C&L Finescale

[Enterprisingwestern]

Earlier in this long thread it was noted that Phil has chosen not to price his track related items on his exhibition stand. Iirc this was to save him time pricing up packs and re-pricing them if costs go up. He maintains all the prices in a thick book he keeps behind the stand.

 

I can fully understand the logic of this as it saves him time and effort preparing stock. The downside to customers at shows though is that you only get an indication of the cost when it comes to pay. I did get an unpleasant surprise myself at the Demu show when I had to get an extra note out to pay for two items I assumed would come to less than £20.

 

This issue aside (I still bought the items) I do wonder if Phil is aware he could be falling foul of legislation (The Price Marking Order 2004)? If there was a complaint, and Trading Standards were officious, then he could be subject to a sizeable fine or worse. Not something any of us wants to see I'm sure.

 

To avoid this, my interpretation is that he either needs to:

1. Price each packet individually, or

2. Put a price on the cards he hangs up showing each product, or

3. Provide a customer copy of his price book on the front of the stand (must be accessible without having to ask for it).

 

Looking around the show, C&L was the only stand I noted not pricing items. Can John bring this to Phil's attention?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/business/tradingstandards/PriceMarkingofGoods.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwju36_tt7XbAhXTTcAKHa4lDJEQFjAFegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1F4qpxr9mJkxWv0LXvHTj3

 

IMHO, the easiest way of pricing multiple small items in little packets is the method employed by Shawplan, each item has an alphabetical code which never changes, and that relates to a price displayed on a card on the stand, that way, price adjustments only need the card reprinting.

 

Mike.

[Jol Wilkinson]

One key sentence:

 

 

There's a good reason for that - the owners have, very largely, been working in EM, P4 or 7mm finescale. However the bulk of the market is OO - I remember John Pottinger telling me that quite frankly at a Chatham show last century

 

So the owners of C+L have found ways to sell their EM components to OO modellers to get the increased sales volume they needed for  the products they wanted to make for EM/P4 modelling to become viable.  (Same goes for Ultrascale)

 

OO  has been bedevilled by having wheel and track standard set for it by people who don't work in OO and don't actually believe in OO , because they are personally committed to EM/P4/S7/O-Fine of some variety. 

 

It's not surprising that people who are committed to other gauges don't understand the OO market.  Their own personal modelling  is defined by their rejection of OO for themselves

 

00 standards set by EM and P4 modellers? What do you base that on?

 

As for 00 standards, I don't think that most 00 modellers don't even know that there are any or what they are for. When a market been largely supplied supplied by Peco for decades and the RTR manufacturers have tended to do their own thing, what incentive is there for the majority of modellers to concern themselves about "standards"?

 

Clearly there are some that do and for whom it is important, but they are only a small minority. EM and P4 modellers have had to build their own trackwork and so understanding what track standards are and how they are used is important. So if, as you claim, they are responsible for setting 00 track standards, it is probably because they were better qualified.

 

C&L list 00 16.5mm Fast Track, point templates and complex point kits. EM crossings are 1.0mm flangeway so can be used for 00, switches, most chairs, etc are common to all three gauges (four if you included 16.2mm) so to say that 00 has been ignored is surely somewhat inappropriate.

 

As for understanding the 00 market, does anybody?

[Horsetan]

....As for understanding the 00 market, does anybody?

 

The RTR importers/wholesalers do. Why d'you think everyone goes into a froth whenever a new model is "announced"? 

[LBRJ]

One key sentence:

 

 

There's a good reason for that - the owners have, very largely, been working in EM, P4 or 7mm finescale. However the bulk of the market is OO - I remember John Pottinger telling me that quite frankly at a Chatham show last century

 

So the owners of C+L have found ways to sell their EM components to OO modellers to get the increased sales volume they needed for  the products they wanted to make for EM/P4 modelling to become viable.  (Same goes for Ultrascale)

 

OO  has been bedevilled by having wheel and track standard set for it by people who don't work in OO and don't actually believe in OO , because they are personally committed to EM/P4/S7/O-Fine of some variety. 

 

It's not surprising that people who are committed to other gauges don't understand the OO market.  Their own personal modelling  is defined by their rejection of OO for themselves

 

OO  has been bedevilled by never  having had any properly defined wheel and track standards that work.

 

​Rather Tongue In Cheek of me to add the emboldened words? Yes,

But is that true? Yes also!

[Irish_R_M]

Can I just chip in here, briefly. I try to design stuff to accomadate P4, EM and 00, and I've tried to take published data on wheelset and track standards into CAD, and have found, that despite re-doing then several times, the wheel profiles never "complete" to something I'd be confident of issuing to a manufacturer - i.e. "please build to these tolerances"

 

It would appear to be a case of "works fine in practice, but I'm not sure about the theory"

 

And secondly, I'm very much engaged with this civilised thread, some very interesting commentaries that have both destroyed some theories, and reinforced others. 

