Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[Richard Lee]

Yes that plan is in there as well but it costs a lot more than the others.

Not their flexi-track.  Current price seems to be £46.50 for a box of 10 yards, so £4.65 per yard.  The flexi-track is on thin bases, so may possibly be of interest to you.

 

http://marcway.net/list3.php?col=head&name=SCALEWAY+TRACK

 

As you have to ring them or visit the shop to do business with them, you have the option of asking them if they would consider selling less than a whole box if you want to.

 

The same firm, Marcway, also do ready-made copper-clad points, of course.  These are the same height as the SMP flexi-track.

[Stephen Freeman]

I was presuming it was the cost of carriage that was the issue, however that applies to them all to where he lives. I think we need to see what Vistiaen is using to solder with. Iron, flux and solder details please.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Stephen Freeman

[Pint of Adnams]

"...moving towards production"? Is that at the same 14mm a year as Mt Vesuvius Etna is sliding into the Med?

 

Since Peco has produced its BH range this thread has gone remarkably quiet, is there any news or progress?

 

Edit to name the correct volcano

Edited March 29, 2018 by Pint of Adnams

[BMS]

A route down which I have travelled is to use Peco Finescale throughout, using large radius (including curved) points on lines which will be predominantly those over which coaches will travel, medium radius where loco release and empty coach stock movements will occur and small radius in places representing coal yards and private owners' sidings. I have tried to keep all the first described at a minimum of 36" radius (sometimes 60" as far as possible) with 4-6-0 locos, the second uses 30" minimum (these points are 36" nominal) for 2-6-2 prairies and the sidings are 24" minimum radius as they will use 10' and 12' wheelbase wagons and 0-6-0 panniers for shunting.

 

I only hope it turns out as well as it looks plotted out from Anyrail at full size.

On my layout I use sectional track. On the straights I close up the track spacing to a lower figure and on the curves I open up to 55mm between. How do I do it?  By starting the outer curve later and using some chopped up straights; due to the fixed angles of sectional track this works as the outer curve also ends before the inner; indeed I cheat further by making the first curve of an inner track from a section of the outer track radius to take back some of the initial gain, and easing the entry to the curve. In my case my outer is 4th radius. This is on a continuous run oval. I have used this method on all 4 radii. Of course points on the straights need to be chopped on crossovers so that they match the actual track spacing - normally this is after the point curve has ended giving a smooth run through

Regards

Basil

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Since Peco has produced its BH range this thread has gone remarkably quiet, is there any news or progress?...

 I'd guess that with Peco and DCC Concepts now selling the beginnings of ranges of the long requested 'better RTR OO track', albeit BH rail only for now; that is significant discouragment to any another entry, even an FB competitor.

 

Would anyone care to bet against Peco rolling out 'better OO code 75 FB' with the good features like well proportioned sleepers and timbering, and continuous closure rails? Frankly, Peco would be mad not to have outline plans in place to develop a matching FB product - there has been a mixture of BH and FB rail in UK service for pretty much a human lifetime now - and if the BH product sells strongly I suspect that will be all the encouragement required to proceed.

[martin_wynne]

Would anyone care to bet against Peco rolling out 'better 00 code 75 FB'

 

Yes, I will bet against that. I think it's unlikely.

 

Not least because code 75 FB rail is underscale for 00 gauge / 4mm scale. To match the "mixture of BH and FB rail in UK service for pretty much a human lifetime now" the correct scale FB rail would be code 82.

 

Also because making a nearer scale-version of their FB track would show their existing version in a poor light. In marketing terms that's not a good way to treat their massive user base of existing users. They have got round the marketing problem for the bullhead track by deliberately concentrating on its old-fashioned pre-group look (for example the over-wide spacing and equalised timbers), and by aiming at a new set of users who would not have previously used Peco track.

 

Martin.

[Stephen Freeman]

Yes, I will bet against that. I think it's unlikely.

 

Not least because code 75 FB rail is underscale for 00 gauge / 4mm scale. To match the "mixture of BH and FB rail in UK service for pretty much a human lifetime now" the correct scale FB rail would be code 82.

