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

[cromptonnut]

Proper ballasting ought to get over the problem of the between-sleeper webbing though, shouldn't it?

 

After all, this discussion is about improving rtr track - and if you're bothered about the track then presumably you'd be bothered enough about your modelling standards to go to the effort of ballasting?

[Gruffalo]

Proper ballasting ought to get over the problem of the between-sleeper webbing though, shouldn't it?

 

After all, this discussion is about improving rtr track - and if you're bothered about the track then presumably you'd be bothered enough about your modelling standards to go to the effort of ballasting?

For some, the fear of mistakes may deter them from applying ballast chippings themselves so they will use foam inlay. If a more realistic track geometry becomes available, so should a matching underlay system for those that need to follow that route. We are, after all, a broad church. Personally I am with Cromptonnut!

[Vistisen]

But look at the real thing and the rails are NOT sunk into ballast, Try gooling track ballast images, and you can see various levels, somtimes there is a clear gap between the rails and the ballast.

[Joseph_Pestell]

That depends on how you spend your money.....Id guess that the owners of 28 Class 37s would say its too much without noticing that they had 28 class 37s

 

Mickey,

That's an entirely valid point. Back in the day, I used to do exhibitions with a lovely guy, the late Andre Perrin, who produced high-end control equipment (still DC back then). His kit was roughly the price of one loco.

He used to have enormous difficulty selling them. Most modellers, as he put it, would rather have 10 locos that run badly on a cheap transformer/controller than 9 running well with proper control equipment.

Selling track is much the same. As a former retailer, with very competitive prices on trackwork, I know what a small part of overall turnover it represented.

[cromptonnut]

True Vistiaen, but ballasting is something a lot of people do still get a bit wrong as well   However, from experience of Peco code 75 track, it is possible to still get that gap as long as you're careful and with a bit of weathering.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

Turning to the substantives:

 

 

The first , perhaps , is geometry.

 

Joseph Pestell's opening post says :

 

 

I think there is a lot in this. However , I would question why we should depart from the Peco Streamline geometry which is the de facto standard in RTR OO , and which nobody seems unhappy with. I know it won't reproduce the flowing bespoke looks of complex formations on the real thing - but no RTR track range can do that, and if there are only going to be afew items in the range , the "decent OO track " range being proposed won't do that either

 

This goes directly to the question raised by Joseph of the proposed track centres. I don't think a commercial ready made range can change from Streamline's current 50mm centres. If you go to a "scale" 45mm, then Mk1s will foul each other on a double track curve at less than 2'6" . With C3 restriction stock at the 72'/23m mark you'll need rather more than that.

 

The practical reality is that a lot of folk are in OO because the only way they can build their layout in the space they have is with curves down to 2' or below. And a lot of folk will now be running C3 restriction stock . So 50mm centres are the tightest that's practical for the OO market.

 

I say this even though both my little home layout and the club project I used to be involved with used 45mm centres. In the case of Blacklade, it's terminus to FY, effectively straight and the min radius is 2'6" , and I was very restricted in width 

 

Joseph refers to "no 6" points , but does this mean the C+L style prototype B6, a US geometry "#6" or a Peco medium point? I'm not sure there's any obvious benefit in switching to the different geometry of the first or second - and it goes against reusing the geometry and rail components of existing track

 

 

On track-centre distance, I mentioned earliier that I had experience of this (on a club layout at Norbury) and we found that we were already in difficulties with Mk1 stock throwover at radii greater than the 30" you suggest. So yes, if one goes for a 47mm distance, you have to widen the gap at curves and therefore probably hide the curves. I still think it's worth having the proper distance and those that need more than 47mm put in a short length of straight track between the two turnouts of a crossover.

 

If it were Peco that was going to produce a track with OO sleepering, of course it would make sense, in terms of tooling costs, to stick with the same geometry as their existing range (although they have some tooling for US now as well).

 

But if you were going to another manufacturer, such as Shinohara, it would make sense to follow theirs.

 

The whole issue of geometry is one for people with better maths and draughtsmanship skills than me. The Peco range is clever in having three radii and yet always the same crossing angle. Not prototypical but quite useful when building a layout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

So much for a thread about ready to lay track...

In the space of 3 pages, it's just become yet another "the only way is handbuilt" crusade...

 

No worries. I intend to keep this thread on subject. Martin's input is useful due to his knowledge of track issues and I welcome it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

LIfeboatman, I don't think anyone would disagree that handbuild track can give a better and more prototypical appearance.

