P4 RTR, anybody?

[Gerald Henriksen]

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.

The biggest problem, the so called elephant in the room, is the installed base.

 

You essentially are suggesting that everyone ignore the existing OO track, layouts, stock, etc. and move to a new standard that makes (to varying degrees) all of that junk.

 

Everyone is not going to go and throw out their existing collection of track, scrap existing layouts, and spend the money to upgrade their rolling stock to P4 (and throw out or replace anything that either can't be converted, or is too difficult/expensive to convert).

 

But, I hear you say, they don't have to, as we will just aim this at new people to the hobby.

 

At which point you don't have the critical mass of sales to make things cost effective.

 

 

Manufacturers can easily hit the standards, we know it. Cost? well, we've covered that too.

But you haven't.

 

You've covered the hypothetical cost is the same, based on the assumption that everyone changes track size and thus the new track sells in the same quantities that the existing track does.

 

And even that doesn't cover the initial tooling costs to replace every existing item of track offered for sale with P4 equivalents all at once.  The bankers would laugh Peco or anyone else out of the room.

 

But, Peco tooled up new bullhead track.

 

Yes, they did.  But note two things:

 

1. the risk (and it was a risk) was based on the ability of modelers to supplement their existing track with the new, better track, relegating the old track to fiddle yards or hidden areas of a layout.
2. it was / is a gradual process that limits financial risk by taking steps based on how previous steps work.  Thus the success of the bullhead flex encouraged the risk of making some turnouts, and if this small step is successful then further specialized track may follow.

I understand the desire to have the hobby move to more accurate track, but that is never going to happen for the mass market.  90% or more of the market just don't care, they are simply happy to run their trains (and for at least some of them that will involve mixing British trains with European and American trains).  A move to P4 by default simply means they either leave the hobby, or stop buying new stuff, at which point with the loss of sales the hobby collapses.

[LBRJ]

Deleted

I lost half the post

Edited October 3, 2017 by LBRJ

[davknigh]

If my own experience is anything to go by, the target audience for RTR P4 is the returning modeller. Preferably someone with minimal investment in stock but a renewed interest in the hobby. I started in 00, well, my Dad did "for the boy" but after crossing the Atlantic North American HO seemed like a much better idea and was certainly easier to get back in the late '50s, early '60s. The HO continued in fits and starts with interest in British outline revived when Mainline appeared in the late '70s IIRC. It was at this point that I learned about the gauge problem, toyed with EM but couldn't find any info on building points in bullhead rail (or even find bullhead rail in Canada). Things went dormant again until two things came along, the internet and MRJ and through both I discovered P4 and with the help of another local P4 enthusiast (what are the odds??) got started. The key points in my conversion being available information, a good level of interest and support and minimal investment in existing stock.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[tomparryharry]

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

Hi Mike,

 

Yes, that's pretty close to where I was going. I've used the term 'P4' as everyone automatically understands the integrity of the modelling concept.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Joseph_Pestell]

With 3-D printing available, it should not be too difficult to do a low-cost experiment to validate this idea.

 

But are the advantages of 18.83 over 18.2 great enough to justify doing it?

Edited October 3, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[chrisf]

For me, one of the attractions of P4 is that you can't get everything out of a box.  You have to make things - including, in my case, the odd mess.  30+years ago might have been a better time for the OP's idea but the huge improvement in the quality of rtr models came along anyway without that added ingredient.  Much remains for the modeller to do to what he/she buys - decent couplings instead of the hideous and obtrusive tension lock and coaches with gangways that meet and flex are just two examples.  Against this, I detect more than a little laziness.  I wish xxx was in such and such livery, comes the frequent wail.  Buy a paintbrush!  I wish someone would make that coach or wagon.  Ever heard of kits?

 

Oh well, back to the wilderness ...

 

Chris  

[BG John]

OO gauge RTR designed to make it straightforward to convert to EM and P4 would probably be better. Or bodies and chassis available separately. From what I can see, it's currently going in the opposite direction.

[Allegheny1600]

A fascinating subject and one that's been close to my heart for the past thirty years.

I do consider British 00 to be the very symbol of lost opportunities, I really do, in that "we" should have adopted (and powered through any problematic valve gear/bodywork problems) the worldwide standard of H0 scale. However, we didn't and we're now stuck with 00.

