains. Would wider ties (On30 track) just be wrong? Jim
     
  8. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    If you were going to run it at times as HO, I'd say the On30 ties would look awkward, or possibly worse.
     
  9. HOexplorer

    HOexplorer TrainBoard Supporter

    2,267
    3,219
    70
    Yes, I tend to agree about HO on On30 track. So what am I left with Peco On30 type track or Atlas Code 83 or 100? Jim
     
  10. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    I'd vote HO, no larger than the C83.
     
  11. Greg Elems

    Greg Elems Staff Member

    1,355
    1
    32
    Use HO track with O scale clearance and bury the ties in mud, ballast and vegetation. Your HO may look a bit strange with the O scale track and building separation but you will still be able to enjoy both gauges. Have fun.

    Greg
     
  12. jimnoel

    jimnoel New Member

    2
    0
    7
    Some On30 equipment will not run well over HO switches. This seems more particularly true of the "Ready to Run" sets. The problem arises because the wheel flanges are too long. The problem does not show up on On30 code 83 switches.
     
  13. swissboy

    swissboy TrainBoard Member

    646
    14
    21
    I have only recently got into On30, have had HO and On3 however. What struck me immediately when I had a chance to visit an On3 /On30 combination layout, was that the On30 models were a fair bit smaller than the On3 ones. And I'm talking about Bachmann On30 models. I quickly took a picture of the two tenders that happen to be conventiently placed next to each other on a book shelf here. The On30 model still needs to be taken into service. But the size difference is considerable. I actually bought the smallish 2-6-6-2 mallet to represent a lumber railroad, as the lettering says. And those were often smaller than 3 foot gauge. But even at 2 1/2 foot gauge, it would seem that this model is not O scale.
    Anyway, it will eventually run on my HO layout every now and then.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    Robert-

    I would agree with how you describe Bachmann On30. It seems to be sized somewhere between somewhat freelance and a little whimsical. Which is just fine, as folks do have good fun with these items. I recently bowed out of On30, not from any dislike or dissatisfaction, rather due to space constraints and some health hiccups. Gotta concentrate on my current small N and HOn30 efforts.
     
  15. Sirfoldalot

    Sirfoldalot TrainBoard Member

    43
    1
    7
    Seems as if this has changed from a question on tie spacing to a discussion on equipment size. I know that each has their own opinion, so I will throw this into the frey.

    Take a look at the November/December '89 Gazette. There's an article in there that covers rail and ties of many narrow gauge railroads. (Neither the EBT nor ET&WNC are part of the listing, unfortunately.) One thing that is clear from looking at that list--there was no such thing as a "standard" tie. They ranged from 5' 11" to over 7' long, widths anywhere from 6" to 10" wide, depths from 6" to 8", and then some. Spacing was similarly all over the board. Most were in the 20" to 24" center range, but even the photo on the first page of the article (the EBT's trackage at Mt. Union) shows a stretch where the spacing was, well, let's call it "economized."
    Tie spacing has changed over the years. According to an 1876 engineering guide from the Hartford Providence and Fishkill (std ga) tie spacing was 30" (roughly 2000 per mile), and at that only 1 tie in 4 was spiked on straightaways, 1 in 3 on broad curves, and 1 in 2 on sharp curves. ties were untreated.

    I realize that this too does not answer the question asked.
    I guess that maybe we each have our own idea of what "looks" nicer.

     

Share This Page