This is very interesting. I have a buddy who did something like this the other way - combining O gauge and Standard Gauge track. He had a tabletop layout and wanted to run anything in that space. I think I have photos somewhere. I've seen some interesting photos of real world narrow to standard gauge transfer 'places' but for cars only - not engines.
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
They ought to, with the explosion of On30 and all. Are you listening Bachmann?
Becky
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
I keep wondering if there isn't a company out there that makes this already as Gar-graves makes the following dual gauge tracks
Standard and O gauge (5 rail)
O and s gauge (4 rail)
G and S gauge ( 3 rail)
G and O ( 4 Rail)
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
Orrrrr, you could use 2 rail Atlas O, drop in your HO track, then use stud rail and/or an outside 3rd rail to power the O gauge engines. Both approaches fredswain has posted quite a bit on.
zigg72md Sorry for being late to the party but my two cents is this: I have been tinkering with dual gauge track for a while. I tried putting a HO loco on 027 tubular with zero success. However my idea was to remove the center rail and simply lay the HO track inside. The sticking point is in replacing the center rail. However since it only has to carry electricity not weight I am sure it can be done. I thought of using the HO track as the O gauge center rail but I want to be able to run both at the same time and the wiring is a little beyond me. Obviously turnouts are out of the question. However I have also been doodling around a crossover of some kind. P.S. Am I right in figuring that a 90 deg crossover would be easier to "Dual Gauge"?
Sorry for being late to the party but my two cents is this: I have been tinkering with dual gauge track for a while. I tried putting a HO loco on 027 tubular with zero success. However my idea was to remove the center rail and simply lay the HO track inside. The sticking point is in replacing the center rail. However since it only has to carry electricity not weight I am sure it can be done. I thought of using the HO track as the O gauge center rail but I want to be able to run both at the same time and the wiring is a little beyond me. Obviously turnouts are out of the question. However I have also been doodling around a crossover of some kind.
P.S. Am I right in figuring that a 90 deg crossover would be easier to "Dual Gauge"?
Good question! I didn't have any PW handy when I made my test. The pre-Fast Angle wheelsets *may* make a difference. . . . .
I stand corrected. It's been at least 25 years since I tried it. Does it work with post war too?
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
Atlas 2-rail is code 125 or higher, which is plenty tall for modern era equipment. I tested a variety: MPC, LTI, K-Line, Rolling stock, Engine: no hint of bumpity-bump. I *have* tried, and met with success.
If you haven't tried running toy trains on Atlas 2 rail track, then you've missed the real problem. The flanges are so deep they hit the ties, bumpity bump bump bump. This goes back to the discussion of code (rail height).
I have thought about thsi issue for several years without getting very far on it. My best idea so far has been to start with Atlas 2-rail O and some extra rail (maybe cannibalizing sections, if necessary) and laying the third rail just off center between the two rails. Cannibalizing Atlas 2-rail swtiches might work to create dual-gauge ones.
I went so far as to buy some track laying gauges and starting experimenting with old Atlas track but never moved into experimenting with the new stuff because of expense. I do have a couple of 3-rail straights on the layout due to be removed for a new bridge, and I may play with them once I carve them out. One problem will be afixing the third rail permanently while still allowing it to be soldered to.
Avoiding dual-gauge switches, if possible, is probably preferable, as the single-gauge switches can accomodate the other gauge if it only runs through in one direction, greatly simplifying the throwing or points and laying of frogs.
The On30 gauge would have to be narrower, not wider, to fit 1.25-inch gauge track. Rather than try to modify the On30 gauge either way, I would simply bend the center rail of the tubular track to one side. The distance needed is only about 2 millimeters, less than the width of the railhead.
But the simplest way to do this is to hand-lay 3-rail track with square-headed rails deep enough for O-gauge toy-train flanges and with the middle rail slightly offset by that 2 millimeters to create a 16.5-millimeter gauge for the On30.
Bob Nelson
Well Elliot answered the biggest question, what code would the rails have to be to accomodate both. So even if I split the difference at 175 and grind down my O gauge flanges a bit it'd still be tricky.