 

Also because making a nearer scale-version of their FB track would show their existing version in a poor light. In marketing terms that's not a good way to treat their massive user base of existing users. They have got round the marketing problem for the bullhead track by deliberately concentrating on its old-fashioned pre-group look (for example the over-wide spacing and equalised timbers), and by aiming at a new set of users who would not have previously used Peco track.

 

Martin.

As Peco have already ditched code 82, it's 83 or ??? So not much hope there I'm afraid. I know that C&L sometimes have code 82 but the head width is from memory way under scale.

[hayfield]

Yes, I will bet against that. I think it's unlikely.

 

Not least because code 75 FB rail is underscale for 00 gauge / 4mm scale. To match the "mixture of BH and FB rail in UK service for pretty much a human lifetime now" the correct scale FB rail would be code 82.

 

Also because making a nearer scale-version of their FB track would show their existing version in a poor light. In marketing terms that's not a good way to treat their massive user base of existing users. They have got round the marketing problem for the bullhead track by deliberately concentrating on its old-fashioned pre-group look (for example the over-wide spacing and equalised timbers), and by aiming at a new set of users who would not have previously used Peco track.

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

I agree with you but with the proviso of either a competitor threatening their market dominance, or the marketing department seeing what a success the introduction 4 mm bull head has been and plump to do the same for flatbottom. 

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, I will bet against that. I think it's unlikely.

 

Not least because code 75 FB rail is underscale for 00 gauge / 4mm scale. To match the "mixture of BH and FB rail in UK service for pretty much a human lifetime now" the correct scale FB rail would be code 82.

 

Also because making a nearer scale-version of their FB track would show their existing version in a poor light. In marketing terms that's not a good way to treat their massive user base of existing users. They have got round the marketing problem for the bullhead track by deliberately concentrating on its old-fashioned pre-group look (for example the over-wide spacing and equalised timbers), and by aiming at a new set of users who would not have previously used Peco track.

 

Martin.

I also think it unlikely, especially given that a code 83 range exists albeit HO to US standards.

 

But to be honest how many people would be aware of the 7 thou difference? Many are happy with code 100.

 

I think Peco will want to complete the BH range now that it apparently (surprise surprise!) has been received so well.

[Mike Storey]

As Peco have already ditched code 82, it's 83 or ??? So not much hope there I'm afraid. I know that C&L sometimes have code 82 but the head width is from memory way under scale.

 

Er, I hope not. I have gone ahead with using Peco Code 83 US outline for my UK layout, primarily for the massive improvement available from their turnouts - watching 64ft coaches traversing #8 points compared to Code 75 streamline large radius points, is instructive. (It is very popular in North America, being considered more robust and good VFM compared to the competition, domestic and foreign.).

 

I can disguise the US nature of the sleepers by spacing them out, and the US nature of the points by judicious use of a scalpel. But in the end, it is 00, and therefore not accurate in anybody's game. It just has to look a little bit more authentic enough to pass muster. I have found that Code 100, being more to scale of modern FB, should look more realistic, but does not, because the track is narrower than it should be. The 17 thou (not 7) does make a difference, if you are looking for it.

 

As for expecting Joseph to continue production of more authentic UK track, who are we kidding, now that Peco have finally risen to the challenge, and very successfully by all accounts? I will certainly be using their Code 75BH in my sidings - on a test track, comparison with the Code 83 "main line" is perfect. We must credit Joseph with being a major part of the kick up the backside that may have been necessary.

[Jeff Smith]

My comment regarding 7 thou was the difference between code 75 and 82....

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Peco Code 83 US outline for my UK layout, primarily for the massive improvement available from their turnouts - watching 64ft coaches traversing #8 points compared to Code 75 streamline large radius points, is instructive. (It is very popular in North America, being considered more robust and good VFM compared to the competition, domestic and foreign.)...

 I hadn't thought about the code 83 product. What's the probability that once the North American customer base sees the refinement of a continuous closure rail in another Peco product, they will start asking for it in code 83. And that's just a range upgrade.

 

I hear the reasoned objections to a better OO FB track from Peco, but am of the opinion that this development is likely to snowball, and some range cannibalisation within Peco may be a natural consequence.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Update: With the availability (and very welcome success) of the Peco product, my plans have changed somewhat. But the project is still bubbling away. Slowly, because I am currently involved in some property projects which are absorbing both time and money, but they are still bubbling.