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

[Gruffalo]

I know Hornby is getting a lot of flak for its recent failures but let's just float a thought here:

 

IF (and it is a big if) Hornby resolves its present problems, is it perhaps time for them to launch a competitor to Peco's Streamline range? Hornby's fixed geometry is very much geared towards standard plans with it fixed radii curves and points whereas Peco is a much better proposition for those wanting to take a significant step up the ladder of realism without breaking the bank. Peco still offer their Setrack range to compete with Hornby so could Hornby take the challenge to Peco by offering a competitor to Streamline? If they were to do so, 16.5mm gauge, Code 80 or 75 nickel silver or phosphor bronze with correct sleeper details described earlier would probably offer a better visual experience whilst retaining the ability to operate RTR straight from the box and anything with DOGA intermediate standard wheel profiles.

 

Then again, the quality and delivery issues currently afflicting Hornby may see their demise rather than their resurrection. Perhaps SK would welcome something more positive to discuss rather than be harangued by people waiting for their various delayed models?

[Gruffalo]

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

Again, this is where the border between hand-built and ready to run track seems to be. If you really want bullhead, you can build it whereas most rail laid in the last 50 years or so is I believe flat-bottom. I can't see any manufacturer now starting to build BH track with the investment required and a diminishing proportion of the customers wanting such a product. Getting to specify Bullhead throughout your layout is certainly a level where compromise is less likely to be made so is it not the case that those who want Bullhead would also be more likely NOT to accept 16.5mm gauge?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 I have long felt that Peco could just try this out with a better track base for their LH and RH 60" 'large' radius point parts, with timbering to match the compromise that C&L, SMP, and countless track builders have evolved as looking best for OO. The market for better RTR OO track is going to be limited, and I suspect most customers will want large radii on view. The large radoius points may be slightly cirved by thise inclined to DIY, and I am sure that could be designed for. But Peco don't want to, and hide behind the 'expense' of the tooling even though they can tool up endless NG ranges which nobody uses, and spand on pushing NG every way they can in their publications.

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...

 Without a doubt, Peco have a 'lock' on the 'better RTR track' than set-track market in the UK. Retailers stock the product almost universally and are not exactly looking to tie up more investment in a product class which moves relatively slowly would be my take. That's quite a barrier to any competitor entry.

 

Now, classical marketing. What would kick down the door to get a better track system into the UK? Some huge advantage over present RTR track. The clear and present danger to Peco's dominance is a competitor offering complete plug and play functionality on points. Why all this separate motor - and now accessory decoder - nonsense? It's not unthinkable that a fully integrated motor/decoder is in every point, or even that the track carries more than two conductors so that a point motor bus is present to automatically power them independent of track power, and possibly a signal bus too, to create a built in sectioning for detection system. Automatically incompatible with existing track, you have to start again, the holy grail of marketing.

 

That won't happen just for OO track. But there just might be a competitor out there looking to produce something like this this for global supply of HO. If they do, bye-bye Peco, killed by innovation in the classic failed UK industry style.

[frobisher]

I know Hornby is getting a lot of flak for its recent failures but let's just float a thought here:

 

IF (and it is a big if) Hornby resolves its present problems, is it perhaps time for them to launch a competitor to Peco's Streamline range? Hornby's fixed geometry is very much geared towards standard plans with it fixed radii curves and points whereas Peco is a much better proposition for those wanting to take a significant step up the ladder of realism without breaking the bank. Peco still offer their Setrack range to compete with Hornby so could Hornby take the challenge to Peco by offering a competitor to Streamline? If they were to do so, 16.5mm gauge, Code 80 or 75 nickel silver or phosphor bronze with correct sleeper details described earlier would probably offer a better visual experience whilst retaining the ability to operate RTR straight from the box and anything with DOGA intermediate standard wheel profiles.

The biggest problem I can see is that the Hornby wouldn't want to produce a new track range that was aimed solely at the UK market. Their set track range has supplanted all of those of the inherited European ranges now so a "streamline" range would likely still only make sense as H0 track

[arran]

HI ALL

 

Find yourselfs half a million and get on with it,  

 

Regards Arran

[cromptonnut]

If my numbers come up on Saturday I will...

