Will Recent Models Ever Be Updated?

[brack]

If I were a manufacturer and was thinking of going that way I might think in terms of 18.84mm gauge with EM gauge standards for wheels/flangeways etc as a more workable yet accurate proposition.

[tomparryharry]

It's not so much that Peco couldn't produce a P4 track system, they could, but who would buy it?

 

Part of the allure of P4 is to build your own track as you get a prototypical flow especially in complex track arrangements, something that no RTR manufacturer can replicate unless.......you submit a track template to PECO via the interweb and they have a machine that can build it.

 

Just an observation, but....

 

How do you know people can't lay track prototypically? Some make train sets, some strive for a typical flow. I can think of a couple of set ups where the layout was absolutely wonderful, and far, far better than I could ever aspire. Prototypical operation? Never in a million years.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

If I were a manufacturer and was thinking of going that way I might think in terms of 18.84mm gauge with EM gauge standards for wheels/flangeways etc as a more workable yet accurate proposition.

Build a model to these standards and then give us your reappraisal of this proposition. A Walschaerts valve gear pacific would be a good subject.

[brack]

Build a model to these standards and then give us your reappraisal of this proposition. A Walschaerts valve gear pacific would be a good subject.

A fair point - I was going more along the lines that I could see the selling point of a manufacturer producing stock with a more accurate gauge (and if going to that effort why stop at 18.2mm?), but couldn't see mass produced stock to P4 standards.

 

Having said that, there have been brass or kit built British locos (including an A3) in H0/1:87 using normal rp25 wheels and they've worked.

Edited September 7, 2018 by brack

[Colin_McLeod]

 

Eventually everything may get replaced or 'duplicated' with something better.

Even RMweb!

[Andy Y]

Even RMweb!

Yes, our upgraded model will be coming soon. Some will moan that it's more expensive though.

[gwrrob]

Yes, our upgraded model will be coming soon. 

 

Can I do the review.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

A fair point - I was going more along the lines that I could see the selling point of a manufacturer producing stock with a more accurate gauge (and if going to that effort why stop at 18.2mm?), but couldn't see mass produced stock to P4 standards.

 

Having said that, there have been brass or kit built British locos (including an A3) in H0/1:87 using normal rp25 wheels and they've worked.

 Going to 'world standard' HO would be a much superior choice. It wouldn't cause overmuch trouble for the D+E traction period either, there are established options for compromises for those who must use set track curvature which don't do too much damage to appearance.

 

Very different for UK steam (and a great many non-UK steam designs). The UK was dominated by locomotive designs with close fitting splashers, and with significant width constraints when outside cylinders and valve gears feature. The compromise in HO is scale distortion to make a commercial model for set track curvature, the width dimension selectively 'elastic' up to 4mm/ft to accomodate the problematic features. This doesn't look good at all.

 

These and other compromises are part of the why of P87, the 3.5mm/ft analogue of P4. Results in near dead scale models, but the minimum radius requirement is in direct ratio to those required for P4, no possibility of running many models made to this standard on HO set track curves. (P87 is superior to P4 in respect of the track gauge being that commonly in use, resulting in some P87 models being operable on plain HO track, and down to set track radii typically when fixed wheelbases are of short two axle type (four wheel coach bogies and wagons, BoBo traction etc). Considerably more accessible than P4 which always requires a dedicated layout to be constructed.

 

But comng full circle, attempts have been made to get some traction for commercial HO in the UK, and stalled. As prominent a manufacturer as Fleischmann made an attempt some time in the last millenium, also Lima, and more recently Heljan considered an HO entry before being presuaded to go OO... My own feeling is that the missed opportunity was when the Channel Tunnel was opened in 1991: here's interoperation with HO land models. A brave and wealthy manufacturer might just have swung it on D+E traction period models at least, because the OO competiton was very weak (Margate Hornby and Lima) and the use of HO technique in superior drives and fidelity - nine years later deployed to such good effect in OO by Bachmann - might just have been enough to get commercial UK RTR HO established.

