Peco OO/HO large radius point measurement query

[kevinlms]

You would not say that to someone building a loco and adding as much detail as they require. Or pick on a builder who still likes to build whitemetal kits rather than more detailed etched ones.

 

The retail trade could and should do better, they could not get away offering rolling stock using the wrong scale (yes 00 is 4 mm scale not 3.5 mm scale) and with some parts being the wrong profile/shape. Track is still stuck in the 60's as far as the offering on the table from the trade, in fact there was a better choice of 00 gauge track then, some much closer to scale.

I don't disagree with you, but what 'new track work' standards ought Peco adapt? That is the question. Options include

 

1/ Flat Bottom or Bullhead rail (interestingly O gauge track is Bullhead & IIRC is unique amongst the Peco range - did the GOG have input here?).

2/ Sleeper length 8ft 6in or 9ft?

3/ Type of chair/keys - 2 bolt/3 bolt?

4/ Spacing of sleepers

5/ Length of track 'panels'

6/ Any prototype preference for it to be based on GWR or other Big 4 or BR?

 

That's just for plain track. I'm sure Peco would make 'something', if there was some sort of general agreement on what would be acceptable. But is there any such thing? I doubt it.

[Pacific231G]

 

The retail trade could and should do better, they could not get away offering rolling stock using the wrong scale (yes 00 is 4 mm scale not 3.5 mm scale) and with some parts being the wrong profile/shape. Track is still stuck in the 60's as far as the offering on the table from the trade, in fact there was a better choice of 00 gauge track then, some much closer to scale.

I'm not sure how they could since, without going back into all the arguments pro and con this, 00 track is fundamentally not to scale and never can be. The fact is that the BRMSB standards for 00 (which the earlier and I think also the SMP points I used in my comparison in #93 all claim to follow)  were set in the 1940s based on what was possible then by an ad hoc committee that finished its work at least sixty years ago. By contrast the other standards setting bodies MOROP (NEMs) and the NMRA are very active as are the likes of the EMGS, who developed their own standards to replace the original BRMSB standards for "00 Fine Scale" using 18mm track years ago, and the Scale Four Society. DOGA have tried to develop modern standards for 00 but they're by no means generally accepted. 

 

So. If you are a a manufacturer and you want to offer something in H0 scale you simply opt for the relevant modern standards of either MOROP or the NMRA (which is what Peco has just done with its 83 Line following NMRA standards) and you can do the same for H0m, Hon3, H0e, Nm and so on.

 

If you want to offer something for 00 what do you do? probably what most manufacturers do and build the model to 1:76 scale but use current H0 standards for wheels, back to backs and so on. That's fine for rolling stock (and if you're Hornby you can use the same track range for your Jouef, Rivarossi, etc.brands and if you're Bachman for Lilliput etc as well) but if you want to offer track what do you do then? build it to current NEM or NMRA standards but with different sleepering or simply stick with the ancient BRMSB standards and hope that modern rolling stock will still run on it? 

[Pacific231G]

I think you're right.

Certainly looking at the photo of those Pecoway points in post #93. The sleeper spacing is better (maybe a tad too far apart), but they look more realistic than what they are producing today. 

apart from the sleeper width and spacing they're not very different. The rail section for the Pecoway point is code 100 FB with a slightly wider head than current Streamline code 100 which gives it a rather coarser look. The sleepers are at 10mm centres equivalent to a 30 inch spacing which is about right for FB rail on wooden sleepers of that era but probably a bit wide for points. The check rails are rail rather than plastic mouldings and the crossing angle is identical with the same track separation for a crossover of 50mm which is the BRMSB standard for "standard" 00.

 

Apart from the closer and narrower sleepers and the use of hinged switch rails the only major difference with Streamline is the locking device surrounding the "tie bar".

[Jeff Smith]

I posted these sentiments in another current thread about OO track.

