A medium radius curved point

[Markeg]

"Missing the obvious"

 

"With all this talk of (and whinging about) new models; LMS 10000, Blue Pullmans, RODs, 7Fs etc., etc., are not all the manufacturers missing something from all their ranges which would be so useful to all modellers that like to run their trains? That is, a medium radius curved point. The Peco offering, while looking prototypical in appearance, is too large for the average spare room layout and the Hornby one is too sharp for many of today's 'near scale' steam engines.

 

A medium radius curved point would be so useful and enable more interesting and prototypical formations. Come on Bachmann, Hornby and Peco, let's have something universally useful for us all!! "

 

Simon Richardson

 

Hi All,

Found this comment on the MREmag site tonight.

I have been thinking this for a while because I would have used them on my layout. A 750mm inside radius to a 900mm outside radius or something like it. Alas I had to put the crossover points around the curve away from the station on a straight section.

 

What do others think?

Is it worth putting the notion to say Peco or the other manufacturers?

 

Mark

 

 

 

[Nile]

Shinohara make curved points in a variety of radii and at various rail heights,see here:

 

scalelink (half way down the page)

 

There must be something of use there.

[cromptonnut]

The discussion of "better track all round" has been had many times yet none of the "big players" seem to want to improve their r-t-r range.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The resistance of the major indigenous player to this idea that better products should be regularly introduced is going to see Peco go the same way as the UK's motor and consumer electronics industries. Sooner or later they are going to get blown into the weeds for their neglect of advancing customer expectations. Businesses like Tillig are showing the way, it's not far off now. The only feeling I will have is for loyal employees who will consequently see jobs disappear, unnecessarily...

 

 

[giz]

It must depend on what percentage of their sales are actually in the UK.

 

When US sales were threatened they came up with the code 83 range and the brand new concrete sleeper track and points are still HO so they are producing new products but they don't seem to be aimed primarily at us.

[Barry Ten]

The resistance of the major indigenous player to this idea that better products should be regularly introduced is going to see Peco go the same way as the UK's motor and consumer electronics industries. Sooner or later they are going to get blown into the weeds for their neglect of advancing customer expectations. Businesses like Tillig are showing the way, it's not far off now. The only feeling I will have is for loyal employees who will consequently see jobs disappear, unnecessarily...

 

 

 

Peco sell heaps of track in the US, and elsewhere, don't forget, to modellers who neither know nor care about 00.

 

[Edit - what Giz said!]

[James]

The Peco offering, while looking prototypical in appearance

 

I think this bit alone shows that many people are quite happy with the appearance of Peco track. I don't agree with the part I've quoted, although if you look at Pengwynn Corssing, you cansee that Peco track can look very good indeed, but if people are many people are happy (or even unaware of the difference) is there really so much of a market for 'british' ready to lay track? Whatever that might be...

[HerbertHopkins]

The resistance of the major indigenous player to this idea that better products should be regularly introduced is going to see Peco go the same way as the UK's motor and consumer electronics industries. Sooner or later they are going to get blown into the weeds for their neglect of advancing customer expectations. Businesses like Tillig are showing the way, it's not far off now. The only feeling I will have is for loyal employees who will consequently see jobs disappear, unnecessarily...

 

I've been thinking exactly the same thing for some time now. Unfortunately, while Peco continue to sell vast quantities of their track they are unlikely to do anything to improve its appearance. Peco track, to me, looks totally wrong for British layouts but, it seems, people are prepared to put up with this because it is readily available and easy to use. I know several modellers who have been in this hobby much longer than I who are horrified if you suggest using a more accurate make of track.

 

'Yeah' they reply 'but they don't make points'.

'Make your own' I say 'it's not that difficult'

'Oh,I'm not sure about that' they counter.

'Well I can do it, so it can't be that hard. Why don't you give it a try?'

 

Invariably they never do. The result is that many, otherwise excellent layouts, are spoilt by completely unrealistic looking track.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Thanks for that. Historical review: received opinion barely over a decade ago was 'there isn't any demand from the UK general public' for better quality and inevitably more expensive RTR locos and stock than the tat then being shovelled out by Lima and Hornby. Remember how that ended? The casualty was a fair sized company in terms of this industry with genuinely multinational business.

 

Regarding track, I reckon all it needs is a competitor with a step improvement in the product. The opportunity is in making a genuinely 'plug and play' track system for DCC. That will enable a price premium to be charged in the start up phase, and will be the 'hook' that encourages a sector of the market to make the switch. I can see the advertising now: integrated bus, built in point motors with decoders, and the cosmetic advances to suit the target market.

[James]

One thing is, a generic BH track system still won't be completely right. And then, what about people who model beyond the sixties when FB came into vogue?

[edcayton]

Is Peco correct for British HO? The problem is that whatever they do they cannot produce SCALE British 00 gauge because it is an oxymoron (I think). We have HO, various "finescale" 00 variants, EM and P4/S4. If they do produce an "accurate" 4mm trackage system who will make stock to run on it?

