Better point geometry for OO gauge layouts

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

52 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Truly there has always been two completely different hobbies here.

I would suggest a round dozen different 'angles' on this hobby, many of which segue fairly seamlessly each into others in some complex network which we can leave a topologist to work out! I recall being very amused reading Jim Whitaker's account of his 'coming to knowledge': that what really lit his fire was modelling GWR brown stock, and everything else model railway could go hang...

34 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

If something better than streamline were as readily available as streamline is (and at the relatively sensible prices of streamline), then I'm sure some people would buy it. Though it would presumably come at the cost of the magical 12* divergence that streamline has, and which enables everything to work together with very little effort.

 

Like others, I suspect they'd do reasonable trade if they put OO style sleepers on the Code 83 range. Whether it would sell enough to justify the development costs is questionable, but since the metalwork is already sorted then on the face of it it shouldn't be an especially huge project.

Never been 'inside' Peco, but I do know a little about physical manufacturing from design through to shipping finished product. In respect of track, Peco have a core engineering competence which they must retain: the ability to design, tool, procure, manufacture and assemble all the necessary materials and components for this end product.

 

To maintain that skill set it has to be exercised: any time not taken up in maintaining and troubleshooting existing product ranges, needs to be deployed in keeping up with state of the art by engaging in design and materials evaluation. I would suggest the ability to develop new product is already present and budgeted for, as a necessary element of maintaining their core competence.

 

I suspect the greater difficulty is marketing and distribution; persuading their retailer base that yet another 16.5mm gauge track will make them a worthwhile profit...

[St Enodoc]

47 minutes ago, hayfield said:

plonking an old Triang loco on P4 track after being re-wheeled.

But that's how P4 was promoted in the early days John. I couldn't see the point (see what I did there?).

 

I model in what used to be called fine scale 00. SMP track, copperclad points - I'm happy with that.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The correct figure is 44.67 mm (11ft-2in) track centres for 6ft way.

 

Or on GWR / BR(W) lines, 44.83 mm (11ft-2.5in) track centres.

 

Martin.

45mm plus or minus a bit in my case. I can't lay track any more accurately than that.

[hayfield]

7 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

But that's how P4 was promoted in the early days John. I couldn't see the point (see what I did there?).

 

I model in what used to be called fine scale 00. SMP track, copperclad points - I'm happy with that.

 

But times have changed, look at the selection of locos coming out each year, in the 60's it was just the odd one, then now we get a choice of several liveries

 

SMP track is still 00 gauge, bullhead and has chairs, as for the turnouts and crossings, there is now no excuse for not at least having chairs on them, however we can now go so much further with detail.  I can accept the reasons for sticking with a gauge of 16.5, but if you are building a highly detailed layout its only going to be as good as its weakest parts. 

[St Enodoc]

15 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

But times have changed, look at the selection of locos coming out each year, in the 60's it was just the odd one, then now we get a choice of several liveries

 

SMP track is still 00 gauge, bullhead and has chairs, as for the turnouts and crossings, there is now no excuse for not at least having chairs on them, however we can now go so much further with detail.  I can accept the reasons for sticking with a gauge of 16.5, but if you are building a highly detailed layout its only going to be as good as its weakest parts. 

Could I build a fully-chaired 00 point for the same price as a copperclad one? Could I build it, from start to finish, in less than two hours (plus five minutes for painting after it's been washed and dried)? Like I said, I'm happy with what I do and what I get from it.

 

Of course, SMP chairs have too many bolts but I don't worry about that either!

[Zomboid]

49 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

I suspect the greater difficulty is marketing and distribution; persuading their retailer base that yet another 16.5mm gauge track will make them a worthwhile profit

Also I suppose whether it would result in significant additional sales, or the same overall volume over a larger range.

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

Could I build a fully-chaired 00 point for the same price as a copperclad one? Could I build it, from start to finish, in less than two hours (plus five minutes for painting after it's been washed and dried)? Like I said, I'm happy with what I do and what I get from it.

 

Of course, SMP chairs have too many bolts but I don't worry about that either!

 

With the cost of copperclad now and the cost of Exactoscale chairs probably yes

 

Forget the rail as its the same for both styles, a pack of copperclad is £18 and will make 3 turnouts = £6

A pack of 500 3 bolt chairs £20 makes 5 turnouts = £4 a pack of plastic timbers £2 makes 3 turnouts = 66p.

