Is trackwork the poor relation of the hobby ?

[brossard]

2 bolt, 3 bolt, 4 bolt and 3 bolt the other way round for the chairs.

30', 45', 60' panels. Wider sleepers at the end of a length or narrower spacing or both?

Roughly as the man at Peco once said . They don't know what they want.

Once you get into more accurate track you become interested in the details.

I use SMP and still fudge the joints.

As for pointwork the options must be almost infinite.

No wonder no major player is bothered to try to improve on the existing option.

They would be on a hiding to nothing.

The poor relation? Yes.

Blame the prototype.

Oh!

Almost forgot. Inside keys.

Bernard

 

Agree Bernard. A point I have tried to make before but not as well as you.

 

 

I am just building some copperclad points now. The last one took me less than 2 hours, including filing the crossing nose and blades. With the right file and a good clamp to hold the rail, I can make a blade in about 10 minutes. I haven't worked out how much the bits cost but it isn't going to be any more than about £4. Sometimes I make points from individual chairs glued to wooden sleepers. They cost a little bit more and take me twice as long to make but they do look much better when completed.

 

 

 

I just received some jigs from EMGS (vee jig, crossing jig and blade planing jig). I tried the blade planing jig the other day and I could make blades in about 15 - 20 minutes. I think you do need to spend some time doing the fine filing at the blade end and undercutting the bottom so that it fits snugly against the stock rail.

 

I was at an exhibition in Ottawa this weekend. There was only one North American H0 layout there (two N and two 00). I noticed they were using Peco code 100 points and Atlas track - disappointing. Ours was one of the 00 layouts which uses code 100 track and many handbuilt points.

 

John

[Donw]

If you are trying to please the 'finescale' modellers you would need a whole range of points A5,A6,B6.B7,C8 as a minimum and then they would want them with different timbering. The prototype built points to suit the situation if you want realistic turnouts you need to do the same. Regarding the better 0 gauge track from Peco (well for bullhead trackwork) I heard it was because Sidney Pritchard wanted it for himself. Besides that was the 0 gauge market at the time.

Don

[beast66606]

Sorry but we go around this debate time after time, plenty of people who want manufacturers to invest their (the manufacturer) money in a new "certainty" but very very very few who would invest their own.

 

Come on guys, stop saying someone else should do it, and make it happen for yourselves.

 

Which is exactly the point (or should that be turnout ?) I made earlier in the thread. If, as people have us believe, this is a money spinner, you'd be daft not to invest your own money and reap the profits, I'm not convinced enough so I haven't visited my bank however if someone else wants to take that risk for me, I will happily buy 3 yards of track and a point.

[coachmann]

If as folk have already said they are more than happy with SMP flexible track, then 2 bolt, 3 bolt, 4 bolt and 3 bolt the other way round for the chairs, 30', 45', 60' panels hardly comes into it. The way I read it, folk simply want points that match SMP plain track.

 

Ravenser said he thought Code 100 should be dropped as there is no reason for its existence now. The reason he may have overlooked is its usefulness outdoors. Peco Code 100 isn't just about a higher rail, it is a much tougher proposition all round for resisting weather.

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

Once you get into more accurate track you become interested in the details.

 

 

 

To add to that the next step is not to be satisfied with SMP or C&L track as you notice the nonprojecting keys.

Bernard

[Brian Harrap]

I don't know if I've missed it in all the above but, 1. are the tillig turnouts people are suggesting 'British spacing'? 2. Is the new Peco steel sleeper track to British spacing (they managed to find the investment for that didn't they). It's still all narrow gauge though isn't it so why all the fuss? (except the odd moan about the tinplate point blades, they really are awfull). Brian.

[coachmann]

It's still all narrow gauge though isn't it so why all the fuss?

So are 100% of plastic RTR 4mm scale locomomotives and rolling stock. "Narrow gauge" is a fact of life, but what people would like is track that could be said to be on a par with the 21st Century locomotives and rolling stock.

 

Imagine if RTR models had stayed on planet 1960's when Peco Streamline was introduced. We would still be buying 3-rail locos and todays Hornby's Railroad range would be the epitome of super detail.