[Mike Riley]

Although the title of this topic is ready to lay 00 track and pointwork I think the issue is pointwork.  Track is already available ready to lay from C&L and SMP.  C&L do both bullhead and concrete sleeper base (exactoscale) for fb.  Ready made pointwork is available from Marcway, but some don't seem to like the soldered construction.  So what do people want (those not willing or able to build their own which is extemely cheap if you make your own vees and blades).  Presumably they want ready made bullhead turnouts with chairs.  I think the tooling to make this in a highly automated way (to keep the cost reasonable) would be quite high; the alternative would be hand made which is already available but expensive compared to Peco.  I don't see anybody taking the risk of setting up automated production with no certainty of sufficient sales to recover the investment.

 

Mike

[Budgie]

So what do people want (those not willing or able to build their own which is extemely cheap if you make your own vees and blades).  Presumably they want ready made bullhead turnouts with chairs.

Actually, I don't want bullhead at all. What I would like is flat-bottom rail, the rail and not the sleepers/timbers to match with Peco and Hornby.

[Mike Storey]

 I have long felt that Peco could just try this out with a better track base for their LH and RH 60" 'large' radius point parts, with timbering to match the compromise that C&L, SMP, and countless track builders have evolved as looking best for OO. The market for better RTR OO track is going to be limited, and I suspect most customers will want large radii on view. The large radoius points may be slightly cirved by thise inclined to DIY, and I am sure that could be designed for. But Peco don't want to, and hide behind the 'expense' of the tooling even though they can tool up endless NG ranges which nobody uses, and spand on pushing NG every way they can in their publications.

 Without a doubt, Peco have a 'lock' on the 'better RTR track' than set-track market in the UK. Retailers stock the product almost universally and are not exactly looking to tie up more investment in a product class which moves relatively slowly would be my take. That's quite a barrier to any competitor entry.

 

Now, classical marketing. What would kick down the door to get a better track system into the UK? Some huge advantage over present RTR track. The clear and present danger to Peco's dominance is a competitor offering complete plug and play functionality on points. Why all this separate motor - and now accessory decoder - nonsense? It's not unthinkable that a fully integrated motor/decoder is in every point, or even that the track carries more than two conductors so that a point motor bus is present to automatically power them independent of track power, and possibly a signal bus too, to create a built in sectioning for detection system. Automatically incompatible with existing track, you have to start again, the holy grail of marketing.

 

That won't happen just for OO track. But there just might be a competitor out there looking to produce something like this this for global supply of HO. If they do, bye-bye Peco, killed by innovation in the classic failed UK industry style.

 

Can't see that proposition going very far I'm afraid! Would you attach slow point motors or solenoids? If the latter, many would not touch them with a bargepole. Would I buy them with decoders included, even though I operate on DCC? No, because, like many, I prefer to use DC for my point motors and signals operation. Peverse? Yes.

[Mike Storey]

Have read through the many comments (a lot in just 24 hours or so) but I have not seen the answer which partly generated this thread.

 

The single greatest visual difference which Peco could make to their point work is to substitute the hinged blade (which looks so awful) with a continuous blade. A Peco rep once told me, some years ago, that to do so would cause innumerable problems and drive the cost upwards very significantly. (This is partially borne out by the expense of Tillig's version, which I did flirt with but cost put me off wholesale conversion to them.) But I have never seen a satisfactory explanation as to why this could not relatively easily be achieved, at a moderate extra cost . Does anyone know?

 

If a continuous blade was introduced at moderate extra cost, they would have my business in volume, as I can disguise every other drawback with weathering, ballasting and suchlike.

[hayfield]

A C&L "turnout in a bag" kit which contains everything you need to start building a point starts at £41 in P4 and £58 in O gauge, and that is not the sort of money that most of us can consider disposable.

 

 

I really think that this is an unfair comparison as a lot of the items are prefabricated and a set of roller gauges are included with plans

 

You will need about 1.5 meters of rail to build a turnout, cost £1.50

 

A packet of PCB sleeper strip is £8.80 and will build 3 turnouts. The cost of a copperclad turnout is about £4.50 in components.