My current thinking is that the simplest option would be to widen my On30 wheelbase just enough to fit out-of-the-box O-gauge rails. Of course, those rails would still need relatively square edges for this to work. If it does, then a block system would resolve the AC/DC issues although it would have to be fairly elaborate. Better yet, automatic. And since I'm considering the option of stripping away all my electronicals and running on DC period I may not have to worry about it. Either way a wider wheelbase on the narrow gauge portion would make using out-of-the-box turnouts and diamonds more possible.
Speaking of diamonds, the plans I doodled for a 2-rail On30 / 3-rail Std. O cross call for a lot more insulating points, but otherwise look pretty much like you'd expect. The biggest issue is on the 3-rail side where you have to make sure there's enough metal between the pick-up rollers. That calls for short sections of rail between the On30 rails with thin pieces of plastic on each end to insulate against the On30 flanges. The way I worked it out was to use re-railer technology and guide the wheels completely through the diamond on each line. It was one of the first things I drew up when I considered combining gauges. However the layout planning has progressed to a point where a table height On30 line only makes sense if the track is dual-gauge. If it doesn't work, then the narrow gauge trains will become an elevated loop all their own.
I'm far from being ready to start physical construction so I've got plenty of time to keep diddling on this and picking everyone's grey matter!
Back in the nonline world today's endeavours have been all about wiring the power grid for my 5 by 14 G-Scale and Standard Gauge under the tree layout. It's at about 85% and with luck I'll finish it tomorrow. I like to have it all done by Thanksgiving so I have as much time as possible to operate.
Penny-----Perhaps you could approach it from a different point of view. Maybe you could start with the On30 track and lay a rail for the standard gauge along the side of the HO size track. There would be drawbacks though. The o gauge equipment would have to have flanges that would run on HO size rail without bumping along on the ties. Perhaps you could just use the standard gauge as a dummy or wire it for two rail operation. Honestly I don't think it would be practical if the O gauge trains run on AC or TMCC and the On30 runs on DC or DCC. It would be interesting if you could try this and let us know how it works. Odd-d
The very best you can possibly hope for would be some combination of curves and straights, if the narrow gauge doesn't fall in, which it sounds like it may be the case.
A dual gauge switch is quite complicated, and no 3 rail switch will work. A diamond would have to be highly modified to work, and the gaps of the toy flangeway could cause trouble.
Code 100 rail is way too small for toy flanges. You need something closer to code 200 maybe even code 250. For model purposes I believe code is 1000ths of an inch in height. Code 250 = 1/4". MTH scaletrax running rails are code 250, but the center rail is more like code 220.
If the spacing is right, scaletrax might work. It has a nice square rail head.
Becky,
I think that you will have to stick to Micro Mark track or some other H.O. track. I just tried an H.O. car on Gargraves O gauge straight track and the rails are too close together. The H.O. car falls off because it can't stay between the rails.
Maybe if you handlaid a multiple gauge track with H.O. code 100 rails it would work, but that is both time consuming and frustrating to do. You may have to rent or buy a track laying staple gun from a larger hobby shop or from a model railroad club.
I know that Gargraves makes multiple gauge track, maybe they can make something that you would want.
Lee F.
How about hand spiking your own rails, like Timboy and Fredswain have done.
Both scaletrax & Atlas use molded in place rails. gargraves track has flanges that are embedded in the ties. Only Ross sectional would be easily modified, as the rails are spiked onto the ties.
A Day Without Trains is a Day Wasted
The 2 contenders in the race of which track will get laid on my revamped layout are MTH ScaleTrax and Atlas 21st Century. I like the look of the Atlas track but that super duper skiny MTH center rail is hard to overlook. If I stick with a dedicated On30 line then it's no contest, Micro-Mark flex-track is the only rail I'll buy.
Cost will probably decide the Std O. issue if I stick with sectional, but what about Gargraves? How easy is it to determine radii with flex? Could I detatch the center rail of gargraves easily enough to shift it slightly? Would the rails on any of those 3, ScaleTrax, Atlas O or Gargraves, be able to accomodate the On30 flanges? Or would I still have to modify (square) the rails?