 

My problem is that I like a layout to look balanced.  If you have beautifully handbuilt and weathered stock running on shiny Peco setrack curves, to me that looks as out of place as beautifully hand-laid track with shiny out-of-the-box stock running on it.

 

Then of course there's the "if you are going to handbuild track you might as well go to EM/P4 as it is more accurate" argument which, again, not everyone wants to do because of the extra costs and hassle.

 

Unfortunately it's this sort of attitude which, by natural extension, ends up at the "if you don't make it all yourself by hand then you aren't a proper modeller" argument, that made me quit a certain scale specific organisation earlier this year and almost put me off modelling altogether.

 

Modelling is all about compromises, and at the end of the day we all have to make them - it's what we decide is acceptable for ourselves that matters.  Even if you handbuild all your track and stock, your steam locos are still usually running on 12v DC and the people don't move, the trees don't grow and the grass doesn't need cutting.

 

Yes. What a lot more modelling I could get done if I did not have to cut acres of 12":1' scale grass.

[Joseph_Pestell]

One of the problems with OO gauge track would be that the webbing between sleepers will be even more obvious because of the greater distance between sleepers. I've been thinking about how to solve this problem I arrived at the idea of having the sleepers loose on the rails, the track is laid with the sleepers held at the correct distance by a plastic strip in between the rails. This strip should be castellated on the underside to help keep the sleepers apart at the correct distance. Once the track is glued in place, the strip is lifted up before ballasting. The strip should not be too wide as this would cause problems on curves, and not so deep as to risk also being glued down. This would make is easy to change sleeper types and distances between them as wished .

 

That's an interesting idea. The curve need not be a problem if your sleeper jig was made of the same stuff that is used for engineers' drawing curves. You could even have different spacings on each of the four faces. Make it to a profile of 16.5mm x 16.5mm and we even have a track gauge tool which would be ideal for those who build their own.

 

Oh dear, I  seem to have digressed into track-building!

 

The problem, and reason for this thread, is not plain track (we have plenty of good OO ready-to-lay track from SMP, C&L, etc) but pointwork.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[martin_wynne]

Instead of "dropping hints" you could just spell it out for those of us who don't bother with "other forums".

 

I wish I had never mentioned it.

 

What little more info I have was provided in confidence. The manufacturer himself has dropped hints on: http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php

 

I very much doubt that whatever it is will answer the requests here for a full range of ready-to-lay 00 pointwork.

 

Handbuilding isn't the only way to get what you want. The other way is to put up the investment money needed to manufacture it. But be prepared to lose it.

 

Martin.

[Adams442T]

I feel that perhaps for many people the problem is not so much only having space for 'toy-train curves' but the daunting and expensive prospect of re-wheeling and/or re-gauging a large quantity of 00 stock in order to have better looking trackwork in P4 or EM. 

 

I have an EM layout for my pre-grouping interests, but I have bought several of the currently available attractive 00 locos and coaches, Well Tank, L&Y 2-4-2, M7 & T9 and SR coaches and feel that I'd rather build a new 00 layout to run them than start a mass alteration project.  I'm perhaps fortunate in not being daunted by the prospect of building pointwork, but I feel that there's nothing wrong in people wanting better looking trackwork in 00 than is available from Peco, et al.

 

I too think that C+L kits are expensive at £41.00 (even allowing for multiple discounts) but there is ready-built pointwork available from Marcway, www.marcway.net  for instance at about £25/7 per turnout and other more complex track formations available, though understandably at a higher price.  Stephen Freeman, www.borg-rail.com  does ready built turnouts in either copper-clad or using C+L or Exactoscale components.  Plus there is a regular eBay poster who does a range of copper-clad pointwork as well at reasonable prices.  No connection at all with the foregoing, or experience of them just saying there are alternatives.

[cromptonnut]

The appearance of copperclad puts me off - the rail basically stuck to the sleepers, with no representation of chairs or anything.  To my eye, that actually looks worse than the current ready-made pointwork which, for all its faults, does at least represent these things.

 

I'm sure C&L have done their sums properly to arrive at the prices on their pointwork kits, but they do seem expensive items.  I know that the Peco O gauge points are about the same price as a C&L kit ... but it's ready made and you don't have to do anything else except stick it on your baseboard.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The appearance of copperclad puts me off - the rail basically stuck to the sleepers, with no representation of chairs or anything.  To my eye, that actually looks worse than the current ready-made pointwork which, for all its faults, does at least represent these things.

 

I'm sure C&L have done their sums properly to arrive at the prices on their pointwork kits, but they do seem expensive items.  I know that the Peco O gauge points are about the same price as a C&L kit ... but it's ready made and you don't have to do anything else except stick it on your baseboard.