[brack]

I agree that adopting H0 is in principle far more sensible, but the entire supporting industry for scenery would be rendered somewhat obsolete. At least keeping 16.5mm track would allow some degree of backward compatibility. It would also allow for designs which have operated abroad to be sold to both markets too. Sadly I don't think we'll ever get away from 4mm/ft - just too much inertia.

[brian777999]

How about GWR Broad Gauge : Complete sets of locos, wagons/coaches and track ?

[Colin_McLeod]

British HO should be technically achievable without compromise as the original reason for the larger locos no longer applies. If N gauge works then so should HO.

 

May not be marketable though.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

British HO should be technically achievable without compromise as the original reason for the larger locos no longer applies. If N gauge works then so should HO.

British N is scale compromised in just the same style as OO, 1:160 is the universal N scale,  UK 1:152. So not quite as badly compromised, which is the result of improved technique in the intervening years between their respective introductions.

 

The 'original reason' for the adoption of OO for UK models still exists, it is all about the clearance required to fit commercial wheel standards and construction technique into the very narrow UK loading gauge and typical  tight fitting wheel splashers, while producing a product which can go around set track curves.  That HO as currently used all over the world is presently compromised in the matter of constant scale is little acknowledged but is true nonetheless, and this is particularly the case with steam locomotives. An 'elastic ruler' is employed to allow sufficient width to fit commercial wheel standards and provide clearance for outside cylinders and valve gear in HO. That's why there is P87, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51216-obbekaer-ribe-skibbroen-p87/

[The Johnster]

How about GWR Broad Gauge : Complete sets of locos, wagons/coaches and track ?

 

And wonderfully incompatible with anything else!

[Guy Rixon]

It's not so much that Peco couldn't produce a P4 track system, they could, but who would buy it?

 

Part of the allure of P4 is to build your own track as you get a prototypical flow especially in complex track arrangements, something that no RTR manufacturer can replicate unless.......you submit a track template to PECO via the interweb and they have a machine that can build it.

 

If Peco produced P4 turnouts to appropriate spec., I might buy a few for my layout. I'm thinking of B8-equivalent turnouts for the nearly-hidden junction at the fiddle-yard entrance and A7-equivalent or similar for the inset track in the yard. In both cases, I'd be willing to use generic turnouts if they fit the track plan because the details would not be seen. I doubt if I'd buy any for the P&C work in full view, firstly because that will be complex, curved and very tight for space and secondly because I want to represent some details of the period track.

 

I would definitely buy ready-made turnouts in P4 for a non-senic test-track.  Peco HO turnouts are selling for under £10 and I'm not sure that I could even source the parts for that little to do handmade track. Possibly in copper-clad. 

[tomparryharry]

How about GWR Broad Gauge : Complete sets of locos, wagons/coaches and track ?

That's a very Sharman-esque post!

[PM47079]

I am still waiting for an updated class 81, the triang one doesn’t do it for me anymore.☹️

[brian777999]

And wonderfully incompatible with anything else!

 

Pre-grouping locos then : we rarely see anything that did not make it to BR days.

[polybear]

Can I do the review.

 

Only if you want all the Flack afterwards.......

[The Johnster]

Getting back to the OP's original point (look, guys, Johnster's bringing a thread back on topic), one wonders if he was asking because he is concerned that his expensive models will be replaced in the future with better ones; of course, they will.  But most current RTR is pretty good, especially locos and passenger stock with freight improving all the time, and should give many years of satisfaction.  

 

I still have models in service that date back to the 70s; they look fine!  I've worked them up as much as I can, and some anomalies are there; my main concern at the moment is that older locos do not have cab backhead detail and it cannot be easily provided because of the way the motors are mounted in the bodies.  It is particularly obvious on a 56xx which has a Mainline body every bit as good as the current production Bachmann one, but has been retrofitted with a modern Baccy chassis and too much daylight comes up through the cab floor.  I have an 8750 which started life as a Mainline 57xx to which I attached a K's 8750 cab; this also has an empty cab made emptier by a more modern (early Bachman or late Replica) chassis, but this is less of an issue than the 56xx as I have modelled sliding shutters in the closed positiion, so it's harder to see in there.

