P4 RTR, anybody?

[tomparryharry]

Hi Folks.

 

I think it's on-topic.

 

I'm much interested by the up-coming bullhead track from Peco. However, I fully realise that I'm still stuck with '00' track as a starting medium. New people coming into the hobby start here, and, if they're lucky (or, inclined)get to move on to EM or P4/S4.I think that most people agree that starting with the hobby will go down this route, regardless of age. I'm that old, I started with Triang Type 3 track!

 

So, here we are, starting out. What are we to offer to a child who is starting to appreciate trains, and starting to understand scale? I'm not talking about scale as such, but the inaccuracies contained within the scale, and our main culprit, 00. I know all about the histories of how we ended up with 00, and all of the fixes we employ to achieve scale realism, including going over to true 4mm scales.

 

The drive of my thought here is to start out the process by getting the new modeller to instil an appreciation of the accuracy of scale. By far, I'd suggest, is to start the process with an fairly accurate RTR track. It doesn't matter which manufacturer gets chosen, or any number of makers in the market. The only guiding principle is a true gauge of 18:83mm. Once you start with a true understanding of scale, then it all follows that much easier.

 

"Nobody wants P4". Really? Just because it currently stands just outside of the mainstream stuff, is it a niche? "there's no market". Once again, really? My old chap was a precision engineer, and I know full well that if he'd had access to P4 RTR, he'd have ditched 00 in an heartbeat. Why not anybody else?

 

"The stock, so exclusive" Well, it's not exclusive, no where near exclusive. If Bachmann make batches of stock in multiples of 512, then it is not beyond the wit of man to increase the gauge. Even the packaging comes in the same size boxes....

 

The funny thing is that all of the subsidiary parts are already 4mm/foot scale. So you'll need to explain to a younger enquiring mind as to why the engine shed looks right, but the track inside the engine shed is all wrong?

 

" It's soooo expensive". No, I respectfully disagree. Economies of scale will keep the price relatively lower, at least by todays standards. It's natural for makers to screw the price up, especially if they can get away with it. The cost pro-rata between 00 track, and a track in 18:83mm track, is mere pennies, and I do honestly mean pennies. If you want a guide, try comparing costs between Peco Setrack, and the newest bullhead track. Moulding machine time for track is by the 1,000, regardless of 00, N or other scales. It's all linear.

 

Is it a separation point between 'playing with trains' and serious modelling? It can be, it just depends on your personal viewpoint between a hobby, and an 'act of war' (and I do know the real difference between the two).

 

"I've got a serious amount of 00 stuff". Yes, so have I. However, I've recently looking at the standards bar regarding model railways, and I'm constantly reminded of the substantial increases, sometimes month by month, of what we can enjoy. I can honestly retire my older stuff, as the newer stuff comes along. prices on Eeh-Buy-Gum are reasonably buoyant, and always remain so for model railways. If you have pristine models in boxes, keep them, it's an asset. If your collection is of a lesser value, then who, or whom, are you kidding? I shouldn't or won't delve into sentimental issues, that is for the private individual, and quite rightly so.

 

So, as we move towards ever-increasing quality & fidelity in modelling, is it time to retire our old friend, 00?

 

As a parting thought, I'll give you this. Some of our fellow contributors on RM web posted most eloquently about the pro's & cons of the Dean Goods. "Off by a mm here, out by several mm there". But, the track has a discrepancy of 2:33 millimetres...

 

Do we owe future new modellers the opportunity to start with a high fidelity appreciation to scale?

 

Ian

[Dunsignalling]

Six foot radius set-track  to run your P2 on, anybody ?

 

OO has survived for one reason, and one reason only. It works within the domestic constraints that most of us are lumbered with.

 

P4 is basically limited to people who are content with small, straight-line layouts; for anything more interesting/extensive you need the wherewithal to live in a property large enough to contain it. 

 

It is perfectly possible to get ready-made P4 point-work today, you just pay somebody to make it up from readily available components. 

 

John

Edited October 2, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[UMinion]

Why not? Your p2 will look stupid on 3ft radius curves anyway.

[Dunsignalling]

Why not? Your p2 will look stupid on 3ft radius curves anyway.

Anything bigger than an 0-6-0 looks daft on curves under 3ft radius if we are being honest.

 

Which is just one of the many reasons I didn't buy a P2.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[tomparryharry]

Hi John, Good point.

 

I thought about this when I penned my initial post. My point is about new modellers, and an improved standard towards 4mm. If you have a P2, with 16 on, then good for you, and quite rightly so. I'm seeing people getting into the hobby, starting with a basic layout, and then progressing towards a larger interesting/extensive set up. Everybody gotta start somewhere!

 

Most people starting a layout usually take into account of their space limitations. In my ideal world, there's a 4mm model of Llantrisant yard. However, my knocking down my neighbours house might raise an eye brow or two...

 

Ian.

[johndon]

Never going to happen - a child starting out can take a OO trainset, set it up on the dining room table and be up and running easily, the much finer tolerances of P4 make this a non starter...

 

John, a P4 modeller.

[Miss Prism]

The cost pro-rata between 00 track, and a track in 18:83mm track, is mere pennies, and I do honestly mean pennies.

 

No way.

 

(I appreciate the sentiment of your post though.)

[tomparryharry]

Never going to happen - a child starting out can take a OO trainset, set it up on the dining room table and be up and running easily, the much finer tolerances of P4 make this a non starter...

 

John, a P4 modeller.

Hi Johndon,

 

Finer tolerances are well within the capabilities of mass-produced fine engineering production. There is no earthly reason why it can't be done. after all, I'm talking about gauge here, and the appreciation of gauge & scale.  

 

Ian.

[tomparryharry]

No way.

 

(I appreciate the sentiment of your post though.)

Hi Miss Prism,

 

The cost of production is indeed, mere pennies. However... the cost by the time it gets to you.. Well we all know how that happens, don't we? If Peco can turn out code 75 bullhead track & points, what's the difference between 16.5, and 18:83mm?

 

Ian.

[Mallard60022]

I can't see why a youngster that wants to have a model of what they can see could not just get a P4 'gauge', 4mm scale train set. The Company that produces such an item will be a very brave Company indeed in today's market where OO is the norm. However, never say never as when many of us are long gone who can say that P4 gauge track with 4mm scale trains will not be the new norm?

Phil

[The Johnster]

Good points raised, some of them Peco electrofrog no doubt.  The historical genesis of 00 as a standard dates back to the difficulty in the early years of the 20th century of fitting reliable clockwork and later electric mechanisms into the body castings of British outline locos which were smaller than their European and much smaller than their American H0 counterparts, but were required to run on RTR H0 track.  Thus the nonsense of 00/H0 came about, and by the 50s and 60s, arguably the heyday of the train set, Triang and Hornby Dublo were firmly wedded to it, and they were effectively the only game in town.  

 

That it survives is a little surprising, as the sensible way to have gone when Airfix and Mainline revolutionised the hobby in the 70s would have been to produce British outline models to H0 guage; Jouef in the 60s and Lima a decade later dabbled in this but sadly the lo-fi approach and insufficient support which meant European outline vans and opens masquerading as British; no wonder nobody took it seriously.  Current British outline H0 is as much a niche as P4, both attempting to address the same problem while the Trade ignores them.

 

H0 better addresses space issues in modern homes, but not as well as N, the success of which is probably why British H0 is still a minority pass.  The attempt by Triang to introduce TT was creditable, and they put a lot of effort in to some models which were not half bad for their time, but ultimately this was a battle lost to N which became the go to for people with limited space.  Then along came Iain Rice, Ian Futers, and the like who showed that you could have a 4mm scale layout on a shelf with 2 points and 3 wagons; these are still popular but not for everyone.  

 

Engineering standards have improved for 4mm RTR; just compare any modern off the shelf 00 product to one from Hornby Dublo, a firm which traded on it's engineering and fine scale (BRSMB) approach but couldn't even manage the correct coach lengths.  But the trade still has to pay lip services to the train set concept, and can justify this in sales figures that we cannot dispute, so there are limits to flange profile and tyre depth imposed by the need to be able to put the item on the rails reasonably easily when you are 5 years old, in other words compromise is necessary, and if 00 is about anything it is, at it's heart, a compromise.  We are all so used to it that we have effectively forgotten it's anomalies and think that real track is 8 and a half inches too wide...

 

My opinion FWIW is that as long as the British trade is wedded as it is to the train set concept, which incidentally I believe to be dead in the water but they reckon is pivotal, there is no real chance of improvement in scale standards in 4mm, and none of the current players are interested in British H0.  Now, if Piko hit the market with a decent range that undercut everyone...

[tomparryharry]

I can't see why a youngster that wants to have a model of what they can see could not just get a P4 'gauge', 4mm scale train set. The Company that produces such an item will be a very brave Company indeed in today's market where OO is the norm. However, never say never as when many of us are long gone who can say that P4 gauge track with 4mm scale trains will not be the new norm?

Phil

Oh dear me, thank you kind sir!

 

I'm not a youngster, I can remember going to the pictures, a taxi home, and have change from a tanner! I'm not trying to rattle people, just looking at improving standards across the hobby.

 

Ian.

[Miss Prism]

Finer tolerances are well within the capabilities of mass-produced fine engineering production. There is no earthly reason why it can't be done.

 

Unfortunately, the indications of current RTR chassis manufacturing show a trend toward coarser and coarser tolerances. Some manufacturers can't even make decent coupling rods anymore. Prices to customers for such woeful engineering remain at a premium level however. They only get away with it because suckers fall for the bullsh1t PR accompanying the woeful engineering.

[Joseph_Pestell]

No way.

 

(I appreciate the sentiment of your post though.)

 

If you are starting out, surely the cost of P4 track is indeed no more than the new 00 that Peco have created. Why should it be? Old 00 is, of course, much cheaper because you are spreading the development costs across the much larger worldwide HO market.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that this is a very worthwhile question.

 

Gut instinct is, of course, to say "no". As JohnDon remarks, a P4 trainset does not make sense.

 

But, apart from Thomas, the trainset market seems almost dead anyway. The more sophisticated young modeller might well go for a more true-to-prototype option and, if we are talking diesel/electric era, it's not that difficult to give it to them. Even simpler steam, a 64xx, a 14xx and a 45xx, would not be that tricky. One could imagine a premium brand as a sub-division of one of the main brands, thereby benefiting from some common components.

 

It would not be as cheap as 00 but the current success of r-t-r 0 suggests that many are happy with better models at higher prices even if it means having fewer of them and simpler  layouts.

[johndon]

Hi Johndon,

 

Finer tolerances are well within the capabilities of mass-produced fine engineering production. There is no earthly reason why it can't be done. after all, I'm talking about gauge here, and the appreciation of gauge & scale.  

 

Ian.

 

 

It's not just about the tolerances of the manufacture itself though.  So are you talking about P4 gauge track but, for example, with thicker flanges to reduce the possibility of derailments?  Also. if you have a scale, P4 turnout, how is the child on the dining table going to operate it unless you then have a completely out of scale, sprung, tiebar (as per Peco)?

 

I'm not against the idea of RTR P4 as such (I have 3 SLW 24s for example) but there is a lot more to getting P4 to run well than just the track...

 

John

Edited October 2, 2017 by johndon

[tomparryharry]

Unfortunately, the indications of current RTR chassis manufacturing show a trend toward coarser and coarser tolerances. Some manufacturers can't even make decent coupling rods anymore. Prices to customers for such woeful engineering remain at a premium level however. They only get away with it because suckers fall for the bullsh1t PR accompanying the woeful engineering.

 

Hi Miss Prism, interesting view.

 

Am I to understand, therefore, that a working gauge, with acceptably accurate standard, would be a thing of desire?. I do mean a model railway layout, commercially available, with all the add-ons one could purchase easily.

 

Ian.

[Miss Prism]

If Peco can turn out code 75 bullhead track & points, what's the difference between 16.5, and 18:83mm?

 

The difference is a necessarily finer tolerancing in the blade and vee areas. That tolerance has an exponential effect on cost and quality control. The low volume will have an additional exponential effect on the tooling cost.

