Sleeper spacing ?

[Silver Surfer]

There are two things that stand out in my mind when going down this route.
Don't overdo the spacing between the sleepers as it does make it look like narrow gauge track (as has been already mentioned) which totally ruins the appearance.
But the greatest benefit I think is that by removing the webbing between the sleepers provides for prototypical 'fresh air' between rail and ballast for a much more realistic look.
Can't be bothered myself, but I've seen both on exhibition layouts some with better results than others.

Mike

[clivef5915]

Many thanks Steviesparx, have to say the track looks very much better with the spacing you have done. Will now have to decide whether to get rid of my code 100 flexi and change to code 75 to achieve the same.
I think the result certainly justifies the time spent.

regards
clive f

[Lofty]

at the end of the day life is too short to mess about

I was at a show at the weekend looking at the different track set ups.

I must admit, removing the webs does improve things: and if you are going to do that, easing the sleepers out a bit isn’t too much of a bigger step.

As I am about to embark on a new project I may even go that way myself

Lofty

[noel]

I have always worked on 2200/2300 sleepers per mile. This seems to be confirmed by the figures being given here.

[Walden House]

Hi Folks, I am a great believer in RTR (00) and the compromises we make doesn't really matter when we enjoy what we do, however, I did read with interest somewhere about the subject of "scale" track. Recovering after major surgery I have begun to do some bits and bobs with my Model Railway. I had some spare Peco 'flexi-track' and have simply cut lengths to 'scale' 60' and 45' which are common lengths, and if counting sleepers for the 60' lengths, there are usually 24 sleepers per 60', and 18-19 per 45'. An approximate 1cm spacing per sleeper looks really good. Here's the method (00).
Take a length of your chosen track, ('flexible track') cut it to 240mm (60') or 180mm (45') lengths. Cut each of the webbing strips underneath and space the sleepers at 1cm centres. Run a smear of "super-glue" down each outside length and leave to dry overnight. (Don't be tempted to move them - superglue really does set hard!).
If wanting a gentle curve, simply curve each length (use track pins to make a former to shape the rail around them).
Weathering and ballasting hide the slightly short sleeper length, but the overall finish looks superb.
My MPD is 'under construction' and looking at the prototype there are all sorts of differing lengths, and some joined and not curved so as to produce a 'kink' in the tracks where the fishplates join. Consequently I can also use other pieces of 'off-cuts'

Hope this helps.
Good Luck, Rob

[GHOSTFAN]

When I used to go to exhibitions you often saw models constructed by EM,P4 and SP4 enthusiasts all absolutely to scale etc..Good luck to them and their obvious skills,but to me the track was almost invisible.
In 12" to the 1 foot world however the track is the most obvious feature,so whether it's true to scale or not I like to see the tracks.
It's all a matter of personal taste.

[locoworks]

the thing with 12" to the foot stuff on sleeper spacings is that depending on the line in question depends on the spacing. if you get sleepers for 3mm stuff from the 3mm society, they are spaced so that 2 complete webs of sleepers make up a prototypical rail length section ( cant remember the length?? ) but the sleeper spacing is closer at the fishplates. so they space more near the centre of the rail length?? so in essence there is no one 'correct' spacing per se, just a correct one for where or what you are modelling.

[pete12345]

so in essence there is no one 'correct' spacing per se, just a correct one for where or what you are modelling.

The extreme case of this would be Brunel's broad gauge GWR, where the sleepers, being longitudinal, were spaced 7'0 1/4" apart

[Dead Man's Handle]

I'm probably mainly just repeating others, but never mind

The main problem, before taking into account all the other things that people have mentioned about different prototypical sleeper spacings, is that OO is a deliberate mix of scales - 3.5mm track and 4mm for everything else. I think the Peco stuff is pretty close to what it should be for 3.5mm (i.e. HO). The sleeper spacing is incorrect if you compare it to a OO loco body, but not compared to the distance between rails.