Also, I am sure that people who want finescale track do not wish to be constrained by fixed geometry, but rather build track in situ, so I can't see it happening any time soon.

 

Ed

[James]

Is Peco correct for British HO?

 

Not really; I believe it's based loosely on German practise.

[Bernard Lamb]

Not really; I believe it's based loosely on German practise.

 

 

Very loosely. German track depicted as wide a regional variation as did the UK at an equivalent date.

Bernard

[hayfield]

"Missing the obvious"

 

"With all this talk of (and whinging about) new models; LMS 10000, Blue Pullmans, RODs, 7Fs etc., etc., are not all the manufacturers missing something from all their ranges which would be so useful to all modellers that like to run their trains? That is, a medium radius curved point. The Peco offering, while looking prototypical in appearance, is too large for the average spare room layout and the Hornby one is too sharp for many of today's 'near scale' steam engines.

 

A medium radius curved point would be so useful and enable more interesting and prototypical formations. Come on Bachmann, Hornby and Peco, let's have something universally useful for us all!! "

 

Simon Richardson

 

Hi All,

Found this comment on the MREmag site tonight.

I have been thinking this for a while because I would have used them on my layout. A 750mm inside radius to a 900mm outside radius or something like it. Alas I had to put the crossover points around the curve away from the station on a straight section.

 

What do others think?

Is it worth putting the notion to say Peco or the other manufacturers?

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

I am not to up on RTR track now as I have built my own for some time. The problem with 'better looking turnouts'

is the space they take up, they are always larger. Curved turnouts are even worse, when you curve the outside track this reduces the inside radius, so you have to start with a larger radius turnout which means a larger turnout.

 

The second problem is that RTR turnouts are designed to fit together to make junctions etc, this will limit the size options available.

 

I doubt if any Manufacturer in this financial climate would invest the sums required for a scale track system, if they did they would only cover a few turnouts.

 

If you want scale track then you will have to make it yourself, the parts are out there and now its a simple job to construct them.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But the situation is that the vast majority interested in having a model railway will not build their own track. The present financial climate is actually the right one for product development: while business output is slack, you turn the resulting reserve capacity within the organisation onto product development, so that at the recovery you have a better product offering than competitors who did nothing but 'wait it out'.

[HerbertHopkins]

But the situation is that the vast majority interested in having a model railway will not build their own track.

 

My point exactly. The only way things are going to change is if another manufacturer enters the market with a better product. This would give the existing producer(s) the kick up the backside that, IMO, they've needed for some time. If Bachmann hadn't entered the R-T-R market we would still be stuck with tender drives, pancake motors and too narrow back-to-backs. The problem is, as I see it, that while people will buy another loco, and rolling stock to go with it, although they probably don't need it, they only buy track when they first start building a layout. If a better product were available not many of us would rip all our track up and replace it. Sales would only start coming through if and when someone was contemplating a new layout.

 

I'm sure that some enterprising company has looked into the possibility of entering this section of the market, but can only conclude that they decided the market wasn't big enough to make it a viable proposition. Sad if that's the case.

[James]

Do modellers actually know or understand enough about track for a range to work?

 

And what does 'better looking turnouts' actually mean?

 

Remember how that ended? The casualty was a fair sized company in terms of this industry with genuinely multinational business.

 

Did you see what they made for other markets? Lima's spec was on a par with other Euro manufacturers. I believe it was actually the Riko/The Hobby Company who were the ones who suggesting the spec which the British market would need - I think it sounds like they thought british buyers wouldn't pay extra for better mechanisms. I think Lima's british sales would have been quite small in relation to the rest of their market.

[edcayton]

AFAIK Bachmann don't make track (whose do they use in their trainsets?), and Hornby only make settrack type. Heljan and Dapol don't make it either. What it needs is some clever chap or chapess to come up with a design that looks "right", and has some flexibility in the points (like Tillig), possibly pre-ballasted like Fleischmann, and persuade one of the majors to produce and market it.

I ain't holding my breath though. The furore on here over the B*** P****** (or is it OK to say that now?)would suggest that there is no concensus (sp?) between modellers and the amount of negativity and knocking copy would be enough to put anyone off.

Even if it could be done, how much would we pay. We seem happy to part with £100 for a loco (£200 with sound), but would we pay £100+ for a turnout?

Having said all that, it does appear that a BP is forthcoming after all the wishlists so maybe.......

 

Ed

[frobisher]

AFAIK Bachmann don't make track (whose do they use in their trainsets?), and Hornby only make settrack type.

 

Bachmann do actually sell a range of set track that (as I understand it) are manufactured for them by Roco using the tooling that Roco used to manufacture Hornby's track before Hornby transferred manufacture to China where they got duplicate(ish) tooling made. The Bachmann track differs by having "Bachmann" on the bottom and the parts still have the old Hornby R part number moulded on them.

