Do we need a current day BRMSB?

[martin_wynne]

11 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 So a few people got together ...  ... ... to persuade the trade to work to dimensions & tolerances which work together

 

 

But how do you establish that the group of people know what they are talking about with regard to dimensions and tolerances? 

 

Martin.

[Pete the Elaner]

Just now, martin_wynne said:

 

But how do you establish that the group of people know what they are talking about with regard to dimensions and tolerances? 

 

Martin.

 

That is a very good question. You need a level of trust.

Poor running I have observed with my own models indicated that something could be done & seeing the effects of a b2b gauge for the first time showed me that some results are possible with quite simple changes.

[martin_wynne]

32 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Poor running I have observed with my own models indicated that something could be done

 

Hi Pete,

 

This is my suggestion for what could be done:

 

1. take a bit of your track with you to the model shop.

 

2. ask if the model will run on it.

 

3. if they say no, don't buy it.

 

4. if they say yes, but it doesn't, take it back to the shop and demand your money back.

 

If everyone did that, the effect on the manufacturers would be miraculous.

 

Martin.

[Pete the Elaner]

43 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Pete,

 

This is my suggestion for what could be done:

 

1. take a bit of your track with you to the model shop.

 

2. ask if the model will run on it.

 

3. if they say no, don't buy it.

 

4. if they say yes, but it doesn't, take it back to the shop and demand your money back.

 

If everyone did that, the effect on the manufacturers would be miraculous.

 

Martin.

 

It sounds nice but it is hardly realistic

It would only work if many did it, but at the moment anybody doing that would be in a minority small enough to be written off an acceptable loss.

[martin_wynne]

38 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

It sounds nice but it is hardly realistic

 

H Pete,

 

I don't understand what is unrealistic about it?

 

No manufacturer is going to spend thousands of pounds on new tooling while their products are flying off the shelves. No matter how many self-appointed groups write to them in green ink claiming to know all about thous and tolerances.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

H Pete,

 

I don't understand what is unrealistic about it?

 

No manufacturer is going to spend thousands of pounds on new tooling while their products are flying off the shelves. No matter how many self-appointed groups write to them in green ink claiming to know all about thous and tolerances.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Your suggestion is for anyone with models which will not run reliably to take them back. In order for it to have an effect, it would need to be a significant amount of people doing the same. But it seems this is not currently the case & it will not change overnight. I cannot make other people follow me, so it is unrealistic to expect this approach to have an effect.

 

The OP was asking if a current BRMSB would be useful & like nearly all threads on here, it has drifted off-topic. I know this should cope with other scales than OO, but who would form it & what would they do? I saw this question asked a while back, but it was very much a relevant comment to the original question.

 

-p-

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

H Pete,

 

I don't understand what is unrealistic about it?

 

No manufacturer is going to spend thousands of pounds on new tooling while their products are flying off the shelves. No matter how many self-appointed groups write to them in green ink claiming to know all about thous and tolerances.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

44 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Hi Martin,

 

Your suggestion is for anyone with models which will not run reliably to take them back. In order for it to have an effect, it would need to be a significant amount of people doing the same. But it seems this is not currently the case & it will not change overnight. I cannot make other people follow me, so it is unrealistic to expect this approach to have an effect.

 

The OP was asking if a current BRMSB would be useful & like nearly all threads on here, it has drifted off-topic. I know this should cope with other scales than OO, but who would form it & what would they do? I saw this question asked a while back, but it was very much a relevant comment to the original question.

 

-p-

 

 

As a customer I expect any item I buy to work as advertised, if it fails in use I contact/go and see the retailer and expect them to honour the guarantee. For all electricals I keep the box it came in including all the packing and it goes into the loft with the sales receipt also inside. If an item goes wrong I take it back to the retailer packed up as new with the receipt. Most times the item is just replaced. If I bought a new loco  and it failed to work properly it would be returned to the retailer.  That includes if a loco's  wheels  back to back measurements are outside that which is specified for the gauge. Given the price charged for locos these days I would expect it to work correctly in every way straight out of the box.

 

There is a confusion as to what is 00 gauge specifications? I would use 00BF and or BRMSB others might have a different idea but the principai is the same

[Wheatley]

3 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

So what options are there? 

Run the majority of stuff 'as it comes' and modify the 5% which has issues, be they dodgy back to backs or Dapol's bizarre square flange on its milk tankers. 

 

Granted that 5% would have been a lot bigger in the 1980s, but the majority of currently available stuff should now run reasonably well on the majority of currently available proprietry track. 

