DJM wish list thread

[Metr0Land]

Something the other big players almost certainly won't be working on - decent OO track.

 

OO is here to stay for some of us.  Only trouble is that it's inevitably some kind of compromise.  What do people mean when they say better OO track?

 

A good starting point would be the Intermediate standard specified by the Double O Gauge Association? 

[Hugh Flynn]

Hi

Just one, a class 105 DMU in O gauge.

Hugh

[Adams442T]

Something the other big players almost certainly won't be working on - decent OO track.

 

OO is here to stay for some of us.  Only trouble is that it's inevitably some kind of compromise.  What do people mean when they say better OO track?

 

A good starting point would be the Intermediate standard specified by the Double O Gauge Association? 

 

I think the problem for anyone tackling this would be that you are never going to come up with something that is 'right'.  Scale sleeper width and spacing only emphasises the too narrow rail width.  Something part way (Double O Gauge Ass.) might be the way to go I agree, but I could only see Peco having the 'track record' to be able to produce, and more importantly market, a 'British' 00 track.

 

They have thus far ignored this possibility.  IMHO if they would just test the water by improving their pointwork by getting rid of those lousy switch blades and perhaps altering their sleeper spacing to something better they might find they had a good seller.  This in turn might persuade them to tackle better track  (Or at least let people have RTL pointwork to go with SMP!)

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think the problem for anyone tackling this would be that you are never going to come up with something that is 'right'.  Scale sleeper width and spacing only emphasises the too narrow rail width.  Something part way (Double O Gauge Ass.) might be the way to go I agree, but I could only see Peco having the 'track record' to be able to produce, and more importantly market, a 'British' 00 track.

 

They have thus far ignored this possibility.  IMHO if they would just test the water by improving their pointwork by getting rid of those lousy switch blades and perhaps altering their sleeper spacing to something better they might find they had a good seller.  This in turn might persuade them to tackle better track  (Or at least let people have RTL pointwork to go with SMP!)

 

The track is the easy bit - so why would they leave that benefit to SMP/Marcway. The tricky part is the investment in tooling necessary to produce at least ten different types of point. And should it be FB or BH? Or both?

 

That said, I tend to agree with you that it is only an established player in the track market that is a likely candidate for this. Take some existing HO product and change the sleeper base.

[D1030western musketeer]

Yes I to would love to see a ready to run big Ed class 74 as well as new versions of the class 117 dmu..

 

Richard.

Edited December 1, 2013 by D1030western musketeer

[Mike Storey]

Hi

Just one, a class 105 DMU in O gauge.

Hugh

 

Is that a commission Hugh??! 

[Mike Storey]

The track is the easy bit - so why would they leave that benefit to SMP/Marcway. The tricky part is the investment in tooling necessary to produce at least ten different types of point. And should it be FB or BH? Or both?

 

That said, I tend to agree with you that it is only an established player in the track market that is a likely candidate for this. Take some existing HO product and change the sleeper base.

 

Peco plain track is easy to improve in appearance by cutting the sleeper web and spreading out the sleepers to a more pleasing representation. However, it is the sleeper lengths which would need to be longer (as per SMP/Marcway) to get closer to realism in 00, without actually going to EM/P4.

 

Jointed point blades are a pain to look at, but the problem as explained to me by a Peco rep at a show some years ago, is that once a continuous blade is used, every point must have a separate, slotted point handle (attached as part of the point to one side or separately supplied) to keep the blades in one position or the other, and the whole assembly would have to be much stiffer if to be used without being fixed down to a track bed. The centre sprung mechanism would be insufficient to hold it over, apparently, although I wonder why. Thus, the price would go up and the overall realism would not necessarily improve. If made to SMP or Tillig standards, then they would lose much of their mass appeal (easy to use, reliable), where they make most of their money. You see the same repeated across Bachmann, Hornby and Fleischmann ranges. I flirted with Tillig for a short while, but the costs outweighed the benefits. In practice, if you dirty Peco points up enough, you can hardly see the join, Ernie.... but SMP or Marcway are the best way to go for bullhead realism. I stuck with Peco to match the FB track (although you can mix them as per prototype in the past) but now I see you can get FB points in kits - doh!!