So, if we as modellers were to push for finer standards in our track, I am absolutely positive there is an adoptable solution, EM gauge. It uses much the same wheel standards as current 00 (RP 25), just with the wheels pushed out by 1.7mm. It still needs bogie sideframes/axleboxes/bodywork etc, to be thinner but with decent engineering, this can be realised.

It still needs larger radius curves, of course but not as large as P4. There is even an adoptable solution available (i.e. Roco's "Rocoline") for making the track much more rigid and supportive so the track can be set up on the floor/carpet.

However, it will never happen in Britain.

In my very humble opinion, there would not be the demand from the youth of today, those that are interested in model railways are mainly happy with 00 and seemingly unaware of its deficiencies, the numbers who are aware would be very small indeed - such that they would fill a couple of bus stops rather than a couple of stadiums and that is what you would need for a commercial proposition to work.

Cheers,

John.

Working variously in British H0 and P4 for so many years.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Are the majority of OO (and N) modellers bothered with better track/wheel standards? I think not and therefore the likelihood of "starter" P4 for young beginners is not likely to get off the ground. There wouldn't be enough support and the entrenched attitudes that OO is acceptable would be a great barrier.  I have visited clubs where there has been positive discrimination against EM and P4 and have met modellers who have no idea that there are other track/scale/gauge standards other then OO and N. Against such a background, the young/new modeller is unlikely to get much local support for doing something different. 

 

With the increasing quality of RTR models and the move away from making and painting your own models, it is difficult to see things changing from today's status quo. Perhaps more enthusiasm for making models, rather than collecting RTR products, should be the first objective. That might lead to people having more interest and enthusiasm for the finer track and wheel standards (finer as in nearer to scale).

[Ross34]

OO gauge RTR designed to make it straightforward to convert to EM and P4 would probably be better. Or bodies and chassis available separately. From what I can see, it's currently going in the opposite direction.

 

In principle, a good suggestion but of course almost certainly there would be a cost element.

 

Asking 00 modellers to potentially pay slightly more because the model is easily convertible for the benefit of a small percentage of P4 or EM enthusiasts isn't commercially feasible IMO.

 

Manufacturers of RTR 00 products currently have no need whatsoever to consider the "EM or P4 market"  - why would they?

[BG John]

In principle, a good suggestion but of course almost certainly there would be a cost element.

 

Asking 00 modellers to potentially pay slightly more because the model is easily convertible for the benefit of a small percentage of P4 or EM enthusiasts isn't commercially feasible IMO.

 

Manufacturers of RTR 00 products currently have no need whatsoever to consider the "EM or P4 market"  - why would they?

But surely much more likely to happen than RTR P4. Although I can hear a strange oinking noise coming from somewhere above me, regarding both options!

[Dunsignalling]

OO gauge RTR designed to make it straightforward to convert to EM and P4 would probably be better. Or bodies and chassis available separately. From what I can see, it's currently going in the opposite direction.

Rightly or wrongly, the producers of r-t-r OO are continuing to on provide their core customers with ever more models, and that surely cannot be a bad thing. 

 

There are indications that some recent releases may be more difficult to convert to EM or P4 than earlier products. However, this may result from characteristics of the chosen prototypes rather than any antipathy to those who wish to convert their locos. If it's difficult to make something workable at reasonable cost for OO and that cost would rise substantially were it to be further developed to suit the wider gauges, what would you do in their position? 

 

Some years back, a wheel manufacturer was asked what proportion of his sales were of items in each of the 4mm scale (standard) gauges. IIRC, the split was (roundly) OO: 95%, EM: 4% and P4:1%. On the surface, that suggests that users of the finer gauges represent a surprisingly large chunk of the market. However, those statistics exclude the biggest cohort of OO customers. Those who retain the wheels their models came with almost certainly outnumber the rest of us many times over. 

 

Even ignoring that unquantifiable "silent majority", many locos these days are turned out in batches of 500 or so. Can we reasonably expect any manufacturer to go the extra mile to produce twenty of them in EM and five in P4 when he will have no difficulty in shifting them in OO for no extra effort?

 

I model in OO-fine (whatever that is) and mainly associate with other modellers whose interests align with mine. I suspect that most EM and P4 modellers are at least as insular as me. This flocking behaviour is likely to give us false impressions that we form rather larger and more important market segments than we really do. 

