dajt Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 A candidate 4ft 1 1/2" railway could perhaps be found on the Island of Sodor. Bachmann US sells representative 4mm stock that runs on HO track......perfect! I agreed with you, but then realised that many engines visit from the 'mainland' so Sodor must use standand gauge! I reckon a big layout of Sodor, including the narrow gauge lines, would be pretty cool if it was run in a railway like fashion. Perhaps without the faces on the engines. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 You could be right David, but unless someone goes to the trouble of defining a clear set of requirements, doing all the necessary design engineering and building a lot of first articles to assure the product meets the requirements, it could be speculation. They did back in the 1950s, it's called EM in 4mm.ft scale and even Peco used to make track for it (or at least kits that could be made up in EM) It would be perfectly possible to produce RTR stock for EM but I can't see it happening any time soon though because 16.5mm gauge is so well entrenched , most modellers are happy with it and I suspect that most EM (as well as P4 and P87) modellers like making things for themelves anyway. 3D printing might make things interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Mick, Everyone has different interests, methodologies and aims. I have been saying all along that one is not more worthy than the other, but it seems that is lost on some people (I don't mean that directed at you btw). If you wanted to build your latest layout in S4 and make sure that every timber and chair is located exactly like a real location you would never have time for building your excellent trains. My track work is as close to 100% accurate as physically possible (just need working keys for the chairs...) but I probably never will build any stock (or a complete layout). Horses for courses. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 Peco used to make track for it (or at least kits that could be made up in EM) Ratio made EM and P4 flexi-track bases for bullhead rail in the 1980s. Ratio are now part of Peco, so presumably Peco still have the tooling to make this, if they wished: Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 They did back in the 1950s, it's called EM in 4mm.ft scale and even Peco used to make track for it (or at least kits that could be made up in EM) It would be perfectly possible to produce RTR stock for EM but I can't see it happening any time soon though because 16.5mm gauge is so well entrenched , most modellers are happy with it and I suspect that most EM (as well as P4 and P87) modellers like making things for themelves anyway. 3D printing might make things interesting. I don't think EM meets the same requirements. Would it have been possible for Hornby and Tri-Ang to sell EM train-sets that would run on the dining-room table? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J C Fenton Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Perhaps because this is a significant change after decades of Peco selling HO track as 00, and people saying that the market for 00 track is too small for Peco to bother with (despite it being somehow worth making 009/HOe and HOm track). No, the market is small only because the only OO track has been relatively expensive and generally requires point-building. This is only the case because the only mass-market producer has insisted for decade upon decade in only producing HO track. If Peco announced a ready to lay system THAT would be a big deal - about bl--dy time too, mind, but welcome and a big deal. Has it though? No, its just announced plain track and where's the point in that? So, its about the biggest non-announcement ever. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Anyone who actually wants a representative OO BH style track system to be made commercially available is doing themselves and others a disservice by complaining about there 'only' being plain track announced. Peco is I'm sure looking for positive reaction to it's design philosophy not negative reaction to it's marketing methods. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) A couple of rather delicious possibilities have come to mind: 1. If we swallow the claptrap of an imaginary British Railways built to 4' 1 1/2" gauge; who is to say that it didn't run on track that looked exactly like Peco Streamline (possibly Code 100 Streamline at that) or that said track wasn't laid in pre-moulded foam underlay. 2. If we continue logically down the same path, any errors incorporated in r-t-r locos and stock with wheels set to that gauge could be excused in the same way. This thread disappeared up its own a**e some pages ago. Can someone (Mr York?) kindly put it out of its misery? John Edited March 30, 2016 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 This thread disappeared up its own a**e some pages ago. Can someone (Mr York?) kindly put it out of its misery? Agreed. The announcement was made, the product is not yet available. Everything else is bo11ocks, frankly. Years ago, I nodded off on the Glasgow underground. I think I went round about 4 times. Reminds me of this thread. Roll it out, Peco, I'm sure it will sell. Until then... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Yep, I confess, I only post because the continued vitality of this topic not only surprises me, but for some reason quite annoys me! It's a scab that I can't help picking at. I had thought it had died of natural causes a few weeks back and was very disappointed to see it revived. Yet, I cannot resist its awful fascination for some reason, so to kill it off by would be a happy release! But, freedom of speech and all; are we guilty of anything more than a colossal time waste? Bandwidth waste, possibly? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 This thread disappeared up its own a**e some pages ago. Can someone (Mr York?) kindly put it out of its misery? Lord preserve us from self-appointed moderators. You don't want more of this topic, so no-one else should? How about just not reading it? If you had read this topic from the start, and others, you would know that the proper design of 4ft-1.5in track from prototype REA components has been discussed at length, and I posted some drawings. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 We all criticise the thread yet all keep posting. A little like the jeremy kyle show perhaps. Some people insist on watching it BECAUSE it is so bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 We all criticise the thread yet all keep posting. As always, the ones making the rude noises make no constructive contribution to the discussions. For those who don't like my ideas, what are your alternative suggestions for 00 gauge track? We have had a few, for example AndyID's interesting 3.75mm/ft designs (H00-DN in Templot). All contributions welcome -- post your drawings here. It's likely Peco are equally unsure about how best to create matching pointwork for their new 4ft-1.5in gauge bullhead track. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium tanatvalley Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2016 Ratio made EM and P4 flexi-track bases for bullhead rail in the 1980s. Ratio are now part of Peco, so presumably Peco still have the tooling to make this, if they wished: Martin. I think you will find these bases shrink over time, at least that has been my experience in EM. Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod4 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Although as a non self appointed moderator and despite depending on how mischievous my diodes are feeling there is no need to incur the high probability drive causing complaints from some members if this thread became locked. As some members have already pointed out there is no compulsion to read every thread so please Don't Panic and like most inhabitants of this forum this thread is Mostly Harmless.. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Lord preserve us from self-appointed moderators. You don't want more of this topic, so no-one else should? How about just not reading it? If you had read this topic from the start, and others, you would know that the proper design of 4ft-1.5in track from prototype REA components has been discussed at length, and I posted some drawings. Martin. All of which I read with appreciative interest. However interesting and informative, it did not go to the essential point of the thread, the track Peco had designed, and the points that it had not! No disrespect intended in relation to your learned posts, but I do question the utility of an essentially speculative thread about an essentially (and literally) pointless announcement. I am as guilty as the next obsessive for posting in this topic. It is sadly compulsive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 I think you will find these bases shrink over time, at least that has been my experience in EM. Hi Alan, Yes, a common experience. That could be cured by using a different polymer, or a higher injection pressure (assuming the tooling is sufficiently robust). Possibly Ratio in the 1980s lacked a moulding machine with a high enough ton-lock. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 I do question the utility of an essentially speculative thread RMweb is a discussion forum. If you exclude threads having no utility, half of it would go missing. Bear in mind that Peco did ask for "reaction", and that is what they are getting here. So it does have some utility. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I don't think EM meets the same requirements. Would it have been possible for Hornby and Tri-Ang to sell EM train-sets that would run on the dining-room table? It requires a far wider dining room table than most people have to form an oval on it even with radius one curves, but in terms of equivalent space they certainly could have used 18mm gauge; H0 RTR manufactureres have been doing the equivalent of that forever and there has been 4mm.ft RTR using an even wider gauge. It was always a bit of a myth that "Continental trains are very much larger than ours so we need to use a larger scale than the track gauge". The standard European loading gauge is a bit larger than ours but not by very much and the slight gauge narrowing of EM would probably have been enough to accomodate our slightly smaller locos with the same compromises that have always been used in H0 RTR to accomodate train set curves. The minimum curve defines the size of table it will fit on, Hornby used a radius of 15inches for their Dublo range. The equivalent for 18mm gauge would have been 16 1/2 inches but I suspect that, had 18mm gauge been adopted, they would still have used the same 15 inch radius That's not just speculation; during the 1940s Lionel produced mass market models including train sets in 4mm/ft scale that ran on 19mm gauge track (American OO) The minimum radius they used was 131/2 inches and their 2-8-4 Hudson ran quite happily on that so an 18mm gauge version of the Dutchess of Athol I had as a child should have been quite happy with 15 inches. The "table top" thing is interesting as 00 WAS conceived of as a dining room table scale but that was based on very tight curves that required wheels to be 3mm wide. To emphasise that I have an article about a pre-war layout in which the owner says "curves are sharp being 12 inch.radius in places" but that was an 0 gauge layout. Designing 00 to take 12 inch radius curves (or less) must have seemed perfectly acceptable, at least to Henry Greenly, but a large part of the 4mm/ft v 3.5mm/ft controversy in the 1920s was that the same "tinplate" mistakes as had been made with 0 were being made with 00 when the new small scale provided an opportunity for something far more to scale. This by the way was a plan for a pre-WW1 0 gauge layout and though I don't have the overall dimensions I think it is a scale drawing. It does show the sort of curves that quite serious enthusiasts considered normal in those days . Edited March 30, 2016 by Pacific231G 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb is a discussion forum. If you exclude threads having no utility, half of it would go missing. Bear in mind that Peco did ask for "reaction", and that is what they are getting here. So it does have some utility. Martin. I doubt Peco anticipated 36 pages of essentially repetitive comment, leavened with some interesting discussions about OO standards (which is, presumably, redundant from Peco's point of view as they have already designed their track). So, to save Peco the bother (if it is bothered) of reading 36 pages, I can summarise for their benefit; Nice idea, but pretty useless without any points. But let us continue, by all means .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 This by the way was a plan for a pre-WW1 0 gauge layout and though I don't have the overall dimensions I think it is a scale drawing. It does show the sort of curves that quite serious enthusiasts considered normal in those days . Model Railways Nov 1909 GW 0 gauge plan sm.jpg I wonder what space that would need in 4mm broad gauge to P4 standards . Making small radius baulk road might be challenging! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) As always, the ones making the rude noises make no constructive contribution to the discussions. For those who don't like my ideas, what are your alternative suggestions for 00 gauge track? We have had a few, for example AndyID's interesting 3.75mm/ft designs (H00-DN in Templot). All contributions welcome -- post your drawings here. It's likely Peco are equally unsure about how best to create matching pointwork for their new 4ft-1.5in gauge bullhead track. Martin. Martin, I have no arguments with your scaling of the steel parts or the geometry thereof, which is undoubtedly a big advance on anything available off the peg today. However, when it comes to how those parts line up with everything else on a layout, and the dimensions of sleepers, neither you, I, nor Peco can devise any arrangement which is not compromised in some way. OK, less compromised than Streamline, but still compromised. To pick one example, whatever one does, the gap between the nearest rail of a section of 16.5mm gauge track and a 4mm scale platform will always have to be 1.165mm more than it would be for scale 4mm (18.83mm gauge) track in order to clear stock which is of 4mm scale width in both cases. How the sleeper ends should relate to either rail or platform is open to debate, but I would split the difference on the basis that two half-wrongs are less likely to be noticed than a whole one. Your solution is entirely workable. It undoubtedly improves on, and would certainly look "less wrong" than, the status quo and should give markedly better running than most of us are accustomed to. However, this subject is not a circle that can ever be squared and resembles a poisoned chalice more than a Holy Grail. Rather, it is an exercise in balancing the inescapable compromises imposed by "00 gauge" in order to minimise their visual impact. Regards John Edited March 30, 2016 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2016 How the sleeper ends relate to either rail or platform is open to debate, but I would split the difference on the basis that two half-wrongs are less likely to be noticed than a whole one. Hi John, The whole point of designing prototype 4ft-1.5in track is that the sleeper ends are designed in prototype terms to support the weight and size of the traffic, and spaced from platforms and other structures accordingly. How they relate to the sleepers for some other gauge, such as 4ft-8.5in, is irrelevant. The BRMSB specified 8ft sleepers (32mm) for 4ft-1.5in gauge track (00 gauge), and that turns out to be about right for the supporting pyramid of ballast under each rail. However, because the area of each sleeper is smaller than for 4ft-8.5in track, to carry the same weight of traffic as 4ft-8.5in track, it is desirable to space the sleepers a little more closely. The resulting 4ft-1.5in track is very similar to Peco's published drawings. The dimensions of 4ft-8.5in gauge track are irrelevant in this exercise, except in so far that 4ft-1.5in track uses the same REA components. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2016 WOW!!!!!!! Peco are going to do 00 track, that is 16.5mm gauge with sleeper spacing that is is at the same(ish) spacing as 1/76th scale on the real railways. Let us hope they do some points to go with it. Added bonus for those who's model would look good with bullhead track, it is going to be bullhead track ...................I would like some code 83 flatbottom track with BR Mk1 or ST base plates but you can't have everything. We all know 00 is wrong, but many of us seem content with it and think Peco's planned introduction is good news. Now those who like building their own track, and don't model 1/76th scale with 00 gauge track then this announcement is not really relevant. Us 1/76th scale, 00 gauge modellers are quite happy for you continue to do your own thing so please let us be happy with our better looking but still very wrong track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted March 30, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2016 I think you will find these bases shrink over time, at least that has been my experience in EM. Alan Does that mean they start out as EM and end up as 00? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts