16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[gr.king]

Yes.

 

You certainly seem to have a strategy in the making, and it is to be hoped that it succeeds in bearing fruit, either as a ready made system of adaptable points or an "incredibly easy to finish assembly" set of parts / modules.

 

My question about winning strategies was perhaps ambiguously worded. I wasn't just referring to the means to get ready made or virtually ready made commercial offerings. I'm also interested in an simplified "home brew" methods anybody may have developed for construction of "apparently chaired" turnouts with the steam era "look" to the timbering.

 

Once again, I see no need for conflict between those with the desire for a better commercial OO steam era turnouts and the section of the hobby who build their own. Equally, there's no need that is obvious to me for a conflict between those who are happy to have something with an improved overall appearance, which I suspect is as much as it is in any way realistic to expect in a mass produced ready to use item, and those who prefer their turnouts to conform to every little detail of the prototype. I'm not sure if it is necessary for some of those who appreciate every minute subtlety of a turnout's geometry to suggest that those who struggle to see such subtleties and who are happy to have just a "more reasonably authentic" look to their track (whether purchased or home-made) are in some way unworthy.

 

An idea I have toyed with in the past, but not tried out, as a means of getting a chaired SMP style appearance to turnouts with other than the one and only SMP 36" radius, without having to fiddle around with all of the small chairs as individual pieces, is to see what can be done by cutting some SMP plastic point bases down into sub sections or individual timbers (even part timbers in same cases) and then trying to reallocate those to new positions on a suitable template.

 

Cue howls of derision.....

[Clive Mortimore]

This sounds like persuading Peco to "see the error of their ways" and return to the OO/BRMSB/British steam era fold when it's time to renew the moulds. That's simply not going to happen because a very large part of the market for Peco's Streamline track is the global H0 world and such a change would immediately alienate those customers. The decision made by Sidney Pritchard many years ago to avoid the OO compromise by working to H0 scale has proved to be very astute which is why such a large chunk of the worldwide market for model railway track is supplied by a factory in Devon (and not China!!)

 

I think the best you could hope for from Peco would be a "traditional steam era bullhead" range (the BH distinguishing it from Streamline for a reason other than scale) but, even assuming their mass production track building technology could handle BH, it would only have sales potential among a probably quite small section of those using OO with almost no export potential* and it's probably also a gently shrinking market as the steam era passes further into history.

 

Such a range would be different from the 83 line range to NMRA HO sptandards which was probably aimed at defending and expanding US sales(where Peco is regarded as a premium brand)  but with a good global sales potential as well because modelling N. American railroads is a popular branch of the hobby outside of America in a way that modelling Britain's railways is generally not.

 

I could be wrong but I think 16.5mm traditonal OO gauge points are a niche product- albeit a potentially quite large niche- so it probably needs a niche manufacturer to produce them. Is Marcway's current £25 for a simple OO turnout an out of reach price compared with the £10-12 for a Peco Streamline  equivalent ?(I've not used Marcway so have no idea of their quality or ease of use) 

 

*There might be a small market in France where BH was in widespread use and survived later than in Britain but it's a tiny minority of the more fine scale modellers who are probably already adequately catered for by SMP/C&L. 

Why not? I have already pointed out that in 16.5mm gauge their most popular point, the medium radius, is available in 6 different styles and has been available in the past in at least another two. So why not add another one to the range, there is no need to stop making the code 100 insulfrog H0 point. 

 

What is wrong in asking a UK based company to make something that is suitable for modellers of UK outline model railways.

[gr.king]

One of the main points of this whole thread is not to abandon hope of getting better ready made track, so I'm not quite sure why some feel it necessary to keep introducing claims that such efforts are a waste of time.

 

1. I don't accept that 8mm spacing of timbers in points only, leaving plain track at the 9mm SMP value that many accept, would create an unsatisfactory appearance in a side view. We know that timbering will be more tightly space in some parts of a real turnout at least.

 

2. That slightly tighter than true scale spacing of the timbers does help to suppress the excessively shortened appearance of the turnout.

 

3. By going for the compromise overall HO standard, the spacing of the timbers differs by only 10% from Peco's current offerings and the effective sleeper length increases by only 0.5mm at each end. If existing British Peco purchasers / users are tolerant of the current appearance then I think there's good reason to imagine that they would not be horrified by the proposed alterations.

 

4. I do feel that spacing the timbers out by something like a further 10% has undesirable consequences for the appearance of the nominal 3 foot radius point that many of us are obliged to use on main lines, not just in colliery yards.