 

We've gone round the houses a few times on this and other threads.  I am a P4 modeller.  I was lucky enough to make the move from OO to P4 before I had too much investment in OO stock.  The picture below says it all for me but is unfair as it is a bird's eye view.  The best way to view a layout is from rail level hence the popularity of the shelf layouts.

 

If, for whatever reason, I decided to build an OO layout I would use whichever RTR track is nearest to actual scale sleeper spacing, I'm guessing that would be C&L rather than SMP.  Sleeper length would not be too important because when viewing an OO vehicle from the side the sleeper (and chair) spacing is the most noticeable out of scale aspect (assuming you can live with the larger flanges but this is what you are stuck with in OO anyway!)

 

It amazes me that some people will spend hundreds of pounds on really detailed RTR models and then scrimp on decent (appropriate) looking track which is just as much a model as the moving vehicles.

 

 

From top to bottom:-

Peco Code 75

C&L P4

SMP OO

 

[bourneagain]

The underlining problem with this model / track gauging issue is that not one of today’s (and historically) manufactures has concentrated on both aspects. Today there are some wonderful detailed British RTR models being produced, but they don`t seem to care that there isn`t the same level of matching RTR British scale track for their models to run on. Does this situation exist in Germany, Japan, USA – NO!, until one of these manufacture starts to produce the whole package then nothing will change, and the likes of PECO, will continue to maintain their near monopoly position and dictate what they want us to have. After the introduction of the latest code 75 concrete sleeper range, I enquired whether they had any plans to replace the silly looking plastic check rails with metal ones throughout their other point ranges and introduce a space saving 3 way L and R offset tandem turnouts, as expected both were met with a negative response.

[Jeff Smith]

If you bother to paint your track the check rails should be the same colour all over (including the top) as the sides of your rail so it would not even be noticeable whether they are metal or plastic.....

[bourneagain]

Yes I quite agree that these check rails could be disguised in that way by painting them, one of the points (no pun intended) I was making to Peco, was the fact just how small in length they were, almost toy like in appearance. Yes again, I agree they do the job that they are installed for. But if you compare them, like for like, with those provided on either the code 82 or the concrete sleeper range, both in metal, these being at least 5 sleepers in length, not 3 and a bit sleepers, as installed on their code 75 points, which by the way Peco is selling to us as their (top!), OO/HO fine scale range. I believe by installing longer check rails would make these points a bit more realistic looking, ignoring the “narrow gauge” issue.

[kevinlms]

 the likes of PECO, will continue to maintain their near monopoly position and dictate what they want us to have. After the introduction of the latest code 75 concrete sleeper range, I enquired whether they had any plans to replace the silly looking plastic check rails with metal ones throughout their other point ranges and introduce a space saving 3 way L and R offset tandem turnouts, as expected both were met with a negative response.

Sorry, I cannot agree with that statement at all. Peco makes the track they do because it SELLS. No one is dictated to, to buy it. Jeff Smith posted an excellent comparison photo. It clearly shows that there is an alternative to Peco, namely SMP, if you don't like the Peco offering.

 

As far as 'silly' check rails, its not that hard to cut off the plastic ones & replace with a bit of metal rail.

[Ravenser]

Yes I quite agree that these check rails could be disguised in that way by painting them, one of the points (no pun intended) I was making to Peco, was the fact just how small in length they were, almost toy like in appearance. Yes again, I agree they do the job that they are installed for. But if you compare them, like for like, with those provided on either the code 82 or the concrete sleeper range, both in metal, these being at least 5 sleepers in length, not 3 and a bit sleepers, as installed on their code 75 points, which by the way Peco is selling to us as their (top!), OO/HO fine scale range. I believe by installing longer check rails would make these points a bit more realistic looking, ignoring the “narrow gauge” issue.

 

Nothing is going to happen until the code 75 tools fall due for replacement.  As the code 75 range is a slow seller - partly because Peco were careful to avoid giving it features not already found on code 100, and strongly promoting code 100 as the "safe option" to beginners - this is going to take a long time. The improvements on the concrete sleeper points are at least a positive signal.