 

Chaired track

Cost of Ply timbers £8.50 for 50 strips (about 10 Turnouts)

Cost of Exactoscale plastic sleepers £5.00 for 160 sleepers (about 6 turnouts)

 

250 chairs £10 enough for 2 turnouts

100 slide chairs £4.80 ( 7 to 8 turnouts)

 

As for plans/templates, you can print them off Templot

 

You could build a turnout with Ply or plastic sleepers from just over £8 each. A set of gauges will last for ever if looked after and a minimum number of basic tools are required. Most if not all could be taught to build turnouts quite quickly. If you want a highly detailed turnout (far superior to any RTR turnout) that may add another £4

 

I understand that some folk may not like (or not like the idea) of making turnouts, but there are many disciplines in our hobby that we have to do to build a layout, some of which modellers do not like but have to be done to build/finish a layout. The hardest part is making a common crossing for chaired track, but its just difficult not impossible.

[cromptonnut]

"Turnout in a bag" is marketed as a beginner's kit for entry level, for those with no experience of doing so - as you say, many of the parts are pre-made.

 

There would be no need for such a kit if people knew all the individual bits they needed to start with, and already had roller gauges (which most people at that stage wouldn't),

 

Is the "Turnout in a bag" value for money?  According to your calculations, no.  However, it is an entry point - if you'll pardon the pun - which will either help people to realise that building pointwork isn't that difficult after all, or put them off forever.

 

As you say, there are always things we have to do in layout building that we don't like.  I could spend money on baseboard kits, or get the bits cut for half the price at my local wood yard (which I did).  I'm not much good with wood but I achieved flat, square boards without too much swearing.  I tried making a point from one of the above kits, and really felt it was beyond my skill level.

 

The advantage of joining a club does of course mean there is probably someone there who does build their own track and will be more than happy to teach you - but for many different reasons (time, distance, cost, commitment, family, work) a lot of modellers cannot (or will not), join a local club - or in fact even have a local club to join in the first place, and that's before you add the complications of whether the club has a layout based in the scale or era that you are wanting to model in, or whether they're friendly or miserable, have their own premises or spend 75% of each evening putting up and taking down a layout for a 20 minute running session.  Hence struggling along as a solo modeller with RMWeb as your 'surrogate club', with the support of a few people who you bounce ideas off of via PM, is the only option some of us have.

[hayfield]

"Turnout in a bag" is marketed as a beginner's kit for entry level, for those with no experience of doing so - as you say, many of the parts are pre-made.

 

There would be no need for such a kit if people knew all the individual bits they needed to start with, and already had roller gauges (which most people at that stage wouldn't),

 

Is the "Turnout in a bag" value for money?  According to your calculations, no.  However, it is an entry point - if you'll pardon the pun - which will either help people to realise that building pointwork isn't that difficult after all, or put them off forever.

 

As you say, there are always things we have to do in layout building that we don't like.  I could spend money on baseboard kits, or get the bits cut for half the price at my local wood yard (which I did).  I'm not much good with wood but I achieved flat, square boards without too much swearing.  I tried making a point from one of the above kits, and really felt it was beyond my skill level.

 

The advantage of joining a club does of course mean there is probably someone there who does build their own track and will be more than happy to teach you - but for many different reasons (time, distance, cost, commitment, family, work) a lot of modellers cannot (or will not), join a local club - or in fact even have a local club to join in the first place, and that's before you add the complications of whether the club has a layout based in the scale or era that you are wanting to model in, or whether they're friendly or miserable, have their own premises or spend 75% of each evening putting up and taking down a layout for a 20 minute running session.  Hence struggling along as a solo modeller with RMWeb as your 'surrogate club', with the support of a few people who you bounce ideas off of via PM, is the only option some of us have.

 

 

The help readily available from RMweb is far greater than at the average club. It is at arms length but so many members are willing to assist those needing help.

 

As for value for money, you are paying for the time of someone else making the common crossings and switch rails, for the gauges, plans and other extras within the kit. May of us have posted our methods in building track on this site trying to dispel the fears some have at the thought of making their own turnouts.

 

I would always suggest that those new to track building cut their teeth on a copperclad turnout first. If for no other reason than to build up confidence levels.

 

Good points raised about joining a club, it took me 30 years to join one !!

[martin_wynne]

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

 

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.

 

Hi Joseph,

 

The track centres for Peco is 2 inches (50.8mm). This increases slightly if insulated track joiners are used in making a crossover.

 

The correct track centres for prototype 6ft way double track is 11ft-2in (44.67mm) on non-GWR lines. On GWR and BR(W) lines it is 1/2 inch wider, 11ft-2.1/2in (44.83mm).

