Peco OO/HO large radius point measurement query

[martin_wynne]

IMHO, my memory of those days is better than yours!

 

Hi Keith,

 

Happy to accept that our memories differ.

 

Where I was, all the argument was between EM and P4. I remember an occasion in my 85A workshop in Worcester where things got quite heated. No-one present was modelling in 00.

 

Joe Brook-Smith's account linked by BG John above (thanks!) makes fascinating reading. I remember how pleased Joe was when I showed him the tools we were using to mould chairs in situ around his rivets on Adavoyle Junction. He said that with them his track system had finally come to full fruition after so many years effort. That was more reward to me for the many hours I spent on the spark-eroder making them, than seeing the chairs on the layout. We owe him so much for the present state of finescale modelling.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

I would have thought that a company like Bachmann, and maybe Hornby, where much product is made alongside HO items, that some 'universal' wheel standards would be applied - mainly reading across to NMRA RP25-110. After all a lot of OO gets run on HO track and you'd think cost savings from commonality would be applied.

 

However, as I found during my search for non-magnetic O-16.5 wheels, Hornby wagon wheels (which are non-magnetic but for some idiotic reason are mounted on steel axles) approximate to RP25-110 in tyre width but the flange diameter is greater at 0.575" instead of 0.55". Unfortunately I didn't measure BtB as I was remounting them on brass axles....

 

 

Yes they are.

 

Bachmann have always used RP25/110 wheels  since they started British outline in 1990 . Logical enough - if RP25/110 is what Kadar are used to making for the US market why do something differnt for Britain . Especially if RP25/110 gives you an edge over the competition - as it did in the 90s 

 

Hornby switched to their approximation of RP25/110 in about 2000/1 , not long after the DOGA standards were published , and I understand DOGA did lobby them for adoption

This was some while before they bought the wreckage of Rivarossi and got into HO . I presume they either use existing old wheel tooling on their HO models , or their existing OO tooling where appropriate

[Junctionmad]

But I wrote "If they are unconvinced, then they could dip a toe in the water at first by just offering the revised base as part of alternative versions of what I suspect must be the most popular of the "finer scale" points, namely the medium radius right and left", specifically to emphasize that I was not suggesting that the whole track range be altered - unless and until of course the initial test product demonstrates its commercial worth.

 

Alternative versions differently packaged would not upset ANY existing users, not for  any rational reason anyway.

 

I get the impression that some simply don't want to let any modellers to have access to a British-looking RTR track product.

That's essentially already there today with SMP,s 36" left and right plastic turnout. It's just not enough variety to build any sort of layout with such a restricted set.

[hayfield]

No. To change the tooling across the range of track parts would involve telephone numbers of investment, and many months of work. I don't think you can describe that as "at a stroke". There are also the marketing considerations, of having mis-matched versions on model shop shelves, and upsetting a large chunk of the existing user base. It would need months of planning and some pretty convincing market research to be sure of a return on the costs.

 

Of course there is one sure way to persuade Peco to change their track. Stop buying it until they do.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

 

I don't think the retailers would be very happy with another 00 gauge range within the Peco empire. You have no idea of how many different points and crossings are available until you have to pack them up after a show

[hayfield]

That's essentially already there today with SMP,s 36" left and right plastic turnout. It's just not enough variety to build any sort of layout with such a restricted set.

 

 

That's why some go to the trouble of building their own, or buy Marcway

[BG John]

Where I was, all the argument was between EM and P4. I remember an occasion in my 85A workshop in Worcester where things got quite heated. No-one present was modelling in 00.

 

Joe Brook-Smith's account linked by BG John above (thanks!) makes fascinating reading.

I was on the verge of changing from OO in about 1971, which explains why I went EM. As I was only 16 at the time, P4 with all the politics and uncertainty was a bit much! It seemed like the argument was between EM and P4 to me. I don't think anyone in my local club was aware of any of what was going on, except maybe the two other EM modellers.

[Ravenser]

Martin

 

I don't think the retailers would be very happy with another 00 gauge range within the Peco empire. You have no idea of how many different points and crossings are available until you have to pack them up after a show

 

Rationalise the code 100 ranges. Three is too many

 

Perhaps we should be looking at very disruptive technologies and business models . Downloadable files as freeware on the net to print on your 3D printer at home (or your club's superior 3D printer). Point bases available in someone's online "shop" on Shapeways.

 

If the conventional manufacturer/retail network refuses to provide - bypass it completely. Technology and business models now exist to do so. 

