Track for On30

[BKJ]

Hi All,

Being new to On30, I have searched the web trying to find out what the majority of On30 modelers use for track. I have read where people use HO track and cut out every second tie and they are happy with it.

What are views on what track to use and what are the pros and cons?

I am not a rivet counter and my railroad will be fictitious and fun.

Thanks,

Bruce

[Heave]

I use Peco On30. It is frightfully expensive but to me it's all good.


Peco On30 is just the same as HO scale code 100 track. No different except that for me it's a little less "Tied up" than normal HO scale track. I intend to bury the stuff in rock, dirt and whatever else anyway.

[BKJ]

Yes, it is quite a bit more expensive than HO code 100 track. That's why I thought of using HO and getting rid of every other tie or whatever works.

Thanks

[NarrowMinded]

I use Peco flex, On30 track and switches, below is Atlas code 100 next to Peco On30 track, the Peco has the larger wider spaced ties. I tried the cutting out every other tie approach and found the extra money for the Peco was worth avoiding the hassel, but what is a problem for one person is a breeze for another.



NM

[mabloodhound]

Well, if you were to ask Harold Minkwitz (hminky) he went through all this when he did his On30 layout.   His final decision was to remove his handlaid On30 track and use HO track because it looked better to him (and was cheaper).
I will be following his method using HO code 83 track.   The ties get buried in ballast anyways so they are not as visible as you might think.   And many narrow gauge lines had the ties spaced close together anyways.
So unless you're a real rivet counter, use the HO.   The main thing is it's your railroad and to have fun with it.

[hminky]

Since I have been mentioned, here is why I tore up the handlaid track.

I was mistakenly trying to represent THREE FOOT narrow gauge using On30. The handlaid track looked like what it was thirty inch gauge when the locomotives ran over it and figures stand next to the track. Very disappointing so I relaid it with HO track which looks like THREE FOOT track with the Bachmann On30 cars but the wrong scale.



Then I changed scales and all was solved.



Harold

[mmiller]

I guess that's the good thing about options...what looks good, or even acceptable to one, looks like doo-doo to another... 

personally, I think HO track looks silly in O scale, with the apprx. 5" x  5" x 54" ties spaced about 6" apart ...but that's just me, if it works for you that's fine

and again, IMO, the Peco doesn't look all the great either, being OO scale industrial track, the ties are too "short and fat", but buried in the dirt it can look reasonable...

so for me, hand laying or maybe Micro Engineering track, is the only reasonable choice for non-industrial On30 track (although with ME track the uneven tie spacing it's a little bit "backwoods-y for me)


it's all about what compromises works for each individual, personally I think a small discrepancy in the track gauge is FAR LESS noticeable that a small (or not so small) discrepancy in tie spacing



but YMMV

[hminky]

If the scale/gauge discrepancy didn't bother me I would go with HO track in On30. It is the cheapest and easiest.

Harold

[BKJ]

Thanks for the input everyone! 

Harold, I just visited your new 55n3 site last night and am rather intrigued. My problem is that I would like to use the shays and climaxs from Bachmann as well as their 2-6-6-2 loco.

I believe that the 2-6-6-2 would actually look good as a 55n3 loco since the prototype was much smaller dimension wise than the 2-6-6-2's we had in North America.

I believe that almost all of BVM's models could also pass as 55n3? What do you think?

I will follow your site and would like to see more articles on changing HO or O scale cars into 55n3.

[hminky]

ALL of the On30 locomotives are two large, except for the inside frame 4-4-0.  A true 1/48 locomotive is much too large. The 4-4-0 was based on an obscure prototype. Which works out for me. The On30 cars work because they are small early era cars and there is a size/era correlation.

BVM makes an HO shay conversion for the three truck and it has replacement gears, it is the right size for 55n3.

Most of my material will be geared for the 1870-1890 era, the site is a "what I am doing". Someone else will have to delve into any other material.

If you want to do logging use On30.

Harold

[BKJ]

Thanks Harold!

[ebtnut]

I believe Micro Engineering makes On30 flex track with the more "proper" tie size and spacing, compared to the PECO track.  Not sure if they have turnouts yet.

[JohnR]

ME also makes On30 track.  Their flex is available in code 100, 83 and 70.  They also have #5 LH & RH switches in code 83 and code 70.  As was mentioned, Peco On30, HO, and (the ever popular) handlaid are the other options.

Don't worry about what or how many others are doing this or that.  Look at the options and decide what YOU like.  It's your $$ that you'll be shelling out and you need to like the end results.   If you're not certain which way to go, get one piece of each then ballast and scenic test sections. 

-John

[Tomcat]

Hi there!
They do! Micro Engineering has a wonderful line of Code 83 (which is fine enough, you wouldn´t run into problems with it as you could with Code 70) track and turnouts.

I have re-laid all my Colorado layout with ME track, and I´m happy with it. Even when Code 100 would have been prototypical enough as the D&RGW had to use bigger rails when introducing the K-27 and later the bigger K-28,K-36,K-37 (even when I don´t use the monstrous K-37 since I strongly dislike this big thing...)

Micro Engineering is pretty fine stuff, but for a Logging layout one would be fine with Peco of course. Maine style would be On30 ME Code 70, much fitting for the 2footers...

Cheers, Tom

[Mike_AA9ZY]

I used to use Peco track until I stumbled upon Harold's website. Now I use Atlas code 83 track and turnouts. The Bachmann engines and rolling stock work just fine, and heavily ballasted track looks great.

Do what makes you happy!

Mike