Is trackwork the poor relation of the hobby ?

[Peter F]

I suspect that if you kept to 16.5 mm gauge (4' 1.5" at 4 mm / 1') but increased sleeper spacing etc to 1 :76 scale the track would look even more narrow gauge in OO than it does now.

[martin_wynne]

I suspect that if you kept to 16.5 mm gauge (4' 1.5" at 4 mm / 1') but increased sleeper spacing etc to 1 :76 scale the track would look even more narrow gauge in 00 than it does now.

If the 4ft-1.5in fictional gauge is acceptable for the rolling stock, why not for the track?

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

I have recently built some OO gauge points, using ply sleepers and individual plastic chairs. I used EM and P4 templates, reduced to 16.5mm gauge on the computer and with the check rail/wing rails adjusted to OO standards. They have not been put on a layout yet but I have to say that as an individual item, I like the way they look.

 

I suppose that they are really HO rather than OO but if the whole idea of OO is that it is 4mm models running on 3.5mm track, keeping the correct proportions in the track seems to work better than a 3.5mm track gauge on a 4mm sleepering arrangement.

 

I don't think you can ever get away from the front view of a loco or stock on the track looking a bit wrong but at least the track by itself looks acceptable.

[martin_wynne]

but if the whole idea of OO is that it is 4mm models running on 3.5mm track

It isn't. The idea of 00 gauge is 4mm scale models running on a 4mm scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track. Or at least that was the idea 60 years ago when the BRMSB produced their 00 track standards. When Peco chose to ignore those standards, everyone forgot what 00 gauge was intended to be.

 

4mm scale models running on 3.5mm scale track look daft.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Donw]

I have recently built some OO gauge points, using ply sleepers and individual plastic chairs. I used EM and P4 templates, reduced to 16.5mm gauge on the computer and with the check rail/wing rails adjusted to OO standards. They have not been put on a layout yet but I have to say that as an individual item, I like the way they look.

 

I suppose that they are really HO rather than OO but if the whole idea of OO is that it is 4mm models running on 3.5mm track, keeping the correct proportions in the track seems to work better than a 3.5mm track gauge on a 4mm sleepering arrangement.

 

I don't think you can ever get away from the front view of a loco or stock on the track looking a bit wrong but at least the track by itself looks acceptable.

 

Except that many of us find the sleeper spacing stands out as wrong more than the gauge.

Don

[Guest jim s-w]

If the 4ft-1.5in fictional gauge is acceptable for the rolling stock, why not for the track?

 

Martin.

 

Perhaps its a national Psyche thing? After all narrow gauge is not for mainline trains. Take the trains off correctly proportioned 3.5mm scale track and it looks like mainline track. Take it off 4mm scale but 4ft 1.5in track and it looks narrow gauge because it is!

 

Seems pretty simple to me TBH

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[t-b-g]

It isn't. The idea of 00 gauge is 4mm scale models running on a 4mm scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge track. Or at least that was the idea 60 years ago when the BRMSB produced their 00 track standards. When Peco chose to ignore those standards, everyone forgot what 00 gauge was intended to be.

 

4mm scale models running on 3.5mm scale track look daft.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I wasn't really talking historically, more practically and I should perhaps have qualified my comments by talking about the gauge rather than the track as a whole. I must learn to choose my words more carefully!

 

Quite a few postings talk about Peco track being more HO than OO and so a good number of people are running their 4mm models on HO track.

 

OO is always going to be a compromise (like much modelling) but when done well it can look really good (Dewsbury Midland being a prime example).

 

So I ask the question, which looks better, 4mm models running on pretty much scale 3.5mm track (admittedly with wider flangeways than say EM or P4 but with the sleeper arrangements being in the correct proportion to the track gauge) or permanent way modelled with correct 4mm scale sleepering but with the gauge out of proportion to the sleepers?

 

My eye is fooled by the HO track which just seems somehow to look more better to me but I am very willing to accept that other people may have different views and that there is no right or wrong, just different!

[martin_wynne]

So I ask the question, which looks better, 4mm models running on pretty much scale 3.5mm track (admittedly with wider flangeways than say EM or P4 but with the sleeper arrangements being in the correct proportion to the track gauge) or permanent way modelled with correct 4mm scale sleepering but with the gauge out of proportion to the sleepers?

The gauge isn't out of proportion to the sleepers. It is simply narrower than the UK* 4ft-8.5in standard gauge.

 

If you accept the fiction that the UK track gauge is 4ft-1.5in, everything in 00 gauge looks believable. It could actually have worked in reality if history had been different. It's likely that the sleeper length would have been 8ft rather than 8ft-6in, so the 00 gauge track standard sets the sleeper length at 32mm.

 

If you put 4mm scale models on 3.5mm track, it is an engineering nonsense. The track looks too fragile and flimsy, and would not be strong enough in reality to support the weight of the rolling stock. The difference is very obvious -- it looks as if the rails have been laid on matchsticks:

 

Print from Templot

 

4mm stock running on Peco track is not 00 gauge, and Peco do not claim that it is. They call it 00/H0 or some such hybrid.

 

*Northern Ireland is part of the UK, where the track gauge is 5ft-3in.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[kevinlms]

 

4mm stock running on Peco track is not 00 gauge, and Peco do not claim that it is. They call it 00/H0 or some such hybrid.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

For Code 75 it is called Peco Streamline Track H0/00 Fine Scale Code 75.

For Code 100 it is called Peco Streamline H0/00

For Set Track its called 00/H0 Setrack

 

According to photos on the web of the various products.

 

No wonder there is confusion as to what the track represents.

 

 

Kevin Martin

[Happy Hippo]

Yes, trackwork is the poor relation, but internationally I'd suggest 4mm scale is such a minority interest.

 

Some modellers, dissatisfied with what is on offer commercially, just bite the bullet and build their own, and the results are far better than any trackwork laid 'out of the box'. Others, grit their teeth and get on with what is avaiable. The rest are never happy unless they've got something to moan about!

 

If we were lucky enough to get a manufacturer to start generating '4mm scale' track, I'm sure they'd be castigated by some because the chairs didn't have the correct number of bolts, that single lengths of tracks were not produced with chair keys in the correct position, or one particularly wanted 5 lengths of track with pre pre grouping sleepers to fit into some sidings. Then there would be the arguements over what crossing angles should be offered as standard. Throw the need for flatbottomed rail/track into the equation and the permutations become endless. And don't forget cwr vs various individual lengths of bullhead!

 

I'm more than happy to run my 'OO' stuff on Peco Streamline, and am grateful that there is a fair selection of differing P+C work at reasonable prices. Compare them with the prices you'd pay for a handbuild point (chaired not flat bottomed) and you can see why I'm happy to build my own for my exploit into P4. The stuff in the garden is all hand laid because the price of commercial PECO 45 mm gauge track is astronomical. (And it looks better!)

 

As an exercise in R+D/costing/production, has anyone got a clue as to how much it would cost to tool up or re tool the entire Peco Streamline range to 'proper' spaced sleepers for 'OO' gauge? Then work out how much you'd have to sell to just recover the cost of that in future sales.

 

Regards

 

Richard

[t-b-g]

Here are a couple of shots of one of the 16.5mm gauge points I mentioned earlier. I noticed the wide gap between the blade and the wingrail after I downloaded the photos from the camera and that will be narrowed and covered with a dummy fishplate.

 

Thinking about it, I hesitate to call it HO or OO. It has 4mm scale width (ie 12") wooden sleepers and 4mm scale plastic chairs laid out on a 3.5mm scale template (sleeper length, spacing and track gauge)!

 

I can't show any photos of them painted and installed on a layout as they are being built for somebody elses layout and the baseboards aren't built yet.

 

I will leave it up to the good folk of RMWeb land to tell me if I am being daft and they look wrong but if were working in OO for myself, I would be happy with them.

[Happy Hippo]

t-b-g

 

I think it looks very very good, and will be even better when it is all painted and ballasted in

 

Regards

 

Richard

[t-b-g]

t-b-g

 

I think it looks very very good, and will be even better when it is all painted and ballasted in

 

Regards

 

Richard

 

Many thanks for the confidence boost!

 

I was beginning to worry that I had misjudged the appearance when I was told that the mix of scales was daft.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

[Pacific231G]

Yes, trackwork is the poor relation, but internationally I'd suggest 4mm scale is such a minority interest.

 

 

As an exercise in R+D/costing/production, has anyone got a clue as to how much it would cost to tool up or re tool the entire Peco Streamline range to 'proper' spaced sleepers for 'OO' gauge? Then work out how much you'd have to sell to just recover the cost of that in future sales.