[Castle]

Hi Dave,

 

With my Western bias, many of my suggestions have already been made (47XX, 94XX, 15XX, the Gas Turbines and so on) not that I need all of those but I am sure they will sell very well for you. Despite all the moaning about us Western modellers, there are quite a few of us out there and anything from the region should be good. Two suggestions I would make would be in the rolling stock section:

 

A decent brake down crane would go down very well. They are very evocative bits of rolling stock and most railway modellers would buy one. Let's go really out on a limb - DCC operation? The potential play value would be enormous! Now, I would like the Cowan & Sheldon LMS version from Didcot but maybe that's being greedy!

 

How about some of the more esoteric bits of rolling stock? The ROTANK wagon at Didcot has always fascinated me and there are loads more weird wagons like it in the history books. The GWR flat wagon seems a little under represented too - LORIOTS and the like. As they are capable of taking any number of weird loads then this too is the sort of thing that appeals to us modellers in my experience!

 

Just a few thoughts...

 

All the best,

 

Castle

[Trainshed Terry]

It's about time someone did an Adams Radial and it might as well be someone who'll make a first class job of it!   

 

(I don't know if this form of serious fawning flattery will work or not but otherwise it means I've got to tackle that Martin Finney kit that keeps on glowering at me........................)

 

Yes please in "O" gauge.

 

In the "OO" a Class 309 in Maroon livery Please.

 

AS They where my favorite EMU.

 

Hang on a minute. What about the following limited runs.

 

Brown-Boveri Gas Turbine No 18000.

 

And

 

Metropolitan Vickers  Gas Turbine No 18100

 

Terry.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Trainshed Terry

[Trainshed Terry]

Oops my mistake, sorry!

 

Stewart

 

And don't forget that it was done by ........ http://rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7102&start=25 Taken from the RMweb archive.

 

Terry

[bike2steam]

I love this list, you gotta have a sense of humour, now which of those gas-turbine locos was referred to as 'Kerosene Castle'??

[Joseph_Pestell]

Peco plain track is easy to improve in appearance by cutting the sleeper web and spreading out the sleepers to a more pleasing representation. However, it is the sleeper lengths which would need to be longer (as per SMP/Marcway) to get closer to realism in 00, without actually going to EM/P4.

 

Jointed point blades are a pain to look at, but the problem as explained to me by a Peco rep at a show some years ago, is that once a continuous blade is used, every point must have a separate, slotted point handle (attached as part of the point to one side or separately supplied) to keep the blades in one position or the other, and the whole assembly would have to be much stiffer if to be used without being fixed down to a track bed. The centre sprung mechanism would be insufficient to hold it over, apparently, although I wonder why. Thus, the price would go up and the overall realism would not necessarily improve. If made to SMP or Tillig standards, then they would lose much of their mass appeal (easy to use, reliable), where they make most of their money. You see the same repeated across Bachmann, Hornby and Fleischmann ranges. I flirted with Tillig for a short while, but the costs outweighed the benefits. In practice, if you dirty Peco points up enough, you can hardly see the join, Ernie.... but SMP or Marcway are the best way to go for bullhead realism. I stuck with Peco to match the FB track (although you can mix them as per prototype in the past) but now I see you can get FB points in kits - doh!!

 

You can see the Peco logic for Setrack and perhaps even for the short radius Code 100. But Code 75 was never going to be mass-market product which would not be fixed down to the baseboard. Nor is any type of layout that uses flexible Streamline track.

 

So where is the real problem with continuous pointblades? It's just mental inertia from Peco with an unwillingness to invest (or buy in) an alternative latched pointmotor which would work with them.

[69843]

I love this list, you gotta have a sense of humour, now which of those gas-turbine locos was referred to as 'Kerosene Castle'??

Brown Boveri 18000. Now 'Empty Castle'

[Mike Storey]

You can see the Peco logic for Setrack and perhaps even for the short radius Code 100. But Code 75 was never going to be mass-market product which would not be fixed down to the baseboard. Nor is any type of layout that uses flexible Streamline track.

 

So where is the real problem with continuous pointblades? It's just mental inertia from Peco with an unwillingness to invest (or buy in) an alternative latched pointmotor which would work with them.

 

I don't think Peco, of all people, can be accused of that, given the new ranges they regularly announce. But, I completely agree with your logic over the Code 75 target market, but would assume that they do not think there would be enough, or any profit in it, at current price sensitivities. I think it would perhaps be in our interests, at the next set of wishlist polls, to specifically quote this as a new product many of us would like, rather than just the very general "more realistic UK track" that appears regularly now. What do others think?