[S.A.C Martin]

Let's say, playing devil's advocate, someone did have the investment for real, scale, 00 track with correct sleeper spacing (and types of sleeper/chair).

 

1. What sections of track should you produce to produce a profitable first time range?

 

2. How would you go about making it happen? Who would/should you approach to manufacture the track?

 

3. If someone DID actually do this, would we all buy the track in question?

 

My own answer to 3. would be yes, definitely. Proper sleeper spacing for 00 that makes the railway look better without having to convert my trains to the (more accurate) scales would be heavenly. My compromise in life so I can run whatever ready to run model I want, if I feel like it.

 

I wonder if I'm alone in that regard!

[Guest jim s-w]

Probably a silly question..but what the heck.

.

Why wouldn't - as an aftermarket alternative - injection moulded sleepers to fit the code 100 rails, but designed to the correct sleeper type and spacing suitable for 00 scale, sell on their own?

 

The problem is simple. 00 gauge (oo isn't a scale btw) doesnt have a correct sleeper type to base anything on. Use 4mm scale sleepers and/or spacing on 3.5 mm scale gauge and it looks just like what it is, 4mm scale narrow gauge. Use it as it is and it looks ok because you are looking at 3.5mm scale track. However set it at 4mm scale spacing and stick 4mm scale stock on it and it looks weird.

 

This is the problem, it will need to be some sort of compromise based on appearance but what is an acceptable compromise to one person isnt to the next. Simply copying something real isn't an option.

 

The other factor that makes hand built track look better is that it flows in a way set track can't. Some sort of slightly flexible point work would be a much bigger gain than worrying about sleeper spacing IMHO

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[craigwelsh]

Whats scuppered the easiest option is that Britain took so long to go over to flat bottom rail. For most British layouts that model the steam era they need Bullhead. If we could easily get away with flat bottom you'd just need a couple of new sleeper bases to go with the existing Tillig rail tooling and it would probably suit. I don't think anyone really wants A6, B7 etch just decent flowing geometry ala Tillig with more British spaced and chaired sleepering.

 

I'd probably say make them to 3.8mm scale sleepering or whatever SMP did to get around the issue JIM describes. P+C has wider sleepers than plain line anyway (12" vs 10").

 

I doubt you'll get anyone doing new track in an off the shelf in every model store scenario, with Peco being a major wholesaler its probably not going to help..

 

 

Possibly modellers subscribing to a project to get the parts made up to have some points to match Exactoscale bases rather than SMP to give you a slightly more robust Peco style thickness?

 

 

Injection moulding for small niche markets has produced Exactoscale's recent P4 point kit range though im not sure what Andrew invested in that and whether its ever going to break even..

 

Btw it really shouldn't be that difficult to shim SMP track to match Peco points, we matched 0.8mm ply and Exactoscale sleepering on the club's P4 layout using extra balsa underlay so there really shouldn't be any issues with this in 00.

[coachmann]

Some sort of slightly flexible point work would be a much bigger gain

The large radius Peco points can be given an amount of flexibility (with care) by cutting certain webs. Greenfield, on which my layouts were invariably based, was laid out on a curve. The only bit where I 'lost' the curve was at the double junction because the diamond wouldnt curve...the rotter!

 

That said, I cannot pretend '00' track, no matter how well it is ballasted & painted, ever looks as good as well made and laid P4 as on Jims' layout.

[martin_wynne]

I don't understand the alleged difficulty of designing 00 track. Modellers in 00 have already accepted the fiction that the track gauge is 4ft-1.1/2in for their rolling stock -- so where is the difficulty in accepting the same fiction for the track?

 

You simply assume that the prototype is 4ft-1.1/2in track gauge, and model it accurately at 4mm/ft. That means 4mm scale rail, 4mm scale chairs/fixings, 4mm scale sleeper width at 4mm scale spacings. The only slight compromise needed is to assume that for 4ft-1.1/2in track gauge the prototype would use 8ft sleepers instead of 8ft-6in. And having decided all that, 00 track designs itself.

