16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[Clive Mortimore]

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

Hi John

 

Having been offered both the Wrenn and the Farish products to sell as secondhand when working in a model railway shop I would disagree with you. They were not up to the durability of the Peco product.

[The Stationmaster]

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.

Regrettably Clive I think the lack of consensus is probably just as prevalent among those of us who want the new 'better looking' track that it is among those who don't want it.  I know exactly what I want and that is that I want it to look as realistic as it can while taking account of the underscale gauge.  To do that it has to compromise on sleeper length (like SMP) but it also has to readily provide for correct 6ft way spacing for running lines which will also visually help to disguise the gauge deficiency - no way on earth do I want 50mm centres on running lines (although something a little bit larger might have its particular advantages for me).

 

Beyond that I get into realms which very few would agree with some I'm not bothering to mention them any more because i appreciate they are non-starters.  Whatever we get from Joseph (hoping he succeeds in his aims) will be a compromise of some sort because our starting point was also a compromise.

 

PS a few years back my daughter and I built a module - to achieve best appearance using the specified Code 100 rail I used Formoway track (which I recovered from a past layout sometime in the last century - nowt wrong with it).  The only problem the points could suffer from was failures between the 'tiebar' and the one piece switch rails but plenty of mine were recovered 'usable' after a decade of bashing from H&M SM3s; Streamline points were not immune from the same problem.

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

I think that you mean the code 100 single slip. First announced around 1973 (ten years after GF had one in Formoway) and finally issued about 30 years later. I think that the double slip was only about ten years.

[t-b-g]

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.

 

 

 

 

Does it make a difference if I said that I only build my own OO points because no decent RTR ones are available and if they were, I would buy them?

 

Would that make me eligible to take part?

[Clive Mortimore]

Sorry Grahame your on your own. I give up.

 

[hayfield]

Hi John

 

Having been offered both the Wrenn and the Farish products to sell as secondhand when working in a model railway shop I would disagree with you. They were not up to the durability of the Peco product.

 

 

Clive

 

I have never owned any Wrenn track so that's why I could not comment on its quality, I have used Peco, Formway and GEM and found all 3 wanting in one aspect or another. My preferred point was the GEM ones, as I liked the look of them over the others available. Latterly I built SMP points with the angled sleeper (like Peco's) without knowing it was wrong and I believe the vintage of the early SMP timbers were similar in width to Peco's. since finding both RMweb and Templot I now know better. Trackwork is the long forgotten part of the hobby. A loco or coach in the wrong colour and most spot it, not the same with track

 

I do accept that most buy Peco turnouts and crossings as they are easy to use, available, cheap(ish) and best of all work. But not only are they to H0 scale, but as this thread states not to a design in keeping to the quality of detail equal to most models available now in RTR in the steam era. The sooner we get detailed track in 00 gauge to the same quality of locos, stock buildings etc the better our hobby will be.

[gr.king]

Sorry Grahame your on your own. I give up.

 

track 1.png

 

I can understand your frustration Clive. Despite my several requests to avoid it, the "widening out" of discussion into areas that are not part of the original aim of this topic continues, some people are clearly either not reading what has already gone before they post or are deliberately repeating previous points simply to drown out any discussion of the relevant material. The naysayers insist on continuing to chip in their sceptical views, which have nothing to do with the attempt to look at what might be possible, and I'm not sure that extended argument about the "facts" of 1960s commercial track manufacture or the history of divergence of OO from HO and the relative merits of the two scales has anything to do with working out how to get to somewhere from where we now find ourselves.

 

Can we all please respect the stated original purpose of the thread, NOT just use the location for general chin wagging, gratuitous arguing or reminiscing?

[t-b-g]

Whenever anybody tries to make a bit of progress, there are always those who are a bit negative about it. I have some old magazines from the 1940s with letters (remember those!) saying that this new fangled two rail is a waste of time and will never catch on.

 

It is only when people have the determination and ability to see their ideas through to a successful conclusion that progress is made.

 

If my contributions have come across as being negative then somebody has totally misunderstood my intentions. I do enjoy building track, mostly in EM for myself but also in OO for other people. But I also enjoy other aspects of modelling even more and I would be delighted if a good looking RTR OO gauge track range was available.