[martin_wynne]

What is wrong in asking a UK based company to make something that is suitable for modellers of UK outline model railways.

 

If you are asking a commercial organisation to do something, telling them what it is suitable for, or how much it is needed, is not going to get you anywhere.

 

The answer they want from you is -- how much money are they going to make out of it?

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

There will inevitably be those who disagree, but I think Mike's P4 A5 re-scaled to 16.5mm gauge, or in other words a true HO scale throughout, turns out to be a more helpful illustration than I might ever have hoped. The effective plain sleeper length comes out around 30.5mm, mid-way between current Peco and SMP / BRMSB, while the average spacing of the 3.5mm wide timbers is close to the 8mm figure I was suggesting for the hypothetical bronze / silver specifications for improved ready-to-use points. I believe currently that the illustration below, arrived at simply by blacking in the timbers on Mike's original, gives good reason to think that such "HO British steam era" points could be visually acceptable alongside either current Peco or SMP Scaleway plain track.

 

Proportions within the point are correct, the slightly greater number of timbers compared to true 4mm scale helps to avoid emphasis on the stubbiness of the turnout, and if the only way to get something better were to be via reliance on Peco then the production of the "bronze" specification ought to appear to them to be a relatively painless modest advance on what they've been making for a long time.

 

post-3717-0-24157200-1451131399.jpg

 

Now that I have decided to go into production mode, I don't want to make too many more comments. I have decided (well 99% anyway) on the specification based on the many contributions on RMWeb. I have to put a stop to this phase somewhere and get on with it. There will be aspects that some people don't think ideal but we have to do the best we can. The intrinsic compromises of OO make it impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

 

There are basically three options and this comparison highlights it well.

Option 1: Accept that "OO" track is in fact 16.5mm gauge and do what has been done in this illustration, reduce a P4 template to 1:87. The plus of this is that it can be sold in Europe (mainly France) too. And it still looks a whole lot better than than the Peco. The downside is that it will not match existing OO track (SMP, C&L, etc).

Option 2: Think of OO track as 4ft1.5in gauge and model that at 1:76, making appropriate modifications to sleeper lengths (Martin W's approach).

Option 3: Combine the two to make something that is technically wrong but looks right (Andy ID's approach).

[Clive Mortimore]

If you are asking a commercial organisation to do something, telling them what it is suitable for, or how much it is needed, is not going to get you anywhere.

 

The answer they want from you is -- how much money are they going to make out of it?

 

Martin.

In the past we have had......

 

"No you cannot have super detailed steam locos, that is what kits are for."

 

"You want all wheel pick up and drive diesel, like the Yanks have, go and buy an Alco PA1 it fits under the Lima class 31."

 

"Flush glazed coaches, your having laugh."

 

"What you are not happy with the H&BR van in a fictions BR livery, well that is tough matey because that is what will be carried on being produced."

 

.....always with a Naysayer claiming there would be no money it because of the limited British market.

 

Things do change. Even Peco, you want finer looking track, here is code 75. You want concrete bearers not wooden timbers, there you go. 

 

As for asking a UK company to make something that is suitable for the UK modellers is not unreasonable, if the Italians and Danes can do it why can't a UK company.

 

 

Edit, it is not up to me or anyone else to do the costing for any company but for them to do it.

[hayfield]

Hi John

 

You seem to have taken a backwards step with this comparison. We all know that Peco (and Tilling) track is not good visually. That is why Joseph has stated he is going to have a go at producing visually better 00 track that has those other faults that Peco track has, you know it can be taken out the packaging, have the rail joiners applied, attached to either other points (turnouts) or plain track, have wires attached and trains running with no assembly, and it will work and be reliable. He has also indicted that they may not be too expensive compared to other systems. When Joseph's ideas come to fruition they will be hopefully welcomed by those of us who cannot. will not, and never will make our own track. Those who do make their own and enjoy doing so can carry on doing so.  

 

 

Clive

 

Sorry for confusing folk or misunderstanding what Graham was requesting. I thought Graham asked for 2 sleeper/timber length examples. I have done one of them compared against a Peco turnout. Nothing at all about hand building track what so ever. With AndyID proving 3D printing sleeper/timber bases works, now some software for 3D printed turnouts being worked on, some are still considering the minute details such as sleeper/timber lengths

 

Sadly some have no inkling as to what scaled down trackwork looks like, others as to which is the best sleeper length is for a narrowed gauge of 16.5 mm, others have said they are happy with the wrong rail profile and contrived switch rails. I am not advocating building your own track in this thread, but would like to contribute to a visually acceptable model being available and it would be nice if it came out as cheap as the Peco items, though I doubt if it will 

[hayfield]

All that time spent on Ebay looking for the latest bargain that everyone else has missed takes it's toll, doesn't it John....  

