Sleeper spacing ?

clivef5915 · Post by **clivef5915** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:42 pm

Just a quick couple of questions.

I believe the sleeper spacing of Peco '00' track either code 75 or 100 is incorrect.

What should the space be between sleepers to correctly portray true scale?

Has anyone taken the time and trouble to accurately space the sleepers?

And whilst I know it's subjective, was the time and effort considered worthwhile to produce a more correct look of the trackwork?

clive f

Lofty · Post by **Lofty** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:38 pm

Yes it is incorrect.

I do not know what it should be, and at the end of the day life is too short to mess about when so much more of 99% of all layouts have dozens of compromises.

Lofty

pete12345 · Post by **pete12345** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:12 pm

While the sleeper spacing is incorrect for 00 scale (correct for H0 scale) the track gauge is also incorrect (correct for H0 again) Unless you use EM gauge it looks odd IMHO with the sleepers respaced- it has a narrow gauge appearance. It looks a lot better with the gauge and sleeper spacing in proportion

Pete

clivef5915 · Post by **clivef5915** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:58 pm

Thanks for the info Pete. - And Lofty, ALL modelling is a 100% compromise in relation to the real object. As to what people are prepared to do or to accept as a compromise is down to individual taste. I was ONLY asking a question, and however long I've left to live perhaps I might have wanted to spend some of that time adjusting trackwork IF the rewards for doing it were sufficient.

clive f

SouthernBoy · Post by **SouthernBoy** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:14 pm

I was quite impressed when I came upon this example of making your track look more realistic - maybe it's an alternative solution to your query ?

I don't know the correct spacing of sleepers I'm afraid. But I do agree that it's up to each individual what they obsess about - with me it's colours and weathering. I know I spend far more time than some others on this, but just wouldn't be happy otherwise.

tinsleytmd · Post by **tinsleytmd** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:44 pm

I,ll post you some pictures tomorrow of the sleeper differences i use scale track by Exactoscale but C & L & SMP do scale OO track in RTR form some people choose the option of using SMP track with peco code 75 points.

Simon.

zabdiel · Post by **zabdiel** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:31 am

There was a thing in model rail about this some time last year. The guy who wrote it used half way between OO and HO spacing. He also removed the webbing as in SouthernBoy's example. I seem to remeber that he changed the sleeper spacing where the track went away from the viewer too. I'll see if I can find the article later.

steviesparx · Post by **steviesparx** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:23 pm

I removed the webbing from the Peco code 75 used in my own layout, and have to say it does improve the look...

... I had started by using Exactoscale sleepers with Peco rail, when I read somewhere how sleeper spacing could achieve a more realistic appearance. I cut the webbing and spaced to the same distances as the Exactoscale sleepers...

...Yes, it is a compromise - the Exactoscale sleepers are slightly larger than the Peco, but the original Peco spacings really are too close...

...Proof of the pudding would be a photo...try to upload one tomorrow...

sol · Post by **sol** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:05 pm

Just to muddy the water more, have a look at this site:
http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

I am using C&L templates plus info from this DOGA site in handlaying my 00 track to make it look a bit better than the current 00/H0 track currently available.
Of course one could purchase 00 track which looks better, it is either SMP or C&L but at nearly twice the price of Peco, it makes one stop & think & point kits for C&L are not cheap.

Each to his/her own - I have seen many fine layouts using code 100 & by the time it has been painted & ballasted, it looks good.

SouthernBoy · Post by **SouthernBoy** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:01 pm

sol wrote:Just to muddy the water more...

and to add to the mix - I did read somewhere recently that prototypically sleeper spacing is sometimes closer under points than elsewhere, but am happy to be corrected as I can't remember where I read it ....

Kindling · Post by **Kindling** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:50 am

An old handbook I have says that sleeper size is 8'6" long, 10" wide, 5" deep. For every 60' length of track, 24 sleepers are used, increasing to 25 for curves of 20 to 40 chains radius, and 26 for less than 20 chains radius.
The book does not mention turnouts, though, like SouthernBoy, I have read that there is an increase. (Can't remember where I read it

)
So, in 4mm scale, unless you are modelling in P4 (in which case you probably will not read this forum), we tend not to do scale curves, so we can ignore the 20 and 40 chains bit. If you make your sleepers a maximum of 34mm long (36mm for pre-grouping 9' long sleepers), 3.3mm wide, and maximum 10mm apart, you won't go far wrong. Best of all, given the compromises we all make anyway, is to do what looks right to you.

zabdiel · Post by **zabdiel** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:38 am

sol wrote:Of course one could purchase 00 track which looks better, it is either SMP or C&L but at nearly twice the price of Peco, it makes one stop & think & point kits for C&L are not cheap.

I think I'll stick with RTR track! I never really understood finescale OO. By the time the track is twice as expensive and have to build points then why not use EM or P4?

sol · Post by **sol** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:08 am

Build track & points & it is a lot cheaper -especially points.
Peco code 75 here in OZ cost around $25, I build my points ( not SMP or C&L) for around $5, hand laid track may cost the same but at least I get sleepers looking better than Peco.

Converting 20+ locos & over 240 wagons/coaches to EM & P4 would cost me far more than hand building track.

S_Jay · Post by **S_Jay** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:54 am

I'd love to hand build my own track. But I'm so lump fisted that I'll stick to RTR and have less points. Unless you're going to build some for me

steviesparx · Post by **steviesparx** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:39 pm

Pictures promised, and finally delivered...

...The top pic also shows the original sleeper spacings for Hornby and Exactoscale concrete sleepers.....The last picture also shows Fleischmann's ready ballasted offering which I used on the high-level runs...

...and the model is far from finished, but I hope this is of some help...