 

Now it seems that some product development work is under way and I look forward to seeing the finished products in due course. A moulded/3D printed base which just needs the rails threaded in would be a huge step forward. It would probably be an advantage for it to accept pre made crossing noses of the type sold by C & L as the bits that put most people off building points are making the crossing noses and the blades. That is my experience from doing quite a few point building demo stands at exhibitions over the years.

 

I would like to see points available for a larger radius/smaller angle most of all. I may be off the mark here but I can't help but think that this sort of pointwork is going to appeal to those trying to make more realistic layouts. That, to me, would probably preclude people who are happy running main line trains round tightly curved pointwork.

 

The one that would have me putting my hand in my pocket soonest would be something based on the plan produced by the EMGS as a B6, shrunk down to OO gauge. That is purely my personal choice and I fully accept that others may have different ideas.

[t-b-g]

Apologies Graeme. I really am very much in favour of what you were trying to discuss but it seems that anything I say is wrong, so I will leave it at that.

 

Good luck and I genuinely hope that you get somewhere with it.

 

Tony 

[Andy Y]

I've 'hidden' quite a few posts from the last few days in an effort to pull the topic back on(to) track.

[hayfield]

Graham

 

I think most are behind you in the desire for ready to run/plonk trackwork for steam era with bullhead rail and chaired sleepers. I am of the opinion that Peco would act very quickly if a competitor came to market and started to tread on their toes

 

Their own marketing department went to great lengths to explain Peco's investment in new technology which will build injection moulds better and cheaper than before.

 

There are 3 flexible plain track systems available in 00 gauge, 2 with thin sleepers and one with the much loved thicker sleepers. Price and availability I guess prevent many sales even though they are to 4 mm scale. Joseph's project seems the best way in which to bring a viable alternative to the H0 derivatives to the market,

 

Phase 1 being parts with phase 2 looking to supply ready to lay. The former hopefully providing the seed money for phase 2, or some enterprising third party being able to provide completed items. These clever engineers may even know how to mould the bases on to ready prepared rails

 

Most threads do go off topic, some may by some to be irrelevant, others can add to the understanding of the subject. 

 

In the end just keep asking for better quality items

[gr.king]

I have no objection at all to you contributions to the discussion Tony, and I'm glad you ate generally in favour.

 

Regarding this point:

 

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.

One of the leading considerations in my suggestion that the pure "HO British" version might be most appropriate, especially for the medium radius point, was the fact that the alteration in proportions obtained would simultaneously be good enough to encourage use by some of us who currently will not in a million years put Peco points in a scenic area AND be a small enough change to remain compatible with existing Peco layouts, whether these are supposed to be British or foreign. If that particular trick with the appearance could be made to work, there would be no need to continue to make the current version of the code 75 point alongside the revised one. If the changes were sufficiently well receieved, the eventual replacement of other moulds for the code 75 range could be to the new pattern rather than the old. I do hope to eventually post up some images to show how the proportions of my "blacked-in" version of Mike Trice's rendition of the A5 point actually compare with both Peco plain track and with SMP Scaleway. With a LOT of luck, other s will resist the temptation to post negative, defeatist or derisory remarks about the predicted appearance before suitable images actually appear.

[t-b-g]

I have no objection at all to you contributions to the discussion Tony, and I'm glad you ate generally in favour.

 

Regarding this point:

 

 

One of the leading considerations in my suggestion that the pure "HO British" version might be most appropriate, especially for the medium radius point, was the fact that the alteration in proportions obtained would simultaneously be good enough to encourage use by some of us who currently will not in a million years put Peco points in a scenic area AND be a small enough change to remain compatible with existing Peco layouts, whether these are supposed to be British or foreign. If that particular trick with the appearance could be made to work, there would be no need to continue to make the current version of the code 75 point alongside the revised one. If the changes were sufficiently well receieved, the eventual replacement of other moulds for the code 75 range could be to the new pattern rather than the old. I do hope to eventually post up some images to show how the proportions of my "blacked-in" version of Mike Trice's rendition of the A5 point actually compare with both Peco plain track and with SMP Scaleway. With a LOT of luck, other s will resist the temptation to post negative, defeatist or derisory remarks about the predicted appearance before suitable images actually appear.

 

Hello Graeme,

 

Many thanks. Also to Andy for his involvement. I am tempted to go back and delete one or two posts of mine as they no longer make a deal of sense (nothing new there then!) but that then makes other posts seem odd, so i will leave them.