 

 

You may well be correct, but was thinking of taking it into the Games Workshop and see if they have any translucent rust coloured paint, or any other colours which may add the the weathering  

[MikeTrice]

3. By going for the compromise overall HO standard, the spacing of the timbers differs by only 10% from Peco's current offerings and the effective sleeper length increases by only 0.5mm at each end. If existing British Peco purchasers / users are tolerant of the current appearance then I think there's good reason to imagine that they would not be horrified by the proposed alterations.

My fear is them saying "why bother" as there is little difference from what we currently produce, after all it is only 10% different.

[Pacific231G]

Why not? I have already pointed out that in 16.5mm gauge their most popular point, the medium radius, is available in 6 different styles and has been available in the past in at least another two. So why not add another one to the range, there is no need to stop making the code 100 insulfrog H0 point. 

 

What is wrong in asking a UK based company to make something that is suitable for modellers of UK outline model railways.

Well I can't see them agreeing that their current offering is not suitable for modellers of UK outline model railways as a ) that is probably still their largest market and b ) the majority of OO modellers using it clearly do find it suitable. That was why I was suggesting bullhead chaired rail (or possibly even FB chaired rail) as a possible well differentiated range they might consider commercially viable  

[martin_wynne]

Option 2: Think of 00 track as 4ft1.5in gauge and model that at 1:76, making appropriate modifications to sleeper lengths (Martin W's approach).

 

It is not just my approach. It is also the traditional 00 gauge track (see this topic's title) conforming to the BRMSB 00 gauge standard, which has existed for the last 60 years or more. Before Peco introduced their Streamline track, the BRMSB standard was what most 00 modellers used, thought of as 00 track, and was available from the trade (including Peco).

 

This approach can also justifiably be described as "00 Gauge", whereas all other options require some other designation to indicate the difference, such as "00/H0" etc.

 

Streamline has been around for so long now, that many modellers have forgotten that there is a perfectly acceptable standard for proper 00 track, and that therefore this and similar topics to find some other design are largely unnecessary.

 

You get this "proper BRMSB 00" track simply by selecting one of the 00 gauges in Templot, and it can look very good, even from above. See for example this from Gordon's Eastwood Town project:

 

 

See also (3 years on and the argument hasn't moved on much): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/45983-is-trackwork-the-poor-relation-of-the-hobby/page-9&do=findComment&comment=783044

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

Well I can't see them agreeing that their current offering is not suitable for modellers of UK outline model railways as a ) that is probably still their largest market and b ) the majority of OO modellers using it clearly do find it suitable. That was why I was suggesting bullhead chaired rail (or possibly even FB chaired rail) as a possible well differentiated range they might consider commercially viable  

Hi David

 

There has never been an alternative that matches Peco in ease of laying, that works straight out the box and is reliable. Not forgetting a competitive price and availability. Marcway points are not in most local shops and cost more and do not have a latching system for tie bar. The new C&L ready assembled kits are almost 10 times the cost of a Peco point and again not usable straight out the box.  With no effective competition we as modellers who do not want to go down the build your own route have no alternative if we wish to see our trains running.

 

All I hope is that Joseph is not scared off by the naysayers. 

[Pacific231G]

Hi David

 

There has never been an alternative that matches Peco in ease of laying, that works straight out the box and is reliable. Not forgetting a competitive price and availability. Marcway points are not in most local shops and cost more and do not have a latching system for tie bar. The new C&L ready assembled kits are almost 10 times the cost of a Peco point and again not usable straight out the box.  With no effective competition we as modellers who do not want to go down the build your own route have no alternative if we wish to see our trains running.

 

All I hope is that Joseph is not scared off by the naysayers. 

OK Clive

So imagine you're Peco; you've listened to our requests and have just launched a new range of 16.5mm gauge specifically OO track and points with BRMSB sleepering (the compromise that any manufacturer would probably use) Now write advertising copy for it that doesn't imply that your existing products were inadequate for OO modellers. 

 

A new entrant like Joseph wouldn't have that problem.   

[martin_wynne]

Now write advertising copy for it that doesn't imply that your existing products were inadequate for 00 modellers.