PS: If this works, we'll talk about the 2-rail DC to 3-rail AC diamond I've been doodling plans for!
Given those few items listed, it may still be possible to do this in some small fashion if you were to hand lay the rails. It would be a lot of work....read that, I would be happy to see the photos of someone else's work. Some locomotives have a slightly wider pick up roller, so that would allow for a little extra room to move the center rail slightly to one side as needed.
Dennis
TCA#09-63805
Strictly speaking, American O gauge is 1/48. All the European countries use 0(zero) gauge, which is 1:43.5( thus the popular 1/43 vehicles). Thus, HO is 1:87--- That's why if you look at MTH's European engines and rolling stock that have been cataloged(and delivered in some cases) in the description it states 1:43
lionelsoni The first problem is that the O gauge that HO is half of is 33 millimeters, while our 1 1/4-inch gauge is 31.75 millimeters. The second problem is that the smaller gauge is reduced further by half the width of the center rail, or about 1/16 inch. The rounded railhead seems like it would be a problem too; but it actually makes it barely possible to run HO on tinplate O, because the small HO flanges stay close to the tops of the railheads, which are about 17.5 millimeters apart, one millimeter more than HO gauge. It's not very reliable. It should be possible to do this with squared railheads and a "center" rail laid a little off center. A way around the turnout problem is...a way around, that is, a frog arrangement to separate the HO path so that it can go around the turnout instead of through it.
The first problem is that the O gauge that HO is half of is 33 millimeters, while our 1 1/4-inch gauge is 31.75 millimeters.
The second problem is that the smaller gauge is reduced further by half the width of the center rail, or about 1/16 inch.
The rounded railhead seems like it would be a problem too; but it actually makes it barely possible to run HO on tinplate O, because the small HO flanges stay close to the tops of the railheads, which are about 17.5 millimeters apart, one millimeter more than HO gauge. It's not very reliable.
It should be possible to do this with squared railheads and a "center" rail laid a little off center. A way around the turnout problem is...a way around, that is, a frog arrangement to separate the HO path so that it can go around the turnout instead of through it.
To add, "O Gauge" is 1/48 scale, "HO Gauge" is not exactly half "O" , but 1/87th scale, not 1/96th.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
jwse30 I remember doing this when I was a boy with HO trains on O27 track.
I remember doing this when I was a boy with HO trains on O27 track.
Yeah, so did I.
I don't recall how well it worked and I don't think I used an HO locomotive. I think we just pushed the cars around by hand.
Me, too! I wonder how many kids tried that.
What I do remember is that the cars worked well enough -- until they got to the switches. That, I think, would be where the whole scheme would fall apart. I doubt that they'd handle 3-rail crossovers, either.
I remember doing this when I was a boy with HO trains on O27 track. I don't recall how well it worked and I don't think I used an HO locomotive. I think we just pushed the cars around by hand. Being a boy doing an experiment like this, it probably didn't work well at all, and was just doing it to see the wrecks
I think if you did find a track that worked, it would stuff have to be a loop of track with no switches or crossings. Perhaps a track that has a flat top instead of rounded would work better as the smaller wheelsets would have more area to rest on.
Hope there's something here you can use,
J White
So I'm sitting here looking at Great Model Railroads 2011 and it's giving me ideas. So I whip out the track diagrams I've been working on intermittently for the last 2 years and start erasing and drawing arrows all over the place for modifications I want to implement. I also spotted many errors which need to be corrected so I'm starting over.
OK. Here's the 64,000 dollar question:
What would it take to turn standard gauge O scale track, into dual gauge track capable of operating both traditional Lionel equipment and Bachmann On30 narrow gauge trains? In theory HO is supposed to be half O right? So why can't I just run my DC On30 trains on 3-rail track, under DC power of course, and call it "dual-gauge"?
I realize there's a flange issue, my On30 2-4-0 Porter just slips right off the RealTrax rails. But is there a sectional track that would work? Or is this just an impossible dream?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month