In my opinion the proportions of the track in isolation is more important to get right, as the eye is more forgiving about the discrepancy between loco scale and track scale than it is for oddly proportioned sleeper spacing in relation to the rail width (as others have said, HO gauge rails with 'correct' 4mm scale sleeper spacing tends to give a 'narrow gauge' appearance).

People have mentioned EM and P4 - In addition to what sol said about costs and not having to covert locos and rolling stock, another advantage of finescale OO (and OO in general) over EM and P4 is what you can fit in the available space - you can't generally have 18" radius curves and such in P4 (I'm not sure what the minimum is, but I think it's more like 30"). If you want any kind of loop on your layout, then EM or P4 will greatly increase the space required.

Ade

[Dead Man's Handle]

Saw this photo and thought of this thread

http://www.nwrail.org.uk/aj-track.jpg

Ade

[Walden House]

Quite!

Thanks for the photo.
Rob

[pwarburton]

Hi


I have admittedly not read through all of this thread - although read much of it. I'm in the process of laying some Peco OO Code 75 track and to a certain extent find all of this baffling. Are there right answers or is it all a compromise and rather subjective?

Looking at this and other threads I have been widening the sleepers slightly on a new layout - using a gap / template of 5mm - more than this and the gap seemed a bit too wide. In this photo (sorry work in progress - bit untidy!!) you can see my widened track and then non-widened Peco track at the top.





Looking at these two photos - my widened track in my opinion looks better - looking at the spaces between the sleepers the proportions (balance between length and width of the spaces) looks more like the real thing while the spaces on the original Peco track look too narrow.







Any advice / opinions on this would be welcome. As said - is this just down to visual impression or is there a correct procedure that others are following to improve the appearance? I have only done a small section thus far so views needed at this stage!!



Thanks

[Dad-1]

Where has this come from - almost 5 years since the subject became forgotten.
Interesting to look at your last prototype picture - Is it my eyes, or are there different spacings
between sleepers on the concrete sleeper track and the old timber alongside ?

I simply can't be bothered to go cutting all the webs and opening up, too many other things to do.
Opening up slightly can improve the look although I would say you have perhaps gone a little wide as
the narrow 16.5 spacing begins to become so much more noticeable. Were I bothered I'd probably go
'EM'

Geoff T.

[pwarburton]

Hi Geoff

Yes the spacings do appear to be a little different - although there is perspective too. I have seen some suggestions that spacings need to be nearer 6 mm - this would give the appropriate 24 sleepers per 60 ft of track (according to BR sources) - although this varies a bit anyway (e.g. on curves, dpending also on speed / status of the line). I am coming out at about 26 per 60ft so this is about right (slightly narrower gaps) - BUT - it looks right and like the photos.

[Bufferstop]

I've thought long and hard about this and come to the conclusion that unless I build my own true scale and gauge track, Peco H0 scale track will do for me. Here's why - I rarely hover above full sized track looking down at the sleeper layout, more often than not I'm looking at the track from ground or platform level or from some distance away from 1st or 2nd storey level. From any of these vantage points seeing the sleeper spacing is difficult, but I have tried to build my layout so that my eye level is around a similar scale height above the track. So when I look towards the track it is no more visible than in real life and I prefer my track with trains on it, which obscures large swathes of it. If I stand as close as is safe to a platform edge looking down I will see the sleeper spacing, but looking along the line of the track the sleepers appear to get closer together and narrower until they merge into a continuous blur. Unsurprisingly the same happens with model track so only the closest bit is seen in detail, assuming it doesn't have a train sitting on it. Peco track to H0 scale dimensions without a reference point looks in proportion, sleeper width,length and separation all are reasonably accurate for 3.5mm/ft. Just like we get away with using H0 figures as long as they are away from a reference point. Widening the sleeper spacing without correcting the underscale length and width makes it look like the lightly laid track used on contractors' lines and light railways. Now I'm not saying don't do it, but do it with care and keep referring to photos taken from a similar angle if it ceases to look right stop.
[/ soap box mode]
John W
aka Bufferstop.