 

Which is almost exactly the BRMSB 00 track standard which has been around for 60 years. The problem is that when Peco chose to ignore it, the rest of the hobby forgot it exists.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

If as folk have already said they are more than happy with SMP flexible track, then 2 bolt, 3 bolt, 4 bolt and 3 bolt the other way round for the chairs, 30', 45', 60' panels hardly comes into it. The way I read it, folk simply want points that match SMP plain track.

 

Ravenser said he thought Code 100 should be dropped as there is no reason for its existence now. The reason he may have overlooked is its usefulness outdoors. Peco Code 100 isn't just about a higher rail, it is a much tougher proposition all round for resisting weather.

 

 

Actually I said code 100 electrofrog should be dropped, leaving code 100 insulfrog and Setrack for those wanting a coarser track. That reduces the number of ranges the retailer has to carry, reduces the number of ranges Peco have to make and carry tooling for,and gives code 75 a "unique selling point" .

 

There's an obvious reason why C+L won't make ready made points . They exist to support finescale modellers who want to build their own points. They do not exist to support modellers who want to use commercial RTR and ready made points. The various proprietors have all been finescale modellers working in non commercial gauges, (EM, P4, 7mm on 31mm gauge) . I was told quite explicitly by a former proprietor that they were in the OO market to generate extra sales volumes which supported the EM/P4 ranges , because the EM/P4 market was far too small to make the business viable

 

Making ready made OO points would be completely contrary to the ethos of the company . It's there to support and encourage people not to use ready made pointwork. Why undercut their core market?

 

SAC Martin's moulded sleepers already exist , for code 83 rail , concrete sleepers ( plain trackproduced by Exactoscale I believe, but used to be retailed by InterCity Models.) . Maybe that's why Peco finally introduced code 75 concrete sleeper...

 

However , I would accept that nothing is going to happen in the next couple of years because of the economic climate . Nobody is going to invest in new product ranges or new ventures while bank finance is barely available to established profitable companies and the business pages of the papers are full of articles speculating about the collapse of the financial system in Europe. I won't be susprised if the new RTR releases next year are a very short list

 

Once we are through the trough and the business climate starts to improve , something could be done - and I suspect the retailer- commission "business model" would be the way it could happen, as that would address the big issue of distrubution and marketing (The sales channel would, by definition, be there). But I think we are about 5 years away from those economic conditions.

[Brian Harrap]

Mebee Peco have in fact got it right with their HO track and are just 'sleeping' (to use the old spy story expression) until British modellers eventually stop using a minority scale, 1:76, and join the rest of the world and adopt 1:87. Ducking back down behind parapet. Brian.

[ForestPines]

Where Peco only have a part of a market, they compete, with new products (code 83 for the US , where they face Atlas , Shinohara and the like. Code 75 for the Continent, Setrack to compete with Hornby, code 55 for N , where there is Continental competition )

 

This thread, and the other OO-versus-H0 thread that has been active lately, have left me wondering: what markets are Peco's N gauge track ranges designed for? Are they closer to 1:148 or 1:160? And does the difference matter as much in those scales?

[S.A.C Martin]

I don't understand the alleged difficulty of designing 00 track. Modellers in 00 have already accepted the fiction that the track gauge is 4ft-1.1/2in for their rolling stock -- so where is the difficulty in accepting the same fiction for the track?

 

You simply assume that the prototype is 4ft-1.1/2in track gauge, and model it accurately at 4mm/ft. That means 4mm scale rail, 4mm scale chairs/fixings, 4mm scale sleeper width at 4mm scale spacings. The only slight compromise needed is to assume that for 4ft-1.1/2in track gauge the prototype would use 8ft sleepers instead of 8ft-6in. And having decided all that, 00 track designs itself.

 

Which is almost exactly the BRMSB 00 track standard which has been around for 60 years. The problem is that when Peco chose to ignore it, the rest of the hobby forgot it exists.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin, that's an extremely informative post, thank you for posting it. It makes the "issue" clearer now.