 

A bit simplistic and depends the level of detail required, build time also similar

 

As I said anything in life is as good as its weakest link. nothing wrong which system/ style you wish to use. Its just when a modeler goes to great length to recreate a scene then uses a totally inappropriate track, as I said the layouts as good as its weakest link 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

I think many do want to model (infrastructure) scenic sections and buildings to a high level, and in period. See what's available commercially and its cost !!

 

I know what they cost, it makes no difference to the fact that the core part of the hobby isn’t particularly interested in making track, or having the correct infrastructure on their layouts. @kevinlms succinctly nailed it a page back why we are where we are. You can chunter on all you like about better track etc but when a OO double slip point kit costs £130,  and a regular point £57, you’re not going to be swamped in the rush.

https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/Point-Kits-c32279031

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

20 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Also I suppose whether it would result in significant additional sales, or the same overall volume over a larger range.

I doubt there are many additional sales to be had by introduction of a new alternative. But look at what Peco have done with the BH product: priced it for much increased profit margin.

[PMP]

33 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Its just when a modeler goes to great length to recreate a scene then uses a totally inappropriate track, as I said the layouts as good as its weakest link 

Here’s an S4 tree.

 

Here’s some OO trees.

Here’s a layout with totally inappropriate track. (Code100 set track points,)

Edited September 16, 2020 by PMP

[Joseph_Pestell]

10 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I doubt there are many additional sales to be had by introduction of a new alternative. But look at what Peco have done with the BH product: priced it for much increased profit margin.

 

Do you have access to the figures? One thing that we do know is that BH is more expensive to produce as it can't be done by machine.

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, PMP said:

I know what they cost, it makes no difference to the fact that the core part of the hobby isn’t particularly interested in making track, or having the correct infrastructure on their layouts. @kevinlms succinctly nailed it a page back why we are where we are. You can chunter on all you like about better track etc but when a OO double slip point kit costs £130,  and a regular point £57, you’re not going to be swamped in the rush.

https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/online-store/Point-Kits-c32279031

 

 

Someone else bought in about hand built track, and was making a comparison between the costs of 2 methods of track building. We were not talking about the cost of kits from a commercial enterprise. The thing is though cost does not necessarily have to be a barrier. But what comes out of building that "kit" will look vastly superior to what comes out of a RTR packet and probably be far more in keeping with its surroundings, providing of course the rest is up to the same standard

 

Peco are bringing in a range of 4 mm scale chaired bullhead track. All I have said is for those who are building what are "finescale" layouts where they go to the nth degree to replicate a time and place. Many go the extra mile in ensuring everything but the track is correct

[PMP]

2 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Do you have access to the figures? One thing that we do know is that BH is more expensive to produce as it can't be done by machine.

I think we know the answer to that.

[hayfield]

16 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I doubt there are many additional sales to be had by introduction of a new alternative. But look at what Peco have done with the BH product: priced it for much increased profit margin.

 

 

I think the costs of production is higher with bullhead rail, then you start adding tax and retailers mark up and the price between the two widens

Edited September 16, 2020 by hayfield

[PMP]

4 minutes ago, hayfield said:

. Many go the extra mile in ensuring everything but the track is correct

That’ll be because they’re not interested in the track.....

[maico]

5 hours ago, PMP said:

Kato/Profi Track And the US Bachmann track have moulded ballast sections. They are way more expensive, have limited number of items eg points, and don’t have easy compatibility with other brands. I can’t join my Kato to micro line flex track without significant work not to mention the appearance element. I can wholeheartedly recommend Kato HO Unitrack for a simple running in loop though, it’s brilliant stuff.

 

Trix 62922 makes joining to Fleischmann Profi track seemless. I also use one to join to Peco Streamline 100 in a storage area.

Piko A track make something similar.

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by maico

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

45mm plus or minus a bit in my case. I can't lay track any more accurately than that.

Come on Sainty, a trained engineer like you should be able to lay track at 44.67 mm centers by eye.

 

16 minutes ago, PMP said:

That’ll be because they’re not interested in the track.....

Very true Paul. 

 

I am but use Peco because I only have a limited time left, I only have so much space and like watching trains run not what they are running on. My end game is to make the track look as realistic as I can, which you prove is possible, with trains that look realistic, in an overall setting that is realistic and operated as realistic as I can. To achieve this with what is available at the moment there are quite a few compromises but in my journey I hope to have fun getting there. If all come to plan then it is job done.

