Is trackwork the poor relation of the hobby ?

[DLPG]

I have decided to go down the avenue of SMP for my new loft layout. I'm using code 100 for my storage sidings and placing SMP on cork through the scenic sections.

 

As someone new to the finescale track I have found it so difficult to work out what I need. I think both marcways and C&L need improved websites that clearly show what you are buying in terms of the various kits. A photo of what you can build from each kit and some dimensions would have helped me. Also with Smp the ability to buy online would be excellent but I hear there is a new website coming. I think if it was a little more easy to access more people would have ditched peco before now.

 

 

[Guest jim s-w]

Lima surely Jim?

Ian

 

Yeah, my bad

[Guest jim s-w]

 That must be a layout and a half the nearest EF29's are at Apsley and Bletchley! :)The DCE/ACE's office at Watford only tending to use EF29 shallow depth sleepers on bridges, whereas the Birmingham office seemed to use them almost as a standard.

 

The point is not everyone gives up as you claimed. Phil built nearly 40ft of track with colin craigs br1 baseplates. Each one requiring assembly first. I dont know what the sleepers are at tring but Tims planning to do his own rather than use fast-track and thats about a scale mile scenic.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[martin_wynne]

The point is not everyone gives up as you claimed.

 

On Adavoyle Junction (P4) each chair was moulded in situ around the soldered rivets. That's 4 injections per sleeper, waiting for each to cool, and trimming 6 feed whiskers from the chair screws. Yours truly made the injection tools, but Tony Miles did all the chairing with them:

 

http://templot.com/GNRI/adavoyle.htm

 

He had just about finished when Len Newman introduced the first K&L plastic chairs.

 

Martin.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

The point is not everyone gives up as you claimed. Phil built nearly 40ft of track with colin craigs br1 baseplates. Each one requiring assembly first. I dont know what the sleepers are at tring but Tims planning to do his own rather than use fast-track and thats about a scale mile scenic. Cheers Jim

And here is another 50 feet or so, including eleven turnouts and one single slip. Built using Exactoscale and C&L components, including the plain track. That was assembled in a simple lazer cut jig to give correct LNWR sleeper spacing for the 60' panels.

And it was very satisfying to do.

[coachmann]

As far as plain track you have both C&L and Exactoscale RTR plain track from C&L and SMP track from Marcway, and with Exactoscale track being the same height as Peco track there is no excuse of using the wrong plain track  if you dont want to !!!

I was intrigued by this but on visiting the Exactoscale site I could not see flexible ready-to-lay yard lengths of track. Maybe I read it wrong. I have seen C&L '00' flexible track and it looks damned good. Unfortunately '00' is not not available at the minute.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I confess to not having read through the entire thread although I was following it some time ago.

 

Manufacturers invest in tooling for what will make them a profit. Any model railway retailer can tell you that track/pointwork is only a small part of the overall turnover. So it is very difficult to justify the large investment involved in ready-to-lay track because it involves not only the moulds but tools to assemble the track.

 

That said, it should not be impossible to take the existing assembly tools (so long as one is sticking to the same geometry and rail profile) and use a new moulded base with a more British look.

[coachmann]

Track is to a train what hands are to a clock what film used to be to the camera. If there is nothing in producing 'British' points for Peco, i would be suprised.

[hayfield]

Track is to a train what hands are to a clock what film used to be to the camera. If there is nothing in producing 'British' points for Peco, i would be suprised.

 

 

As soon as someone else steps into the market and takes sales away, they will then do something about it. Until then why bother !!

[hayfield]

I have decided to go down the avenue of SMP for my new loft layout. I'm using code 100 for my storage sidings and placing SMP on cork through the scenic sections. As someone new to the finescale track I have found it so difficult to work out what I need. I think both marcways and C&L need improved websites that clearly show what you are buying in terms of the various kits. A photo of what you can build from each kit and some dimensions would have helped me. Also with Smp the ability to buy online would be excellent but I hear there is a new website coming. I think if it was a little more easy to access more people would have ditched peco before now.

 

 

I think Marcway use a radius as to the size of the turnout. In the old days 36" was seen as a large now its more like a 60" radius.

 

 C&L use the prototype system of size. Letter (A, B or C) for the length of the switch and crossing angle (1-5, 1-7 etc). From memory in 00 an A5 is about 36" radius, a B7 about 60" radius.

 

Download Templot and print off a few Templates to juggle around with a few at first to get an idea, or even better may a plan using Templot. The information panel on Templot will give you the exact radius for each turnout

[autocoach]

Track is to a train what hands are to a clock what film used to be to the camera. If there is nothing in producing 'British' points for Peco, i would be suprised.

The camera film analogy is probably the future. If we wait only a few more years enough conductive metal track may no longer be required. You could see Battery/WiFi controlled locomotives running on plastic/other future material track printed through 3d printing to the gauge period and railway specification you desire. If you need conductivity you can use conductive paint on the rail.