 

So let's say, playing devil's advocate again, a company produce yard long sections of straight, flexible track, along with left and right hand points in the short and express types, to the same Hornby geometry, and 1st/2nd/3rd/4th radius curves to match as their first range.

 

Is this:

 

a ) An inviting proposition and we'd all buy it to support the idea and because we actually want 00 scale track

 

or

 

b ) Not what "we" would want from a new 00 scale range of points and track because the initial range is too close to being "train set" components?

[kevinlms]

A quick look through the thread didn't throw up any place in which it was stated that only 5% of Peco's market was British sales . And I don't believe that figure - I have heard suggestions you could add a nought on the back of it.... And is this figure for all sales (including N, O, HOm ) or only 16.5mm gauge

 

Whew Ravenser. I thought I was going blind in not seeing that only 5% of Peco's market was British sales. I suspect you are much closer to the mark.

 

 

Peco currently make a dizzying number of 16.5mm gauge ranges : Setrack, Streamline 100 Insulfrog, Streamline 100 Electrofrog , Streamline 75 electrofrog, O.16.5 narrow gauge, Code 83. That's six. They manage 3 ranges of 9mm gauge track (code 80, code 55, OO9 crazy track) and I believe they are talking about a new more mainline 009 track...

 

 

Frankly , they could probably do with rationalising their existing 16.5mm ranges - and I think I would start by quietly dropping Streamline 100 electrofrog items as the tooling wore out. The "objections" to using code 75 are now obsolete - the fear that elderly Lima and Triang Hornby locos would bounce on the chairs is now largely a thing of the past, and with concrete sleeper and even steel sleeper track available in code 75 , the main factor that kept modern image modellers tied to code 100 has gone. I suspect the folk who are afraid of code 75 are also the folk afraid of wiring live frogs.

 

 

Not sure about that, looking at almost any issue of RM will show layouts still utilising Code 100 track. It seems to sell for cheaper than Code 75 and that to many modellers is the end of the story. Also it is constantly repeated by many here that live frogs give better running - because no dead spots. But others equally seem to say it really doesn't matter - save your cash.

 

 

 

There's no evidence, looking at that list, that the tooling costs for pointwork are prohibitive . There is a strong commercial reason why Peco don't do British OO track, though, and this is simply that they have a near monopoly of the British market. As a monopoly supplier with little or no competition they can get near 100% of the market for ready made 16.5mm gauge track without making OO points . So they don't . It's much cheaper for Peco to come up with "off the record" reasons why it would be unreasonable and impossible to do than to make a new product competing with their existing products. It's exactly what you would expect with a monopoly supplier - and the same reason why car designs in places like E Germany and India remained unchanged for decades. Why update the design when you have no competition and they have to buy your existing product because there is no alternative? What's wrong with a Trabant - it gets you from A to B? In a similar way British N stagnated in the years when Farish had a monopoly - there was no need to improve the product to compete with another company

 

 

Not so sure about the above, I think its because of the fact that most modellers who care enough that the track is wrong, would want their choice of prototype track to be the chosen one. Others have given details of possible regional variations of track elsewhere in the thread, and more than one has quoted Peco (or is it PECO? - not fair that stopped that years ago!) stating that they could manufacture it if 'they' = we, knew what they wanted).

 

 

 

Where Peco only have a part of a market, they compete, with new products (code 83 for the US , where they face Atlas , Shinohara and the like. Code 75 for the Continent, Setrack to compete with Hornby, code 55 for N , where there is Continental competition ) Where there is an unexploited market to fill they bring out a range quick enough - 009, O , HOm. When they faced competition in the British market from the likes of Farish Formoway, GEM, Welkut and others, they developed the product rapidly enough . It's only since they saw off the last British competitor in the mid 70s that product development has largely ceased

 

I'm rather sceptical about the arguments being put forward about why better track would be uneconomic , because I've heard them before. They are pretty well identical to the arguments used in the 90s to argue that British outline models to a higher specification would be uneconomic. Even if someone introduced a high spec model of a popular class - say class 47 -most of the market would stick with Lima, and with no more than 10% of the market willing to buy it, it would cost so much more that the whole thing would be uneconomic. I remember one magazine editorial solemnly warning that the "tiny" British market was so small that it was barely economic to develop any RTR models and British outline had to be cheap and chearful to exist at all unless we all went HO. Then came the Heljan 47 , and the market rapidly switched to the better product. We now have a RTR Beattie well tank , for approximately the price that the Heljan 47 originally appeared for, and that's ignoring inflation

 

 

Where does the perception that the UK market is 'tiny' compared to the rest of the world come from? The range of model & prototype literature is enormous & can often be found in obscure newsagents around Australia for instance. Why do you think this might be - because it sells. You underestimate the market.

 

 

The product doesn't have to be perfect to sell. I've seen enough flame wars about new RTR diesels to know that - but the Heljan 33 is streets ahead of the old Lima version, even though you can pick up a Lima one second hand for £20 . There is a middle ground between 100% accurate and not accurate in any respect

 

Yes I agree, for a product to 'sell well', it merely has to be noticably better than a previous version of it. Or else a totally new model that hasn't been available R-T-R before.

 

I give you Hornby. Lima & Bachmann Class 37s or the new locos & railcars etc that heve recently become available, paid for by big retailers or the NRM.

 

 

Kevin Martin

[EddieB]

I tread warily in a topic that seems to have gone dormant after a first flourish.

 

I find it hard to believe that there is no market for British style 16.5mm track, given that PECO already produce Settrack, Code 100, Code 83 and Code 75 (with variant styles) in this gauge. They must sell enough for all those ranges to be viable, why not another that fits so much better with the RTR product ranges?

 

Having returned to the hobby after a gap of nearly forty years, I find the greatest change is in RTR products, that were then a compromise between toys and serious models, and have now firmly swung in favour of detailed models aimed at adults. That these fine scale models are still intended to run on HO track is surprising.

 

Back in the 'seventies, some did try to produce more appropriate trackwork. Does anyone remember Graham Farish 00 track? I have a GF point somewhere, electrofrog, British timbering. What happened? Back then, perhaps tooling costs were higher and demand insufficient. I also remember someone (Ratio, perhaps?) bringing out lengths of EM gauge ready-made track (ok for straight lays, but no gauge widening on curves was a limitation).

 

Just as the quality and range of rolling stock has improved since then, so I guess also the potential to manufacture and sell better trackwork. And why, given that products are now aimed primarily at serious hobbyists, DCC variants and all that, hasn't one of the big manufacturers considered bringing out EM/S4 options alongside their existing 00 ranges?

 

But there's one more area that has been neglected for as long as Triang-Hornby discontinued Super 4 track. Christmas is coming and there's still a demand for train sets - coarse scale toys, lacking the finesse of detailed models, for the younger generation. Code 100 fixed track sections are ok for general purposes, but they are neither scale representations nor robust for little hands to lay out on the floor (carpet fluff notwithstanding). Where too are the points that can be changed by hand?

[Debs.]

I might must be a bit 'odd', as my favourite part of modelling railways is actually, trackwork.....I`m not that enthusiastic about running trains for hours on end, but love the design and building of the layout, especially in precise scale detail, the "more real" the P.W and S&T can look, the better.

 

I too was surprised upon returning to the hobby (after a couple of decades break), at how much technology had been brought-in; what with sound and DCC etc., but how little changed was the availability of R.T.R, detailed/scale permanent-way components....although the (now) widespread availability of P4/S4 and F7/S7 finescale P.W components, do have much to offer for 'trackies' like me!

 

......so, here`s a big thumbs-up for all you 'trackies' out there.

[PWSlack]

It depends on whether one is building a 'model railway' or a 'model of a railway'.

[gordon s]

Surely we're all modellers, whatever we build. I happen to build my own track work in 00-SF, but that's not 'finescale'.

 

I've seen some poor 'models of a railway' and some very good 'model railways', so I'm not sure what your point is.