 

This loco is on the list for replacement, but a bit of work on the 56xx's cab floor to stop the daylight should see this loco remain in service.  I am even considering trying to fit a cab backhead from a Kitmaster kit prairie to it.  My antediluvian Airfix large prairie is a hopeless case of motor filled cab, and will be replaced by the new Dapol when it's available, but will do, for now.  It's on it's second chassis, but runs reasonably well; these noisy old chassis seem to improve right up the point they die on you; the slide bars give out eventually from plastic fatigue.  This is another point; models will wear out eventually, some sooner than others.  The Mainline split chassis and Airfix 14xx with sprung plunger pickups were notorious.  Modern RTR is increasingly 'no user serviceable parts inside' throwaway replaceable items; motors can sometimes be replaced as they are very cheap, well made, and reliable for years, but have sealed carbon brushes which will eventually wear out.  

  

The point is that, if you are starting out and relying on RTR, it may worry you that your models will become outdated and need replacement, but be re-assured that you have at least some control over this process.  Improvements over time are inevitable, but the longer you have been involved in the hobby, the more you are in a position to undertake work yourself.  This is only an issue if you are concerned about the resale value on eBay; I'm not.  I work to the principle that once I take the model out of the box, it becomes valueless in this sense, especially as I will, within minutes of taking it out, have done something to it to improve it and tone down the 'new'; I'd rather use it to my satisfaction than worry about resale.

[Butler Henderson]

Re the HO issue the problem is evident with Bachmanns 4-4-2s, there is not enough clearance to  get them round the UK setrack 2nd radius  curve without putting a kink in the connecting rods, imagine the issues with even smaller clearances. The one current main model that is ripe for a replacement IMO is Hornby Black Five.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Butler Henderson

[County of Yorkshire]

Re the HO issue the problem is evident with Bachmanns 4-4-2s, there is not enough clearance to  get them round the UK setrack 2nd radius  curve without putting a kink in the connecting rods, imagine the issues with even smaller clearances. The one current main model that is ripe for a replacement IMO is Hornby Black Five.

 

Yep. Closely followed by the Stanier 8f, Stanier Princess Royal, and GWR Manor. 

 

CoY

[Dunsignalling]

Yep. Closely followed by the Stanier 8f, Stanier Princess Royal, and GWR Manor. 

 

CoY

Given that none of the old ones have been produced for at least ten years, would a new Manor actually qualify as a replacement?

Edited September 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Build a model to these standards and then give us your reappraisal of this proposition. A Walschaerts valve gear pacific would be a good subject.

A GNR or LBSCR Atlantic would be an even better trick given the evident impossibility of getting moving parts behind the steps even with the acres of room available in OO.

 

Of course, anything is doable if one is willing and able to accept minimum curves of 6' radius.....

 

John

Edited September 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

Pre-grouping locos then : we rarely see anything that did not make it to BR days.

The eternal self-answering question. Unfortunately inevitable but for the most charismatic prototypes if you want to sell enough to pay for the tooling.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

I agree that adopting H0 is in principle far more sensible, but the entire supporting industry for scenery would be rendered somewhat obsolete. At least keeping 16.5mm track would allow some degree of backward compatibility. It would also allow for designs which have operated abroad to be sold to both markets too. Sadly I don't think we'll ever get away from 4mm/ft - just too much inertia.

There's far too much commitment to 4mm, on all sides, for it ever to change.

 

No manufacturer is going to start making stuff to destroy his existing business and few customers will look at models in a "new" scale/gauge if it offers a range amounting to no more than 1% of what's available in OO.

 

Giving customers sufficient choice to get enough of them on board would be a prohibitively expensive undertaking with (IMHO) very little chance of success inside the sort of timescale you would have to play with before your shareholders kicked you out.

 

Backward compatibility is a complete red herring. HO models passing under bridges, through tunnels and alongside platforms made with OO clearances would just look damn silly.

 

John

Edited September 9, 2018 by Dunsignalling