 

One can add cosmetic chairs to rail that is "stuck to the sleepers". But that is taking us OT again.

[Metr0Land]

Some posters have rightly pointed out the investment and risk involved for any manufacturer contemplating better OO track, but I don't agree that that should stop us asking.

 

I feel threads like this are good for flushing out what we mean by 'better' RTP OO track, At least it tries to demonstrate where demand might be satisfied in a manner that suits as many modellers as practical.

 

After all, if you look at wish lists from say 10 years back people would have been shouted down if they proposed eg a Beattie Well Tank by constructive argument along the lines of 'no manufactruer will take the risk' which would have been valid criticism, BUT as we've seen in modern times people have looked at ways of alleviating the risk with commissions etc.

 

If the demand isn't specified then no-one will take the risk so I am happy for the debate/wishing to continue, particularly if we can nail down just what 'better' is.

[Joseph_Pestell]

So far we have had more than 1100 visits to this thread . But only 67 "replies" from a very small number of people. It would be good if some of the others joined in and told us their preference.

 

I am beginning to revise my views on the subject. As nice as it would be to take an existing range (other than Peco who won't play ball) and use the existing tooling with a UK type sleeper base, I'm not sure that it is the right answer.

 

If one wants a system that is easy to use, one will have to sacrifice some realism. So one may as well go the whole way (as Peco, Roco, etc.) have done and make something that accepts the inherent compromises. I wish I were better at geometry and could understand the Peco trick of getting the same crossing angle from different radii.

[gordon s]

Can't disagree with you at all Cromptonnut.  Like a lot of things in this hobby, compromises have to be made.  I just happened to choose copperclad based on my own skill level and time available to build a large quantity of turnouts.

 

By the way, apologies if I came across as trying to sell hand built track.  That was not my intention.  I guess I was trying to illustrate it's not that difficult, expensive or time consuming.

 

I would like a decent range of ready made track as much as the next guy, but it hasn't been produced as yet and there are few signs of anyone taking up the challenge despite years of discussion on various web forums.  I chose to build my own as there was nothing available to meet the spec I wanted.  If there had of been then I may have gone with it and put the time into other aspects of modelling.

 

All I was trying to say was right now there are some choices to us all.  Decent UK outline track may still be some time away, so rather than wait, you may have to consider building you own via whatever method or use what is available

Edited December 6, 2013 by gordon s

[Joseph_Pestell]

Some posters have rightly pointed out the investment and risk involved for any manufacturer contemplating better OO track, but I don't agree that that should stop us asking.

 

I feel threads like this are good for flushing out what we mean by 'better' RTP OO track, At least it tries to demonstrate where demand might be satisfied in a manner that suits as many modellers as practical.

 

After all, if you look at wish lists from say 10 years back people would have been shouted down if they proposed eg a Beattie Well Tank by constructive argument along the lines of 'no manufactruer will take the risk' which would have been valid criticism, BUT as we've seen in modern times people have looked at ways of alleviating the risk with commissions etc.

 

If the demand isn't specified then no-one will take the risk so I am happy for the debate/wishing to continue, particularly if we can nail down just what 'better' is.

 

You have summed up very succinctly why I think this thread is needed.

 

There is wide spread agreement that many UK modellers would like more realistic track for their OO layouts than Peco HO. But unless and until we can get some widespread agreement about what form it should take, it is very difficult for any potential manufacturer to move forward. Of course, it's still massively difficult after that but at least they have a starting point.

[Joseph_Pestell]

When I have a bit of free time, I will sketch out some ideas (track templates) and post them on here. They won't actually be quite right because I will be using some existing track software and then cutting the paper templates into component parts. So there will be a mismatch until I can understand the geometry tricks a bit better.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Can anyone confirm the track-centre to track-centre distance on Peco? Earlier post suggested that it was 50mm. My recollection was 52mm.

 

I need the info to be able to print out those templates.

 

Edited to add: A quick bit of work with the calculator suggests that my figure of 46mm (earlier posting) track-centre to track-centre for a proper 6-foot is wrong. That would explain the difference in the radius that someone calculated as a problem with throwover. The proper figure for a correct 6-foot would be about 43mm.

 

Can anyone confirm what the exact dimension of the "6-foot" is? Can't be much over 6ft because doors would get knocked off carriages if they opened when a train was passing on the adjacent track.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[cromptonnut]

Regarding "investment" to break into a market with a better product ... presumably it's like anything else, if there's a profit to be made someone will try.

 

After all how many duplicates of the Class 37 and Class 47 do we have from a variety of manufacturers in the last 20 years?  Lima, Hornby, Bachmann, ViTrains...

