Sleeper Spacing again!

Any questions about designing a model railway layout or problems with track work.
Tom@Crewe
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Crewe

Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Tom@Crewe » Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:33 am

I posted the following on the end of an old post and heard nothing back so starting a new one.

The form below is for Great Western would it have been the same for London Midland (1960's)

Image

True 1/76 is 10mm so what is the Proportionate 8.8mm for?

The 762mm is 2' 6"


Some times exact scale does not look right, what spacing looks right for LMS/Midlands and what is the spacing on good commercial track?
Cost is also important as the layout is large.....28' x 8' - 2 loops, 4 track station, engine shed and goods yard.
Never enough time...........

User avatar
Bufferstop
Posts: 11820
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:06 pm
Location: Bottom end of N. Warks line

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Bufferstop » Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:29 am

Tom@Crewe wrote:True 1/76 is 10mm so what is the Proportionate 8.8mm for.

You don't see sleeper spacing as a length, you see a series of rectangles or parallelograms depending on the viewing angle, 00 gauge changes their aspect ratio so using 8.8mm instaed of 10.0 restores it.
Edit - I've removed two lines of total drivel which just proved that it wasn't only my maths that was jetlagged.
Please note the maths may be a bit rough this morning, I'm killing time in Frankfurt airport having flown overnight from Windhoek, and awaiting flight to Brum.
'twas a history making flight for Namibian Airways, their first long haul with an all female crew. When the pilot announced it there were cheers and hand clapping with Mrs W leading the hoots and hollers.
Growing old, can't avoid it. Growing up, forget it!
My Layout, My Workbench Blog and My Opinions

boxbrownie
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:23 am
Location: Looe, Cornwall

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby boxbrownie » Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:18 am

With the Weather here this morning.....getting home from Brum will be history making also.....good luck.
Best regards David

Please let me know if anything in my post offends you......I may wish to offend again.

Dad-1
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: Dorset - A mile from West Bay.

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Dad-1 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:51 am

Always an interesting 'Debate' !!

The Peco track is a tough commercial product and ideal for most applications.
Right you fancy going more scale accurate ?

Then give up on '00' as that is such a large compromise, even before you look at
sleeper spacings and lengths.
For '00' t'he alternatives to Peco is to go C & L, or SMP with hand made pointwork,
or even fully scratch built trackwork. Not impossible, but a lifetimes work for the
size layout you're looking at.

From your own chart it shows that Peco is reasonable except for the sleeper spacing.
That sadly is a long way out and better matched to 3.5 mm scale. What you can do,
and I've only done it on a very short piece of track on a diorama, is to cut all the
under tack webbs and space out the sleepers individually. Not quite as difficult as a
first attempt indicates and although it weakens the tough Peco product, be that code
75, or 100, it remains stronger than SMP that i've recently been working with.

Sleeper depth is a drag with fine scale tracks, not giving enough depth for easy ballasting.
As the actual depth is hidden by ballast it's not a thing to be bothered with - In my opinion.

Geoff T
Remember ... I know nothing about railways.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=32187 and Another on viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28436&start=60&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Tom@Crewe
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Crewe

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Tom@Crewe » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:24 am

My plan is to use Peco track and cut the webbing, I just don't know the best spacing!

This will weaken the track but once it's ballasted it should have plenty of strength.
Never enough time...........

Dad-1
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: Dorset - A mile from West Bay.

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Dad-1 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:58 am

Hi Tom,

Yes ample strength. I'd suggest making up a 9.0 mm spacer.
As you say 8.8 is the optimal compensated for '00's narrow
gauge. If you have any intentions of longish straights then
make up a jig 6 - 8" long to do a length at a time rather than
individual sleepers as I did.
I secured my sleepers individually using a touch of Cyno glue
at sleeper ends - not quite a bad a job as it sounds !

I'll be interested to see how you get on - Just rebuilt a hand made
point for the second time, it makes Peco sound attractive !

Geoff T.
Remember ... I know nothing about railways.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=32187 and Another on viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28436&start=60&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

boxbrownie
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:23 am
Location: Looe, Cornwall

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby boxbrownie » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:13 pm

What about using the new PECO/EM society track?
Best regards David

Please let me know if anything in my post offends you......I may wish to offend again.

b308
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: North Worcs

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby b308 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:30 pm

That's what i thought as well, BB.

The OP doesn't say which Peco track he is using but if it's the common stuff then, despite the labling, it's HO scale, not OO and always has been so will always look wrong for OO layouts. Of the old track Farish Formoway was the best compromise which slightly wider sleeper spacing and bigger sleepers than Peco/Hormby from the same era but you can't get it these days unfortunately.

At the end of the day whichever track is used for OO scale 16.5mm gauge it will be a compromise, what I'd suggest is that the OP gooes to some exhibitions and looks at the OO layouts and sees which track he prefers. Buying a few magazines may also help as long as they say which track they've used!

If you are going down the route of "modifying" the RTR track it may be just as easy to scratchbuild using copper clad sleepers!