 

This is the minimum on the prototype. Actual track spacings are often wider for historical reasons such as fitting through bridges originally built for broad gauge, or where the line was doubled at a later date. Or to provide running clearance on curves.

 

Finescale 00-SF and EM traditionally use 45mm centres as the nearest round figure.

 

00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) traditionally uses 50mm centres.

 

If you want to print 00 templates just use Templot. It will make all the calculations for you. (It's free). This is template print from Templot:

 

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Have read through the many comments (a lot in just 24 hours or so) but I have not seen the answer which partly generated this thread.

 

The single greatest visual difference which Peco could make to their point work is to substitute the hinged blade (which looks so awful) with a continuous blade. A Peco rep once told me, some years ago, that to do so would cause innumerable problems and drive the cost upwards very significantly. (This is partially borne out by the expense of Tillig's version, which I did flirt with but cost put me off wholesale conversion to them.) But I have never seen a satisfactory explanation as to why this could not relatively easily be achieved, at a moderate extra cost . Does anyone know?

 

If a continuous blade was introduced at moderate extra cost, they would have my business in volume, as I can disguise every other drawback with weathering, ballasting and suchlike.

I'm using Tillig track on an H0m layout and, though the continuous blades look better, it requires a lot more force to throw a point. Even the Caboose Industry point levers I use on my H0 layout struggled to complete the throw. Having decided to motorise the five visible points I didn't fancy the stresses on the tie bar that solenoid point motors would have generated so used Fulgurex point motors. Even these struggle to throw the blades and have to be set very precisely.

 

This may be less of a problem with 16.5mm as the blades are longer but even so I doubt if Peco could use the same point motors or over centre springs without also having hinged points.

 

I also don't know what percentage of Peco's market is export - Streamline is certainly very widely used in France by more serious modellers- and as H0 it's a lot less compromised. I wonder therefor about the viablility of a purely 00 range,certainly for a mass manufacturer.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Jeff Smith]

A couple of comments/questions:-

 

Why doesn't SMP sell ready made points produced from it's existing point kits?

 

Why does PECO produce a whole range of HO code 83 points for the US market? Do these use the same bases as the code 75? If so, I would not have thought the difference in rail height would not be noticeable. If in fact they did re-tool they must think that the US market has greater potential than the UK for a re-tooled OO range.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Jeff Smith

[autocoach]

PECO US Code 83 is an entirely different range. Nothing not even rail joiners are shared with Peco Set track Streamline or Code 75. Different track base with numbered frogs etc. NMRA flanges and clearances. I often wondered why the US and not their home UK. But then the discussion on this thread and many past similar discussions is probably a good example of the reason not to cater to their home market.

 

Their points (switches to us) have been well received in the US but are up against competition from 4-5 other brands of accurate North American prototype track (that includes Canada and Mexico). My problem from the US historical modeller prospective is that all brands represents modern (post 1960) mainline prototype. US practice was different in the 1930-50 period and even more different earlier.  It was also more railroad specific. Each railroad had it's own practices and standards and to some extend still do even after Federal Railway Administration standards were set.

Edited December 7, 2013 by autocoach

[Adams442T]

Hi Jeff,

 

In effect Marcway pointwork is made up SMP in as much as they in 2008 took over SMP.  The simple turnouts are about £25.00, but they do make more complex (& of course more expensive) items, a curved double junction with a diamond crossing for instance.  

 

Their plastic based point kits are £7.99 though limited to 36" radius and catch points, their copperclad turnouts offer a much wider range priced from £6.99 to about £10.99 I think.

 

Not as 'cutting edge' as C&L perhaps, but still miles ahead of Peco et al.

[Tequila Sunrise]

The approach used for Finetrax in N might be a way forward - a half-way house between a kit and RTR

 

http://www.britishfinescale.com/

[gordon s]

Maybe I ought to go into business at those prices…:-)

[Joseph_Pestell]

Have read through the many comments (a lot in just 24 hours or so) but I have not seen the answer which partly generated this thread.