 

Who's going to be the first to make OO pointbase available on Shapeways? Or via Hattons, who are moving into high end 3D printing to order ?

[Grovenor]

Where I was, all the argument was between EM and P4. I remember an occasion in my 85A workshop in Worcester where things got quite heated. No-one present was modelling in 00.

Yes, well not so different from what I said about the EM relationship, but that was society politics, not the same as the 00/P4 or H0/P87 comparisons which provided people with a reason to change from the commercial offerings.

Regards

[Grovenor]

Rationalise the code 100 ranges. Three is too many

Three too many <g>, IMHO the code 75 range is enough for the H0 users, all the code 100 could be replaced by a code 83 proper 00 range.

But it won't happen while people keep buying the existing stuff.

Regards

[martin_wynne]

Yes, well not so different from what I said about the EM relationship, but that was society politics

 

We certainly didn't discuss society politics out in the sticks! Not everyone was even a member. Most of the arguments were about compensation/springing, rocking W-irons, wheel profiles, the lack of supplies from Studiolith, Romford squared axles, etc.

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

The suggestion was that a national body similar to the NMRA should in some way assume the authority to make these standards. If such a body existed in the UK there would never have been P4, there would never have been any innovation, there would never be any progress. See where the NMRA holds sway they are still nailing rails to sleepers with giant spikes every 3 inches, just as they did in the 1950s. Proto-87 is their equivalent to P4, but guess where it started -- here in the UK with Joe Brook-Smith and others. Try to buy a Proto-87 driving wheel in the USA.

Hi Martin. I think it was me who mentioned the NMRA but I wasn't actually suggesting that a national body should have authority over standards in Britain- I can see definite downsides to a body with quite so much sway. However at the other extreme with an absence of any widely respected standards, you did end up with the situation that if you used company x's products you could only use their products. The stated aim of the BRMSB was to avoid that by coming up with standards that modellers and manufacturers could accept that would provide compatibility. It's clear though that many manufacturers simply ignored or paid lip service to those standards hence the market for "universal" points. If the BRMSB had continued and become better established I wonder whether it would have been a benefit to the hobby or a dead hand on progress?

[gr.king]

That's essentially already there today with SMP,s 36" left and right plastic turnout. It's just not enough variety to build any sort of layout with such a restricted set.

 

But at least it is a start, and sufficient for some who might only want to build a small and simple layout. The snag is that you have to build them up for yourself, which imposes a time penalty. I can do it, but if a large layout is under construction then time is a killer consideration.

 

All of the OO steam era layouts with truly first class track use properly spaced sleepers/timbers and this does NOT create problems with appearance of pointwork that approximates to the Peco medium radius or say nominal 3ft radius (the one time gold standard). We should not still be in the position of having no ready-to-lay pointwork at all that at least features correct major proportions when the fidelity of the models running on it has now been so high for so long. OO is the majority modelling scale for heavens sake, so it should get the BEST treatment from the major suppliers like Peco, yet the pointwork that they offer is considerably inferior in appearance to the proper bullhead stuff with at least reasonably spaced timbering that they have offered in O gauge, albeit in a restricted range, for some time now. I thing their pointwork in other scales is better too. The continuing claim about "the long look" is nothing but a con to justify the sale of track with continental proportions in the UK. It saddens me deeply to think that they have succeeded in brainwashing some buyers into thinking that the real track looks like that, and that the model should look like that too, or that in some way making the model WRONG makes it look better! Utter garbage.

[Junctionmad]

....

.....

 

If the conventional manufacturer/retail network refuses to provide - bypass it completely. Technology and business models now exist to do so. 

 

Who's going to be the first to make OO pointbase available on Shapeways? Or via Hattons, who are moving into high end 3D printing to order ?

They do today have options for pseudo RTR track , if you have plenty of money. For cost effectiveness we are looking at injection moulding , and the setup cost is extremely high in that case.

 

Peco obviously dont see the economic need, and quite frankly they are right. Until a competitor steps in and validates the market for high ( high quality ) 00 gauge track., we will see no change.

Anyway by then all finescale 00 will be in p4 !!

[Pacific231G]

But at least it is a start, and sufficient for some who might only want to build a small and simple layout. The snag is that you have to build them up for yourself, which imposes a time penalty. I can do it, but if a large layout is under construction then time is a killer consideration.