 

Modern image modelling was largely boxed into coarse scale code 100 for many years because Peco did not make concrete sleeper plain track in code75 (and nobody else did either) . Exactoscale's Fasttrack sleeper base seems to have provoked a response (Peco are very good at occupying market niches to block out competition) and the new code 75 concrete sleeper flexible track is noticeably more to scale and more British . I hope to see a mass switch into code 75 by  D+E modellers working in OO over the next few years, which may give the code 75 range a second wind. For modern image at least, I see no reason why anyone should use code 100 Peco anymore

[Ravenser]

Sorry, I cannot agree with that statement at all. Peco makes the track they do because it SELLS. No one is dictated to, to buy it. Jeff Smith posted an excellent comparison photo. It clearly shows that there is an alternative to Peco, namely SMP, if you don't like the Peco offering.

 

As far as 'silly' check rails, its not that hard to cut off the plastic ones & replace with a bit of metal rail.

 

Peco sells because there is no alternative product available. SMP do not make readymade points, and many folk are uncomfortable with the match between SMP flexible track and Peco points  

[hayfield]

Sorry, I cannot agree with that statement at all. Peco makes the track they do because it SELLS. No one is dictated to, to buy it. Jeff Smith posted an excellent comparison photo. It clearly shows that there is an alternative to Peco, namely SMP, if you don't like the Peco offering.

 

As far as 'silly' check rails, its not that hard to cut off the plastic ones & replace with a bit of metal rail.

 

 

Kevin

 

There are 3 alternatives to Peco SMP, C&L and Exactoscale. The 2 former ones suffer from having very thin sleepers, Exactoscale Fast track bases are much thicker very similar to Peco. The problem being that the bases come in packs of 2m and you also need to buy the rail.

 

Cost is also a problem with Peco flexi track being sold at £3 a yard C&L is £5.50 Exactoscale will be nearer £7

 

As for check rails, do they matter when buying a product so out of scale ?

 

When you show 00 track against H0 track people do see the difference, and think it looks much better. But to be quite honest most do not care/interested, even to the extent of wanting to use set track. Or wanting twice the amount for the £

[Jeff Smith]

Peco sells because there is no alternative product available. SMP do not make readymade points, and many folk are uncomfortable with the match between SMP flexible track and Peco points

 

The plastic based SMP 36" radius point kits couldn't be easier to build. Two piece base with rail threaded into the chairs. At £7.99 they are ideal for a small limited space layout (Peco medium radius points are 36"). Also of course they match the plain track. I built one a few years ago for a friend's layout. I've no idea how well these sell but I would have thought SMP should increase the range. These really are easy to build, no gauges, no template and the only soldering is to attach feed wires IIRC. Usual disclaimer.

[kevinlms]

Kevin

 

There are 3 alternatives to Peco SMP, C&L and Exactoscale. The 2 former ones suffer from having very thin sleepers, Exactoscale Fast track bases are much thicker very similar to Peco. The problem being that the bases come in packs of 2m and you also need to buy the rail.

 

Cost is also a problem with Peco flexi track being sold at £3 a yard C&L is £5.50 Exactoscale will be nearer £7

 

As for check rails, do they matter when buying a product so out of scale ?

 

When you show 00 track against H0 track people do see the difference, and think it looks much better. But to be quite honest most do not care/interested, even to the extent of wanting to use set track. Or wanting twice the amount for the £

I'm not disputing any one. Just saying that no one is FORCED to buy Peco, as bourneagain implied. One thing that there is no doubt about, people will often buy the cheapest version available, thus agreeing with your comments on set track. Countless threads can be found on 'Why do my trains stall/derail on <insert Peco offering>.

[rue_d_etropal]

Someone needs to switch the point over, the train has definitely got diverted!!