[hayfield]

I was intrigued by this but on visiting the Exactoscale site I could not see flexible ready-to-lay yard lengths of track. Maybe I read it wrong. I have seen C&L '00' flexible track and it looks damned good. Unfortunately '00' is not not available at the minute.

 

 

Coachman

 

They are called fast track bases, and are very good

 

4mm scale 00 16.5mm gauge FastTrack flexible track bases (4FT)

 

4FT 104A 00 16.5mm gauge FastTrack for BH rail (2 metres) 6.00 4FT 106A 00 16.5mm concrete sleeper FastTrack for FB rail (2 metres)

7.00

 

 

OK the bad news is that you have to thread the rail on to the bases.

 

BUT as the sleepers are 1.6mm thick, I found it is so much easier than threading them on to the thicker bases than on to either C&L or SMP thinner units ( I have said before they are just a little tedius to do, rather than being difficult, and nothing like threading chairs on to rail)

 

Also you have to cut the webbing (one side only) with a craft knife for curved track, but laying straight sections is made easier

 

The rail height  is very close to Peco track, but you get the correct width sleepers and spacings between them, bullhead rail and proper chairs (3 bolt with the wooden sleepers).

 

If not available at this moment, they will be very soon from C&L, it realy is a super product as the thicker sleepers and seem more stable.

 

Len Wheal designed the C&L parts which was sold under the K&L name (remember the indvidual bricks) and there is a choice in the C&L range of sleepers for either the thin or thick sleepers, but not with the flexi track which is only thin sleepers. The newer Exactoscale track products only come in the thicker sleeper size, which when I asked Len about it got the impression that he thought thicker sleepers are the better option.

 

I guess originally they were designed to be compatable with ply and rivet trackwork, now a bottle of Butanone has replaced the rivet, so perhaps its been designed with the added strength of thicker sleepers (available in plastic or plywood) in mind, rather than compatibility with thin ply sleepers.

[coachmann]

Thank you for the very full reply John.

[hayfield]

Hope Im not been over pedantic but it was Len Newman who did K&L / C&L --- Len wheal was a Peco/RM photographer...

 

 

Sorry bad memory and a long day

[hayfield]

Thank you for the very full reply John.

 

Coachman

 

Pleasure and its well worth looking at if you get a chance

[kevinlms]

I confess to not having read through the entire thread although I was following it some time ago.

 

Manufacturers invest in tooling for what will make them a profit. Any model railway retailer can tell you that track/pointwork is only a small part of the overall turnover. So it is very difficult to justify the large investment involved in ready-to-lay track because it involves not only the moulds but tools to assemble the track.

 

That said, it should not be impossible to take the existing assembly tools (so long as one is sticking to the same geometry and rail profile) and use a new moulded base with a more British look.

Peco's web site shows 8 pages of products (including the ballast inlays) in just the 'OO/HO' section, which includes products in 'Set track', 'Code 100', 'Code 83' and 'Code 75'. Much of the range is duplicated with 'Insulfrog' & "Electrofrog' choices.

 

So I think its fair to say that Peco has a huge investment in existing moulds & tools. I would imagine that Peco are very good on doing their sums on possible future products and on actually doing so. Only recently have they produced steel sleepered track.

So it seems that they are happy to put money where their mouth is, especially AIUI, its all done within the UK.

 

 

So the question is - would a rejigged sleeper base sell adequately, perhaps easy enough to do plain track, but what about the multitude of points?

[hayfield]

Peco's web site shows 8 pages of products (including the ballast inlays) in just the 'OO/HO' section, which includes products in 'Set track', 'Code 100', 'Code 83' and 'Code 75'. Much of the range is duplicated with 'Insulfrog' & "Electrofrog' choices.

 

So I think its fair to say that Peco has a huge investment in existing moulds & tools. I would imagine that Peco are very good on doing their sums on possible future products and on actually doing so. Only recently have they produced steel sleepered track.

So it seems that they are happy to put money where their mouth is, especially AIUI, its all done within the UK.

 

 

So the question is - would a rejigged sleeper base sell adequately, perhaps easy enough to do plain track, but what about the multitude of points?

The same reasons were being made when requests for highly detailed and more variety in model railway locos. But modern design and tooling processes have changed all that.

 

Its down to modellers voting with their wallets. I just think its very strange that they demand high quality rolling stock and now buildings, but accept the wrong scale track !!

[hayfield]

There is already several "types" of oo bull head track available.....

 

 

Its jsut the points that seems to send shivers down the spine of people who will happily chop about model trains worth several hundred quid as a matter of course...

 

 

C&L taking over the sales of Exactoscale may change all this, now they can supply thin or thick sleepered track

[Jol Wilkinson]

Peco's web site shows 8 pages of products (including the ballast inlays) in just the 'OO/HO' section, which includes products in 'Set track', 'Code 100', 'Code 83' and 'Code 75'. Much of the range is duplicated with 'Insulfrog' & "Electrofrog' choices.