 

I have suggested several times that this is probably a major part of the reason Peco have been unmoved by the arguments. They have a huge installed base of layouts and loyal customers -- many of whom are likely to be unaware that there is anything amiss with their track. Telling your customers that you have been selling them the wrong stuff for half a century is hardly ever discussed in marketing textbooks.

 

To be fair to them, in recent years Peco have been a bit more open on their web site about the meaning of "00/H0", so their customers ought to be aware of what they are buying. Perhaps this openness is a straw in the wind, preparing the market for change?

 

Martin.

['CHARD]

 

So imagine you're Peco; you've listened to our requests have just launched a new range of 16.5mm gauge specifically OO track and points with BRMSB sleepering (the compromise that any manufacturer would probably use) Now write advertising copy for it that doesn't imply that your existing products were inadequate for OO modellers. 

 

 

A bit like VW did when they launched the Golf Mk5 in 2004, and reviewers were critical of its passenger and luggage capacity.  They 'responded to customer preferences' and hurriedly released the Golf Plus, which was 3-inches taller.

 

They didn't admit their core model research had been flawed, they introduced, at substantial cost, a competing model that went directly up against the vehicle that spawned it.  The advertising copy was for the taller car, the rest of the range just carried on business as usual.  

 

 

"PECO is pleased to announce a new addition to its range of market-leading ready-to-lay track systems, OO-SF-16.5.  This highly detailed range of new track elements brings greater fidelity to the appearance of the UK prototype for those modellers looking to advance from traditional trackplan-book layouts with tight curves and short points, and who aspire to create more flowing, prototypical track geometry.  PECO OO-SF features sleeper dimensions and spacings created specifically for a UK OO modelling environment, designed to convey a more convincing feel at normal viewing distances and angles....."

 

That is by no means perfect, but it took me five minutes.  And shows I think, that it can be done without consumer alienation or disruptive marketing.

[gr.king]

So many different ways of looking at this!

 

I can see the reason to worry that a request to change sleeper spacings by "only" 10% might risk a response such as "why should we bother to change if that is all that you want?"

 

The only way to counter that is to immediately point out that some, or many, would ideally like a greater change, but the diluted version of the specification is meant to make the change more palatable to an existing producer of purely continental spec HO track.

 

I don't seek to throw the BRMSB standard in the bin. The intermediate standard is designed to fit in acceptably well with it rather than replace it, being specifically aimed only at facilitating production of ready made turnouts that can look reasonable in a main line, yet are as "short" as the current Peco medium and large radius Streamline points (not please note part of the Setrack range as implied by some previous posts  - as a deliberate slur on those who use such short points?) .

 

Those who want longer points with full BRMSB timber sizes and spacings can still have them, but there's no need for those modellers with acres of space to decry the idea of some better "compromise" turnouts for those working in more modest confines.

[t-b-g]

Peco have introduced new products before, like Electrofrog, without rubbishing their existing products.

 

What I can't see is how Peco can justify spending development costs and marketing a product that is really only designed to replace an existing product. How many modellers are going to rip up their existing layouts to replace the points with ones that are perhaps only marginally different. All they will do is to replace sales of their old points with sales of their new ones and to have the additional costs of producing two ranges instead of one. The number of actual additional sales is likely to be limited to the small number of people who presently make their own points and decide to use the new Peco ones instead. I am not convinced that there are enough people in that camp to warrant the expenditure.

 

Now, if a smaller/new manufacturer introduced a better looking point, which caused a slump in sales of Peco points, then I can imagine Peco fighting back and trying to re-establish what is almost a monopoly. They would probably be able to use their manufacturing clout to undercut the price and product range of the newcomer.

 

So anybody entering into production should be aware of the chance that Peco will be firstly aware of the possibility that somebody is thinking about producing points that look better than theirs and secondly will be thinking about a suitable response.

 

As far as appearance is concerned, I too don't buy the idea that a too close sleeper spacing causes problems when there is a loco or stock on the track. I find that I only look at track when there isn't something on it. If there is a loco or train there, that is what I am looking at. So I would much rather see track with sleeper proportions and sizes in a good proportion with the rail spacing, which really means something close or at HO dimensions.

 

For my own trackwork I use 4mm scale components built on EM templates. My maths works that as approximately 3.66mm:1ft.

 

Any attempt to use true 4mm scale sleeper spacing with 16.6mm gauge looks just what it is and stands out like a sore thumb to my eyes. It looks like narrow gauge. Adjusting the sleeper spacings to match the scale of the track gauge preserves the proportions of the track.