 

All of the OO steam era layouts with truly first class track use properly spaced sleepers/timbers and this does NOT create problems with appearance of pointwork that approximates to the Peco medium radius or say nominal 3ft radius (the one time gold standard). We should not still be in the position of having no ready-to-lay pointwork at all that at least features correct major proportions when the fidelity of the models running on it has now been so high for so long. OO is the majority modelling scale for heavens sake, so it should get the BEST treatment from the major suppliers like Peco, yet the pointwork that they offer is considerably inferior in appearance to the proper bullhead stuff with at least reasonably spaced timbering that they have offered in O gauge, albeit in a restricted range, for some time now. I thing their pointwork in other scales is better too. The continuing claim about "the long look" is nothing but a con to justify the sale of track with continental proportions in the UK. It saddens me deeply to think that they have succeeded in brainwashing some buyers into thinking that the real track looks like that, and that the model should look like that too, or that in some way making the model WRONG makes it look better! Utter garbage.

There is no should about it. These are commercial manufacturers producing products for a market and if demand for 16.5 mm gauge track with 4mm/ft sleepering is not enough for a mass market product then no company is going to cut its own throat by trying to pretend there is. To the extent to which that market does exist it is probably being met by the rather more niche manufacturers that supply it.

I also don't think you can fairly accuse Peco of perpetrating some kind of "con" on the British modelling public. Though the long look was mentioned in the early publicity for Streamline I can't recall any mention of it by Peco in recent years and if you look a their website the company itself is completely frank about it

 

"Trackwork as manufactured and packaged by PECO is classified as being suitable for both HO and OO but strictly speaking is designed and made to HO standards, i.e. standard gauge for track is       4 feet 8½ inches and that to HO scale 1:87 = 16.5mm.  For various reasons, the popular scale used for British outline models as manufactured by Hornby, Bachmann and others is OO but more or less from inception have used HO track.  Technically speaking this is incorrect, being over 2mm too narrow but the majority of model railway enthusiasts have accepted this anomaly.  The scale of HO is used virtually in every country around the world other than Great Britain."

 

Where's the con in that? Peco make, and are very clear that they make, H0 scale track which is a fair model of modern European and British mainline track and sell it around the world. British 00 modellers have in the main been happy to accept it even when alternatives with 4mm/ft sleeper spacing such as Formoway were available; maybe those modellers are wrong and maybe they should all build their own track with 4mm scale sleepering but they choose not to. Bullhead track would be relevant to those modelling the steam era but not for the modern scene and it would have very little sales potential outside the UK. Ironically 83 line will probably sell quite well in Britain because so many people are modelling the American scene.

 

The bottom line is that if you're trying to represent 4ft 8 1/2 inch gauge track with a model of 4ft 1 1/2 inch gauge track then it's never going to be quite right and all you can do is to find the best compromise to conceal the real con that most British modellers foisted on themselves. During the 1920s some British modellelrs saw very clearly the trap that they were in danger of falling into with the new miniature 00 gauge, adopted the correct scale for that gauge and thankfully the rest of the world followed their lead. 

I doubt if there is ever going to be enough agreement amongst British modellers on what that compromise should be for any major manufacturer to risk their future on.

 

.

[gr.king]

 Peco make, and are very clear that they make, H0 scale track which is a fair model of modern European and British mainline track and sell it around the world.

 

But the major interest in steam era modelling is not served at all by such track. The sleepers are still too small and too closely spaced in proportion to the gauge. 4mm scale sleepers and spacing would be equally wrong of course. The simple answer is to produce a system of points with typical British pre-1960 sleepering to HO scale throughout, so that all is in proper proportion. The user can then decide what to do about the remaining conundrum of the "6 foot" way between parallel tracks.

 

I do not believe that there is no viable market for such a track system. It would suit those who would like something better than Streamline if only it were available ready-to-lay, and would draw back in to the ready made market some of those who currently make all of their own pointwork simply because they have no decent looking alternative. The change in appearance compared to Streamline, whilst crucial to those wanting track to look better, might not in the end appear so profound to those who are blind to the faults with Streamline as to rule out the use of both the old standard and the new pointwork on the same scenic trainset.

[gordon s]

....but perhaps this is where the whole thing goes full circle.  Those of us building our own track would probably continue to do so in order to achieve the free flowing smoothness that only hand built track can really achieve.  In my case it's not the lack of a decent alternative, but the total freedom in design that custom built track provides.

 

On the basis that Peco have the RTR side of things pretty well covered any sales of the 'new' product would simply be at the cost of selling the old.  Users would swap over and there would only be limited growth in sales if any at all.  A higher cost product could yield some additional revenue, but then unlike custom built track, RTR track is reusable and higher outlay could mean more new layouts use recycled track rather than new product.