 

I do wish that Hornby (and Peco) would properly extend their set track ranges. 4th radius curves were a nice start, but some more pointwork would be desireable (particulary curved points between 3rd and 4th radius). My OO stock has to exist on temporary layouts with no fixed abode or baseboards so I have an excuse

 

Certainly with Hornby's range now covering all their European brands, I'd have now thought a set track double slip would have been an essential.

[Oakydoke]

Certainly with Hornby's range now covering all their European brands, I'd have now thought a set track double slip would have been an essential.

If Hornby wish to push set track in their other European markets, they'll have to come up with something much better than their current offering. The competition is well established and has much better products.

[James]

If Hornby wish to push set track in their other European markets, they'll have to come up with something much better than their current offering. The competition is well established and has much better products.

 

Going on the last statement, what point is there?

 

I suspect their new track is a Chinese copy of the Roco track so in terms of train sets I'm sure it meets the needs of the intended market. European modellers who want better have excellent choices for track available.

[Pennine MC]

One thing is, a generic BH track system still won't be completely right.

 

Do modellers actually know or understand enough about track for a range to work?

 

 

It doesnt need to be completely right, and modellers at large don't need to know or understand too much. Obviously prototype track varies, no system could be any more than generic, and this has traditionally been used as an objection, as it has with RTR signals or overhead. But oh look, Dapol have introduced 'generic' RTR overhead, and it's getting shiploads of welcoming comments... As for lack of knowledge, they'll take notice of peer opinion much as they do with other products - you only have to recall the number of 'which is the best 37/47' threads to see that

 

The simple fact is that even if prototypically wide of the mark, improvements can be made to a RTR track system that will remove or mitigate many of the issues that accompany a product like Peco Streamline code 75/100.

You only have to look at some current RTR alternatives, or the slight modifications others have made to Peco, to see this can easily be achieved.

 

Of course they can. In essence, it just requires an acceptable, workable compromise, which is what any commercial OO product is anyway. The objection usually voiced is that it's impossible to achieve prototypical sleeper spacing because it throws the overall proportions - well OK then, just make the sleepers a tad shorter, as C&L/SMP do. Or space them wider, but not to the full 1:76 scale dimension - whatever, there has to be an optimum fudge that will satisfy most people

 

 

 

With due respect guys, the call for "better looking" track has never required it to be "Scale" track.

That's the diversion that the infamous "Plowmen poll" used to undermine the argument.

 

 

Quite so Ron, some of the comments above are distinctly Plowmanish IMO. Again though, due apologies to the OP for continuing this here.

[James]

It doesnt need to be completely right, and modellers at large don't need to know or understand too much. Obviously prototype track varies, no system could be any more than generic, and this has traditionally been used as an objection, as it has with RTR signals or overhead. But oh look, Dapol have introduced 'generic' RTR overhead, and it's getting shiploads of welcoming comments... As for lack of knowledge, they'll take notice of peer opinion much as they do with other products - you only have to recall the number of 'which is the best 37/47' threads to see that

 

I think if you were going to produce a range of BH RTL turnouts could be based around a small range to begin with - either along the lines Peco's Geometry with a standard crossing angle or maybe an A4, B6 and B8 left and right range, but I'd suggest if they were slightly flexible (as Tilling produce) then they could also be made to fit all sorts of situations. Match the height to either C&L, SMP or Exactoscale possibly? Or produce a matching flexitrack.

 

If they were to prototypical 'sizes' then it may satisfy those of a more finescale persuassion (sp?) as well as those who just want better looking track. I'd pick the BR standards as a source of reference as it would satisfy most people; if you cared enough about this for it to concern you, you'd probably already build your own.

 

A small range to start with and introduce slips and diamonds as time goes on maybe? In the meantime, a range could easily be supplemented by handbuilt S&C in more complex arrangements too.

 

I think it could work, but it depends if a company would take the risk or not. It would be a smaller market than traditional Streamline so a premium could easily be charged to make it pay.

[frobisher]

If Hornby wish to push set track in their other European markets, they'll have to come up with something much better than their current offering. The competition is well established and has much better products.

 

They're already doing it - the former Lima, Joeff etc track ranges have been replaced with the Hornby one now.

[autocoach]

A shallow integrated but replaceable switch machine that is DCC ready and addressable. A slightly longer and wider spaciing of ties. Even though I model 1930's, geometry and fittings based on BR standards with FB rail would be acceptable. I accept the fact that I will never get RTR BH SR or GWR OO versions. Flexible curvature a great plus.

 

I might even add a (rechargeable from the track) battery to provide a burst of power for throwing the switch.....

 

The machine should be shallow enough that id does not extend below the level of raised cork/foam roadbed.

 

I would suggest US NMRA standards for clearances etc.

 

Dream specs.....I have 16 turnouts crammed on my 2 foot by 11 foot plank waiting to be replaced.