 

It seems to me that this thread is very likely going to end up the same as various other threads on the subject. Several people all thinking that their way is right and no consensus being reached.

 

If somebody is going to produce anything, then at some point (sorry - bad pun) they will have to just make a decision as to what scale/parts they are going to use and to go for it, in the sure knowledge that it will only please those who agree with those ideas.

[Pacific231G]

 

 

"PECO is pleased to announce a new addition to its range of market-leading ready-to-lay track systems, OO-SF-16.5.  This highly detailed range of new track elements brings greater fidelity to the appearance of the UK prototype for those modellers looking to advance from traditional trackplan-book layouts with tight curves and short points, and who aspire to create more flowing, prototypical track geometry.  PECO OO-SF features sleeper dimensions and spacings created specifically for a UK OO modelling environment, designed to convey a more convincing feel at normal viewing distances and angles....."

 

 

"But you told us that your code 75 track was finescale; look it say so on the box " OO/HO code 75 Fine Standard". Were you not telling the truth about that and was there something wrong with all those books of trackplans we bought from you? What else aren't you telling us?"  

 

I'm not sure if VW are a good comparison right now

[The Stationmaster]

Very good. But to make sense it requires an entire range introduced in one go -- a massive investment.

 

Otherwise you would create say a ladder crossover, by connecting this new turnout which conveys "a more convincing feel at normal viewing distances and angles" to this old single-slip, which doesn't.

 

Martin.

Yes Martin - I think the 'I want it all now' syndrome probably does apply to track as well nowadays (apart from the logic of what you say).  Let's not forget that it took years, literally, for the Farish Formoway and Peco Streamline ranges to advance beyond their most basic pointwork components.  I accept - and indeed have made the point - that logically - a 'better 16.5mm gauge range of pointwork' should include a single slip from the start because it would better mimic prototype practice if it did so but it would no doubt come down to investment and its ability to earn a return.

[Pacific231G]

 

If you take my earlier comment regarding Peco doing new mouldings for their flexitrack then it would be possible to persuade them to adopt 32mm length sleepers with more prototypical spacing. The turnouts would then need to be revised to suit. In that respect the A5 - OO/HO Universal timbering might be more appropriate. Time permitting I will try and mock something up later to illustrate.

More prototypical spacing for what? only for British track in OO so they'd need separate moulds to produce a different version of their track for the rest of the (H0) world. In 1:87 scale, 32mm length sleepers would be too long even for 9ft and a wider sleeper spacing would be undersleepered for main line track outside Britain. The existing Streamline track's sleeper size and spacing is very close to scale for European main lines and though it has a wider sleeper spacing than most U.S. RRs the difference wasn't so far out as to stop American modellers from using it. They've now got 83 Line for the US market (as well as a small HOn3 range) but I can see that adding  to Streamline's existing market not replacing it. 

There was a time, not far from the period that Peco introduced Streamline, when G&R Wrenn were producing a British "universal" range with closing frogs but generally 4mm/ft sleeper spacing and a separate export range to H0 standards. They then introduced the export range to the British market as their "fine scale" range. The sleepering looks to be about the same as Streamline. 

[Grovenor]

 

They got away with dropping Pecoway because they moved to a more innovative product using modern materials that happened to be less accurate for British 00 but was easier to use.

And the advertising made great play of the closer sleeper spacing having the 'longer look' that made your layout seem bigger!

(until you put a train on it!)

Regards

[The Stationmaster]

Clive

 

You are so very wrong, George E Mellor (GEM) had a range of 00 gauge track, as did a company called Formway. Both had code 100 rail and thick plastic sleepers. Before that there was Wrenn and ABC

 

Granted that in the end Peco survived and the others did't, simply because they had a slightly better product, but had a much better marketing department and distribution network. As for cost Peco was much dearer than Hornby Dublo and Triang, but far better. In recent years Peco trackwork in real terms has reduced in price greatly, which in turn has preserved their market share 

As someone who has used all of those (most on the same layout at the same time) the history is interesting - Formoway (Farish) track looked better than Streamline and the range of points was in a completely different league but suffered from a moulded plastic 'frog' which couldn't in the end compete with the extra amount of conductivity in the Streamline 'frog'.  But eventually Farish decided their future lay in N gauge so they withdrew from the OO market.  The GEM plastic base range was much more restricted but the best looking of the three (the plastic moulding was done by Ratio who I believe also made the tools) but it was late on the scene and only ever included left & right hand points so never really got established.  But like Formoway it avoided, to an even better extent, the '00/HO universal' look of Steamline.