 

RM

[martin_wynne]

the wheel profiles never "complete" to something I'd be confident of issuing to a manufacturer - i.e. "please build to these tolerances"

 

Hi RM,

 

The 00 wheel profile used by most RTR manufacturers is the NMRA RP-25/110 profile. You can find a detailed drawing here (ref:code 110): https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf

 

How well their production actually complies with that is moot.

 

Many after-market kit wheels are made to or closely match the ref:Code 88 version of that profile.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Enterprisingwestern]

The RTR importers/wholesalers do. Why d'you think everyone goes into a froth whenever a new model is "announced"? 

 

No, that's the collectors market, if you never run anything then standards don't bother you!

 

Hi RM,

 

The 00 wheel profile used by most RTR manufacturers is the NMRA RP-25/110 profile. You can find a detailed drawing here (ref:code 110): https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf

 

How well their production actually complies with that is moot.

 

Many after-market kit wheels are made to or closely match the ref:Code 88 version of that profile.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

It's alright having a "standard" wheel profile, but as the manufacturers don't possess a back to back gauge between them it's meaningless.

 

Mike.

[Pteremy]

I interrupt this exchange with some good news - a long box was finally and unexpectedly delivered this morning. Well packaged and everything there. So my order has been fulfilled.

 

I wish C&L good luck in getting back on top of things. But in doing so I would recommend some transparency in communication. Some people will moan whatever a business does, no matter how contentious. But most of us appreciate the difficulties a niche business presents and have the goodwill for it to succeed, providing there is some form of communication that lets us know how long an order will take to fulfil (or how it is progressing). Silence is a false economy, because it will generate additional progress chasing contact and unnecessary concern. 

[hayfield]

I interrupt this exchange with some good news - a long box was finally and unexpectedly delivered this morning. Well packaged and everything there. So my order has been fulfilled.

 

I wish C&L good luck in getting back on top of things. But in doing so I would recommend some transparency in communication. Some people will moan whatever a business does, no matter how contentious. But most of us appreciate the difficulties a niche business presents and have the goodwill for it to succeed, providing there is some form of communication that lets us know how long an order will take to fulfil (or how it is progressing). Silence is a false economy, because it will generate additional progress chasing contact and unnecessary concern. 

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Communication solves a lot of issues.

 

Glad all is well and you have your order

[Ravenser]

OO  has been bedevilled by never  having had any properly defined wheel and track standards that work.

 

​Rather Tongue In Cheek of me to add the emboldened words? Yes,

But is that true? Yes also!

 

 

Ahem:

http://doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

 

It would be useful if you could explain, in respect of each standard , why you believe either

 

- They "don't work" , or

- They are not properly defined

 

1. For the record , track to the OO-Fine standard is not compatible with current unmodified RTR. That does not mean it doesn't work - because the said RTR does not meet the matching OO-Fine wheel standard.

 

If you believe the OO-Fine standard "doesn't work" , you need to demonstrate that the track standard is incompatible with the accompanying OO-Fine wheel standards, or that it is not practically possible to build track to meet the track standard.

 

2. OO-Intermediate is fully compatible with modern RTR, provided that RTR stays within the envelope of the OO-Intermediate wheel standard (and in a lot of cases even if the RTR strays slightly outside the wheel standard ). Therefore the only questions are whether it "doesn't work " , and whether whether the sheets adequetely define the standard.

 

I personally think it is very questionable to claim that OO-Intermediate "doesn't work" , given the substantial number of exhibition layouts around which are de facto built to this standard , and which appear to run pretty well at shows. But it would be useful to know in what way you believe that it "doesn't work" - if that's the claim you're making.

 

Alternatively, if you think the sheets are inadequetely defined,  it would be useful to know what you believe is the error or omission in the definitions. Sheets, after all, can be updated if some key dimension is not stated , either explicitly or by implication

 

Having made a very broad , sweeping claim, it would be helpful to have the detail. If you claim "the numbers are missing or wrong!" , I think we need to know which calculation you are questioning, and why 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Ravenser

[sharris]

Oh goodie - are we to have a gauge war? 

[Ravenser]

Hi RM,

 

The 00 wheel profile used by most RTR manufacturers is the NMRA RP-25/110 profile. You can find a detailed drawing here (ref:code 110): https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf

 

How well their production actually complies with that is moot.

 

Many after-market kit wheels are made to or closely match the ref:Code 88 version of that profile.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

RP25/88 and the current EMGS wheel profile appear to be very similar/ approximately equivalent. Gibsons and Ultrascales would be relevant examples . Black Beetles were available to either RP25/110 or RP25/88 . I believe Tenshodos are to RP25/88

Edited June 7, 2018 by Ravenser

[Vistisen]

Oh goodie - are we to have a gauge war? 

