As you feel led ... (with eyes open...)

Dear Nathan,

The short answer to your connundrum is

"...if you really must model absolutely 3' gauge, then go for it,...

...but do so with the knowledge that you:

- will pay a $$$$ premium for the privilege,
(brass locos is the obvious gotcha, but so is RTR On3 track and turnouts, 
car kits, running-gear and wheelsets, etc etc)

- have less choice of available "off the shelf" equipment,
(see above)

- and have to put in more time and effort to achieve equivalent running performance
(Blunt-bearing wheelsets, Ugh!)

- on enforced larger-radii trackplans
(On3 "Colorado-esque" brass typically has a minimum curve radii which is comparable to O2R SG,
the "narrow gauge allows tighter curve trackplans" is a furphy once we get into 3' gauge and wider)..."

The popularity of On30 is simply that the list of benefits/compromises above inverts,

and for the loss of 6" in model gauge
(which is in many modeller's eyes barely noticable when models are displayed at a reasonable perspective/"scale standing-trackside viewing height" anyway),

the benefits far-outweigh the drawbacks.
(...All the same visual "heft" and impressiveness of "O scale NG", 
much less of the mechanical-limitations/availability-restrictions/cost-penalties...)

Personally, I have used On30 to model Aussie Prototype NG Logging, where the prototype equipment modelled ran on prototype gauges from 2' thru to SG.
In model form, not a single viewer "noticed the discrepancy",
and that includes direct first-gen decendents of the guys who actually owned and ran the prototype logging tramways and equipment...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to model the gauge that works for you, 
with full "eye's open" fore-knowledge of the effects your choice-of-gauge has,
Prof Klyzlr

​PS Yes, there are many On30 modellers worldwide who use On30 as a "cost and time/effort-effective" method of rendering "prototype 3' gauge scenes" in miniature... Suggest checking in with the "On30Conspiracy" YahooGroup....

PPS Many On3 modellers tried mightily to resist supporting "B'mann's mongrel raid on O scale Narrow Gauge" for years. However, the sheer availability, price, and quality of the offerings,
(Esp the J&S On3 inspired passenger cars),
combined with the easy regauging to 3' with NWSL/Grandt/FMW trucks,
made the uptake of "green box syndrome" under diehard On3 layouts almost inevitable...

Having been in On30

For some time I've been building On kits and don't see the difference except for trucks. The beautiful San Juan Car Compqny trucks are very nice and the same price for 3' or 30". I lay my own track and turnouts so 36" gage wound not have been any more or less challenging. Structures are still 1:48 no matter the gage. 

Now for the meat. Do I really need 8-10 Bachmann locomotives that are really a compromise scale? Do I like how the HO couplers are too small and too low? No. I will try to adjust these and the rolling stock to get that "low hung look" but often wonder what I'm modeling. 

One or two beautiful brass C-16's or a K-27 outside frame engine can really make me think twice about selling the more popular 30" stuff and be very happy. A trend toward smaller layouts is strong because they require fewer engine and rolling stock and, as a sideline, could provide years of entertainment in a reasonable space. 

Of course I would lean toward the Maine two-footers and skip down instead of up but I'm confused. 

Neil

Watch out for the coupler height GOTCHA

Hi Nathan,

If you use off-the-shelf Bachmann On30 equipment to represent US 3' gauge equipment be aware that there is a significant difference between the off-the-shelf On30 coupler height that Bachmann chose for their ON30 equipment (just happens to be the same as the HO-scale standard) and the higher coupler height used as a standard in On3. 

It is somewhat ironic and perhaps an accident of modelling that the Bachmann On30 coupler height at HO-scale standard height just happens to be "spot on" for real 30" gauge railways like this one when modelled in 1/48 scale

There were many places in the world other than the US that ran extensive 2'6" or 750 mm gauge railway networks. When the decision to put narrow-gauge rails through the Rockies was made and 3' was chosen as the distance between the rails, locomotives had grown in size and capabilities, hence the higher coupler height of the prototype.

When originally introduced in the early 2000's Bachmann used some 3' gauge equipment with the lower coupler height as well as a range of other smaller industrial rolling stock.

This caused some considerable angst among those modellers who wished to "model On3 in On30" using the new readily available On30 equipment (ie those modellers that were prepared to accept the gauge mismatch but were not prepared to accept the lower coupler height because it detracted from "the US 3' gauge look" of their On30 rolling stock).  

Over recent years Bachmann has released some equipment with multiple height coupler pockets that is easily "convertible" to the higher On3 coupler height. But be aware that if you want the "ON3 look" of the higher ON3 coupler height, then that this can involve extra modelling work that might not be easy or cheap, depending on the piece of equipment being modified. From my reading of the various Yahoo On30 groups over the years (since almost 2000), converting some locomotives to the higher coupler height has involved extensive surgery underneath as well as finding larger diameter wheels and the bogies/axles to suit.   

There is usually more to converting On30 to On3 than just swapping out the bogies.