 

It doesn't seem probable that TT, a scale so many people profess an affection for, will ever be revived at the mass market level. That being so, I can't see r-t-r EM being a goer, let alone P4, which I consider will always be a step too far for the starter market.

 

John

Edited October 3, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[johndon]

Even ignoring that unquantifiable "silent majority", many locos these days are turned out in batches of 500 or so. Can we reasonably expect any manufacturer to go the extra mile to produce twenty of them in EM and five P4 when he will have no difficulty in shifting them in OO for no extra effort?

 

 

 

SLW have managed it albeit they do sell direct only and may well fit the EM & P4 wheels themselves, prior to shipping...

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

SLW have managed it albeit they do sell direct only and may well fit the EM & P4 wheels themselves, prior to shipping...

 

John

Yes but they only do (bogie) diesels and even I can convert most of them to EM or P4 without difficulty. In many cases it's little more tricky than rewheeling a coach. Many steam locos would be very different propositions.

 

There's also a big step from selling to established users who (should) know what they are doing to producing a coherent range of products that will perform in the hands of newcomers.

 

John

Edited October 3, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[BlackRat]

For me, one of the attractions of P4 is that you can't get everything out of a box.  You have to make things - including, in my case, the odd mess.  30+years ago might have been a better time for the OP's idea but the huge improvement in the quality of rtr models came along anyway without that added ingredient.  Much remains for the modeller to do to what he/she buys - decent couplings instead of the hideous and obtrusive tension lock and coaches with gangways that meet and flex are just two examples.  Against this, I detect more than a little laziness.  I wish xxx was in such and such livery, comes the frequent wail.  Buy a paintbrush!  I wish someone would make that coach or wagon.  Ever heard of kits?

 

Oh well, back to the wilderness ...

 

Chris

 

Ahhhhhhh but how many kits remain just that.........a box or packet of bits or etchings???

 

How many languishing in drawers, boxes, cupboards etc.

 

How many layouts never get finished never even mind started.........?

 

I guess that at least rtr has a chance of being used and enjoyed.

 

Can't see much pleasure in an unbuilt kit?

[Dunsignalling]

In principle, a good suggestion but of course almost certainly there would be a cost element.

 

Asking 00 modellers to potentially pay slightly more because the model is easily convertible for the benefit of a small percentage of P4 or EM enthusiasts isn't commercially feasible IMO.

 

Manufacturers of RTR 00 products currently have no need whatsoever to consider the "EM or P4 market"  - why would they?

The manufacturers are undoubtedly aware of those who convert their products to the wider gauges, and I doubt they would ever deliberately obstruct that.

 

However , if catering for conversion would increase their costs and, by implication, prices to their core customers, it won't happen, will it?

 

John

Edited October 3, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[tomparryharry]

Hello folks,

 

Thank you for your well reasoned responses to my initial post.  

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian.

[johnarcher]

Ahhhhhhh but how many kits remain just that.........a box or packet of bits or etchings???

 

How many languishing in drawers, boxes, cupboards etc.

 

How many layouts never get finished never even mind started.........?

 

I guess that at least rtr has a chance of being used and enjoyed.

 

Can't see much pleasure in an unbuilt kit?

Some kits no doubt don't get built, but kits do also have a chance of being used and enjoyed because quite a lot do get built (I've even managed a few myself), and then I reckon there's a lot more pleasure in that than in the ready-made, and, as Chris pointed out, it's certainly better than just complaining because no manufacturer makes exactly what you want.

Edited October 3, 2017 by johnarcher

[BlackRat]

Some kits no doubt don't get built, but kits also have a chance of being used and enjoyed for quite a lot do get built (I've even managed a few myself), and then I reckon there's a lot more pleasure in that than in the ready-made..

I'm sure they do get a chance but many don't.

 

Bit like buying a book and never reading it. Still they look nice on the shelf don't they.

 

I've got rid of most of my unbuilt ones, pointless keeping them as there's plenty of other things I need to get on with.

[Jeff Smith]

In many respects EM could be argued to take the best of OO and P4.  It can use OO wheels and flanges therefore not really needing compensation (except perhaps for electrical continuity) and the track laying can be a bit more forgiving.  EM track gauge is so close to P4 that you have to look at the point blade and crossing gaps to identify it.  So you end up with a gauge/vehicle width that looks better. 