 

 

Quite right Richard. It would cost lots and if they offered it instead of their current offering - which is fairly accurate in sleeper spacings and dimensions for European mainline track in 1:87 scale- they'd likely damage their export trade and I don't think we'd want that to happen to a successful UK manufacturer. I always thought SMP trackwork was more accurate for 1:76 scale in terms of sleeper dimensions and spacing relative to the narrow gauge of 00 and at one time seems to have also been quite popular in France and presumably elsewhere for those modelling secondary railways in 1:87 scale even though the sleepers are probably a bit wide. I think the introduction of code 75 by Peco made Streamline popular again with European finer scale modellers and there was a detailed article in Locorevue in April last year about hyperdetailing it, mostly by removing and separating the sleepers then distressing and painting and weathering each one individually, changing the sleeper spacing for sidings and secondary tracks, painting the rail and adding details such as fishplates and the metal bands used in France to bind damaged sleepers on trackwork used in sidings and lesser lines. I did wonder with all that whether hand built track might not be easier but the results did look very good.

 

NR have just laid new metal sleepered track on the Greenford Branch and it looks completely unrealistic- the sleepers are far too close together and the ballast is improbably regular- they have got the odd wooden sleeper scattered at the foot of the embankment right though !!

[Ron Ron Ron]

I'm a bit puzzled?

If the UK market is too small to support it's own line of 00 RTR track, then surely it's too small to support all those RTR manufacturers who supply us with British outline models?

Bachmann and Hornby with their vast catalogues, Heljan, Dapol, The Hobby Co. with its commissioned models from ViTrains and now Realtrack models entering this totally unviable market.

They must all be mad attempting to trade here, they must be losing a fortune?

 

I've just checked out Peco's range of products.

Notwithstanding their numerous ranges of track in various gauges and styles, they also produce a vast array of accessories, wagon kits in 00 & N, buildings, kits of all sorts of things, the Wills range, the Ratio range, the Modelscene range, blah blah....

It appears that there are far more product items here, than in all their track ranges put together !

99.9 % of it is all British outline and not much at all that would suit those modelling in a non-British theme (the 00 stuff is to 4mm anyway).

 

Now I've no idea of what proportions of Peco's sales are attributed to the various track ranges and their vast catalogue of non-track products, but clearly there is a large reliance on the home market, irrespective of those fellow British outline modellers "down under", or elsewhere on the planet. They wouldn't be selling all that other stuff if there wasn't, surely?

 

You only have to pick up an American model railroad magazine to see Peco track is sold there, although they have to compete with several other brands including Atlas, Bachmann, Shinohara and the excellent Micro Engineering range.

As a result, Peco had to introduce the Code 83 range in order to stay competitive. Interestingly, it's been said this is the best looking track range they do. I wonder why?

 

Peco track is also sold in parts of mainland Europe, although in some markets I suspect sales are rather marginal considering the presence of large local producers with their own track product ranges.

 

So track exports are important to the folk in Beer, but it's also noticeable that they carry track ranges that would have limited appeal beyond these shores and which are aimed at small niche modelling interests. Are they doing that for fun, because there can't be any money in it surely? After all, even the overwhelmingly popular 00 gauge can't be viable at all in such a small market as the UK?

 

No, I'm entirely with Ravenser on this one.

The UK 00 market has proved to be extremely vibrant over the last decade (current general economic prospects notwithstanding). Hence the amazing range of models and products that have been made available in that time.

If others can flourish with new products in such a market, why haven't Peco produced a range of 16.5mm track designed specifically for 00 ?

It would be too easy to say that it was all down to lack of competition, although I believe that is the main reason; as others have pointed out, there is also a degree of apathy, a degree of acceptance, a degree of ignorance and maybe a degree of hopelessness (amongst those who have given up on the idea that it's possible) on the part of the modelling public.

[Note: I don't include the trainset and toy market here, because you can be certain 99% are using the Hornby setrack that came with their toy train set].

 

We also have "a section" of those who model with "finer gauges", who take ever opportunity to poo poo, distort or confuse the argument that is being raised in favour of this new style of track. Whatever the motivation, conscious or not, it happens every time this annual bun fight takes place.

It may come from a personal perspective on the world, where such an idea seems illogical or absurd. It may come from a misunderstanding of what is being discussed (better looking 00 track or scale 00 track- some would say that's an oxymoron), or it may come from an antipathy towards something that is against what they consider "the one true way". [Please note I'm not including everyone modelling in EM or P4, as I did say "a section".]