 

Seriously though, just to drop my bombshell in. I buy Peco code 100 track because it is the best quality available, it works, and does not break easily. I can confidently buy second hand points and know they will work, and last many layouts. It is that simple. I do remember hearing some stories about weaknesses in the Peco code 83 track.

 

If I was really concerned by the incorrect gauge then I would have to think hard, but I am not a point/track builder.

I am concerned how some other track ranges are tweaking clearances so some still relatively new stock won't run. It is far easier to insert something inside check rails than have to remove part of checkrail. Hopefully Peco won't make that mistake when they have to renew their moulds. From my experience running model shop, most people want something that works and does not break easily.

I still do not like the new Peco OO rail joiners as they are difficult to fit initially. It was easy to tighten the old ones, if necessary. Better that than sore fingers. And I have been told the reason for the new design to improve running for DCC.

Thing is pampering for the few(which is a growing trend these days) does not make good commercial sense and is not good for the hobby long term, but the vast majority of happy railway modellers tend to stay quiet and  are possibly being overlooked.

[Junctionmad]

The plastic based SMP 36" radius point kits couldn't be easier to build. Two piece base with rail threaded into the chairs. At £7.99 they are ideal for a small limited space layout (Peco medium radius points are 36"). Also of course they match the plain track. I built one a few years ago for a friend's layout. I've no idea how well these sell but I would have thought SMP should increase the range. These really are easy to build, no gauges, no template and the only soldering is to attach feed wires IIRC. Usual disclaimer.

Yes but it's just one product. It's not enough to build any sort of layout in. Then what do you do.

in effect unless you are prepared to hand build points you are forced to use PECO. There is in effect no reasonable alternative.

 

Dave

[kevinlms]

Kevin

 

There are 3 alternatives to Peco SMP, C&L and Exactoscale. The 2 former ones suffer from having very thin sleepers, Exactoscale Fast track bases are much thicker very similar to Peco. The problem being that the bases come in packs of 2m and you also need to buy the rail.

 

Cost is also a problem with Peco flexi track being sold at £3 a yard C&L is £5.50 Exactoscale will be nearer £7

 

As for check rails, do they matter when buying a product so out of scale ?

 

When you show 00 track against H0 track people do see the difference, and think it looks much better. But to be quite honest most do not care/interested, even to the extent of wanting to use set track. Or wanting twice the amount for the £

Perhaps, I should refer you back to post 101 in this thread, to remind you of my thoughts. Peco won't produce anything better, IMO, until 'someone' (or organisation), says exactly what they want as an 'improvement'. At the moment, its just a background noise, with individuals contacting them to advise them that their existing product is 'crap'. At least that's how I view this thread (and countless other variations on the theme).

 

Someone else suggested 'crowd sourcing' as a way of getting something better made (perhaps not by Peco). So without anyone to start such a process and start fund raising, it isn't going anywhere.

 

I seriously doubt that Andy Y would want to be the starting point! (sorry for the pun).

[Jeff Smith]

Yes but it's just one product. It's not enough to build any sort of layout in. Then what do you do.

in effect unless you are prepared to hand build points you are forced to use PECO. There is in effect no reasonable alternative.

Dave

My point was, if you want to move away from RTL HO track then a good first step would be to use SMP track and experiment with a few simple point kits. There seems to be an entrenched view that dictates RTL reusable track is all that is acceptable - Peco is ideal for this, in fact Setrack is perfect you can reconfigure your trackplan innumerable times..... However for those wanting something better looking and to make a more permanent layout then a little more work is required. Who knows some might actually enjoy doing something that is not straight out of a box! And if they like what they have achieved they might like to move onto something requiring a bit more effort. It's horses for courses.

[hayfield]

Perhaps, I should refer you back to post 101 in this thread, to remind you of my thoughts. Peco won't produce anything better, IMO, until 'someone' (or organisation), says exactly what they want as an 'improvement'. At the moment, its just a background noise, with individuals contacting them to advise them that their existing product is 'crap'. At least that's how I view this thread (and countless other variations on the theme).