[martin_wynne]

On 02/05/2022 at 11:37, Ravenser said:

 the DOGA Journal about 2004:

"The check flangeway is the critical value"

 

@Ravenser

 

I'm getting more and more angry every time I read that. It's just not fair to beginners.

 

The group that wrote that clearly don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about. And yet they are claiming to represent me to the RTR manufacturers. Well they don't. Even if I buy every 00 model in the shop they still don't represent me. And if any other 00 modellers are reading this, I suggest you don't let them represent you either.

 

The check rail flangeway is the least important dimension of the lot. That's why the prototype has a range of check rail chairs having differing flangeway gaps, for situations where there is gauge-widening. And the whole point of 16.5mm 00 is that it is pre-gauge-widened to work round train-set curves.

 

The critical value is the check gauge. From the opposite running rail to the face of the check rail. The distance from the check face to the near running rail doesn't matter a damn, providing it is sufficient to clear the wheel flanges easily. Saying that it is the critical value just illustrates that the group concerned shouldn't be let anywhere near setting a track standard. Fine if they want to build their own track that way. Carry on. But imposing it on others is just plain wrong.

 

Martin.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Pete,

 

This is my suggestion for what could be done:

 

1. take a bit of your track with you to the model shop.

 

2. ask if the model will run on it.

 

3. if they say no, don't buy it.

 

4. if they say yes, but it doesn't, take it back to the shop and demand your money back.

 

If everyone did that, the effect on the manufacturers would be miraculous.

 

Martin.

Trouble is much of the market is still run by people buying toys for junior. If the train falls off the track, it just gets put back on again. Eventually, if it falls off too often, they will give up and put the train set back in the cupboard and buy a new computer game!

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

 

As a customer I expect any item I buy to work as advertised, if it fails in use I contact/go and see the retailer and expect them to honour the guarantee. For all electricals I keep the box it came in including all the packing and it goes into the loft with the sales receipt also inside. If an item goes wrong I take it back to the retailer packed up as new with the receipt. Most times the item is just replaced. If I bought a new loco  and it failed to work properly it would be returned to the retailer.  That includes if a loco's  wheels  back to back measurements are outside that which is specified for the gauge. Given the price charged for locos these days I would expect it to work correctly in every way straight out of the box.

 

There is a confusion as to what is 00 gauge specifications? I would use 00BF and or BRMSB others might have a different idea but the principai is the same

Back to back measurements specified by whom?

If it was say a Hornby or Bachmann loco and worked perfectly well on the track they supply that's really end of story. That's what they test them on as we all saw in the recent TV series about Hornby . If it derails or binds on Peco, Roco, Tillig or hand or kit made track to MOROP, BRMSB, DOGA or NMRA dimensions that's not actually their problem. Because there are no accepted specifications for British 00 there are no standards against which a product could be judged to fail. If Hornby say that a particular loco will negotiate Hornby and second radius curves then so it probably will and if it doesn't you can take it back. If it  only derails on Peco large radius turnouts then tough .

 

That's always been the dilemma facing mass produced track makers. Peco or GF could have made points to the current BRMSB standards (which Peco actually did pre-Streamline) but, if the manufacturers weren't following those standards, their customers wouldn't have complained to them but would simply have decided that "Peco (or whatever) track is no good" when their favourite loco went dans le sable (derailed) and they'd have gone bust. What they did instead was to compromise on the published standards enough that the main manufacturers' rolling stock would all negotiate their pointwork, though not as smoothly as wheels and track designed to work together, and with the occasional derailment.

When Peco introduced their 83 Line range and, AFAIK their H0n3 range, they simply made it to NMRA specs. and it sells very well in the American market (where it seems to be regarded as a premium product among RTL track) Actually, having an established standard to work to probably came with a great sigh of relief to Peco's designers and they were just as happy to use the EMGS standards for the track they made for them.

 

I'm pretty sure that the reason Peco don't publish the specs for their track and Hornby etc. don't declare what wheel standards they're using is that it would just become a stick to beat them with and it would have been harder to quietly change either as manufacturer's wheel profiles started to converge (on something close to RP25/110? ) .

Edited May 5, 2022 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

34 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Back to back measurements specified by whom?

 

The paying customer. Easy enough to find out:

 

Dear Hornby Sales Department,

 

I am intending to purchase one of your models, part no. abc123. Please first confirm that on all wheels:

 

The back-to-back dimension will not be less than 14.3mm.