 

I agree that a UK outline point to 3.5mm scale would fit the bill very well indeed. My own shrunken EM plans scale at just over 3.5mm scale but only because of the difference between EM and dead scale. If I had shrunk down P4 plans (which would have needed greater adjustment to check clearances etc. otherwise I would have done just that) then my points would indeed be HO. As it is they are 3.6 (and a bit) mm scale. 

 

As a side benefit, it may even encourage one or two folk to dabble in the very much minority British HO scene.

 

One very minor question for you? Probably not minor to you! Are you a Graeme, a Graham or a Grahame? I have seen all three used and I am pretty sure that only one is right! If I have been getting it wrong please accept my apologies!

[MikeTrice]

Perhaps in hindsight the topic title should be changed to "16.5mm traditional HO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork."

[47137]

Apologies if I have missed something, but surely flat bottom Peco Code 75 and a new chaired version will have to continue side-by-side if steam-era and modern-image modelling is to be catered for.

There is a report on the Wittmann Group site about their sale of a robot to Peco, for use in making Streamline track. This was in 2013. At the end of the report, Wittman write

 

Statistics shows that Model Railway enthusiasm continues to grow worldwide – and not just in the UK. Peco supplies over 450 model shops in the UK with its range of model products and exports its range of track and other model products to over thirty countries worldwide.

 

So I imagine, the existing code 75 product would also continue to support the export market.

 

- Richard.

[martin_wynne]

I agree that a UK outline point to 3.5mm scale would fit the bill very well indeed.

 

You can print templates for that simply by selecting H0 gauge in Templot (free).

 

The default settings in Templot correspond to the UK REA bullhead designs.

 

Here is a UK-pattern A-6 turnout in H0 (i.e. 3.5mm/ft scale. The gauge is 16.5mm):

 

equalized timbering:

 

square-on timbering:

 

Martin.

[MikeTrice]

Would you Adam and Eve it?

 

When I produced the earlier mockup showing the different sleeper spacings ( I though I was pushing things increasing the standard Peco Code 75 from its default 7mm centre spacings to 8mm. Playing with Templot and trying HO straight track it uses an 8.5mm spacing between centres of the sleepers:

 

The sleepers generated by Templot are identically sized to the Peco Code 75 sleepers. Personally I quite like the 8.5mm spacing. Needless to say HO generated Templot turnouts look good with compatible timber spacings so I could be convinced of this approach. It is certainly a major improvement on the current Peco offering.

 

[DCB]

Having re read the original post it is not surprising so many have taken off at a tangent as it is not at all clear what the writer intended.  I assume he wants direct replacements for Peco streamline points with bullhead rails and longer, wider and more widely spaced sleepers.  To state the blindingly obvious bullhead rail is going to be a lot less robust than flat bottom.  To continue, if Peco do it the range of code 60? bullhead will have to run alongside the existing code 75 83 and 100 products then some 450 uk outlets will have to decide whether to stock the new range, not stock the new range or tell Peco to stuff it and cease actually stocking points preferring to order them for customers and doing a click and collect from Argos!.

 

I see Joseph Prestell intends to produce de luxe bullhead 16.5mm gauge points, however I fear his business model will fail because of details of geometry, punters may well pay £40 for a top quality point, but for that they will want top quality, and that means getting the geometry right. For me Peco 50mm track centres are simply too toylike even for code 100.  42mm looks better, 9ft stock plus 18" clearance, though I have used 40mm for visible sorting sidings, just as long as 2 outside cylinder GWR locos can pass that suits me.    So do you provide both 50mm and 42 mm spacings? that will double the number of points to be stocked, or do we trim the £40 50mm spacing points  before laying?  Trimming a few mm off rather more fragile than peco £40 points?, and trimming to a more critical bullhead profile?

 

Or are they made to order? Mail order perhaps, If so what sort of lead times, 6 weeks? Or how much stock will have to be carried at what cost?  Is there really enough interest in 16.5mm for this sort of product?   When so much current RTR can be quickly and easily regauged using the existing wheels and a bit of ingenuity.

 

One problem for me is I have some formoway track with wider sleepers and it only looks better than Peco because the sleepers are thinner making the lack of ballast less noticeable.

 

If the mods removed my ballast pictures I will repost under another heading.

 

 

[martin_wynne]

The sleepers generated by Templot are identically sized to the Peco Code 75 sleepers.

 

Just to point out that Templot can create timbers of any size at any spacing in any scale or gauge.

 

The ones illustrated are simply the switch-on default settings.

