34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 The marketing side, just come straight out with 'In response to sustained calls for a superior OO track system' and take it from there. A good explanation of the compromise on the inside chair shape to enable its use with the typical wheel standards from Maker/date would help their case. Best to be direct and say that such as Ye Olde Triang, she will not work, simply incompatible with the better appearance that was requested. Illustrate with the best looking current locos and stock on ballasted lengths, set up to match comparison prototype photos; that should be persuasive. I will put my hand up to feeling that Peco have overlong dragged their feet on this, and that they should now be directing resources at getting the first matching points out pronto, because these are the critical barrier to volume potential uptake of the product. On the positive side, the proven robustness of their past product can be exploited to their advantage; assuming they have done the job right they can go big on 'All the demonstrated reliability that Peco track is so well known for...' . 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 Formoway tie-bars (stretcher bars) were a bit fragile compared to Peco. And for ease of use, the fact that the Peco had the over-centre spring and no need for an additional point lever was a plus. The GEM track was much the best looking but the lack of matching pointwork was its failing. Not that Peco were rapid. They promised a single slip in the early 70s that did not see the light of day (in Code 100) until well into the following millenium. That messed up one layout project of mine and forced me to convert, somewhat unsuccessfully, to SMP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfsboy Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 There is a lot of snotty sniffin on here by people who think they know better .They dont .They just play trains just like the rest of us .No one should be insulted and intimidated by them .Its impolite and bad practice and does little service to our hobby .Note the word hobby .Look it up and grow up . Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 17, 2016 That's my experience too. But many of them also believe that they are already modelling "traditional British steam era" and are going to be just a little surprised to discover that they should have been using a different track for it. I still see Peco having to tread very carefully with their marketing, although they are of course masters of that art. Martin. Hi Martin Strangely the most widely modelled period is the BR steam era. Look at photos of the main lines from this period.......most modellers are using the right type of track, there are two highly praised layouts on this forum who have bullhead track that should have flat bottom for the time period they portray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 I think you are confusing GEM with WRENN. G&R Wrenn produced 2 rail and 3 rail fibre based track and points with quite a wide range including a scissors crossing IIRC GEM produced and excellent plastictic code 100 flex track but AWFUL points - very limited range and a cast metal frog Graham Farish produced a code 100 plastic flex track with AWFUL points - a huge dead frog! GF eventually produce LIVEWAY points which were more complicated to wire than PECO's dead frog points. Also Graham Farish used a more protypical design than PECO and as a result you couldn't form a crossover with GF's 2ft and 3ft points, but you could form a crossover with PECO's 2ft and 5ft radius points due to PECO's (wrong) design. Also GF's 2ft and 3ft points required dedicated (different) diamond crossings, whereas PECO with its conmmon crossing angle didn't. So PECO saw off these two challengers - partly due to the convenience of their (wrong) design. You describe Peco's design as "(wrong)" ' Your brackets. But it works so it can't be that wrong. It's a deliberate variation in design to facilitate the railway modellers of their market. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 Hi Martin Strangely the most widely modelled period is the BR steam era. Look at photos of the main lines from this period.......most modellers are using the right type of track, there are two highly praised layouts on this forum who have bullhead track that should have flat bottom for the time period they portray. When some of us on RMWeb started campaigning for a better OO track, most of us expected Peco to stick with FB. Them choosing to go with BH is in many ways unfortunate. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) That's my experience too. But many of them also believe that they are already modelling "traditional British steam era" and are going to be just a little surprised to discover that they should have been using a different track for it. I still see Peco having to tread very carefully with their marketing, although they are of course masters of that art. Martin. Hi Martin I'll only complain if their marketing claims that BH track was peculiar to Britain- there were probably more route miles of it in France than here- and I can see me ending up using it for H0 This is the former Etat railway to the port of Blaye on the right bank of the Gironde. It closed a few years ago but remains "closed" rather than "abandoned". The rail section is quite heavy and I think it must have been relaid by SNCF in the 1960s or later. Edited October 17, 2016 by Pacific231G 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 That's my experience too. But many of them also believe that they are already modelling "traditional British steam era" and are going to be just a little surprised to discover that they should have been using a different track for it. I still see Peco having to tread very carefully with their marketing, although they are of course masters of that art. Martin. Martin I have friends in the hobby who range from one who you would class as having a train set in the loft, running A3's with 3 coach trains, next to Lord of the Isles again with 3 coaches in what could only be classed as a gigantic train set, nothing