 

I'm guessing Peco are feeling pretty secure in their market as the cost of entry using conventional tooling and assembly equipment into this market is high.  Of course you always run the risk that having spent all that money, Peco either undercut you on price as I suspect their tooling was written off years ago or they are stirred into action and develop their own product and then use their reputation/delivery network to strangle the newcomer at birth. 

 

What's needed is a radical new approach and here I can certainly see Ravenser's point.  As technology moves forward there could be the possibility of 3D printing or something yet to be developed which could open the way for lower cost investment and that really could be a serious challenge to Peco.

 

Knowing that possibility is on the horizon, if I were in Peco's shoes, I would be even more nervous about investing considerable amounts of cash in a new product for limited returns over a potentially short time frame.

[Junctionmad]

The bottom line is that if you're trying to represent 4ft 8 1/2 inch gauge track with a model of 4ft 1 1/2 inch gauge track then it's never going to be quite right and all you can do is to find the best compromise to conceal the real con that most British modellers foisted on themselves

 

correct , and having hung ourselves by our own petard , were stuck with it.

 

The major drawback to introducing better 00 gauge track is 

 

(a ) Just exactly what point work standard would you adopt , probably DOGA- Intermediate, but the flange ways look wrong 

 

(b ) You still dont remove the need to hand build track 

 

(c ) Many modellers clearly dont care and are looking for the cheapest way to get trains running 

 

(d )  there are two many variations in the prototype to represent in a new RTR track work, bullhead, FB, wooden , concrete , chair types etc etc etc 

 

 

Not going to happen folks

 

you be better off speculating that w'ed get P4 RTR track  ( as least the standards are there and accepted !) 

[kevinlms]

But the major interest in steam era modelling is not served at all by such track. The sleepers are still too small and too closely spaced in proportion to the gauge. 4mm scale sleepers and spacing would be equally wrong of course. The simple answer is to produce a system of points with typical British pre-1960 sleepering to HO scale throughout, so that all is in proper proportion. The user can then decide what to do about the remaining conundrum of the "6 foot" way between parallel tracks.

 

I do not believe that there is no viable market for such a track system. It would suit those who would like something better than Streamline if only it were available ready-to-lay, and would draw back in to the ready made market some of those who currently make all of their own pointwork simply because they have no decent looking alternative. The change in appearance compared to Streamline, whilst crucial to those wanting track to look better, might not in the end appear so profound to those who are blind to the faults with Streamline as to rule out the use of both the old standard and the new pointwork on the same scenic trainset.

OK, so assuming you're correct & Peco is then leaving themselves wide open to a competitor and will only have themselves to blame. Go for it then & beat them at their own game!

 

No idea if I'll buy any, as I have no intention of paying up front, for something that doesn't exist yet, not even a list of criteria.

[Jeff Smith]

Once again it breaks down to the two slightly overlapping camps. The buy what's available, assemble as quickly as possible and start running faction which, for the good of the industry, probably provide the most revenue to the RTR manufacturers; and the rivet counters who would rather sacrifice/delay actual running until satisfied with the look and authenticity no matter how long it takes and how much effort.

 

The overlap is largely people committed to OO, probably due to fleet size, but nevertheless wanting to improve the look of the track as much as possible within the constraints of OO. This is probably a relatively small market and although I have argued elsewhere that there probably is a market for more authentic British looking RtL track, I'm sure Peco has carried out market surveys and concluded that it would just be cutting into it's own market. Peco may well have designs ready to go should it's market be threatened or it considers the time is right, BUT, as long as sales are favourable it is unlikely to happen.

 

Actually, before anyone complains that I am just pushing EM/P4 I would argue that I feel qualified to comment on both sides. Yes, with my P4 hat on I uphold all the P4 principles and will scratch build if no commercial offering meets my requirement. But with my On30 hat on I have built a layout (in record time) using RtL track and am running RtR stock. The 16.5mm gauge represents 2'6" which was almost unknown in the US, most being 3' with some 2' - this is as much of a compromise as OO but somehow I am able to accept it and run vehicles representing both gauges.....

[Pacific231G]

But the major interest in steam era modelling is not served at all by such track. The sleepers are still too small and too closely spaced in proportion to the gauge. 4mm scale sleepers and spacing would be equally wrong of course. The simple answer is to produce a system of points with typical British pre-1960 sleepering to HO scale throughout, so that all is in proper proportion. The user can then decide what to do about the remaining conundrum of the "6 foot" way between parallel tracks.