 

Martin.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Just a thought; ignoring the Peco front and assuming an independent manufacturer is able to start producing rtr 4mm point work, as well as 16.5mm track work would there be a call for rtr EM points as well? A turnout designed to look correct at EM gauge but narrowed to 16.5 might be a better start point than taking an existing 3' radius design and trying to make it not look like it only belongs in an industrial yard when the sleepers are spaced out. Plus, it could be a good entry for a lot of us into EM if there's some RTR points to play with, I need to replace a lot of older Lima wheelsets anyway! If the end goal is better looking track to go with our 4mm models then it may be worth considering as a side by side range (code 100 and 75 are done by Peco as a side by side range, the 'upgrade' from train set 100 is finding 75). I know the thread is for 16.5mm and a lot will find that very useful, but as mentioned above folks used to complain about about the jump from 3 rail to 2 rail! EM gauge 'could' be made an easier progress step, I'm not proposing P4 standards!

[Pacific231G]

There is a report on the Wittmann Group site about their sale of a robot to Peco, for use in making Streamline track. This was in 2013. At the end of the report, Wittman write

 

Statistics shows that Model Railway enthusiasm continues to grow worldwide – and not just in the UK. Peco supplies over 450 model shops in the UK with its range of model products and exports its range of track and other model products to over thirty countries worldwide.

 

So I imagine, the existing code 75 product would also continue to support the export market.

 

- Richard.

Thanks Richard, a very interesting article. I also noted this sentence

 

Peco remains the only major model railway company to have retained its manufacturing and production in the UK; most other companies having now outsourced to China. Peco manufacturing work in Beer, Devon, accounts for over half of the 140 jobs at the company; publishing; sales; the shop and tourist activities account for the rest.

 

A small manufacturer employing 70 or so people is hardly the ruthless monopoly it tends to be portrayed as here.

 

Code 75 is indeed exported and in Europe seems to be generally regarded as a premium product alongside Tillig. I'm not sure where that's manufactured but I tnink Roco at least still manufacture in Europe.

[mightbe]

Compared to the number of people involved in production at their next-largest competitor for British track, C&L (I assume it's not done in-house), 70 seems like quite a lot. 

[AndyID]

If some consensus can be reached, I will print one so we can see what it looks like. I will only need the Templot .box file, or a full specification so that I can create the Templot .box file.

 

I suggest the smallest radius turnout is the worst case and that's the one we would like to see. I would also suggest the timbers should be equalized to reduce the visual effect of the large crossing angle, but that's just my personal preference. It will have to be SMP Code 75 bullhead rail. It's a little bit narrow for 1:76.2 scale, but not too bad.

 

I would be able to print more than one and send the plastic bits to anyone who is sufficiently interested.

[martin_wynne]

For me Peco 50mm track centres are simply too toylike even for code 100.  42mm looks better, 9ft stock plus 18" clearance, though I have used 40mm for visible sorting sidings, just as long as 2 outside cylinder GWR locos can pass that suits me.

 

I don't understand how 42mm centres can "look better" when the UK minimum running-line spacing at 4mm/ft scale is 44.67mm centres. And even that needs increasing below about 5ft radius to allow passing clearance on curves.

 

I strongly recommend that the traditional 50mm centres be retained for a ready-to-lay product. Peco centres are actually 2" (50.8mm).

 

For loops and sidings alongside running lines the minimum UK spacing is 60.67mm for new work, and 56.67mm absolute minimum for renewals of existing track where unavoidable.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

If some consensus can be reached, I will print one so we can see what it looks like. I will only need the Templot .box file, or a full specification so that I can create the Templot .box file.

 

Hi Andy,

 

May I strongly suggest that whatever specification is decided, don't use an "A" switch for crossing angles shorter than 1:7.

 

People love their A-5s but in fact it is an awful design for a general-purpose turnout. On the prototype an A-5 is simply a way of getting a very short turnout from standard components for use in cramped yards. Not for running trains over.

 

In Templot use a 9ft straight switch or one of the GWR short curved switches, or for the easiest radius and greatest saving of space, use the "1:24 model switch" setting.

 

On these short turnouts, changing from the default "regular" type V-crossing to "generic" will significantly increase the radius.

 

To set the turnout length to match the double-track centres for a crossover, snap the length to the CTRL-5 TXP peg position (having set the required centres first).

 

regards,

 

Martin.