 

It would have been nice if there was "scale" British flat bottom rail, there isn't so I am getting on and enjoying my hobby. But I won't stop moaning about the lack of it...bullhead appeared out of Beer.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

12 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Do you have access to the figures? One thing that we do know is that BH is more expensive to produce as it can't be done by machine.

Of course not. The materials cost and tooling will be little different, but whatever hand assembly element is required will be more expensive than a machine assembly. How large a factor that is in the total UMC, unknown. But it won't affect every aspect of the production process.

 

And I expect that those working on the product will find a way to mechanise, because that's how the factory system works. Take the most expensive step(s) and look for methods to improve on it: a constant search for cost reductions and productivity gains by process step revisions and  eliminations, materials and energy efficiency savings. When something novel is attempted  - such as RTL bullhead rail track - that's often where the big savings are to be found. You look around like fury and find something applicable, possibly in a completely unrelated industry or technology sector.

[Dungrange]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

Just because its of no interest to them does not make it correct, they would shudder at the thought of putting modern BR mk 3 coaching stock behind a a fully lined pre-grouping loco on a layout depicting a pre-grouping era. 

 

Unfortunately, there are some people who have no issues with mixing stock from different periods and these even appear at exhibitions.  Personally, I don't like it, but such layouts tend not to be particularly 'fine-scale', so I still agree with your point about trying to model everything to the same standard.

 

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Truly there has always been two completely different hobbies here. They tend to be treated as one, but they don't always sit happily together.

 

I'd say there is a lot more than two different groups of people within this hobby, but if we limit the discussion to the prototype, then I broadly agree.

 

There is a group for whom the locomotives are all that matter - it's what they went to spot in their youth.  As such, they tend to obsess over details between different members of the same class - personally I don't care too much and I agree with you that many locomotive look the same.  For some that interest extended beyond the locomotive to the rest of the train, but the number of people interested in coaching stock and wagons is generally less than the number who are interested in the locomotives.

 

There are of course, as you highlight, those who are interested in the civil engineering side of the railway - the structures (viaducts, tunnels, bridges, platforms, station buildings) and of course the track.  Having studied civil engineering at university, I find these elements as interesting as the trains themselves.  However, I'd say that my greatest interest actually lies in operational items like timetabling and signalling - understanding how the railway operates as a transport system.

 

However, we can also subdivide the railway modelling hobby into those who like to buy ready to run models and those who gain most of their enjoyment from the construction of kits (which sometimes are rarely used after they are built).  We also have those who like the wiring to be as simple as possible, while we also have people at the other end of the scale, who want computer control and obsess about the endless tweaking of DCC CVs to improve the running characteristics.  Some care about the scenery outside of the railway fence, while others don't.

 

Ultimately, the hobby should be fun and therefore we should pursue whatever interests us most and sadly track is not that interesting to the majority of modellers (even if those who find it fascinating don't understand why so many people are simply not interested).

[maico]

I don't use it myself, but the current range of Rocoline track scores with things like R9 to R10 turnouts available with or without ballast.

In the Roco-Fleischmann press release they said 2 machines used to make Profi track had broken down. Both probably date from the 1980s when Fleischmann ho Profi was introduced, so although it still sells, and has nice things like shallow angle express points with floating live frogs, it's pretty clear they want people to transition to Rocoline track.

Roco Geoline track has also been discontinued.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by maico

[Philou]

Sorry for coming very late to this party, but I'm about to start this autumn my layout (huzzah!) and some larger radiused or non-standard pointwork would have been useful. I don't think I shall really have the time to make many, if any, of my own points.

 

I noted that comment was made regarding sleeper spacing and also track spacing (and follows that sleeper sizes are not correct either). For my layout I am proposing to use Code 75 (mix of F/B and B/H as per the prototype), though seemingly Code 75 isn't quite right either. I shall be cutting the webbing to space out the sleepers - but to what spacing? Shall I do CWR or shall I do 40 or 60 foot panels? Some kind soul did post up elsewhere sleeper spacing for panelled track as it is NOT evenly spaced out - oh no. And it varied between companies too - so how far do you go with the realism (not forgetting that 00 is 'wrong' anyway)?

 

Coming to track centring, I have had a go at 45mm centre-to-centre as I can't reasonably measure more accurately than that. I could get someone to make up a setting out gauge - I don't have any metalworking machinery.

 

I have done my own proof of concept using Peco medium points in Code 100 - I think it improved the look.

 

Here are some photos - the first shows my take on cutting the point (switch) to make a crossover at 45mm centre. I didn't think at the time about the diagonal sleeper - in the end it didn't matter as you will see later:

 

 

Here is a completed crossover. By carefully ballasting over the joint, any discrepancies in the sleepers (and the diagonal one) 'disappears'. The ends are air-gapped:

 

 

Finally, a shot showing two pieces of stock on the now reduced centre-to-centre. (The purists amongst you will need to ignore the relative ages of the stock - it's what I had at hand). For completeness, using Class 800 stock, there was no clash between any stock on the main and any diverging (or converging) traffic (experience limited to medium radius pointwork). In my 'umble opinion, it looks better - even though it's not 'right':

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[PMP]

14 minutes ago, Philou said:

 

I noted that comment was made regarding sleeper spacing and also track spacing (and follows that sleeper sizes are not correct either). For my layout I am proposing to use Code 75 (mix of F/B and B/H as per the prototype), though seemingly Code 75 isn't quite right either. I shall be cutting the webbing to space out the sleepers - but to what spacing? Shall I do CWR or shall I do 40 or 60 foot panels? Some kind soul did post up elsewhere sleeper spacing for panelled track as it is NOT evenly spaced out - oh no. And it varied between companies too - so how far do you go with the realism (not forgetting that 00 is 'wrong' anyway)?

 

 

 

Philip

Looking at how neat that crossover joint is, I wouldn’t bother. The two types look ok together once ballasted and weathered. I’d probably do the end panel spacing, and the fish plates work really well on the bullhead. Here’s CD75 standard points with BH plain track.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

Sorry for coming very late to this party, but I'm about to start this autumn my layout (huzzah!) and some larger radiused or non-standard pointwork would have been useful. I don't think I shall really have the time to make many, if any, of my own points.

 

I noted that comment was made regarding sleeper spacing and also track spacing (and follows that sleeper sizes are not correct either). For my layout I am proposing to use Code 75 (mix of F/B and B/H as per the prototype), though seemingly Code 75 isn't quite right either. I shall be cutting the webbing to space out the sleepers - but to what spacing? Shall I do CWR or shall I do 40 or 60 foot panels? Some kind soul did post up elsewhere sleeper spacing for panelled track as it is NOT evenly spaced out - oh no. And it varied between companies too - so how far do you go with the realism (not forgetting that 00 is 'wrong' anyway)?

 

Coming to track centring, I have had a go at 45mm centre-to-centre as I can't reasonably measure more accurately than that. I could get someone to make up a setting out gauge - I don't have any metalworking machinery.

 

I have done my own proof of concept using Peco medium points in Code 100 - I think it improved the look.

 

Here are some photos - the first shows my take on cutting the point (switch) to make a crossover at 45mm centre. I didn't think at the time about the diagonal sleeper - in the end it didn't matter as you will see later:

 

 

Here is a completed crossover. By carefully ballasting over the joint, any discrepancies in the sleepers (and the diagonal one) 'disappears'. The ends are air-gapped:

 

 

Finally, a shot showing two pieces of stock on the now reduced centre-to-centre. (The purists amongst you will need to ignore the relative ages of the stock - it's what I had at hand). For completeness, using Class 800 stock, there was no clash between any stock on the main and any diverging (or converging) traffic (experience limited to medium radius pointwork). In my 'umble opinion, it looks better - even though it's not 'right':

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Electrofrog, would have looked better still!

[Philou]

@PMP I like that! I can see you've included the welded electrical connections (sorry - don't know the proper name).

 

What did you use to get that slightly mucky look? As you will have seen, my local materials consist mainly of coarse builders' sand - though I shall stop one day at a memorial maker (definitely not a dying business round here) and ask what they do with the granite chips/dust.

 

My 'mucky' area -TMD - is still not quite dirty enough. I find the sieved sand just drinks up all coloured washes. Perhaps I just need to persevere.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Do you have access to the figures? One thing that we do know is that BH is more expensive to produce as it can't be done by machine.

Do we know that more work needs to be done by hand?

 

Regardless, it's up to Peco to come up with a selling price, based around the costs of getting them to market, with a suitable mark up. Any business has to do that or go broke. Unless the owner(s) want a 'loss leader', which is unlikely for what is probably a low volume product.