 

Now the reason for going into the history is this - Peco was the worst looking of the lot, had a range of pointwork that expanded much more slowly than Formoway's and the double slip had a gestation time from announcement to introduction that makes modern r-t-r items look very fleet of foot by comparison.  In other words the worst one won - partly because the breed was gradually improved as far as pointwork was concerned but very much because of Peco's marketing skills hammered their product into everybody's psyche.

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive

 

You are so very wrong, George E Mellor (GEM) had a range of 00 gauge track, as did a company called Formway. Both had code 100 rail and thick plastic sleepers. Before that there was Wrenn and ABC

 

Granted that in the end Peco survived and the others did't, simply because they had a slightly better product, but had a much better marketing department and distribution network. As for cost Peco was much dearer than Hornby Dublo and Triang, but far better. In recent years Peco trackwork in real terms has reduced in price greatly, which in turn has preserved their market share 

Hi John

 

You have answered your own argument...............

[hayfield]

Hi John

 

You have answered your own argument...............

 

Clive

 

I had no argument at all, you made a statement which was totally incorrect. The first two both worked out of the box, easy to lay, reliable, similar in price to Peco and unlike Peco looked more to scale. As Mike said the worst looking one won, mainly due to their marketing department.

 

No argument with Peco's durability, their products cost or those who do not care about the look of their trackwork. But how can something be both H0 (3.5 mm to the foot) and 00 (4 mm to the foot) and call its self finescale

[Clive Mortimore]

Peco have introduced new products before, like Electrofrog, without rubbishing their existing products.

 

What I can't see is how Peco can justify spending development costs and marketing a product that is really only designed to replace an existing product. How many modellers are going to rip up their existing layouts to replace the points with ones that are perhaps only marginally different. All they will do is to replace sales of their old points with sales of their new ones and to have the additional costs of producing two ranges instead of one. The number of actual additional sales is likely to be limited to the small number of people who presently make their own points and decide to use the new Peco ones instead. I am not convinced that there are enough people in that camp to warrant the expenditure.

 

Now, if a smaller/new manufacturer introduced a better looking point, which caused a slump in sales of Peco points, then I can imagine Peco fighting back and trying to re-establish what is almost a monopoly. They would probably be able to use their manufacturing clout to undercut the price and product range of the newcomer.

 

So anybody entering into production should be aware of the chance that Peco will be firstly aware of the possibility that somebody is thinking about producing points that look better than theirs and secondly will be thinking about a suitable response.

 

As far as appearance is concerned, I too don't buy the idea that a too close sleeper spacing causes problems when there is a loco or stock on the track. I find that I only look at track when there isn't something on it. If there is a loco or train there, that is what I am looking at. So I would much rather see track with sleeper proportions and sizes in a good proportion with the rail spacing, which really means something close or at HO dimensions.

 

For my own trackwork I use 4mm scale components built on EM templates. My maths works that as approximately 3.66mm:1ft.

 

Any attempt to use true 4mm scale sleeper spacing with 16.6mm gauge looks just what it is and stands out like a sore thumb to my eyes. It looks like narrow gauge. Adjusting the sleeper spacings to match the scale of the track gauge preserves the proportions of the track.

 

It seems to me that this thread is very likely going to end up the same as various other threads on the subject. Several people all thinking that their way is right and no consensus being reached.

 

If somebody is going to produce anything, then at some point (sorry - bad pun) they will have to just make a decision as to what scale/parts they are going to use and to go for it, in the sure knowledge that it will only please those who agree with those ideas.

Hi Tony

 

Rip up their old track? Not many I would imagine but those modellers who already have a working layout are not going to be buying much in the way of new track. Now for those who are building a new layout track that is better looking might be a route they would take. Remember most track is sold to people making new layouts, and if I were a manufacturer and I gave the modeller choice (which she/he already has, elctrofrog, insulfrog, code 100, or code 75) would it matter to me if he brought my new 00 track or my old H0 track. I would still make a sale.

 

As for never reaching a consensus, it might have something to do with the naysayers who build their own track flooding such discussions by reminding people of products that went out of production when I was in short trousers to a standard that is even more historical than me in short trousers.

 

If you want to build your own track then carry on but please try to allow those of us who would like to see a ready to lay track system discuss it amoung ourselves.