User avatar
PinkNosedPenguin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:23 pm
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby PinkNosedPenguin » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:24 pm

I'm not a purist (by any means!) but the sleeper spacing on Peco track has always looked very wrong to me - a shame as its the only thing I don't like about it! I would be very interested to see what 9mm spacing looks like on their 00 track - to see how much it improves it. BTW does that mean spacing between sleeper centres, or an actual gap of 9mm? It'd be worth experimenting with different gaps to see which looks best; I mean everything in our hobby is a compromise and sometimes true scale lengths don't look right - e.g. the distances apart of telegraph poles, which I think look much better when closer together than real life.

Bigmet
Posts: 7050
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Bigmet » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:55 pm

There are two new groups of Peco products aimed directly at this demand.

For OO, matching the sleeper length and spacing long available in RTR plain track from SMP and C&L, Code 75 Bullhead track is now available. What's new? A matching range of ready to lay plastic base points, of which the Large radius LH and RH have been on sale much of this year already. https://www.hattons.co.uk/313037/Peco_P ... etail.aspx
Slips and crossings announced, and 3D samples shown.

It is not 'perfect' in that they have chosen to go with the dubious geometry of Streamline rather then something more correct with a shallower crossing angle, but for all that the best thing of its type yet seen. I have already bought quite a quantity and am very pleased.It is more delicate than the regular code 75 Streamline, but is robust once laid and ballasted, and looks very good indeed. It can be 'fiddled with' too, for improved appearance.

(There's competition too, announced from 'Legacy Models' (part of the DCC Supplies operation) plain track available, points awaited. These points are expected to conform to prototype rather more closely than Peco's, but are not yet available for assessment.)

For EM (18.2mm) gauge, LH and RH points, commissioned by and available exclusively through the EM Gauge Society. (Not a few of us are hoping that Peco might just - in time, this is Peco - be prompted into thinking about applying the same more correct geometry to an OO equivalent.)

b308
Posts: 5004
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: North Worcs

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby b308 » Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:26 pm

I'm not a purist (by any means!) but the sleeper spacing on Peco track has always looked very wrong to me


That's because Streamline is HO scale and "finescale" is a compromise. Lets get back to basics:

1. 16.5mm gauge in 1:76 scale is just over 4ft gauge in real life, so it's narrow gauge!!

2. Peco Streamline of the type normally bought is HO scale 1:87 scale.

So use with 1:76 scale standard gauge stock is NEVER going to look right!

Whatever you do, from some angles 16.5mm gauge track will look wrong if used for standard gauge 1:76 scale. What the manufacturers have do is compromise, they have to reduce the sleepers size (obviously) but also have to reduce sleeper spacing as well so it looks better. use of code 75 rail also helps. But at the end of the day it's just that, a compromise. Peco do "finescale" OO track as well as C&L but it is a given that neither will be accurate but simply a compromise. If you really don't want to compromise to that extent then you have three choices, 1. P4, 2. EM or 3. British HO.

I said earlier that the Graham Farish Formoway track produced by GM back in the 60s was the best code 100 track I've seen used for OO scale, far better than Peco/HD or Hornby (S6) which were all HO clones. Nowadays if I were modelling OO scale SG and had to use 16.5mm gauge I'd use the Code 75 track that's now available as the best compromise.

Tom@Crewe
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Crewe

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Tom@Crewe » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:35 am

Going to use 'Peco Streamline Code 100' at the moment because of older running stock. (Requested by committee member)

I looked at some GW point drawings and the Peco points are quite accurate (Sleeper spacing wise)

These other makes and sizes, whats the price comparison??
Never enough time...........

Bigmet
Posts: 7050
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby Bigmet » Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:01 pm

Your choice, but I would push back at 'committee member' on the code 100 requirement. Peco Streamline code 75 is so much easier to form curves, practically everything will run on it, and looks better. Costs a little more than the code 100 equivalent. Anchored in the past for a few old old models that could have been rewheeled any time over the last fifty years is a little sad.

The 'Finescale' track, think double the price of Streamline as a 'wet finger' guide. Peco certainly are not giving it away...

User avatar
pete12345
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby pete12345 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:31 pm

I'm doing a few calculations/experiments with this.

The benchmark I've been using for British track is 2'6" sleeper spacing (center to center). In 4mm/foot scale this works out at 10mm (100 sleepers/m), and if you're using EM or P4 standards then this works out great, but then you're not using Peco track.

Using 10mm spacing on Peco track just looks odd and more like narrow gauge. Since 00 track is really HO track, to preserve the aspect ratio you'd may want to space them accordingly: 8.76mm, or 114 sleepers/m. But then as we use a bodge of two scales, a spacing of around 9mm is probably marginally better. 9.14mm gives a convenient 100 sleepers per yard length, for an equivalent scale of 3.65mm/foot.

As standard, Peco's spacing is closer to 7.5mm- TT scale! No wonder it doesn't look good. Anything around 9mm improves the appearance significantly.
Once an engine attached to a train, was afraid of a few drops of rain...

David Bigcheeseplant
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:50 pm
Location: Aylesbury
Contact:

Re: Sleeper Spacing again!

Postby David Bigcheeseplant » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:11 pm

This is a photo of our model of Aylesbury station which built to the correct 18.83mm gauge and P4 standards, the trackplan is correct and all the trackwork is handbuilt with separate chairs on wooden sleepers.
David

IMG_4940.jpg


Return to “Track/Layout Design”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest