P4 RTR, anybody?

[Welly]

There was a kind of RTR P4 train set in the past, US outline locos and stock in 4mm scale running on 19mm gauge track! It was known as "American OO". Never heard of it then? No surprise there!

[jollysmart]

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.

 

Surely the lack of volume sales would mitigate against it as the set up cost would have to be offset against each sale and be much higher with smaller and slower sales coupled with the relative fragility of the track? Good luck with your investment if you plan to make one.

[Dunsignalling]

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

Also, P4 track, if made to scale in all respects, will not be rigid enough for trains running over it to behave themselves unless the track is properly fixed down. Not exactly Christmas morning stuff.   

 

I've always thought that the mark of somebody who is ready for P4 is that they can make their trains run as well and dependably as a Hornby set. Sadly, quite a few can't.

 

John  

[BG John]

Would the P4 RTR track be a generic kind, that doesn't suit anyone who is in the least bit interested in track, or would there be hundreds of different versions to suit each company and time period? Can you imagine the wish lists it would generate?

Top of my wish list would be baulk road (ideally with 28.08mm gauge as well as 18.83) .

[Joseph_Pestell]

Surely the lack of volume sales would mitigate against it as the set up cost would have to be offset against each sale and be much higher with smaller and slower sales coupled with the relative fragility of the track? Good luck with your investment if you plan to make one.

Track would be fragile compared to traditional Streamline HO. I don't see why it would be that much more fragile than the Code 75BH. Agreed, that is not suitable for trainset use. But nor is Tillig and they sell plenty of that.

 

Rolling stock might not require that much extra investment if working as the sub-division of a mainstream manufacturer.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... The only guiding principle is a true gauge of 18:83mm...

Why? That's perpetuating a classic UK odd job resulting from the long ago OO compromise to fit the commercial HO parts like wheels and outside valve gear inside the splashers and overall width restrictions found on UK steam.

 

Far better surely if aiming at commercial true scale to go 'universal' and attempt this in P87? There's a much larger market over which the design standard and manufacturing investment costs may be defrayed. It just  needs a brand, ecHtO / rigHtO ? The anglo branding reflecting the significantly smaller prototype width of the UK railway, probably requiring a more demanding minimum radius limit for outside valve gear models with more than a pair of coupled wheels, than that applying to mainland European or American prototype.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Why? That's perpetuating a classic UK odd job resulting from the long ago OO compromise to fit the commercial HO parts like wheels and outside valve gear inside the splashers and overall width restrictions found on UK steam.

 

Far better surely if aiming at commercial true scale to go 'universal' and attempt this in P87? There's a much larger market over which the design standard and manufacturing investment costs may be defrayed. It just  needs a brand, ecHtO / rigHtO ? The anglo branding reflecting the significantly smaller prototype width of the UK railway, probably requiring a more demanding minimum radius limit for outside valve gear models with more than a pair of coupled wheels, than that applying to mainland European or American prototype.

 

I could certainly see the attraction of going this route. But it does mean paying development costs for all the "bodywork" elements of locos and rolling stock. So a lot more expensive than adapting existing commercial 00 models to P4 - even if that means limiting the choice to locos without splashers. BR Standards are very popular.

[tomparryharry]

Also, P4 track, if made to scale in all respects, will not be rigid enough for trains running over it to behave themselves unless the track is properly fixed down. Not exactly Christmas morning stuff.   

 

I've always thought that the mark of somebody who is ready for P4 is that they can make their trains run as well and dependably as a Hornby set. Sadly, quite a few can't.

 

John  

Lots of interesting points there folks.

 

I made hundreds of yards of copperclad track, as well as points & slips. Naturally, dependability is only as good as your build quality. My initial post was aimed squarely at P4 RTR. If you could put a retail-style' train set' in front of a beginner, where will the higher fidelity train set take us? I'm not really talking about taking engineering 'down' to easier standards, we've already got 00. I'm more theorising about 'raising' standards & expectation up. Once again, the thrust of my initial post. Can I make P4 myself? Happily, yes I can. Am I asking about a beginner to the hobby? Well... If you explained to a beginner, that they would need to build track, stock & locomotives, their response would leave P4, and go to straight to 00, with all of the loss of expectation. I'd guess that I'm trying to instil P4 as the norm, with the attendant expectation. Manufacturers can easily hit the standards, we know it. Cost? well, we've covered that too.

 

I can appreciate the sense of euphoria when a hand made model comes to life. I've done it myself, mostly in the 1:1 scale. If you raise the entry level up, then there's a good chance that the next level bar will be that much higher.

 

Ian.    

[tomparryharry]

Why? That's perpetuating a classic UK odd job resulting from the long ago OO compromise to fit the commercial HO parts like wheels and outside valve gear inside the splashers and overall width restrictions found on UK steam.

 

Far better surely if aiming at commercial true scale to go 'universal' and attempt this in P87? There's a much larger market over which the design standard and manufacturing investment costs may be defrayed. It just  needs a brand, ecHtO / rigHtO ? The anglo branding reflecting the significantly smaller prototype width of the UK railway, probably requiring a more demanding minimum radius limit for outside valve gear models with more than a pair of coupled wheels, than that applying to mainland European or American prototype.

Not quite, is it? My original 'true gauge' of 18:83mm was the closest 4mm scale out to 4'-81/2", which is where we (I) started. If I understand it correctly, HO is 3.5mm/foot. My premise was to start with RTR P4, and let the modeller go from there. 

 

Ian.

[Dunsignalling]

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.

But are there enough potential "sophisticated young modellers" out there to make launching such a brand worthwhile commercially? I have my doubts, if only because personal observation suggests that very few beginners to (reasonably) serious modelling seem to be what I'd define as young.

 

Unfortunately, model railways are a field in which the ultimate performance of the product relies, to a significant extent, upon the abilities of purchasers. However good it might look, it also has to work at least as well as what currently exists, or it can't justifiably be promoted as a premium product.  The finer everything is made, the less likely it is to work consistently well in the hands of inexperienced users, however keen.

 

There may be a market for r-t-r P4 aimed at established OO modellers, but we've been around forever and that is not what the OP seemed to be proposing. However, any  potential demand for that may have already been reduced by the resurgence in r-t-r O Gauge.

 

Can P4 be simplified and still be P4 in any case? Even if it can, such products would be certain to need more care than what is offered currently and the only way to ensure "premium" performance and avoid reputational damage might be to sell ready-made layouts or modules that only require the purchaser to develop the scenic aspect.

 

John

Edited October 2, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Andy Hayter]

Ah yes P87.  All the way though reading  this I have been doing the mental comparison with P87 and wondering if this is such a good idea (going to fine scale standards) why have none of the continental manufacturers gone down a parallel route and produced P87 rtr.  The engineering challenges are essentially the same and the market is very much bigger and so a finescale market is potentially very much bigger as well.  But no one has dared to go down this route - even though there is not the same mental shift as 00 to P4 (change of track gauge) or 00 to P87 (change of scale).

 

I think I come to one major reason and this is space.  A roundy roundy layout is going to need at least 2m (6ft8in) width to accommodate the curves that will accept the finer flanges - and that would probably be too tight for many steam locos, but lets assume that the target market is wedded to modern prototypes.  Add to that the point already made that points need to go to large (perhaps very large) radius and the idea of setting up anything other than an inglenook type layout in the home with these standards becomes increasingly difficult.

[tomparryharry]

I'll get shot at here, but here goes...

 

I'd guess that the deal breaker here is the finer aspects of S&C (points to modellers). So, do you put the whole switch (point) into a protective environment? I'd suggest that a point needs a base to sit down, and operate effectively. In that case, we're not too far from Peco Setrack . Fine as a starter, but we're into C&L if we wanted to the bespoke route.

 

Ian

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'll get shot at here, but here goes...

 

I'd guess that the deal breaker here is the finer aspects of S&C (points to modellers). So, do you put the whole switch (point) into a protective environment? I'd suggest that a point needs a base to sit down, and operate effectively. In that case, we're not too far from Peco Setrack . Fine as a starter, but we're into C&L if we wanted to the bespoke route.

 

Ian

That's true in many ways. But perfectly possible to build a good layout with just #6 & #8 turnouts. The real railway only uses bespoke S&C when the site makes it impossible to use standard components.

[Revolution Mike]

I wonder if the use of P4 is slightly confusing here, my guess is the first step is actually scale gauge (rather than everything else that P4 implies ie flangeways/wheels etc).  So the starting point would be modern RTR wheel standards etc but running on 18.83mm track.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Porcy Mane]

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

I fear this thread could develop into the usual heated gauge/scale wars type of thread. Maybe if we stick to the musings posed in the original post we might get somewhere?

 

My own personal take on this is that in Britain, 4mm scale, to  00 gauge will always be the primary selling/introduction size for model railways. It has too much support from the main manufacturers. 

 

How many people when starting out in model railways even know about the scale/gauge discrepancy of this idiosyncratic British size? Possibly more importantly, how many care?  Maybe more could be done to explain the history (& politics) of how 16.5 mm became the gauge adopted by 4mm scale UK manufactures and that it is technically incorrect but I get the impression the younger folk that are just starting out in the hobby just want to see their new trains running and don't want to spend time being told that the relationship between the scale of the body of their locomotive compared to the gauge of the oval of track it is running on is all wrong. That would probably put them off for life.

 

Can P4 be simplified and still be P4 in any case? Even if it can, such products would be certain to need more care than what is offered currently and the only way to ensure consistent performance and avoid reputational damage might be to sell ready-made layouts or modules that only require the purchaser to develop the scenic aspect.

 

I've often pondered where we would be today If the EM gauge society had adopted a gauge of  18.8 mm? Whilst I appreciate the reasons 18.2 was chosen would there have been as much impetus to develop P4, if a gauge nearer to scale dimensions had been chosen? If that had happened would we possibly have seen P4/S4 "fine" at 18.83 and P4 "course" at 18.8 in use today? Lot's of hypothetical questions to which we will never know the answers.

 

With the introduction of the Peco 4mm bullhead track I await with interest it's effect on the 4mm market. With it's much improved appearance over proprietary RTP track, will it discourage people to move to the more accurate gauges or will more modellers still be dissatisfied with undergauge track and go EM of P4?

 

P

Edited October 2, 2017 by Porcy Mane

[tomparryharry]

That's true in many ways. But perfectly possible to build a good layout with just #6 & #8 turnouts. The real railway only uses bespoke S&C when the site makes it impossible to use standard components.

Hi Joseph. Is that 00, or P4?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph. Is that 00, or P4?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

True for any scale/gauge combo. Standard geometry turnouts are preferable. Overseas, they make more use of them than here. DB notably does not mind putting odd kinks in platforms if it allows the use of standard turnouts.

[Dunsignalling]

Lots of interesting points there folks.

 

I made hundreds of yards of copperclad track, as well as points & slips. Naturally, dependability is only as good as your build quality. My initial post was aimed squarely at P4 RTR. If you could put a retail-style' train set' in front of a beginner, where will the higher fidelity train set take us? I'm not really talking about taking engineering 'down' to easier standards, we've already got 00. I'm more theorising about 'raising' standards & expectation up. Once again, the thrust of my initial post. Can I make P4 myself? Happily, yes I can. Am I asking about a beginner to the hobby? Well... If you explained to a beginner, that they would need to build track, stock & locomotives, their response would leave P4, and go to straight to 00, with all of the loss of expectation. I'd guess that I'm trying to instil P4 as the norm, with the attendant expectation. Manufacturers can easily hit the standards, we know it. Cost? well, we've covered that too.

 

I can appreciate the sense of euphoria when a hand made model comes to life. I've done it myself, mostly in the 1:1 scale. If you raise the entry level up, then there's a good chance that the next level bar will be that much higher.

 

Ian.    

There is a danger, though, if one raises expectations before the necessary skills have been acquired, of people being put off the hobby altogether.

 

Maybe the best route into P4 will always be the acquisition of a discontent with OO.

 

Perhaps P4 picks the modeller as much as the other way round.

 

John

[Zomboid]

I suspect RTR P4 would actually be slightly larger HO.

There's so much more to it than just having the rails the right distance apart. No one would look at my models and compare them favourably (in terms of accuracy at least) with properly done P4.

 

Also note the existence of Proto87, for those who want super finescale 1:87...

[Ross34]

You could always buy said child some code 83 and HO stock - or even HOm perhaps ..scale problems solved. 

 

Personally, I can't say track gauge actually bothers me too much when I'm viewing a layout - if at all.

I'd go as far to say impressive layouts like Liverpool Lime Street (em) or even as far back as Heckmondwyke or Aylesbury (one of my favorites) would have been equally impressive in 00.

Conversely, Dewsbury Midland for example wouldn't have been a better layout on EM or P4 IMHO.

[Dungrange]

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.

 

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. 

 

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 18:83 mm. Once you start with a true understanding of scale, then it all follows that much easier.

 

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

 

I think it's a great idea, but I also don't think it will happen because I think you underestimate the number of people who simply don't care.  Twenty years ago I was a member of a model railway club and one of the adult members had a home layout, which was certainly not built to fine-scale standards.  He didn't seem to mind having a 1:43 scale mini on the road next to a hand painted 1:76 scale bus with the company logos cut from their timetables.  In many regards, it looked like a child's layout.  I'm not sure that most children fully grasp the concept of scale, fidelity and the inaccuracies of 00 until they are probably at least teenagers and possibly past the train set stage.

 

My own introduction to model railways was when my parents bought a 00 train set for me at the age of 12 because they couldn't think of what else to buy at Christmas.  I was blissfully unaware of the inaccuracies of the track gauge for several years.  Even when I learned that it was incorrect, I didn't really care.  After all, if I was running three and four coach express trains and pretending that they were 12 coaches, what is 2.33 mm?

 

It wasn't until I was in my 30s that I'd say I started to pay more attention to the work of others on the exhibition circuit.  Seeing a C10 turnout in P4 made me realise how 'toy like' some of the existing 00 track looks in comparison.  I toyed with the idea of moving to P4 myself and if a reasonable range of RTR P4 was available, I probably would have made the switch at that point, but whilst some items of rolling stock are easy to convert (I even bought some P4 wheel sets to see if I could get away without compensation), I was aware that not all conversions would be straight forward.  It was only at that point that I became aware of the difference between flat bottom and bullhead rail and different types of chair and the prototypical geometry of turnouts.  If I was to build the track myself, then I could get a more flowing alignment than would ever be possible with sectional track.

 

With limited time and financial constraints, I eventually decided to stick with 00 and I would probably have bought some of Peco's new bullhead range if it wasn't for the fact that I'd invested in a number of C&L turnout kits, 00-SF track gauges and former Exactoscale track bases before their announcement.  I'd therefore say that I'll remain as a 00 modeller, albeit one who wants something better than a glorified train set.

 

As for your closing sentence, I think the key point is, who do you define as 'we'?  RTR P4 would be a huge commercial gamble for any manufacturer as it would require track, locomotives and rolling stock to make up a range of compatible products.  No manufacturer owes us or the next generation anything - they are in existence to make a profit for their shareholders.  If they don't think they will make a profit, then it's not a direction they will take.  Consequently, I think P4 will remain a niche part of the hobby.

[The Johnster]

I'm old enough to remember the first stirrings of the P4 movement in the magazines of the late 60s.  Particularly an article in, I think, the Constructor accompanied by a photo of the bogie of a Triang (?) BR mk1 with a bit of weathering, and the look of the thing on bullhead scale track was, without exaggeration, phenomenal!

 

I admire railways that look more like railways than the ones that I cobble together, but do not find that scale, flangeway, or wheels are the main delineators of this.  Code 75 bullhead rail, sitting in proper chairs, does it for me!

[JDW]

Surely, rather than entry-level P4 trainsets and the like, what is needed is a more coarse-scale version as a more generic standard, in effect a wider OO track, with the same standards of flange clearance etc, in effect no changes but the rails being 2.33mm further apart.  This would still give the robustness of Code 100 Setrack, user friendliness of OO for kids and those like me who can't find the enthusiasm to hand build track and fit everything with compensated wheels, but it would at least be the right gauge.  Many people would accept it in the same way we accept OO or HO track now, but it would look better, more proportional.  Moulding plastic sleeper bases slightly differemtly would hardly be a big challenge, so no real technical hurdles.  And those with the skill and space to model to a finer standard could still go to P4, but would have a much easier time as all that would be needed is new wheelsets, rather than having to modify bogies by widening them for extra clearance between the frames, etc.  Lets call it OO-18.83 - it wouldn't be perfect, but would be a better compromise than OO.  Of course, its too late now, it'll never happen!

 

(EDIT - Typo, see post #62 below!)

Edited October 3, 2017 by JDW

[davknigh]

I suspect that the greatest barrier to RTR P4 lies not in the equipment or the track but the benchwork it all sits on. If the baseboards are flat with smooth transitions to grades and to different sections, no problem. Equipment with some form of suspension is remarkably tolerant of dodgy track as my own will testify, but sharp transitions due to rough benchwork, not so much.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[LBRJ]

Surely, rather than entry-level P4 trainsets and the like, what is needed is a more coarse-scale version as a more generic standard, in effect a wider OO track, with the same standards of flange clearance etc, in effect no changes but the rails being 2.83mm further apart.  This would still give the robustness of Code 100 Setrack, user friendliness of OO for kids and those like me who can't find the enthusiasm to hand build track and fit everything with compensated wheels, but it would at least be the right gauge.  Many people would accept it in the same way we accept OO or HO track now, but it would look better, more proportional.  Moulding plastic sleeper bases slightly differemtly would hardly be a big challenge, so no real technical hurdles.  And those with the skill and space to model to a finer standard could still go to P4, but would have a much easier time as all that would be needed is new wheelsets, rather than having to modify bogies by widening them for extra clearance between the frames, etc.  Lets call it OO-18.83 - it wouldn't be perfect, but would be a better compromise than OO.  Of course, its too late now, it'll never happen!

American OO Gauge would be the answer - but that seemed to never really happen