 

one? 

[hayfield]

d

 

 

 

Ahem:

http://doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

 

It would be useful if you could explain, in respect of each standard , why you believe either

 

- They "don't work" , or

- They are not properly defined

 

1. For the record , track to the OO-Fine standard is not compatible with current unmodified RTR. That does not mean it doesn't work - because the said RTR does not meet the matching OO-Fine wheel standard.

 

If you believe the OO-Fine standard "doesn't work" , you need to demonstrate that the track standard is incompatible with the accompanying OO-Fine wheel standards, or that it is not practically possible to build track to meet the track standard.

 

2. OO-Intermediate is fully compatible with modern RTR, provided that RTR stays within the envelope of the OO-Intermediate wheel standard (and in a lot of cases even if the RTR strays slightly outside the wheel standard ). Therefore the only questions are whether it "doesn't work " , and whether whether the sheets adequetely define the standard.

 

I personally think it is very questionable to claim that OO-Intermediate "doesn't work" , given the substantial number of exhibition layouts around which are de facto built to this standard , and which appear to run pretty well at shows. But it would be useful to know in what way you believe that it "doesn't work" - if that's the claim you're making.

 

Alternatively, if you think the sheets are inadequetely defined, it would be useful to know what you believe is the error or omission in the definitions. Sheets, after all, can be updated if some key dimension is not stated , either explicitly or by implication

 

Having made a very broad , sweeping claim, it would be helpful to have the detail. If you claim "the numbers are missing or wrong!" , I think we need to know which calculation you are questioning, and why

d

 

 

I think Martin was alluding to the fact that for a long time these gauges were incorrectly sold as standard 00 gauge gauges, which if were used to set the check rails would not work with RTR out of the box . Which is totally correct

Edited June 7, 2018 by hayfield

[Torper]

It would seem from Andrew Jukes' most recent posting on the Scalefour Society forum that Exactoscale's perceived lack of interest in 00 is "unlikely to change much" and he does not think that Exactoscale will be selling 00 FastTrack in future.  Whether that will be of any consequence to 00 modellers I do not know - it may well be a sensible commercial decision resulting from the introduction of Peco's new bullhead track.

 

DT

Edited June 8, 2018 by Torper

[The Fatadder]

a little more news on the Scalefour Society website 

 

There will be an announcement "soon" as to when the transition will be made, likely with wheels/axles becoming available from the new retailer first followed by track.

 

Andrew Jukes also states that " I do not think Exactoscale will be selling 00 FastTrack in future." Which while not exactly surprising given the DCC Concepts and Peco RTR products hitting the market, it is a real shame in my eyes given that it is far superior to the new RTR products in that it has full depth chairs on both sides of the rail (not to mention is cheaper).  Thankfully track laying on Brent is complete so I dont need any more for a long time.

 

edit: beaten to it...

Edited June 8, 2018 by The Fatadder

[Torper]

a little more news on the Scalefour Society website........Andrew Jukes also states that " I do not think Exactoscale will be selling 00 FastTrack in future." Which while not exactly surprising given the DCC Concepts and Peco RTR products hitting the market, it is a real shame in my eyes given that it is far superior to the new RTR products in that it has full depth chairs on both sides of the rail (not to mention is cheaper).

 

I don't think it's cheaper, is it? At prices currently shown on the C&L website, FastTrack track base works out at £5.70 a metre, to which you have to add £2.90 for rail, a total of £8.60.  That compares rather unfavourably to about between £4 and £5 for a metre of the Peco track.

 

It's even worse if you build your track using plywood sleepers, Exactoscale (or C&L) chairs, and n/s rail.  Again using C&L website prices, I calculate that at working out at a horrendous, and, until I worked it out, unbelievable, £19 a metre.  Thanfully I too completed my track laying before prices increased to the extent they have, but if I was contemplating starting now in one of the more accurate track gauges, prices like that would be a real turn-off.

 

DT

Edited June 8, 2018 by Torper

[The Fatadder]

I don't think it's cheaper, is it? At prices currently shown on the C&L website, FastTrack track base works out at £5.70 a metre, to which you have to add £2.90 for rail, a total of £8.60.  That compares rather unfavourably to about between £4 and £5 for a metre of the Peco track.

 

It's even worse if you build your track using plywood sleepers, Exactoscale (or C&L) chairs, and n/s rail.  Again using C&L website prices, I calculate that at working out at a horrendous, and, until I worked it out, unbelievable, £22 a metre.  Thanfully I too completed my track laying before prices increased tio the extent they have.