[Mr chapman]

Perhaps some of the more popular items like the 71 could be added to a poll to stop them getting lost in this thread.

[Clive Mortimore]

Mk1 round post OHLE. To go with the AM9s, AM2s, AM5s, AM7s and AM8s Dave is going to make :no:

 

AM6s did not often get to run under round post Mk1 OHLE as they tended to stay west of Chelmsford, there for not high on the list for my Mid Essex based layout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't think Peco, of all people, can be accused of that, given the new ranges they regularly announce. But, I completely agree with your logic over the Code 75 target market, but would assume that they do not think there would be enough, or any profit in it, at current price sensitivities. I think it would perhaps be in our interests, at the next set of wishlist polls, to specifically quote this as a new product many of us would like, rather than just the very general "more realistic UK track" that appears regularly now. What do others think?

 

I take your point. Peco seem remarkably willing to go off on new ventures into minority scales/gauges. But that seems to be at the cost of doing most of them fully.

 

It took five decades to get a single slip in HO/OO Code 100. Almost as many to get beyond two (rather tight radius) turnouts, a Y and a diamond for O BH124) and we still don't have a larger radius turnout there which would be really useful.

 

N Code "55", even odder. They started with a scissors which they have never had in OO but took about 15 years to get to a 3-way point.

 

Edited: Sorry. Gone off topic. I don't expect Dave to get involved in track.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[scottystitch]

Hi Dave, much appreciate this thread.

 

In N Gauge:

 

Class 21/29

BR Standard Clan Pacific

Class 101 3 car set

A set of TPO coaches/vans for early-mid 60s era

[Mike Storey]

I take your point. Peco seem remarkably willing to go off on new ventures into minority scales/gauges. But that seems to be at the cost of doing most of them fully.

 

It took five decades to get a single slip in HO/OO Code 100. Almost as many to get beyond two (rather tight radius) turnouts, a Y and a diamond for O BH124) and we still don't have a larger radius turnout there which would be really useful.

 

N Code "55", even odder. They started with a scissors which they have never had in OO but took about 15 years to get to a 3-way point.

 

Edited: Sorry. Gone off topic. I don't expect Dave to get involved in track.

 

Perhaps we should start a new thread - Peco 00 points in Code 75? I don't know how to do that - do you, or can someone tell me how?

 

Thanks

[Simon Moore]

Hi Dave,

Might i suggest a selection of NCB wagons like the later caldron wagons used or some of the smaller hoppers to accompany the limited edition J94. The private standard gauge railways are modeled & would no doubt certainly favor the eastern region modeler also.

Loco's that would certainly fill a gap for the modern modeler would be the class 185 TP-Express. It seems to be missed each year but is a vital model for any modern image modeler doing a layout based in the north of England.
Other than that more industrial steam & diesel models which are something sadly missed by the big manufactures.

Simon 

[Budgie]

N Code "55", even odder. They started with a scissors which they have never had in OO but took about 15 years to get to a 3-way point.

Apparently, their track-making equipment isn't big enough to make the scissors in OO/H0. It's a bit odd that Shinohara can do them and Peco can't.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Apparently, their track-making equipment isn't big enough to make the scissors in OO/H0. It's a bit odd that Shinohara can do them and Peco can't.

 

There was a thread on OO track a few months back. I will see if I can revive that to stop us hijacking DJMs wishlist. If not, I will start a new one.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hmmm! I see that one thread on OO track was "locked" only a few days ago. So perhaps not. I will ask Andy Y.

[mckinneyc]

Forgive me if I repeat what others have said and for not sitting here reading 17 pages! haha

 

I've given it some thought:

 

An updated 00 MK3 and MK4 set of carriages

 

Perhaps an N and 00 Class 90

 

Something I have wanted to see for years is an updated LNER class B12

 

And if you want something completely different and off the wall how about breaking into the Irish theme? A class 80 would be a great choice, long lived, widely travelled and many liveries

[DanielB]

Probably never going to happen, but how about an N gauge Kerr Stuart Victory class steam loco?

 

There is just something about the brutal ugliness of the loco that makes it so wonderfully beautiful!