That would delight me if the track was bullhead as it would be perfect for modelling French "double champignon" track in H0. However, it probably wouldn't suit those 00 modellers who feel, with some justification, that the best compromise is to use sleepers and timbers that are to 4mm scale in width and spacing, so the track looks right from the side when a train is on it, but adusted in length to allow for the narrow gauge. That may make the sleepers look a bit short and fat when viewed from directly above (but how often do you see full size track from directly above?) but I'm not sure whether that's at all apparent when seen from a more nornal viewing angle. It seems to be the approach adopted by SMP.

Peco sleepers are close to scale in 1:87 scale and it is possible if a bit tedious to widen their spacing for plain track for older or less heavily used lines or I guess to British steam era sleepering - a simple jig helps enormously with that. points are more of a challenge.

 

BTW Does anyone know when and why Formoway disappeared?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Martin

 

I don't think the retailers would be very happy with another 00 gauge range within the Peco empire. You have no idea of how many different points and crossings are available until you have to pack them up after a show

 

Been there, done that. Secret is to have a storage/display unit that does not need each item to be packed up.

 

But your base point is a very fair one. Most retailers already find that Peco are doing too many different ranges for them to cope with. They are not going to want another range, whether from Peco or a.n. other which adds to their stockholding but not necessarily to their turnover. The marketing/distribution of any new range needs to take this into account. Just direct sales (as Marcway) or limited retail distribution through one or more of the bigger retail outlets.

[Joseph_Pestell]

They do today have options for pseudo RTR track , if you have plenty of money. For cost effectiveness we are looking at injection moulding , and the setup cost is extremely high in that case.

 

Peco obviously dont see the economic need, and quite frankly they are right. Until a competitor steps in and validates the market for high ( high quality ) 00 gauge track., we will see no change.

Anyway by then all finescale 00 will be in p4 !!

 

As with all processes, there is a trade-off. Cheap initial costs = more expensive production costs (whether that is time or money). All the cheap production methods require high initial tooling cost.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The overlap is largely people committed to OO, probably due to fleet size, but nevertheless wanting to improve the look of the track as much as possible within the constraints of OO. This is probably a relatively small market and although I have argued elsewhere that there probably is a market for more authentic British looking RtL track, I'm sure Peco has carried out market surveys and concluded that it would just be cutting into it's own market. Peco may well have designs ready to go should it's market be threatened or it considers the time is right, BUT, as long as sales are favourable it is unlikely to happen.

 

 

 

I think that they might have designs but that would still need tooling costs (although Peco are well-placed there since they upgraded their tooling facilities a few years back). But accepting that it gives them a bit of a head start e.g. UK OO sleepering using the Code 83 metalwork, any new entrant should therefore bring in other "innovations" that represent a USP.

[Andy Hayter]

Pacific 231G wrote:

 

I also don't think you can fairly accuse Peco of perpetrating some kind of "con" on the British modelling public. Though the long look was mentioned in the early publicity for Streamline I can't recall any mention of it by Peco in recent years and if you look a their website the company itself is completely frank about it

 

"Trackwork as manufactured and packaged by PECO is classified as being suitable for both HO and OO but strictly speaking is designed and made to HO standards, i.e. standard gauge for track is       4 feet 8½ inches and that to HO scale 1:87 = 16.5mm.  For various reasons, the popular scale used for British outline models as manufactured by Hornby, Bachmann and others is OO but more or less from inception have used HO track.  Technically speaking this is incorrect, being over 2mm too narrow but the majority of model railway enthusiasts have accepted this anomaly.  The scale of HO is used virtually in every country around the world other than Great Britain."

 

Unquote

 

and yet interestingly the current edition of Loco Revue (French equivalent of RM) has a letter complaining about Peco track as an anglicised 1:76 abomination that is nowhere near the prototypes.  [i assume he has not seen the Bi-Block track].

 

It seems that while it may be possible to please some of the people some of the time, Peco are failing to please any of the discerning modellers any of the time.

 

 

​

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

 

and yet interestingly the current edition of Loco Revue (French equivalent of RM) has a letter complaining about Peco track as an anglicised 1:76 abomination that is nowhere near the prototypes.  [i assume he has not seen the Bi-Block track].

 

 

​

Nor, presumably, the Peco website mentioned by David.

 

A timely reminder though that we are still not much loved by many of the French. I wonder what the LR correspondent would make of my theory that Fournereau may well have designed the track and that is the cause of it being HO.