 

However merely re-gauging OO wheels in an OO chassis is difficult because there is often not the space so we fall into the HO extra-wide chassis dilemma.  So you have to use wheels with OO flanges but P4 tyre width - this then means that you need to tighten up the crossing gaps other wise the wheels will fall into them - this problem has arisen in HO when using so-called fine scale RP25/88 as against RP25/110 on standard HO crossings (the second figure being the tread width in thou.)

 

So where am I going with this argument - actually nowhere!  To get the appearance of correct gauge in a 4mm model, especially when converting from an OO model or hoping that a manufacturer will produce models of different gauges for the same body, you really need to adopt the complete P4 wheel and track specifications.  EM is a bit of a half-way house but can require as much work in conversion as P4 and doesn't look as good.

 

On another note for aspiring young railway modellers hoping granny or cousin will buy some rolling stock for Christmas etc.,  OO is the norm and so can be bought widely without reference to what gauge is in use - even if HO is bought it will still run!

[toffee]

Whilst I agree with the idea of suddenly waking up one morning and finding the whole model railway world has moved into P4 I also doubt it will ever happen. Peco going to its new track work in OO is a big minus for everyday P4, it will make what exists now look better, it will make a move to P4 even more unlikely for the vast majority for whom ' if it looks right etc'

 

The elephant in the room is not ' will someone like Bachman make P4' its will Backman AND Peco do it as a joint enterprise ? One without the other won't work.

 

In the present economic and political state of flux I'd say they would be foolhardy in the extreme to go down that route.

 

End of the day, no matter how desirable, won't happen.

[sp1]

In many respects EM could be argued to take the best of OO and P4. It can use OO wheels and flanges therefore not really needing compensation (except perhaps for electrical continuity) and the track laying can be a bit more forgiving. EM track gauge is so close to P4 that you have to look at the point blade and crossing gaps to identify it. So you end up with a gauge/vehicle width that looks better.

 

However merely re-gauging OO wheels in an OO chassis is difficult because there is often not the space so we fall into the HO extra-wide chassis dilemma. So you have to use wheels with OO flanges but P4 tyre width - this then means that you need to tighten up the crossing gaps other wise the wheels will fall into them - this problem has arisen in HO when using so-called fine scale RP25/88 as against RP25/110 on standard HO crossings (the second figure being the tread width in thou.)

 

So where am I going with this argument - actually nowhere! To get the appearance of correct gauge in a 4mm model, especially when converting from an OO model or hoping that a manufacturer will produce models of different gauges for the same body, you really need to adopt the complete P4 wheel and track specifications. EM is a bit of a half-way house but can require as much work in conversion as P4 and doesn't look as good.

 

On another note for aspiring young railway modellers hoping granny or cousin will buy some rolling stock for Christmas etc., OO is the norm and so can be bought widely without reference to what gauge is in use - even if HO is bought it will still run!

Didn't someone (shock/ horror) confess to using EM wheels for P4.............

[Jol Wilkinson]

And how many RTR locos get bought and just put in the display cabinet? People who proudly claim collections of one, two or more hundreds of locos surely are no different to others with a stack of (probably fewer) kits.

[BG John]

And how many RTR locos get bought and just put in the display cabinet? People who proudly claim collections of one, two or more hundreds of locos surely are no different to others with a stack of (probably fewer) kits.

If I was a collector, which I'm not, I wouldn't want to display locos with overscale wheels that are too close together, and with great big lumps of plastic sticking out both ends. I'd want realistic models, that didn't have the compromises that are in products designed for racing around on the living room carpet, being knocked over by the dog and elderly relatives. But then I'd want to display them for their historical interest, rather than to show my addiction to shopping and consumerism (quickly hides behind the nearest parapet ). So if I had the money, I'd be much more interested in acquiring P4 standard locos for display, than what's currently available. But then I never did like being part of the crowd .

[Dunsignalling]

If I was a collector, which I'm not, I wouldn't want to display locos with overscale wheels that are too close together, and with great big lumps of plastic sticking out both ends. I'd want realistic models, that didn't have the compromises that are in products designed for racing around on the living room carpet, being knocked over by the dog and elderly relatives. But then I'd want to display them for their historical interest, rather than to show my addiction to shopping and consumerism (quickly hides behind the nearest parapet ). So if I had the money, I'd be much more interested in acquiring P4 standard locos for display, than what's currently available. But then I never did like being part of the crowd .

But, for display purposes, 7mm scale is so much more impressive than either.............