The back-to-flange dimension will not be more than 15.2mm.

The effective flange thickness will not be more than 0.8mm.

The overall wheel width will not be less than 2.75mm.

 

Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your confirmation that the above will apply and to making my purchase.

 

yours,

 

 

Martin.

[Enterprisingwestern]

But but but, the back to back is of no relevance whilst ever there is no standardised wheel profile as the critical dimension is from the root radius of one wheels flange to the other wheel back, which is what ties in with Martins (mostly ignored it seems} assertions of the check gauge being a critical dimension.

It's blindingly obvious that the same btb won't allow all manufacturers wheelset to traverse the same piece of track or pointwork, so therefore we need standards, but that's where we came in!

 

Mike.

[martin_wynne]

27 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

But but but, the back to back is of no relevance whilst ever there is no standardised wheel profile as the critical dimension is from the root radius of one wheels flange to the other wheel back, which is what ties in with Martins (mostly ignored it seems} assertions of the check gauge being a critical dimension.

It's blindingly obvious that the same btb won't allow all manufacturers wheelset to traverse the same piece of track or pointwork, so therefore we need standards, but that's where we came in!

 

Mike.

@Enterprisingwestern

 

Hi Mike,

 

I have listed the wheel requirements in my letter to Hornby, see: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/171439-do-we-need-a-current-day-brmsb/?do=findComment&comment=4808475

 

What could be simpler? Yes or No from Hornby and off you go. :)

 

Martin.

 

[Derekl]

Well, totally off-topic, but then most of the above is and some of it a bit ill-tempered. Reading it prompted my thoughts on slightly erratic running through pointwork of a fairly new Bachmann Fairburn 2-6-4T. And lo and behold, on checking back to back with a gauge, the front driving axle is a minuscule too tight - pushing the gauge in resulted in a slight adjustment so that it now works. All the other wheels were correct. I do know I will have to keep an eye on it - the wheel-set may well be loose.

 

On topic. it does seem to me that not only was this answered on about page 2 or earlier - no we don't need a new standards setting body as nobody will bother to follow it, not to mention the additional argument about what standards to set.........

 

It is quite amusing watching people who I presume are grown adults squabbling in public, though......

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Ravenser

 

I'm getting more and more angry every time I read that. It's just not fair to beginners.

 

The group that wrote that clearly don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about. And yet they are claiming to represent me to the RTR manufacturers. Well they don't. Even if I buy every 00 model in the shop they still don't represent me. And if any other 00 modellers are reading this, I suggest you don't let them represent you either.

 

The check rail flangeway is the least important dimension of the lot. That's why the prototype has a range of check rail chairs having differing flangeway gaps, for situations where there is gauge-widening. And the whole point of 16.5mm 00 is that it is pre-gauge-widened to work round train-set curves.

 

The critical value is the check gauge. From the opposite running rail to the face of the check rail. The distance from the check face to the near running rail doesn't matter a damn, providing it is sufficient to clear the wheel flanges easily. Saying that it is the critical value just illustrates that the group concerned shouldn't be let anywhere near setting a track standard. Fine if they want to build their own track that way. Carry on. But imposing it on others is just plain wrong.

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin:

 

A brief quote taken from a longer article. That article was about the varying standards found on  contemporary  RTR and ready-made points.  It attempted a rough grouping by "bands". It was not an article about building your own track at all. Hence building your own pointwork was not properly speaking within its scope. 

 

The figures for SMP and C+L represent the roller gauges they then sold. They simply illustrate the greater "fineness" promoted by the major suppliers of components for handbuilt track  If you bought a prefabricated crossing from C+L , you got 1.0mm flangeways - but the check gauge of a crossing on its own is moot

 

And one phrase in one article in a Society magazine, published under the author's name not that of the Society , nearly 20 years ago , hardly justifies you damning an entire organisation.

 

The point being demonstrated is simply the differing flangeways in existence, and their effect on whether the wheels are held clear of the crossing. Since all cases are based on 16.5mm gauge, the flangeway serves as a convenient simple proxy for the check gauge

 

Perhaps I'd better quote some more - like the opening and the end:

 

Quote

Some people may feel that the title of this article is a contradiction in terms. Surely nothing in the hobby is more productive of bitter theological debate over split hairs than wheel and track standards? And surely wheel and track standards are a game that only the highly skilled can play, the preserve of those who fit working cab fittings to their locos while the rest of us bumble comfortably along with PECO Streamline Universal and the odd bit of unreconstructed Triang? Wheel and track standards for beginners, or at least for the average modeller who knows nothing of the subject other than that it means trouble and grief?

