hayfield Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Given the giant strides in the quality of locos, roling stock and buildings over the past few years. Why has track work lagged behind. 30 years ago highly detailed locos were the province of highly talented modellers, as were coaches and wagons. Quality buildings have been available in kit form for years. But now you can buy highly detailed locos, rolling stock and buildings, which we could only dream about not so long ago at most model shops and at shops like Hobbycraft. Now we are expecting even more exotic locos from the smaller railway companies, which at one time even the kit manufacturers would not produce due to lack of sales opportunities. So why when we expect so much from the ready to run companies regarding our models has trackwork not kept up in the scale / detail steaks. We do have some wonderfully gifted modellers hand building track, super components from the likes of C&L, Exactoscale etc. But go into a model shop and try and find some 4mm scale trackwork in a packet on the shelf. The first cry will be the cost of production, but that does not stop limited runs of highly detailed locos. So why does it affect track work? I accept that few will have space for a D10 turnout, but a small range of basic turnouts A5, B6 & B7 would suit every region and sell in thousands. Think of those modellers who would pull up all their track and replace it This is not a P4 v EM v 00 debate, nor one of those who can v those who can't build track, or even code 75 v 100. I am certain its not a reliability issue. So why are we still happy to buy H0 track, and why can't we go into a shop and buy a turnout with the correct size sleepers and spacing in 4mm scale and plug and play ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I would suspect it is simply the return on investment. You face reasonably high tooling costs and automation or lower cost tooling and a high percentage of hand tooling. Then the market is split so many ways. It starts with the Christmas present/gift sector who are not bothered about accuracy. Simply plug and play is fine. I suspect this is the bulk of basic track sales. Then you have the sector of the market the suppliers could serve. Modellers without the skills or time to build their own. Finally you have the EM, P4 modellers who will build their own either from scratch or from component parts. My guess therefore would be that the second group would only be a small percentage of the total market and the volume of sales v investment would not make commercial sense. The cost of individual pieces of track is also relatively low, so the modeller who will buy 10 or more loco's at £100 - £200 over a period of time would need to buy an awful lot of track for the same value. Finally you have to factor in the space restrictions we face in the UK, where layouts are generally small and track requirements low. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I think the simple answer is yes, track is the poor relation. We can already buy off the shelf flexible yard lengths of British bullhead track from SMP for instance, but It is matching points that are unnavailable. For me, being not the slightest bit interested in building or even laying track, I want the simplicity of Peco Streamline allied to British sleeper spacing, chairs and simple electrics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 There's another thread that has been discussing this issue: http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1 I think the vast majority of 00 modellers take the H0 track on offer from Peco etc. for granted. There is a population of modellers that want more accurate gauge, sleeper spacing and chair detail. There are companies that can make you a copperclad point (Marcway) for a price. There are others that sell the details required for accurate track and points. I think that most modellers that really care about track as a model, would not be satisfied with RTR track even if was more correct than what is currently available. The sheer variety of track and point designs from the various railway companies is daunting - which one do you pick? No matter, you won't please everyone. I believe that those who want a model of the track will make their own. Furthermore you don't have to be a gifted modeller to make points - if I can do it... I don't agree that the range of points you describe would sell in the thousands. Most 00 modellers will still buy the H0 Peco track and will not be willing to pay a premium for more realistic track. I doubt that many would rip up their track and start again. If they were that concerned they would would have made their own to start with. No matter how broad a range of points are produced it won't be adequate to make the track layouts that the more advanced modeller will want to do so there will still be a need for hand built. No, the investment in more realistic trackwork is going to be large and the returns questionable. I'd be interesting in knowing the breakdown of the population of those doing coarse 00, finescale 00, EM and P4. How many people in the UK model railways? My guess is that 80% do coarse 00, 10% finescale 00 and the rest EM and P4. I'm not holding my breath. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 It's certainly one of the poor relations for the OO enthusiast. In EM and P4 you have to make your own pointwork, so it's natural that it gets more attention. Firstly, most people's ideas of what the railway was like is defined by what the RTR manufacturers supply, rather than researching the real thing. Hence, they think that Peco trackwork is correct and don't look any further. Secondly, track is not sexy, like locomotives. So most "modellers" will get excited about the next loco that Bachmann etc. are planning, but aren't much interested in track and the railway infrastructure in general. Ease of use is important to lots of people, as Larry alluded to. Even Electrofrogs are too much for some. Perhaps track is an necessary evil, rather than something to put any real effort into. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERGE Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Track is the poor relation in any scale. If it is known that i'm having an S&T day on the heritage railway i support the pway department looses it's volunteers in an instant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovex Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'd have to agree, but you would think there would be some mileage in at least producing track work with correct sleeper spacing, even if the points and track geometry remained the same. Whilst the initial tooling costs may be high, they would recoup it, I mean I've been modelling for some 30 years and apart from the introduction of some express and curved points, Hornby trackwork doesn't seem to have changed in that period. So the tools certainly have a long life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 It just surprises me the lengths people go to with their models, making sure they have the correct train formations, or signals. Weathering their stock, superdetailing everything. Then accept H0 track, OK they take time ballasting and painting it. But just accept its wrong or may be they have no idea its wrong. As for the reasons given. Cost being one, it cannot be anywhere near as costly as making a new engine. OK it will not sell for £100 buy they will sell 10 or 20 times the amount of turnouts than they would sell an indvidual loco. It is just as easy to make the turnouts plug and play as not. OK the Christmass toy train buyers will not buy them but they will not buy £100+ locos Lack of time is a valid reason not to build your own, but it would take the same amount of time to fit a scale one as a non scale one. Return on investment is a good reason (especially in this echonomic climate) if you can keep selling from an existing range, but if your sales dropped because modellers were buying a scale equivalent how quickly would you provide a scale range. Probably trackwork not being as sexy as a loco, coupled with a lack of knowlage. Or as 00 gauge is a compromise does it matter, or does the slightly thinner sleepers look better proportionally Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I think signalling is the poor relation myself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted October 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2011 There's another thread that has been discussing this issue: http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1 It crops up regularly, and the simple answer is probably yes it is the poor relation! I'd be interesting in knowing the breakdown of the population of those doing coarse 00, finescale 00, EM and P4. How many people in the UK model railways? My guess is that 80% do coarse 00, 10% finescale 00 and the rest EM and P4. Possibly less for the finer stuff, but of the 80% how many might move to a better RTR OO if one was available? some would , some wouldn't I would suspect it is simply the return on investment. You face reasonably high tooling costs and automation or lower cost tooling and a high percentage of hand tooling. Then the market is split so many ways. Is always the answer... track is not sexy, like locomotives. So most "modellers" will get excited about the next loco that Bachmann etc. are planning, but aren't much interested in track and the railway infrastructure in general. and that is probably why. I can and am prepared to build my own, but if spare time is taken out of the equation i would prefer to use RTR, and I woiuld prefer it to be better looking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovex Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Signalling isn't so much the poor relation as the one who got sent to the asylum and whom no one mentions at all, given its sparcity on most layouts (and I hold my hands up to being as guilty as most in this respect) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNERGE Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 We have accepted HO track from the outset. Peco products can be used in Europe and America and it is unlikely they would produce a range that could only be sold in this country for a gauge which is inaccurate for the models we run. I use Peco myself and ignore the look simply because i want to run trains. Where i have a little more time i have used SMP/copperclad etc. It does look better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Signalling isn't so much the poor relation as the one who got sent to the asylum and whom no one mentions at all, given its sparcity on most layouts (and I hold my hands up to being as guilty as most in this respect) One of our club members has built signals for our club layout (a first for us). He also developed a solenoid actuation mechanism and it all fits into a hole in the baseboard. A prototype I saw even bounced when actuated. Waiting now for a control panel, installation and testing. He's also got commissions to build more signals for others. As for track, yes it does tend to get ignored by most. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 The only railways I know of that manage without track tend to be called "cycle paths" these days Or guided busways! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted October 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2011 Signals may or may not be a poor relation, but there are plenty of miles of even "todays railway" that manage perfectly well without them The only railways I know of that manage without track tend to be called "cycle paths" these days I must admit I only tend to model locations that are 'one engine in steam' so the concepts of signalling tend to wash over- I've not yet seen a model railway without any track at all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Without a doubt both P Way and signals are very much the poor relation. As far as the 00/H0 compromise goes, I prefer not to comment. Mick Nicholson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted October 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2011 Firstly, most people's ideas of what the railway was like is defined by what the RTR manufacturers supply, rather than researching the real thing. Hence, they think that Peco trackwork is correct and don't look any further. I would suggest most peoples view of track is what others tell them it should be, Peco can be made to look reasonably good with some work but the track snobs turn their noses up at it, and then use copper clad which has blobs of solder for chairs ... It just surprises me the lengths people go to with their models, making sure they have the correct train formations, or signals. I wouldn't assume that just because a layout has signals they are actually correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted October 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2011 Signals may or may not be a poor relation, but there are plenty of miles of even "todays railway" that manage perfectly well without them The only railways I know of that manage without track tend to be called "cycle paths" these days The bits without signals tend to be a bit boring though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 "I would suggest most peoples view of track is what others tell them it should be," Isn't that what the manufacturers are doing by supplying "inaccurate" products? "Peco can be made to look reasonably good with some work" A personal view that I don't share. "but the track snobs turn their noses up at it, and then use copper clad which has blobs of solder for chairs ..." That's quoting old technology, now superceded by accurate components and flexible track that is easier to use. "I wouldn't assume that just because a layout has signals they are actually correct." I agree entirely. Sadly, information on how to correctly signal ficticious (and possibly inaccurate) track layouts isn't easy to come by for those who haven't studied it closely. I have Richard Foster's book on LNWR Signalling, so I know what to build, but am still unsure where to put it (no sniggering, please). Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2011 I would suggest most peoples view of track is what others tell them it should be, Peco can be made to look reasonably good with some work but the track snobs turn their noses up at it, and then use copper clad which has blobs of solder for chairs ... I wouldn't assume that just because a layout has signals they are actually correct. Beast - You've definitely hit the target with those two comments. If we (well some of us) are prepared to accept a compromise on gauge and sleeper size and still produce something that looks 'passable' then we're part way there on track, the biggest shortcoming is lack of r-t-l points with British sleeper spacing as plain track is readily available. But signalling is in a totally different league because lots of people are frightened by it; with track there's not much choice - you can't do without it so you have to try to understand it. But that doesn't apply with signalling and it can be ignored in the hope that it will go away or that no one will notice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2011 "I wouldn't assume that just because a layout has signals they are actually correct." I agree entirely. Sadly, information on how to correctly signal ficticious (and possibly inaccurate) track layouts isn't easy to come by for those who haven't studied it closely. I have Richard Foster's book on LNWR Signalling, so I know what to build, but am still unsure where to put it (no sniggering, please). Jol But one advantage of this place on the 'net is that all you have to do is ask - and several us, some with greater knowledge of the LNWR than others of us, will hopefully be able to guide you in the right direction. Oh, and I don't snigger - I just laugh out loud (which is what others might do at some of my past modelling efforts; simple fact is that we can't all know everything and many of us can't do everything but we can try to share the skills and knowledge that we do have without being too perjorative, and that's part of the essence of RMWeb in my view). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 In a smallish way, I have tried to make carriages interesting to those who previously thought of them as passenger fodder to hang behind the tender. As regards, signalling, I would like to see those with knowledge of such things to bring signalling to the fore on here with articles that will give us a greater understanding of the why and wherefore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