 

So I think its fair to say that Peco has a huge investment in existing moulds & tools. I would imagine that Peco are very good on doing their sums on possible future products and on actually doing so. Only recently have they produced steel sleepered track.

So it seems that they are happy to put money where their mouth is, especially AIUI, its all done within the UK.

 

 

So the question is - would a rejigged sleeper base sell adequately, perhaps easy enough to do plain track, but what about the multitude of points?

 

Investment in new mould tools might not be a major barrier. These tools wear and need replacement, so new moulds are probably regulalrly required.

 

The problem would be that you would neeed to sustain the existing products for overseas markets, together with those people that reuse existing trackwork and would want to add more of the same type. Hence more tools, more stock and less turnover per unit. While people will accept inaccurate track (and probably aren't even aware that it is) then why would Peco do anything different?

 

The same reasons were being made when requests for highly detailed and more variety in model railway locos. But modern design and tooling processes have changed all that.

 

Its down to modellers voting with their wallets. I just think its very strange that they demand high quality rolling stock and now buildings, but accept the wrong scale track !!

 

Perhaps what it needs is a competitor for Peco that has the same high profile/established brand name to make new trackwork visible to the majority of modellers and accessible through the local model railway shop and online retailer. If someone like Bachmann or Hornby produced more accurate trackwork it would be quickly established.

 

Those that are happy to build track have access to C&L, Exactoscale and other even less well known suppliers. SMP is available ready built but is more expensive but doesn't have the market visibilty of Peco.

 

Unless the Monopolies Commission investigates this I can't see much changing.

[Clive Mortimore]

I have said it many times that we should make a sensible case for track with a more UK appearance with the same well known reliability and geometry we are use to with Peco's existing ranges. A little more than "me and my mate would buy one". I am not sure I have the skill to write such a proposal.

 

It is Peco's reliability that wins hands down.

 

 

Unless the Monopolies Commission investigates this I can't see much changing.

 

All Peco have to do is show the Monopolies Commission these two pages from the leading model railway suppliers and even the commission will see why they out sell model railway track.

http://www.Hornby.com/shop/track/

http://www.Bachmann.co.uk/prod1.php?prod_selected=branchline&prod=9

If the competition does not sell an equal product then it is not the fault of the better product's producer.

 

SMP/Marchway and C&L/Exatoscale are excellent products but seem to fall into a niche market within a niche market.

 

Making your own is fun, but not everyone wants to, has time to, can do, or will do.

[Jol Wilkinson]

All Peco have to do is show the Monopolies Commission these two pages from the leading model railway suppliers and even the commission will see why they out sell model railway track.

Clive,

 

if you can let me know where I can find a "tongue in cheek" smiley, I'll use it next time.  

 

Clearly Peco's existing range of products are very acceptable to the majority of buyers.

 

However, trackwork will remain the poor relation of the "RTR" section of the market, while people buy inaccurate products, even if they are "reliable". I am not sure what reliable trackwork is, especially where common standards don't seemed to be used for points, wheels, etc. and the idea of an insulated "frog" is acceptable.

 

Given the demand for ever more accurate RTR locos and stock, more DCC products and applications for better performance, better RTP buildings, etc. it is still difficult to understand why so many modellers are content with some of the ready to lay trackwork items.

 

Jol

['CHARD]

SMP/Marchway and C&L/Exatoscale are excellent products but seem to fall into a niche market within a niche market.

 

Making your own is fun, but not everyone wants to, has time to, can do, or will do.

 

And for many of us, track is (like signalling, or even basic civil engineering, for example) uncharted territory.  It's an essential but less glamorous, ignored partner in the train operating environment/ partnership.

 

I have worked in many live 'real railway' environments, and in a high proportion of these there is exactly the same ignorance of the other side's discipline and its nuances.  One new track team I was intimately involved with knew everything there was to know about S&C, but their general blanket ignorance of everything above the wheel interface was staggering.

[arran]

HI All

 

so whats accurate OO track then!!!!!

 

 

Regards Arran

[The Stationmaster]

And for many of us, track is (like signalling, or even basic civil engineering, for example) uncharted territory.  It's an essential but less glamorous, ignored partner in the train operating environment/ partnership.

 

I have worked in many live 'real railway' environments, and in a high proportion of these there is exactly the same ignorance of the other side's discipline and its nuances.  One new track team I was intimately involved with knew everything there was to know about S&C, but their general blanket ignorance of everything above the wheel interface was staggering.

Oh so very true - reminds me of being on an HST with failed brakes years ago at which point two chaps from Derby M&EE HQ offered their help to the train crew and myself so i asked if they knew anything about brakes. 'Yes - says one of them - I'm a brake engineer, but I only know about Class 37s in detail'.

['CHARD]

HI All

 

so whats accurate OO track then!!!!!

 

 

Regards Arran

Who woke Arran up? 

 

What a cracker of a naughty question....

 

Shall we just say 'prettier' and more deceiving than the chunky stuff.  (like Physicsman Jeff, I'm looking at a bundle of C+L right now)