 

DT

Looks like prices have significantly increased in the 2 years since I bought most of my track.   Im sure there used to be a bulk pack of the sleeper bases, and the hundred yard pack of rail was circa £90, though even at that rate it would still be more expensive so I am clearly wrong about price.

 

It still looks a lot better though!

[Ravenser]

a little more news on the Scalefour Society website 

 

There will be an announcement "soon" as to when the transition will be made, likely with wheels/axles becoming available from the new retailer first followed by track.

 

Andrew Jukes also states that " I do not think Exactoscale will be selling 00 FastTrack in future." Which while not exactly surprising given the DCC Concepts and Peco RTR products hitting the market, it is a real shame in my eyes given that it is far superior to the new RTR products in that it has full depth chairs on both sides of the rail (not to mention is cheaper).  Thankfully track laying on Brent is complete so I dont need any more for a long time.

 

edit: beaten to it...

 

 

So where does that leave anyone who needs concrete sleeper flat-bottom in OO ?  Is it now a case of "Peco code75 or nothing"?   The OO version of the Fast Track concrete sleeper bases was at one time the only serious alternative to Peco. It wasn't painless , but it was there. (Via InterCity Models for distribution I think )

 

Now it isn't

[LBRJ]

Ahem:

http://doubleogauge.com/standards/index.htm

 

It would be useful if you could explain, in respect of each standard , why you believe either

 

- They "don't work" , or

- They are not properly defined

 

1. For the record , track to the OO-Fine standard is not compatible with current unmodified RTR. That does not mean it doesn't work - because the said RTR does not meet the matching OO-Fine wheel standard.

 

If you believe the OO-Fine standard "doesn't work" , you need to demonstrate that the track standard is incompatible with the accompanying OO-Fine wheel standards, or that it is not practically possible to build track to meet the track standard.

 

2. OO-Intermediate is fully compatible with modern RTR, provided that RTR stays within the envelope of the OO-Intermediate wheel standard (and in a lot of cases even if the RTR strays slightly outside the wheel standard ). Therefore the only questions are whether it "doesn't work " , and whether whether the sheets adequetely define the standard.

 

I personally think it is very questionable to claim that OO-Intermediate "doesn't work" , given the substantial number of exhibition layouts around which are de facto built to this standard , and which appear to run pretty well at shows. But it would be useful to know in what way you believe that it "doesn't work" - if that's the claim you're making.

 

Alternatively, if you think the sheets are inadequetely defined,  it would be useful to know what you believe is the error or omission in the definitions. Sheets, after all, can be updated if some key dimension is not stated , either explicitly or by implication

 

Having made a very broad , sweeping claim, it would be helpful to have the detail. If you claim "the numbers are missing or wrong!" , I think we need to know which calculation you are questioning, and why 

 

As I said they lack a standard - they do appear to have several different ones though to save any confusion I assume

[Ravenser]

As I said they lack a standard - they do appear to have several different ones though to save any confusion I assume

 

That , I'm afraid , is chop-logic. There is a OO-Intermediate standard , and a OO-Fine standard.

 

I don't think anyone would accept that BA bolts are not a "standard" because there is also a Whitworth "standard" 

[purplepiepete]

i agree we should cut the chap a little slack,an honest trader doing his best under difficult conditions, he is no Coopercraft.

Of course we have a number of subscribers who seem to delight in the negative and will take every opportunity to kick him while he is down.

I am sure they will be pleased as punch when they drive his business down and could then moan about the lack of track parts.

 

Whilst I do support Phil as a (sometimes frustrated) customer of C&L and negativity often gathers momentum on forums, punters DO have a right to complain if customer service is poor and should not just 'put up and shut up' !

 

I don't know how much feedback gets back to him, or indeed how much notice he takes anyway, but having had over 12 months in ownership of C&L little seems to change with communication and delivery issues.

 

Like many others I hope he turns things around to make a successful business, and whilst there is no magic wand to fix it quickly, I can't help thinking that while continuing on this course time may run out.

[Stephen Freeman]

Good Afternoon,

 

I think Phil is at last starting to get on top of things but I can't help feeling some changes would benefit both himself and his customers so that the Mail Order side becomes easier for all concerned. I'm sure he knows what they are so perhaps he can now start to address those.

[muddys-blues]

Good evening, I have sent an enquiry email 1st thing this morning about some 7mm stuff, so I shall await and see how the communication goes with this one before buying, I shall report back.

 

Best regards

Craig.

[hayfield]

Good evening, I have sent an enquiry email 1st thing this morning about some 7mm stuff, so I shall await and see how the communication goes with this one before buying, I shall report back.

 

Best regards

Craig.

 

Craig

 

I would give Phil a call, try either tomorrow or Wednesday as he is setting up for a 3 day show on Thursday