[gordon s]

Regarding "investment" to break into a market with a better product ... presumably it's like anything else, if there's a profit to be made someone will try.

 

 

 

 

I guess that's the crux of the whole discussion and I'm desperately trying not be negative as I know that better UK outline track would be appreciated by many modellers, but you have to ask yourself why no one has broken into a market dominated by Peco so far.  

 

Is it that the number of variables in terms of spec and wheel standards are so great that no one can decide what to build or has someone decided on a provisional spec and then looked at the financial returns and seen it perhaps offers a poor return on investment?

 

I'm guessing the latter but perhaps others may be able to shed some light on it?

 

As always I find these discussions fascinating and I really hope that someone may offer an improved/new product if a spec can be agreed.  I suspect it will still have to be a compromise as there are so many variables/variations that will need to be offered to mount a meaningful challenge to the status quo.

[cromptonnut]

I can also see another issue - compatibility.

 

Peco is a well established brand and I would say that although the "train set" market is probably fairly close between the Peco and Hornby sectional track systems, there isn't really any other serious competition to the "streamline" range in ready made points and flexi.  Yes I know of Tillig, Shinohara and others but their market share in the UK is a lot smaller.

 

If "new range" is 100% compatible with Peco, but more expensive, many people will wonder why bother and continue to buy Peco track.

 

If "new range" is not compatible with Peco, then it'll only be people building a completely new layout from scratch that would consider the "new range", and many of us who have done the "code 100 to code 75" jump will know of the expense involved.

 

Of course, in theory it's still possible to use "old" track in non-scenic sections (even with code 75 on the front, I still used setrack points and curves in the fiddle yard for convenience, and as I already had them) but then if the "new range" track doesn't like the older or current profile wheels (and in particular the old pizza-cutter type) then you won't be able to do that.

 

Which then brings us round full circle into expanding the existing Peco range, or items that are visually and geometrically compatible with the Peco range, which will otherwise be prototypically inaccurate when it comes to sleeper spacing.

 

Or wider gauge track, making it totally useless for those of us running OO stock on HO track - which can't be overcome without a massive change in the entire UK model railway community. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I guess that's the crux of the whole discussion and I'm desperately trying not be negative as I know that better UK outline track would be appreciated by many modellers, but you have to ask yourself why no one has broken into a market dominated by Peco so far.  

 

Is it that the number of variables in terms of spec and wheel standards are so great that no one can decide what to build or has someone decided on a provisional spec and then looked at the financial returns and seen it perhaps offers a poor return on investment?

 

I'm guessing the latter but perhaps others may be able to shed some light on it?

 

As always I find these discussions fascinating and I really hope that someone may offer an improved/new product if a spec can be agreed.  I suspect it will still have to be a compromise as there are so many variables/variations that will need to be offered to mount a meaningful challenge to the status quo.

 

I think that for a long time the wheel standards issue was a factor. Even Peco have changed their products a lot over the years (at least three generations of Code 100 insulfrog) to accommodate the improving standards, particularly with regard to back-to-back. I feel that within the last few years we have seen the wheel standards evolve to what is probably their final level. Nothing to be gained by going finer while still having underscale track gauge.

 

So now, we really have the commercial pressures.

 

Firstly, do people buy enough track to get a return on the investment? That applies especially to some of the pointwork that will sell in much smaller numbers.

 

Secondly, apart from those people who are building a completely new layout, will existing Peco users want to transfer to a new product that is partially compatible with what they already have.

 

Third, can you find retailers willing to hold a new range of track? Because, unless they ditch Peco, that will mean an increased inventory for not much more sales.

 

Fourth, can you bring this new product to market at a competitive price when Peco have already amortised many of their tooling costs?

 

It's a classic business conundrum and the answer really is that the new product has to be massively better than the old to make that breakthrough. This is probably a case where it could be done (for various reasons) but it needs someone with the "clout" of one of the existing big r-t-r manufacturers to make it work.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have "bumped" a thread from last year that has photos of the Lima Code 83 modular system.

 

One of the features of the Lima is that the sleepers around the crossing are on the diagonal. What do you folks think about this? It looks quite different to what we as modellers are used to (Peco, SMP, etc) and yet I believe that it is actually correct for modelling some pointwork in the UK, especially more recently laid.

 

The interesting aspect of this is that it would reduce considerably the tooling costs for a model range.

[Budgie]

One can add cosmetic chairs to rail that is "stuck to the sleepers".

Not if you are using flat-bottom rail, though. And don't forget Peco OO/H0 track is all flat-bottom.