 

Someone else suggested 'crowd sourcing' as a way of getting something better made (perhaps not by Peco). So without anyone to start such a process and start fund raising, it isn't going anywhere.

 

I seriously doubt that Andy Y would want to be the starting point! (sorry for the pun).

 

 

Kevin

 

I agreed with your statement about what type of rail/sleeper/chair format is a minefield, Certainly there needs to be 2 types, modern image (flatbottom) and historic (bullhead)

 

What is wrong in stating that the quality of track being supplied should be up to the quality of the locos and stock which is now available. Also I believe you are correct in thinking that if a serious player was to come along with a more detailed product at a competitive price, that's when Peco would act

 

With Peco products the item is of high quality in terms of being used, its just not to 4 mm scale and modern image only

 

There is a product which stands up to Peco quality, Its the Exactoscale Fastrack bases. The sleepers are about the same thickness as Peco's and far more robust than C&L and SMP products. The trouble is you have to thread the rail on to the bases and is twice the cost. BUT you do get bullhead code 75 rail on 4 mm scale sleepers at the correct spacing (available in 00, EM, P4 gauges) Its a quality product that knocks the socks off other ranges available for steam and early BR diesel period layouts. Sadly no RTR turnouts in the range

[Colin_McLeod]

I like the new Peco rail joiners. They hold the track more securely and so far have not caused me to have any sore fingers.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Someone needs to switch the point over, the train has definitely got diverted!!

 

Seriously though, just to drop my bombshell in. I buy Peco code 100 track because it is the best quality available, it works, and does not break easily. I can confidently buy second hand points and know they will work, and last many layouts. It is that simple. I do remember hearing some stories about weaknesses in the Peco code 83 track.

 

If I was really concerned by the incorrect gauge then I would have to think hard, but I am not a point/track builder.

I am concerned how some other track ranges are tweaking clearances so some still relatively new stock won't run. It is far easier to insert something inside check rails than have to remove part of checkrail. Hopefully Peco won't make that mistake when they have to renew their moulds. From my experience running model shop, most people want something that works and does not break easily.

I still do not like the new Peco OO rail joiners as they are difficult to fit initially. It was easy to tighten the old ones, if necessary. Better that than sore fingers. And I have been told the reason for the new design to improve running for DCC.

Thing is pampering for the few(which is a growing trend these days) does not make good commercial sense and is not good for the hobby long term, but the vast majority of happy railway modellers tend to stay quiet and  are possibly being overlooked.

 

I had not realised that the Peco rail joiners had been changed. That explains complaints made to me by someone who has been trying to use them. I wondered what he was on about.

[kevinlms]

Kevin

 

I agreed with your statement about what type of rail/sleeper/chair format is a minefield, Certainly there needs to be 2 types, modern image (flatbottom) and historic (bullhead)

 

What is wrong in stating that the quality of track being supplied should be up to the quality of the locos and stock which is now available. Also I believe you are correct in thinking that if a serious player was to come along with a more detailed product at a competitive price, that's when Peco would act

 

With Peco products the item is of high quality in terms of being used, its just not to 4 mm scale and modern image only

 

There is a product which stands up to Peco quality, Its the Exactoscale Fastrack bases. The sleepers are about the same thickness as Peco's and far more robust than C&L and SMP products. The trouble is you have to thread the rail on to the bases and is twice the cost. BUT you do get bullhead code 75 rail on 4 mm scale sleepers at the correct spacing (available in 00, EM, P4 gauges) Its a quality product that knocks the socks off other ranges available for steam and early BR diesel period layouts. Sadly no RTR turnouts in the range

In these days of fairly limited production runs, anything is indeed possible - just look at how many model locomotives are available now, that until recently, could never have justified the tooling costs, of relatively obscure prototypes. Or alternatively the moulds can be redone, if the model has been critised for the errors. Notable are certain Bachmann diesel locos.