wrong with this as this is where he gets his enjoyment from, to those who model a location in P4 in a set period of time. Again nothing wrong with this. Then there are those who fall in between these two groups in varying degrees I think Peco are generally a good company supplying track work (and many other items) which is good quality, robust and at an affordable price. I guess for a very good reason they have put their focus in areas other than 00 gauge 4 mm scale track, certainly those in other scales and scale/gauge combinations are happy with the support Peco has given them. Now thankfully they have turned their attention to the 00 gauge modeller and produced some 00 gauge track. I for one hope they produce turnouts which within reason can be used with the widest range of stock, this perhaps will allow DCC Concepts to be able to offer a range for those who are a bit more discerning. This way all bases will be covered When you look at the large range Peco now offer they are doing really well in supporting a wide range of differing interests 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 Hi Martin I'll only complain if their marketing claims that BH track was peculiar to Britain- there were probably more route miles of it in France than here- and I can see me ending up using it for H0 track no trains at Blaye 2 .jpg Blaye track no trains 3.jpg Friends in France have tended, as you previously mentioned, to use SMP. Much easier, although rather monotonous, to reshape the sleepers when they are thin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) Friends in France have tended, as you previously mentioned, to use SMP. Much easier, although rather monotonous, to reshape the sleepers when they are thin. From what I've seen in Loco-Revue most French modellers who use SMP track for double-champignon don't seem to reshape the sleepers but they do look fat (the sleepers not the modellers) . Edited October 17, 2016 by Pacific231G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Some great memories there with the Gem and Formaway track ....back in the day ...as the youngesters would say. I certainty remember the two GWR branches had Gem track and a good friend Brain Eves built the turn outs on copper clad sleepers ....did make such a difference looks wise even though the wheels were too close together Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Hi Martin I'll only complain if their marketing claims that BH track was peculiar to Britain- there were probably more route miles of it in France than here- and I can see me ending up using it for H0 track no trains at Blaye 2 .jpg Blaye track no trains 3.jpg This is the former Etat railway to the port of Blaye on the right bank of the Gironde. It closed a few years ago but remains "closed" rather than "abandoned". The rail section is quite heavy and I think it must have been relaid by SNCF in the 1960s or later. Tell you what the chairs in the photograph look very similar to the ones on the new Peco track .!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 Tell you what the chairs in the photograph look very similar to the ones on the new Peco track .!!! So maybe Peco will use this photo for their advertising in France! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 Hi Martin I'll only complain if their marketing claims that BH track was peculiar to Britain- there were probably more route miles of it in France than here- and I can see me ending up using it for H0 track no trains at Blaye 2 .jpg Blaye track no trains 3.jpg This is the former Etat railway to the port of Blaye on the right bank of the Gironde. It closed a few years ago but remains "closed" rather than "abandoned". The rail section is quite heavy and I think it must have been relaid by SNCF in the 1960s or later. I wouldn't say that is very heavy. Probably dates back pre-1938. Love the buildings in the background. My favourite part of France for architecture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Oh the irony... There is a lot of snotty sniffin on here by people who think they know better .They dont .They just play trains just like the rest of us .No one should be insulted and intimidated by them .Its impolite and bad practice and does little service to our hobby .Note the word hobby .Look it up and grow up . Martin 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 When some of us on RMWeb started campaigning for a better OO track, most of us expected Peco to stick with FB. Them choosing to go with BH is in many ways unfortunate. Please explain. In what way is bullhead Unfortunate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 There is a lot of snotty sniffin on here by people who think they know better .They dont .They just play trains just like the rest of us .No one should be insulted and intimidated by them .Its impolite and bad practice and does little service to our hobby .Note the word hobby .Look it up and grow up . Martin why , when we discuss this , is there always someone that seeks to turn this into an adversarial slagging match .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted October 17, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2016 What other kind of slagging match is there? lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Please explain. In what way is bullhead Unfortunate? its head is bigger then its bottom ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheatley Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) There is a lot of snotty sniffin on here by people who think they know better .They dont .They just play trains just like the rest of us .No one should be insulted and intimidated by them .Its impolite and bad practice and does little service to our hobby .Note the word hobby .Look it up and grow up . Martin Nobody is being rude (except possibly you) or snotty. It's a fact that Peco dominates the UK market with a product which is wrong, and arguably more wrong than it needs to be. There are alternatives available so either their buyers don't know it's wrong, or know and accept it anyway (including me) because it's convenient and reliable. Edited October 17, 2016 by Wheatley 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 What other kind of slagging match is there? lol isn't there a grammatical name to my error ? What other kind of slagging match is there? lol opps the sin of pleonasm !!