Narrow gauge E-Z track?

[oljonb]

 Considering the expanding interest in On30 model railroading, and the fact I suspect there are many, like myself, who enjoy the hobby but are not currently in a situation to be able to construct the quality layout we would like but who still enjoy "running" our trains, it would seem to me there would be a market for offering the HO E-Z Track with narrow gauge track spacing.  I realize the high cost of developing a new product line like this, but I suspect interest would warrant it. Has Bachmann done any surveying on this subject?

  By the way, if you like narrow gauge and have not yet come across the publication: the "Narrow Gauge and short Line Gazette" affectionately known as just "The Gazette," you need to find a copy and see what you're missing. The modeling is exceptional and the growing number of modelers working in On30 continues, if what The Gazette presents is any indication. On the cover of the May/June issue, front and center, was the Forney in a photo from the article on the On30 Smuggler's Cove layout.

[CNE Runner]

While On30 is gaining somewhat in popularity (thanks in large part to Bachmann), it is still a very minor 'player' on model railroad's 'stage'. I really don't think the extensive investment in design, and fabrication machinery, would be warranted by the sales of a proposed On30 EZ-track.

On30 is largely the domain of the craftsman (as the pages of the Gazette will attest). This is not to say there is no place for the beginner/casual 'runner'. The 'runner' will use standard HO track and leave it at that...the craftsman will want track that exemplifies narrow gauge operation (wider tie spacing, larger tie size, etc.). My point is that On30 modeling can be approached in many different ways...however the bar is definitely raised.

I became interested (to a degree) in On30 because: 1) the availability of small industrial locomotives such as Bachmann's Davenport or Whitcombe, 2) the availability of kitbashing 'kits' to convert readily obtainable HO locomotives to On30 critters (an example is Boulder Valley Models 'kit' to 'bash' a Bachmann GE 44-Ton into an On30 critter), 3) the opportunity to scratchbuild rolling stock that us senior citizens can actually see (which does raise the level of completion standard), 4) the notion that narrow gauge railroading (with few exceptions) were 'one off' - allowing the modeler license to "do their own thing".

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the modeler gets less 'railroading' per area as one progresses into larger and larger scales. On30 is for all intensity O-scale in size. While the rolling stock is somewhat undersized - compared to true (standard) O-scale, the structures, figures, vehicles and scenery are not. This is something to consider before 'jumping into the On30 pool".

For me, I think HO modeling fits my basic needs. My On30 layout will suffice to be used as an exhibition layout (2' x 6'...able to be separated in the middle for transportation), and as a venue to 'show off' my latest 'creations'.

Yep, 'did see the Forney and marveled at the exquisite modeling evident in the Smugglers' Cove article.

Regards,
Ray

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

I have to agree with Ray, an On30 plastic roadbed would not go over well with the more serious modelers and us "runners" will be mostly content with ho till the rivet counting bug really bites us and we go to more prototypical rail and ties. By then you'll be watching your flanges too.

[Flyman615]

Well then, I guess I am somewhere in the On30 middle. As a long-time model railroader (45+ years off and on), I became interested in On30 primarily because of its practicality tied to HO gauge track and the reasonable cost of Bachmann rolling stock, track etc.

That said, I am still a scratch builder and while I enjoy board-by-board construction of structures as well as kit-bashing buildings and cars, I am not nearly as drawn to exact scale trackage. In my opinion, EZTrack can be made to look acceptable to the majority of On30 modelers if carefully landscaped and ballasted.

And for those who find it off putting, then just look at my structures, scenery and rolling stock instead!

[rrbob]

Don't forget the On30 Annual.  It is just On30 and has lots of layout tours, loco and car kitbash articles in it.  They're on Ebay and from the publisher.
BobD.

[railexpert]

Hi,

in the original and on all Photos I have seen from American Narrow Gauge Railways there is always a poor roadbed. The sleepers lay mostly in the mood, the ballast is cinder. An EZ-track plastic roadbed fits not for this.

Railexpert

[Len]

For those who want the convenience of ready made track, but the look of narrow gauge, Micro-Engineering makes Code 83 On30 track. Peco also makes On30 track in Code 100, but the rails are rediculously oversize for narrow gauge.

Len

[railexpert]

Hi Len,

you are wrong with the oversize of the rails.

If you calculate, a code 83 rail is corresponding with a ASCE 50 lb. rail and a height of nearly 4 inches.
A code 100 rail is corresponding with a ASCE 75 lb. rail and a height of nearly 5 inches.

In Colorado 55 - 57lb rail was common on most carriers at the turn of century as most of the lines never had anything much larger than 2-8-0 inside frame locos.

To practice the K27 class locos the D&RGW laid areas with 70lb rail. The D&RGW ended up with fair amounts of 90lb rail on the parts of the line that saw the larger K36 - K37 class locos by the end of service. (Rail was second hand from their mainline as that rail was being replaced with heavier rail.)
The overall huge increase in steam loco size after 1910 saw most railroads changing from 55 - 70lb rail to heavier rail -- even on standard gauge lines. I guess even the Maine 2 footers had much beyond 40lb rail.

The code 83 and Code 100 rails are just right for Narrow Gauge in O scale 1:48, they are oversized in HO scale.

Railexpert

[Len]

You may be right, but the Code 100 just looks wrong to me. Maybe I did HO for too many years.

Len

[Kevin Strong]

Code 100 may work for "modern" 3' gauge a la the D&RGW, but the vast majority of narrow gauge lines never really graduated past 60-pound rail, if that. For 2' gauge lines, according to the 1915 PUC report on Maine railroads, the SR&RL had some 55-pound rail, but most of it was in the 35 - 40-pound range. The Monson was laid with 30-pound rail. The B&SR had 50- and 35-pound rail. I couldn't find any mention in the WW&F report for the weight of its rail. Suffice to say, nothing greater than 55-pounds, though, at the heaviest.

Most On30 railroads I've seen tend to pattern themselves after the smaller, more "backwoods" 3' gauge operations or the Maine 2' railroads. For these kinds of lines, the smaller rail is most certainly more appropriate--I'd be tempted even to look at code 70 rail. I saw the ME code 83 rail at the narrow gauge convention, and will in all likelihood be using that when I get to building my On30 railroad. (I picked up a 2-6-0 at the convention, so I'm just getting started with "the small stuff.")

Later,

K