 

Well, yes. If you know little or nothing about the subject, this article is for you. If you are thoroughly familiar with the ground, the issues, the key dimensions, and their merits – it probably isn’t, and please bear with me, especially in generalising and approximating.

 

Quote

If you stick to Bachmann , the latest Hornby, and kits you can adopt Intermediate track to strict standards and you won’t have to rewheel anything. 

 

If you want absolute consistency of wheel and track, then DOGA Finescale is your best bet – but this means handbuilding all your pointwork and rewheeling all your stock. And whatever you do, never use wheels more than one band finer than your track and avoid Setrack like the plague.

 

[Ravenser]

7 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Pete,

 

This is my suggestion for what could be done:

 

1. take a bit of your track with you to the model shop.

 

2. ask if the model will run on it.

 

3. if they say no, don't buy it.

 

4. if they say yes, but it doesn't, take it back to the shop and demand your money back.

 

If everyone did that, the effect on the manufacturers would be miraculous.

 

Martin.

 

 

Which bit of track?

 

If it's plain track, anything will run.

 

A real example. I bought a  rake of Hornby Midland Mainline Mk3s  to support the club project.  (I didn't buy the HST power cars - and never did)

 

We ran them round the layout with a loco on the front at a show where the project appeared part built. The layout pointwork front-of-house was built using traditional BRMSB gauges (1.25mm)

 

One of the coaches came off at a particular point. Several times

 

Someone suggested the B2B was out . I pushed the vehicle through the point by hand - "it works just fine"

 

We ran them round again. Off it comes again, in the same place

 

Someone (not me)  heads off to the DOGA stand tp get a B2B gauge

 

All the wheels are tight. We ease them over the gauge , put them back in the bogies and try again.

 

This time it runs without any trouble.

 

Try that one on a retailer, 18 months to 2 years after you bought the item.

 

He'll simply run the item through his own Peco code 100 , it won't come off (flangeways 1.39mm ...) . Then he'll tell you the fault is in your track, not the model and refuse a refund.

 

How do you take your layout to a model shop? Let alone a mail-order retailer?

 

[Ravenser]

34 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

@Enterprisingwestern

 

Hi Mike,

 

I have listed the wheel requirements in my letter to Hornby, see: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/171439-do-we-need-a-current-day-brmsb/?do=findComment&comment=4808475

 

What could be simpler? Yes or No from Hornby and off you go. :)

 

Martin.

 

 

 

You will need to quote an R-number for the product

 

Try this: stanier corridor 3rd   R4448b  full RRP 😱

 

This is rather cheaper , from Kernow Hornby ex Dapol 68' LMS dining car   R4188d

 

I will be interested to see the answer. If they are honest, it should be No / Yes / Yes / No

 

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

He'll simply run the item through his own Peco code 100 , it won't come off (flangeways 1.39mm ...) . Then he'll tell you the fault is in your track, not the model and refuse a refund.

 

That depends what he told you when you bought them. Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

 

If you asked him if it will run on track built to X dimensions, and he said yes, and it doesn't, you get a refund if returned within a reasonable length of time.

 

If you didn't ask, it might be a good idea next time.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

5 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

That depends what he told you when you bought them. Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

 

If you asked him if it will run on track built to X dimensions, and he said yes, and it doesn't, you get a refund if returned within a reasonable length of time.

 

If you didn't ask, it might be a good idea next time.

 

Martin.

 

I'm afraid an awful lot of stuff is now mail-order. Model shops are few and far between - there are just 2 left in London

 

I didn't get a conversation with Locomotion when I ordered Hardwicke via their website. Nor with Hattons when I snapped up a discounted 14" Barclay off the website (14.50mm B2B if you ask) - they are the commissioner from the factory. Nor with Invicta when I bought their special commission Bachmann LMS Portholes in Fisons weedkiller livery. (That's most of the new RTR I've bought in the last 3 years)

 

As for when you buy second-hand items, forget it.

 

If the item is ok on every bit of Peco Code 100 sold - but comes off on Peco medium radius concrete sleeper points - where are you?

 

Remember - the average modeller has no idea what dimensions his track is. And no idea how to measure it. He only finds out when he reads a thread like this.

 

And the Peco Code 100 point he buys new in the model shop may be to different dimensions from the second hand example in the tray in the same shop. Even the retailer probably won't be aware of that.

 

[martin_wynne]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

I'm afraid an awful lot of stuff is now mail-order

 

An email before you buy? In any other business, the assumption if buying a Hornby product would be that it is designed to run on Hornby track. If you know you want to run it on some other track, it would make sense to email and ask first.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

This seems a good moment to answer :

Quote

It would be interesting to know exactly WHO were these people calling themselves DOGA and setting themselves up to define the 00 dimensions for everyone else? By what authority?

 

MORILL Vol1 No 5 (May -June 1994) provides contemporary documentation. Iain Rice in Depot again - his Bulletin Board editorial is devoted to it

 

Quote

At last!  For more years than I care to remember, I have been batting on about the deplorable lack of proper definition and promulation of standards for our most popular scale/gauge combination, OO..

   .. It's a mess is OO - and one of the reasons is that the poor old OO modeller, unlike his fellows working to the finer 4mm standards has not had a body to set out proper standards, and to represent his needs to the manufacturers......

    That is why the newly-formed Double O Gauge Association is potentially so important , and why it is so deserving of support. An association representing the largest body of interest within the hobby might exert (if it can attract the sort of membership that it should command) a significant and benevolent influence on the most popular scale. I'd urge all OO modellers to join it as soon as possible. Send a large stamped SAE (mentioning MORILL) to The Double O Gauge Association, PO Box 100, Crawley Sussex RH10 1XP

 

The two people launching this initiative were a pair of OO modellers from Crawley MRC , John Pitty and Steve Aldridge . John Pitty became the first Chairman. They roped in various other OO modellers within the club, notably Charlie Bloomfield , who became Secretary. A quarterly Journal was launched in the late summer of 1994. After a few issues Phil Parker of this forum took over as editor, up to 2000. I believe Tony Wright was a member in the 1990s , as was Graham Warburton , the layout leader for Bath Green Park.I remember  Graham Warburton attending a DOGA general meeting in 2000

 

I saw Iain Rice's piece and duly sent off an SAE and became a member. For some years , until after the turn of the Millenium, I read the Journal and that was it. 

 

The founders then set out on the road with a stand, attending various exhibitions, talking to modellers, getting feedback on standards and recruiting members . Early Journals list show commitments at Warley, Trainwest Chippenham, Birmingham, Model World Brighton, Crawley, Carshalton, Crawley again, Warley again, and Banbury. They certainly did Chatham too - I remember seeing them there one year (I think that was the year I bumped into John Pottinger, lately Chief Financial Accountant of ACTA, behind the C+L stand)

 

There was an unfortunate issue here, which has had long-running consequences. Crawley is a long way from most of the country. By the late 90s , the DOGA stand had drifted into a comfortable pattern of half a dozen shows in Southern England , plus Warley. Long experience has demonstrated that the footprint of membership tracks the footprint of shows attended fairly closely. This leads to a vicious circle  No show attendance - very few members in an area. Almost no members in an area = no stand crew . No stand crew = can't do a show near here. No show attendance = no local members.....

 

In the last 9 months DOGA has done GETS , Milton Keynes; Model Rail Scotland and Ally Pally , plus two or three smaller shows. However the North of England remains an issue, and Midland shows are an on-going battle. GETS was originally a Midlands show, the RMWeb event at the Ricoh was a one-off, the GCR event isn't taking place this year. CMRA's show has fallen by the wayside (not that that was Midlands)

 

I believe the stand is at Watford show , which I think is this weekend, though I'm afraid I won't be there.

 

There was extended correspondance about standards in the Journal in the early years. Nobody had any appetite for literally re-inventing the wheel, in a cool new form that nobody actually made...

 

Once the question is reduced to "which existing wheel do you want Hornby, Lima et al to adopt"  the options are pretty limited. There seems to have been a general concensus in favour of RP25/110

 

The initial OO Commercial wheel and track standards datasheets were issued in I think 1999. The draftsman was Charlie Bloomfield , a professional engineer, I think in power station engineering. But as the sheets were simply RP25/110 cloned, with the NMRA track standard adapted to show sleepers at 10mm centres for 4mm , it would be unfair on all parties to claim Charlie "invented" the standard . He simply drew up datasheets reflecting a general consensus that this was the existing standard wheel the manufacturers should be pushed to adopt.