 

Peco would be insane to invest in it.

 

 

.

[tomparryharry]

The difference is a necessarily finer tolerancing in the blade and vee areas. That tolerance has an exponential effect on cost and quality control. The low volume will have an additional exponential effect on the tooling cost.

 

Peco would be insane to invest in it.

 

 

.

I can't argue against your view, but a business or commercial case might. Quality control is down to the expectations of the buyer/client. If your expectation is poor, don't be surprised if you get a poor result. Starting with a higher standard will hopefully lead to a continuing desire to achieve higher standards, which is where, vis-a-vis our new modeller,  I came in.

 

Ian.

[Porcy Mane]

P4 is basically limited to people who are content with small, straight-line layouts; for anything more interesting/extensive you need the wherewithal to live in a property large enough to contain it. 

 

 

Maybe not.

 

 

But I do think that anyone offering a P4 RTR train set to get a youngster interested in model railways would be hell-bent on financial ruin.

 

P

[Miss Prism]

Am I to understand, therefore, that a working gauge, with acceptably accurate standard, would be a thing of desire?

 

Of course it is a thing of desire. But like a Faberge egg, it will cost a lot of money.

 

An oval of track, a converted Bachmann pannier and a few wagons and a couple of coaches is yours for just £900.

 

Actually, I'm with Mallard on this one. There is no impediment to a sensible 10-year old from achieving an excellent result from a Parkside kit and some etched W-irons and some sprung buffers.

 

In fact, most 10-year olds would probably be able to do it better than the rest of us...

[Jol Wilkinson]

Ian,

 

P4 is quite different from OO in that the wheel/track tolerances don't allow for the type of trackwork "accuracy" most OO modellers are used to using. Loco and stock design/manufacture would need rethinking as tolerances for outside valve gear, wheel clearances, etc. are different. For example, thick plastic bogie side frames or wagon underframes are unsuitable for the outside dimensions of P4 wheel sets. Can plastic moulded steam loco bodies provide sufficient clearance for P4 wheels? You might not need compensation/springing for short wheelbase diesel locos, but that only would work with well laid track. The S4 Society produced a small batch of ready converted RTR diesel locos several years ago and the SLW models are available in P4 but have only produced one type. albeit with many livery/modification variants.

 

Modelers who take up P4 or EM standards recognise that they have to work to tighter tolerances in everything they do regarding track and the running gear on their stock. That's not difficult given the tools, jigs and components available but does need more application/dedication/thoroughness than most OO modelers may be used to having to use.

 

As the OO manufacturers have successfully focused on "easy" modelling, including ready painted buildings, etc. the challenge of taking up something a bit more demanding is not likely to find many takers from their target audience and regular customers. 

 

Jol

Edited October 2, 2017 by Jol Wilkinson

[Joseph_Pestell]

I can't argue against your view, but a business or commercial case might. Quality control is down to the expectations of the buyer/client. If your expectation is poor, don't be surprised if you get a poor result. Starting with a higher standard will hopefully lead to a continuing desire to achieve higher standards, which is where, vis-a-vis our new modeller,  I came in.

 

Ian.

It's taken a mighty long time for some of to persuade (by various means!) Peco that the Code 75BH makes sense. Because a lot more hand assembly is required, the price is much higher. But if the new 75BH points do indeed sell  (at around £30), we have entered completely new territory. There is no reason why P4 turnouts should be a lot more expensive and the track the same price.

As to that notional train set, no way that it would need to be £900, particularly if we accept that commercial 18.83mm gauge might have slightly different standards to current P4. But we are probably not talking train sets anyway, but train packs certainly. Many modellers have built in P4 without full compensation of everything below the solebar.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Joseph,

 

any deviation from the established P4 standards will affect the appearance of pointwork, one of the most visible benefits of P4 modelling.

 

Perhaps the most sensible commercial proposition would be EM, which has some compromises (compared to P4) that might make "mass" production more achievable.

 

Jol

[Miss Prism]

Are we now talking ' 00-SF+4.6 ' ??