10800 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 In a smallish way, I have tried to make carriages interesting to those who previously thought of them as passenger fodder to hang behind the tender. And well done too, Larry As regards, signalling, I would like to see those with knowledge of such things to bring signalling to the fore on here with articles that will give us a greater understanding of the why and wherefore. Beast, Stationmaster and others have done that in terms of responding to requests for help in many topics, and in a way worked examples like that are probably more instructive than an attempt at a one-size-fits-all article, especially given all the variations due to period, company, local conditions etc. Maybe some can be drawn together in a single topic or three? But there are also books out there on the subject, as there are on track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2011 Beast, Stationmaster and others have done that in terms of responding to requests for help in many topics, and in a way worked examples like that are probably more instructive than an attempt at a one-size-fits-all article, especially given all the variations due to period, company, local conditions etc. Maybe some can be drawn together in a single topic or three? But there are also books out there on the subject, as there are on track. Coincidentally I have just tried a little bit of basic introduction with this http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/46010-basic-signalling-and-interlocking/page__fromsearch__1 and would be interested to hear any reaction to the approach I have used (I am the first to admit that it was a 'quickie' so don't hold back on any views or brickbats). As far as books are concerned they are a very mixed bag and some of those aimed at modellers are remarkably poor in explaining what I call 'basic building blocks' and even worse at tackling some very simple inter-Company?Region differences. I think the problem is that people try to write about signalling from the wrong starting place and tend to concentrate on signals rather than starting with signalling and safe operating principles. If you have ever read 'Red For Danger' you will have met some of the principles - in very condensed and lightly explained form but some of it stuck because of the writing style. People who try to explain signals usually seem to lack the in-depth knowledge of the operational role of signaling to be able to put it over in that sort of way so you only get half a story. A typical example of this is the over-frequent use of the words 'Home Signal' when what is actually meant is 'Stop Signal' - not get teh difference and you'll be off to a poor start. Sorry, time to get off soapbox. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Happy Hippo Posted October 12, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2011 The problem with track is that there are so many variables. Different sizes and types of sleeper, a multitude of chairs. And of course, different rail. Although we have supposed standard crossing angles such as 1 in 6 and A,B or C switch rails, there were so many variations of this that each section of track was laid in a unique way, so it is virtually impossible for a manufacturer to come up with every single permutation available, especially as they would be having to do it in OO, OO(FS), EM and P4. As far as making all this stuff is concerned, and I have some production manufacturing experience, it is a non starter. The costs involved do not make it a viable proposition. The vast majority of modellers in the UK, and that is the target market here, are either into N or OO, and this is supported by a quite considerable range of plant and go track work from manufacturers. I suspect that most of these modellers plumb for Peco track. If you are a manufacturer and you are making track that sells in vast quantities, you are doing something right for your order books, so if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it. After my rash purchase of a Bachmann 158 in OO, I decided that my plans of a P4 layout would have to be put on a slight hold, because i want to get something down and running quickly, so I've bought a number of lengths of Peco code 75 and some large radius electrofrog points to go with them. They might not be 'right' but you don't look at, say, Widnes Vine Yard, and complain about the track do you? The track is just absorbed into the whole scene. Another example is Darren's outstanding Torrington, again Peco track, but still very well recieved on these pages. I mention Darren because he is now moving on and has started making his own track. A natural progression for a modeller, and I think that this is one of the main issues we now have in the model railway world. We are in danger of being collectors and operators rather than modellers. Patience is no longer a virtue, and we are not happy unless we can buy the Upper Gumtreigh and Aberflyarff Light Railway Brake 3rd compo (They only had the one) to museum standards in multiple gauges with brake blocks adjustable to suit, with your own choice of couplings and still expect change from 6d (old money)! If you are not happy with what you've got and it is not avaiable, then build it yourself, after all it's railway modelling. I think I'd better go and have a lie down now. Regards Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.