 

The single greatest visual difference which Peco could make to their point work is to substitute the hinged blade (which looks so awful) with a continuous blade. A Peco rep once told me, some years ago, that to do so would cause innumerable problems and drive the cost upwards very significantly. (This is partially borne out by the expense of Tillig's version, which I did flirt with but cost put me off wholesale conversion to them.) But I have never seen a satisfactory explanation as to why this could not relatively easily be achieved, at a moderate extra cost . Does anyone know?

 

If a continuous blade was introduced at moderate extra cost, they would have my business in volume, as I can disguise every other drawback with weathering, ballasting and suchlike.

 

I don't think that there is really a satisfactory explanation for why Peco persist with their hinged pointblades. When Streamline was first introduced, Peco had a serious competitor in Graham Farish with the Formoway range that had far more items of pointwork available. It is true that the tiebar of the Formoway, made in a rather soft plastic, would tend to break under the repetitive strain of moving the blades. But putting a hinge in the blades is the wrong solution. What was needed was a reinforced tiebar.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph,

 

The track centres for Peco is 2 inches (50.8mm). This increases slightly if insulated track joiners are used in making a crossover.

 

The correct track centres for prototype 6ft way double track is 11ft-2in (44.67mm) on non-GWR lines. On GWR and BR(W) lines it is 1/2 inch wider, 11ft-2.1/2in (44.83mm).

 

This is the minimum on the prototype. Actual track spacings are often wider for historical reasons such as fitting through bridges originally built for broad gauge, or where the line was doubled at a later date. Or to provide running clearance on curves.

 

Finescale 00-SF and EM traditionally use 45mm centres as the nearest round figure.

 

00-BF (DOGA Intermediate) traditionally uses 50mm centres.

 

If you want to print 00 templates just use Templot. It will make all the calculations for you. (It's free). This is template print from Templot:

 

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Thanks. I may indeed have another go at Templot. I tried it a few months back and did not manage too well. For the purposes of this thread, I was just going to get out my old laptop and use Trax2 which I am used to.

 

Edit: And thanks for putting up templates of both Peco HO and a "real OO" side by side. Even allowing that the Peco is HO, those sleepers look too thin i.e. not even 7/8ths the size.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

The approach used for Finetrax in N might be a way forward - a half-way house between a kit and RTR

 

http://www.britishfinescale.com/

 

I was thinking the same thing only yesterday. The cast crossings might be a bit of an issue in the larger scale.

[Joseph_Pestell]

As people have rightly said, the real issue on this thread is pointwork rather than track. There are already some good OO flextracks out there.

 

Even then, I have one slight issue with them. A BH track (and older FB track) is made up of panels, usually 60' long. At each joint, there are more closely spaced sleepers. And yet all the brands of flextrack have evenly spaced sleepers throughout the whole yard/metre length.

 

Would'nt it be more sensible to sell lengths of 72cm (3 panels equivalent) or 96cm (4 panels equivalent) with properly spaced sleepers?

[hayfield]

As people have rightly said, the real issue on this thread is pointwork rather than track. There are already some good OO flextracks out there.

 

Even then, I have one slight issue with them. A BH track (and older FB track) is made up of panels, usually 60' long. At each joint, there are more closely spaced sleepers. And yet all the brands of flextrack have evenly spaced sleepers throughout the whole yard/metre length.

 

Would'nt it be more sensible to sell lengths of 72cm (3 panels equivalent) or 96cm (4 panels equivalent) with properly spaced sleepers?

 

As people have rightly said, the real issue on this thread is pointwork rather than track. There are already some good OO flextracks out there.

 

Even then, I have one slight issue with them. A BH track (and older FB track) is made up of panels, usually 60' long. At each joint, there are more closely spaced sleepers. And yet all the brands of flextrack have evenly spaced sleepers throughout the whole yard/metre length.

 

Would'nt it be more sensible to sell lengths of 72cm (3 panels equivalent) or 96cm (4 panels equivalent) with properly spaced sleepers?

 

 

There is nothing stopping modellers making up track panel lengths in what ever size they require and altering the distance between the sleepers at the end of each panel.

 

You could even replace both end sleepers for 12" wide ones. You could notch the meter lengths of rail into to 45'/60' lengths and solder on etched brass fishplates. In fact there are lots you can do to improve flexi-track but in the end all makes do not have any keys in the chairs.

 

What makes me smile are those modellers who demand the highest level of detail on their locos and stock, then put them on RTR track (without any modification) and use large metal and plastic rail joiners (not fishplates).