 

The two founders dropped out around the Millenium and Charlie Bloomfield became Chairman for a couple of years. By this ;point DOGA had about 350-400 members I think. Those active in DOGA became much more geographically diverse, and a continuing effort was made to broaden the footprint of shows attended and push up-country

 

It was around 2000 that the pressure began to bear friut. Hornby switched from their old coarse wheel standard - briefly with a 14.1mm B2B than rapidly to 14.45mm , which remains their norm for locos . The slither back to 14.2 -14.3mm on rolling stock was probably about 2007-8. Those involved in trade liasion said  Lima were very difficult - contact with the factory in Italy was impossible, you could only speak to the UK importer, and they were only interested in limited editions for collectors. Lima solved the issue soon after by going bust and disappearing from the market - Hornby tooled up new drive units with better wheels when they reissued the models. By 2002-3 every RTR manufacturer professed adherence to RP25/110 in some form

 

It was only Peco who remained obdurate, year after year.

 

Basically a lot of people have been involved in DOGA at different times  (I count at least 6 Journal editors over the years, none of whom were me..)   A quick count up gives 9 current officers/committee members. That is the nature of a scale society , and one reason they have more inherent authority and mandate than 4 or 5 people forming a ginger-group

Edited May 5, 2022 by Ravenser

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

It was around 2000 that the pressure began to bear friut. Hornby switched from their old coarse wheel standard - briefly with a 14.1mm B2B than rapidly to 14.45mm , which remains their norm for locos . The slither back to 14.2 -14.3mm on rolling stock was probably about 2007-8. Those involved in trade liasion said  Lima were very difficult - contact with the factory in Italy was impossible, you could only speak to the UK importer, and they were only interested in limited editions for collectors. Lima solved the issue soon after by going bust and disappearing from the market - Hornby tooled up new drive units with better wheels when they reissued the models. By 2002-3 every RTR manufacturer professed adherence to RP25/110 in some form

 

It was only Peco who remained obdurate, year after year.

 

 

In what sense were Peco being "obdurate"? What is it that you, or DOGA, thought they should have done that they didn't. If it was not making track designed specifically for RP25/110 wheelsets without the compromises that would allow other wheelsets to also run then that was a commercial decision.

(I found this comment on a US forum, "If you want a good compromise trackwork system that accepts stock from anywhere around the world (from the last 30 years) then PECO code 100 STREAMLINE is the track for you." )

 

 

[hayfield]

12 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

I'm afraid an awful lot of stuff is now mail-order. Model shops are few and far between - there are just 2 left in London

 

 

 

12 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

An email before you buy? In any other business, the assumption if buying a Hornby product would be that it is designed to run on Hornby track. If you know you want to run it on some other track, it would make sense to email and ask first.

 

Martin.

 

Gents

 

Distance selling rules actually give you far more rights that buying in person, this can be further enhanced by using a credit card.

 

This has nothing to do with the topic, but using mail order you can return any item you have decided is unfit for use.

[Philou]

Well! having read through the thread that I thought was fascinating regarding the various standards out there, plus the right amount of froth to keep it bubbling away. I don't really have a dog in this fight but I will set out my stall.

 

I have had an interest in model railways since the mid-1950s and my first real awakening to track standards was when I moved from the TrixTwin bakelite/fibre based track to Peco Streamline - everything just worked (excluding my pre-1960s Trix and I never had Tri-ang).

 

Fast forward to around 2005 after a break of 35 years from model railways, I started to collect more modern-built models to start 'that' layout as retirement was fast approaching (my layout threads are elsewhere on RMWeb). Because Peco, for me, was the de facto 'standard', in a leap of faith I have decided to lay everything in Code75 FB - I should have perhaps considered some BH too as even today there are parts of the prototype rail network that still has BH. The questions that follow from reading all before are:

 

1. Should I have not bought into Code75 and perhaps built my own? My answer to that is 'no' as I want to lay 150yds of it quickly once the boards are in place.

 

2. Can I expect that everything I've bought to date (about £40ks worth - and shhhh don't tell Mrs Philou) will run upon it? I hope it will and it should - shouldn't it, despite not having an official standards body?

 

And a final question for 10, where do I buy a B2B gauge and to which 'standard'?

 

One thing I have noted, is that when I see EM layouts in the flesh or in photos, they just look wrong, as I've been too used to seeing 00 gauge track!

 

(I shall be giving British Finescale points a whirl due to their apparent flexibility that will be useful in places where Peco points just won't give the track formation required.)

 

Very interesting thread and much food for thought,

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited May 6, 2022 by Philou