 

So I agree someone COULD arrange to get 'better' track & points made - whether it spurs Peco on to do something themselves, is largely irrelevant. However as I alluded to, it is far more than bullhead or flat bottom and to a better sleeper spacing/size. GWR track is nothing like LNER or Midland, so if one type was made, it would put off others. That I suspect has always been Peco's argument .

 

OK, I have found CJ Freezer's letter supporting this. It can be found on page 117 of MRJ No. 62 (first 2 paragraphs). It comes across as a clear message, that if someone was to tell Peco what they wanted, it could happen. Has anything changed since Sydney Pritchard called CJF into his office? I doubt it.

[Pacific231G]

Perhaps, I should refer you back to post 101 in this thread, to remind you of my thoughts. Peco won't produce anything better, IMO, until 'someone' (or organisation), says exactly what they want as an 'improvement'. At the moment, its just a background noise, with individuals contacting them to advise them that their existing product is 'crap'. At least that's how I view this thread (and countless other variations on the theme).

In Britain, apart from specific gauge societies, there is no generally accepted standard setting organisation for railway modelling and hasn't been since the BRMSB petered out around 1950. 

 

By contrast the NMRA does produce standards agreed by its members and recommended practices that are widely accepted. For Peco that probably made things fairly straightforward when introducing its new range "The PECO “83 Line” track system is based on A.R.E.A. prototype designs in HO scale (1:87), to NMRA track standards". and it seems to have been well receied by our American counterparts.

 

The one thing I remember from my own foray into N. American modelling in the 1970s was that, using Shinohara and some homebuilt track and turnouts made to NMRA specs, every item of rolling stock from a wide range of manufacturers ran perfectly on the layout and notably smoothly through no 4 and no 6 turnouts on the same RP25 profile wheels. This was in spite of my decidedly less than perfect tracklaying and the wheel profiles also looked much better than those offered even now by European (including British) manufacturers.

 

BTW if you look at articles from the 1950s, the assumption seems to have been that the "Average Modeller" graduating from purely proprietary (for which read train set) modelling was expected to build their own track and RM, MRN and MRC were full of articles on how to do it.

 

Before Streamline, Peco did produce their products to BRMSB standards but unfortunately the large model raiwlay manufacturers often didn't. I've got a couple of Pecoway point kits and the instructions tell you how to build them normally to BRMSB specs but also how to build them differently for Hornby Dublo. I don't think Peco were the only manufacturer who produced different track for different 00 brands but the extra costs must have been considerable. Wren and I think Gem simply made points with closing frogs that anything vaguely 00 would go through without derailing. 

[martin_wynne]

By contrast the NMRA does produce agreed standards for North American modellers.

 

Who does all this agreeing? What if I don't agree? Or you?

[Pacific231G]

Who does all this agreeing? What if I don't agree? Or you?

NMRA Standards and changes to them have to be agreed by vote of its 18 000 members. Recommended Practices such as RP25 are recommended by its Engineering Committee so don't have to be agreed but they are still widely accepted.

I've edited post #122 to clarify this. I'm not by the way a member or supporter of the NMRA.

 

There were attempts to set up a national model railway club in Britain and I think that was the original aim of The Model Railway Club but nothing came of it.The NMRA is unusual and unusually dominant in the hobby there but most countries have some kind of national model railway association usually based on a federation of local and specialist clubs. In Britain there is no national modellers' organisation that manufacturers and others can liaise with. That does make this hobby unusual compared with others. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion. Personally I suspect that it's given more power to the magazine publishers and editors and it was the editors of MRN and MRC that set up the BRMSB. . 

[Tiptonian]

 What if I don't agree? Or you?

You know because you have had to put so many variations in Templot. You get forum threads running into hundreds of postings.

 

You get exactly what we have here and now!