There is also a reason why a lot of ON30 equipment runs with the "as-fitted" coupler height and "masquerades" as On3. 

Space?

How much space are you willing to give the layout? Watch out for the O-scale structures. They take up more space than you think. As Prof Klyzlr says, be aware that On3 some steam locomotives will require up to 36" or more for radius curves. This was a big deciding factor for me as I needed equipment that would run at 30" or less. Like Neil, I handlay my own track and turnouts, so that part doesn't matter to me either. The coupler height issue is another thing that doesn't worry me. I have already modified several of the Bachmann cars to my own standard, which is pretty close to On3. The modifications are relatively simple. I will be scratchbuilding or kitbashing at least half of my rolling stock anyway making coupler height less of an issue. Using ready-to-run On30 equipment actually gives you the best of all worlds. It's a little bit like modelling O-scale in an HO space.  There are some very good modellers in On30. Check out the On30 annuals if you can get access to them.

 "On30 appears to be the more

On30 became popular because Bachman built a lot of relatively cheap On30 equipment and many newbies didn't know or care about the difference between On30 and On3.  If you know the difference I'd suggest On3 because you'll probably be happier modeling in a more common prototype narrow gauge. If cost and ease is more important than accuracy then On30 might be the better choice. Take into account all the costs though and not just the rolling stock and the fact that it is the same gauge as HO scale, most of a layout's cost is scenery ,buildings, details, etc. that cost the same for either On30 or On3 so the total for a finished layout might be near the same in either gauge. A simpler track plan might provide more savings than the gauge choice. If you don't have room for On3 size curves you might consider Sn3 which can allow more layout in a given space  .........DaveB 

If You Like The Look...

...Of the Victorian Railways NA Class Baldwin 2-6-2T in John Garraty's picture above? They are available in On30 (which is correct for these locos) from Haskell Co in Taiwan. An excellent model apparently.

http://www.haskellco.net/

Lots of the other VR Rolling stock is available too.

30" will never look like 24" or 36"

Having done most scales in narrow gauge, 30" never looks like either 24" or 36".

A good eye can tell the difference instantly of an off-scale/gauge combo.

That being said On30 is really fun and that is why it is popular.

Harold

Dear Nathan,Ask yourself the

Dear Nathan,

Ask yourself the question:

Are you wanting to create a layout where the focus is "up close and personal" on the trains themselves
(where the gauge is an intrinsic part of the focus elements)

OR

are you wanting to build a layout with focus on the scene(s),
where the trains + structures + scenery as a complete O scale NG presentation is the goal?

a la

Refining your personal focus will reveal the path most-suitable for your O NG mission...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Quick ... What gauge?

Quick, without referencing the article, what gauge is this month's MRH cover story layout? 36 inch or 30 inch? Don't cheat ... Just look at the image on the MRH homepage.

I did read the article

So, not to give it away but I really enjoy my scale / gauge combo but will be saving for engines that have more reliable drive trains! Beautiful layout in the mag and amazing what he did is basically a one car garage! The aisles would seem too narrow for some but the fact that one side is facia, or basically a wall, I can see how it might work for one person. 

Ne 

I'm gonna guess 36in. (3 foot

I'm gonna guess 36in. (3 foot guage) as it looks like that may be a blackstone model which produces that scale.

Look at photo 17

The cover photo is low angled enough to not tell the gauge.

Photo 9 and 17 show the gauge disparity.

It is obvious that it is not 3 foot gauge.

Nice modeling!

Harold

"The cover photo is low

   Yeah, way different matter looking at a photo than at the actual layout. Since it's Rio Grande it should be 3 foot gauge, why make it harder than it needs to be?  ........DaveB

Tie spacing

"being able to run On30 models on HO track, which is readily available?"

I think you would be disappointed if you use HO scale track for On30, because of the tie spacing, it just looks funny. Don't let the idea of using HO track sway your decision, you will wind up using On30 track with the correct tie spacing.

--Bill B.

It's On30

On30 vs On3

ME On30 track versus Peco makes a big difference in the "look".

See my earlier comment on the layout built in spite of the odds.

Bill Uffelman

On30 Track

Dear On30 Track hounds,

Reccomend stopping thinking of On30 as "O on HO track", as I agree that for larger US-outline 2 and 3' gauge prototypes it sets up the user with a mental impression of "teeter toter" trackage...

(That said, many NG lines had the sleepers buried soo far into the dirt that only the rails show, so burying the undersized sleepers solves the visual problem...

OR

one could recognize that for the same gauge, not all railroads used 8+ foot sleepers... )

Rather, think of HO flextrack as "...a cheap source of the appropriate code rail, pre-set to the appropriate gauge, just ready and primed for 'speed relaying' on theme-suitable sleepers..."
(EG PECO Code 83 Streamline flextrack is cheaper than ME On30 Code 83 flex,
and is already "gauge correct" for the target scale/gauge combo...)

and when I say "speed relaying", I mean:
- Cut out 3 of every 4 plastic sleepers from the "smaller scale" flextrack
- Respace the remaining sleepers along the lengths of rail, forming very "airy" flextrack
- Lay the resulting assembly on the bed of glued down "proper sized" sleepers,
re-spacing the plastic "gauge keepers"/sleepers evenly along the length of the rails so they sit down _between_ the wood sleepers
- Spike the rail to the wood sleepers as per normal
- Run a "barely warm" soldering iron along all faces of both rails, melting the plastic sleeper "spikes"
- Then use fingers and/or a pair of tweezers/needle-nosed pliers to push/slide the plastic sleepers/gauge-keeper sideways out from underneath the rails/between the wood sleepers

Result?

Perfectly gauged "handlaid" On30 track,
(with whatever level of "handlaid decrepitude" visual one wishes to inject into the situation,

of scale rail code, for much less $$ than "RTR On30 flex"...
(and the same technique works for _any_ scale/gauge where cheaper appropriate gauged+rail-code flextrack options exist, IE N --> HOn30, HO --> Sn42, HO --> On30, HO --> Gn15, etc etc).

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Or just roll your own

Ive not tried the prof's idea but it seems much more work than simply laying rail to the ties to start with. 

Even complex track work can be done with a little patience and some practice (and some rolly holders - really). These are 6' ties and matching pc board ties (with the mess of solder) and will be painted to blend in. Common carrier narrow gage lines were well ballasted and ties will show except for spurs or roadway crossings. Well drained ballast is/was important. 

Neil Erickson 

Toolbox Options...

Dear Neil,

It's a technique that's held me in good stead in many situations, inc "SG missions", both for speed
(removing 3/4 of the sleepers from a length of flextrack is < 5 seconds work,
respacing the remainder is less than a minute,
and one can be running trains over the _correctly_gauged_ result less than 90 seconds after beginning,
with only just-enough spikes in place initially to "hold/test the geometry"...

...once everything is "aimed correctly" and nothing falls-off the tracks, I go back later and spike every sleeper at my leisure...  )

and when access for "orthodox gauging techniques" wasn't available,
(thinking of modelling logging trestle and pig-sty-pier situations particularly...)

Not all modelgenic NG routes were "common carriers" in the "big railroad" sense of the word...
...and around half the examples in the immortal "Mixed Train Daily" were tiptoeing thru the rail-edge weeds,
suggesting that one could plausibly lay rails individually straight on the roadbed sans-sleepers and not-a-soul would notice once the scenery was done...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

My first O scale layout was On30............

..........and I used all my HO track I had left over from the previous layout.  To make the track "look" more O scale I spent many hours in front of the TV removing every other tie from the rail and switches.  As I was modeling an Eastern road I was not so concerned with the shorter ties.  Remember the New Englanders who owned the RR were a thrifty lot! 

Alas, this is what happened to that layout in 2009!

Bye bye layout as well as everything else.  Resettled in my fiances house and am working on an O and On30 layout.  All is well...........................

Peter

I model the Denver Rio Grande

I model the Denver Rio Grande in On30. My first choice was to go HO but I chose O scale narrow gauge after visiting Dave Adams' On3 scale layout. This gave a real sense of what could be done with my available space. The choice was not easy with the investment I had in HO.

I researched the popular brands of RTR engines and rolling stock.

Mountain Model Imoprts (MMI) offers excellent engines in both On3 and On30. The model versions are identical except for the wheel spacing and the center drivers are blind. My assumption is the On30 blind drivers would allow for a tighter radius. After my On30 K27/28's arrived, testing concluded they could handle a min 30" radius & afforded reliable operations. MMI's K36/37's needed a min 35" radius. I did not have any of their On3 models for comparison. This was good enough for my available space to have a decent mainline & branch line.

Broadway Limited Imports (BLI) makes On30 C-16s. Well detailed & sound equipped. Scale appearance next to a MMI C-19 is good without using a micrometer.

American Model Supply (AMS) and San Juan Car Company (SJCC) both offer On3 and On30 versions of their freight rolling stock. Their two versions are identical except for the wheel spacing. Some SJCC cars come with both On3 & On30 wheels.

Bachmann ...... is Bachmann. Bachmann uses the 30" rail gauge to represent 36" rail gauge. Their engines and rolling stock are scaled for this 6" difference. A Bachmann On30 40' boxcar is visibly smaller compared to an AMS On30 40' boxcar both in height, width and length. However, Bachmann has a wide variety of equipment and their stuff runs great right out of the box!

Hope this helps.

Set the record straight

Alan your comment regarding Bachmann On30 box cars is wrong. The bodies are 1/4" scale models of OR&W cars from 1880s. Ironically the D&RG had similar cars in their early years -see plans in the current Gazette.

The D&RGW 3000 series cars that you see today (modeled by AMS) on the D&S and C&TS are 1900 era cars and substantially larger.

I am not nit picking - errors on these forums become gospel truth too quickly and should be corrected.

Bill Uffelman Ocean View Delaware