[hayfield]

Surely we're all modellers, whatever we build. I happen to build my own track work in 00-SF, but that's not 'finescale'.

 

I've seen some poor 'models of a railway' and some very good 'model railways', so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

 

Gordon

 

Pardon the pun but if you look at a turnout or a piece of plain track in real life, the products offered by the companies who supply RTR trackwork are not up to the same standard they are now offering in their rolling stock and buildings. Finescale in apperance yes, but I am not talking about gauges

 

Track used to be called 00/H0 as historically it was based on H0 scale trackwork.

 

Turnout sleepers not being 4mm wide, incorrect sleeper spacing and large tiebars with sleepers designed to have clip on pointmotors, plain track with incorrect sleeper spacing.

 

I am ignoring the turnout size and scale flangeways, its just that you look at modern rolling stock and the trouble they have gone to in the detail correct in locos, coaches, wagons and buildings. Then look at the advancement of ready to run track over the past 20 years !!!

[Guest jim s-w]

It depends on whether one is building a 'model railway' or a 'model of a railway'.

 

Or evn a model of a place that just happens to have a railway in it!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Buckjumper]

With Basilica Fields I've taken the decision to model the pre-Grouping trackwork as accurately as possible using whatever information is left in the historical record - and sometimes there's been a great big blank. The research has been, and still is, a long, hard road, but well worth it, especially as we've been able to knit together many disparate sources of information and present them in one place, perhaps for the first time ever. Graham Beare offered to aid with the PW research and then to take on the task of building the trackwork. I'm very glad he did!

 

Here's a taster of the trials and tribulations we've had so far, and there's more, much more to come as we've not yet begun to even discuss the Great Eastern track:

 

Metropolitan track part 1 Metropolitan track part 2

 

Great Western track part 1 Great Western track part 2 Great Western track addendum Great Western track - chairs

 

Modelling the track

[Western Star]

With Basilica Fields I've taken the decision to model the pre-Grouping trackwork as accurately as possible using whatever information is left in the historical record - and sometimes there's been a great big blank. The research has been, and still is, a long, hard road, but well worth it, especially as we've been able to knit together many disparate sources of information and present them in one place, perhaps for the first time ever.

 

Adrian is aware of the effort which has gone into establishing just what has been written where for the Met. Rly. and for the GWR in the late Victorian era and has accepted that sometimes our progress has to go into reverse as new information has come from the most unexpected of places. The most recent example of such perturbations has come from the proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers for 1885 - the proceedings record a sparing match between senior representatives of the Met. Rly. and the the Met. Dist. Rly and in which, by good fortune, is revealed the advances in the permanent way practices of those companies. The information in that document - sourced through the University of Creative Arts in Farnham - has changed our understanding of the timber sizes used in contemporary track.

 

This comment comes with a health warning. In getting to where we are now there has been much tearing of hair as a result of finding a Board of Trade Accident Report in which the resident engineer with responsibility for the permanent way states, in an interview with the inspecting officer, that the track at the scene of the accident was laid with sleepers of 10' 0" length. To date the majority of informed opinion has been that this information is inaccurate. And yet, how often are we reminded that our research ought to be based upon primary sources? In the absence of a photograph of such track, with a yardstick in view, what can be more primary than a BoT document which records, as a statement of fact, information provided by the man who was responsible for construction and maintenance of the permanent way?

 

Whilst not part of the world of Basilica Fields a similar scenario is occuring with the permanent way of the LNWR. The HMRS LNWR Livery Register records details of rail lengths and sleeper arrangements for plain track and nothing about the switch and crossing work - the information in the register seems to be a generalistion for a study of photographs of the 1895-1905 period show significant and consistent variations. I have posted a summary of such researches in the HMRS and Trackwork Yahoo Groups and invited comment and contributions. Why am I looking at the LNWR when my interest is GW&GC Jt and my current trackwork commitment is to Basilica Fields? Simples! I have been asked to build the track for a LNWR station in the 1905-1910 period, a report on this activity can be found here:-

 

Modelling LNWR permanent way of the 1905-1910 period

 

thank you, Graham