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) It's a fact that Peco dominates the UK market with a product which is wrong, and arguably more wrong than it needs to be. There are alternatives available so either their buyers don't know it's wrong, or know and accept it anyway (including me) because it's convenient and reliable. No, it's an opinion not a fact except insofar as OO is itself "wrong" (but not if you want to use 18" radius curves) . There are two ways of dealing with the inherent "wrongness" of 00 (apart of course from adopting EM, P4 or H0). One compromise is to make track that is to scale for the gauge and accept that things like sleeper spacing are underscale for the models running on it. That's what Peco did (within the limits of affordable mass production) with Streamline and opened up a significant H0 export market as well. The other compromise, which was the BRMSB approach, is to make everything lengthways, such as sleeper spacing and width, to scale for 4mm/ft and squeeze everything widthways, especially sleeper length, to look as OK as possible given that the gauge is to a different scale (or if you prefer is a model of 1254mm 4ft 11/2 inch gauge track) I can't see that one is logically "more wrong" than the other. It's also worth remembering that the BRMSB, after long deliberation, adopted 18mm gauge as the "scale" standard for OO and clearly expected that, for 4mm/ft scale, 16.5mm gauge would soon be largely confined to proprietary and "train set" models. Peco is a successful British company with a worldwide export market manufacturing entirely in Britain while Formoway, Gem, Wrenn and many other less well remembered brands have disappeared. That wasn't because Peco killed them off with ruthless cut throat tactics but simply because more modellers found its products to better meet their needs. There have always been plenty of examples of OO exhibition layouts with track built to BRMSB specs but if that was such a vastly better compromise then one would expect more OO modellers to have adopted it. Edited October 17, 2016 by Pacific231G 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) No, it's an opinion not a fact except insofar as OO is itself "wrong" (but not if you want to use 18" radius curves) . There are two ways of dealing with the inherent "wrongness" of 00 (apart of course from adopting EM, P4 or H0). One compromise is to make track that is to scale for the gauge and accept that things like sleeper spacing are underscale for the models running on it. That's what Peco did (within the limits of affordable mass production) with Streamline and opened up a significant H0 export market as well. The other compromise, which was the BRMSB approach, is to make everything lengthways, such as sleeper spacing and width, to scale for 4mm/ft and squeeze everything widthways, especially sleeper length, to look as OK as possible given that the gauge is to a different scale (or if you prefer is a model of 1254mm 4ft 11/2 inch gauge track) I can't see that one is logically "more wrong" than the other. It's also worth remembering that the BRMSB, after long deliberation, adopted 18mm gauge as the "scale" standard for OO and clearly expected that, for 4mm/ft scale, 16.5mm gauge would soon be largely confined to proprietary and "train set" models. Peco is a successful British company with a worldwide export market manufacturing entirely in Britain while Formoway, Gem, Wrenn and many other less well remembered brands have disappeared. That wasn't because Peco killed them off with ruthless cut throat tactics but simply because more modellers found its products to better meet their needs. There have always been plenty of examples of OO exhibition layouts with track built to BRMSB specs but if that was such a vastly better compromise then one would expect more OO modellers to have adopted it. Clearly peco streamline H0 is " factually " wrong for 00 gauge. That's not an opinion . The issue of course is what's actually " right" for 00 since you cannot create proper 4mm to 1 foot track in 00. Hence every subsequent track is a compromise and has degrees of " wrongness ". The 00 modeller has a choice of everything from " wrong " ie HO track all the way upto " sorta wrong " track like C&L etc, depending on how important track is to them. Edited October 18, 2016 by Junctionmad 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Page 56... I expect Godwin's law to come into effect by page 58.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 18, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2016 I can't see that one is logically "more wrong" than the other. Hi David, It may not be "logically" more wrong, but clearly in engineering terms it is wrong. If you model the track to H0 scale (3.5mm/ft), in prototype terms it would be too small and flimsy to support the weight of the 00 (4mm/ft) traffic running over it, and to anyone familiar with railway track it looks utterly daft in the process -- as if running on matchsticks. If the real railway could have got away with such small sleepers it could have saved a fortune in costs over the best part of two centuries. On the other hand, if you build a 4mm/ft model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track and run 4ft-1.5in gauge (00) rolling stock over it, nothing jars and it looks fine, and if replicated in full-size it would work fine. You just have the inconvenient fact that the amount of 4ft-1.5in prototype track in the UK is vanishingly small. But in view of all the other facts which have to be ignored in building a model railway, this is just one more on a long list (how long are your platforms, do your tree leaves fall off in winter, ...?). Why so many find 4ft-1.5in gauge track unacceptable, while happily buying 4ft-1.5in gauge rolling stock, is one of life's many mysteries. I may have mentioned all this before. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts