Bachmann Online Forum

I can use ME On30 track which is probably more prototypical but there are limitations in turnouts and other types of track.

Or

I can use Atlas HO code 83 track which has a much wider selection of track types and is quite a bit cheaper.

So, the question is:

Is there a significant difference in appearance between the two types of track?  Most people that would be viewing my railroad are not model railroaders and probably would not be offended by the use of HO track vs ON30 track. 

What do most of you On30 modelers use and why?  I know there has to be people out there that can shed some light on this topic.

I will have places where sharp (18-16 INCH) curves may be necessary.  And places where a #4 turnout would be preferable.  I am not really a rivet counter. 

What are the pros and cons for the various types of track?

Also, since I have DCC equipped engines, is there a type of track and turnouts that would be preferred?

I would like some help with this before I spend a bunch of money and find out I made a big mistake.

Hello,

Pro: The function of tracks and turnouts is the same in HO and On30.

Contra: The HO sleepers are too small, too short and set too tight for On30.
(You can hide this with the ballast and by removing every 2nd sleeper)



;)  Railexpert

 Click Here  (http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com) for lots of On30 info from Harold Minky's  perspective.

 Click Here  (http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/ho_track/)
On30 or HO track? Viewpoint of Harold Minky

Hey,  thanks for the replies.

I still have about 6 months before I get back home from Germany to decide what way to go, however, I am leaning toward the use of HO track.  There are just so many components available compared to On30 track.

I am not a rivet counter and almost anyone who comes to visit will not notice the difference.  I like the 10 foot rule we used in Large scale.

Look through this volume of Troels Kirk's On30 layout.  http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36954 (http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=36954)
He used HO track and for me it looks just fine. 
I use HO also to save costs and it works for me too.

I use Peco HO because of Troels Kirk's layout. His reasoning was the Peco turnouts require no wiring for switch machines (my biggest positive!), the frogs are powered (with electrofrogs), they were readily available, and they came in multiple configurations including curved turnouts and wyes.

Here's a 30 inch gauge shay. Looks more like HO track to me than anything else.

(http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb220/brochhau/2_zpsoxelzgvq.jpg)

The Atlas Code 100 track on my old Pacific Coast Air Line had no switch machines or latching mechanisms for the points and dead frogs.

Never had a problem with operating and never cleaned the track.

When I had my open house everyone asked what type of track was being used.

Harold

Are the Peco turnouts with electrofrogs DCC compatible?

What about Atlas turnouts?  Are they also DCC compatible?

It looks like Atlas has a greater variety of switches in Code 83 HO track.

Quote from: jbwilcox on October 24, 2015, 03:32:58 PM
Are the Peco turnouts with electrofrogs DCC compatible?

What about Atlas turnouts?  Are they also DCC compatible?

It looks like Atlas has a greater variety of switches in Code 83 HO track.

Any turnout is "DCC Compatible" if you wire it correctly. The electrofrogs require all metal wheels to be in gauge, and the two frog rails to have insulated joiners. I have a few friends who use them exclusively on their DCC layouts with no issues. I plan on using all electrofrogs as well, and I have them on my mini layout. There is misinformation out there that these can't possibly be used on DCC layouts since they are not "DCC compatible." They work fine and are vastly superior in my opinion, because of the power routed frog.

Atlas turnouts are usable without any modification or thought behind wiring. They have a large enough frog area that the Porters may stall if the frog is not powered with a relay or switch.

Micro Engineering and Peco each make On30 track and turnouts as well. Peco is code 100 only and they offer one type of turnout and a wye. Micro Engineering offers code 100, 83, and 70, but only #5 turnouts.

There is no right or wrong answer! Enjoy!

Scott

Understand that using Peco Code 100 ON30 Electrfrog switches will require some modification to the underside of the switch for use on a DCC layout. Any tips on how you did that .

Quote from: canpac on December 26, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
Understand that using Peco Code 100 ON30 Electrfrog switches will require some modification to the underside of the switch for use on a DCC layout. Any tips on how you did that .

Click Here  (http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm#a2) Read through all the info. I don't have handy a Peco Code 100 On30 Electrofrog turnout to compare to the info to see if info is relevant to what Peco is now selling.

My wife and I decided to jump into On30 for a Christmas train layout (I usually model in N). Since I use Bachmann's EZ-Track almost exclusively on my N-scale layout and have been happy with it, we decided to go with HO-scale EZ-Track for the On30 layout. We have experienced no problems with it and to my (albeit untrained) eye, it looks very prototypical when I compare it to pictures of the period. Like you, I'm not a rivet-counter and we have been very happy with the layout. Just my two cents worth.

I used Micro Engineering On30 track as the ties looked decent for On30. If Peco had made their turnouts a little longer, I may have gone with their stuff instead as their track appears to be far sturdier built than the ME stuff is. Their turnouts are very fragile, as I had two points bars snap dead in half when installing the blue point connecting rods into them. Replacing both of those took a while as everything had been soldered into place before then. Nothing held them together, not ACC nor resin.
That annoyed me so much, I made this 'advertisement' of their products:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/willysmb44/On30/Love%20ME_zpsgfbxndrb.jpg)
But once everything was in place, their track looks good. I had to use two Shinohara curved HO turnouts and those are very obvious as HO ones...

I put this together the other day on Facebook comparing the tie sizes of the various commercial tracks:

Micro Engineering code 83 - 6' long, 6" wide, 21" center-to-center
Peco On30 code 100 - 5' long, 9" wide, 21" center-to-center
Atlas HO code 83 - 4' 6" long, 4" wide, 9" center-to-center
Atlas HO code 100 - 4' 6" long, 6" wide, 14" center-to-center

For a little perspective on the prototypes, I couldn't find a whole lot of reference for 2' gauge ties, but the WW&F went with 5' long ties that had a width and depth of 5" (The author of the sources referred to them as "5x5x5"). They had originally tried 4' long ties, but they proved too unstable.

The 3' gauge ties ranged from 5' - 7' long seemingly depending on availability. There was a chart published in the Narrow Gauge Gazette which surveyed the ties used by western narrow gauge lines. There was little (if any) consistency on any one railroad.

Later,

K