 

A couple of popular phrases come to mind; "the word on the street' and "accepted wisdom".

I'd be willing to take a bet that if by some miracle, tomorrow a new range of track (from whoever, Peco or anyone) designed with a generic British 00 look, appeared on the shelves (complete with a suitable range of much better looking pointwork than the toytown offering that features in Britain's most popular range of model railway track), then as soon as the magazines (if not made by Peco, minus one particular title of course ) and the internet forums report that it's the best thing since sliced bread and a much needed improvement on what we've had to put up with until now, that will soon become the new "accepted wisdom" and the "word on the street" will start to say that your new layout will be rubbish if it doesn't include this new track as the very minimum standard.

Whether that would totally kill off the home market for say, the current code 75 Streamline, I wouldn't like to speculate on; but I'm sure if it wasn't Peco doing it, there'd be a fairly rapid reaction from down on the Devon coast.

 

I accept there's no way such a ready to lay range could provide such individual options as say, chairs for the M&SWJR used between 1898 and 1920, or whatever; but that's not the point of this exercise.

Those who care about absolute detail and want totally realistic looking track will almost certainly continue to build their own. Many of those will not be using 16.5 gauge track anyway.

All that is being asked for is a better looking and more appropriate generic product than is currently available, for those who are not able or willing to "build their own". An advancement to match all the other advancements and improvements our hobby has witnessed in recent times and with it the increased aspirations of many modellers.

IMHO it's a combination of improving standards and increased aspirations that has helped drive this hobby forward in recent times. Without that process there will be stagnation and with stagnation there's a risk the hobby will start to wither away.

 

Well having ranted away for so long, do I think it will happen? Unfortunately I think the chances are pretty slim at the moment, unless someone in a position to do something about it is prepared to take it on. But if people are prepared to stump up the development costs and take the risk on a whole raft of commissioned RTR models, I suppose anything can happen.

As for tooling costs; expensive no doubt, but I can't believe it comes anywhere near the cost of that for a loco or even a complex wagon like an Autoballaster. Many locos and wagons are only produced in a few thousand each and they make money for their manufacturers.

I may be completely wrong, but I'm guessing that once the comparatively simple mouldings are sorted out, manufacture of these items is not exactly rocket science?

 

Anyway, that's enough from me, I've gone on far too long. Nurse, Nurse...you can take me back to my room now!

00 track ! I hadn't realised it was that time of year. Oh dear! It all comes around too quickly these days. you'll be telling me it's Christmas again soon... What? it is. Oh goodness it only seems like yesterday.........ZZZzzzzzz

 

Ron

 

.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Ron

 

It's very simple really. The oo Market is viable. The market for oo modellers who care or even know that the track is wrong isn't. Of those who do know or care that oo is wrong most won't just stop at sleeper spacings, the gauge isn't so noticeable but the huge flange ways and super tight geometry stand out just as much. Most will change gauge or build thier own. I would estimate that the Market for better oo track is a fraction of he size of the Market for rtp p4.

 

Some of my thoughts are based on personal experience. Look at RM web. Several years ago I offered to etch up a spacing comb for oo track so that people could re-space their sleepers, I estimated it would end up costing a few pounds and invited people to contact me with what they wanted.

 

Of the rmweb community only a tiny percentage replied (about 0.05%) and then none asked for the same thing. Tbh I don't see anything has changed and while people moan about rtr track, say they want something better but clearly not enough to actually do anything about it for themselves they are not going to convince anyone they are serious.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Jol Wilkinson]

It is also ironic that, with the interest in the quality and accuarcy of new RTR locos and rolling stock, there is no real enthusiasm for the track (or some of the other infrastructure). What's more impressive to show your mates down the club, your latest DCC equipped Class 987 or a more realistic Peco turnout? Locos will always be the glamour end of the market so I guess it's not too surprising.

 

Add to this the constraint of space for a layout that requires grossly underscale curves, etc. than it's easy to see why most OO modellers aren't bothered about more realistic/accurate trackwork. Those that are will use C&L, etc. and produce their own, more realistic looking trackwork.

 

Jol

[Ron Ron Ron]

Jim, Jol, Gentlemen. I believe you are also completely missing my point.

You are merely highlighting, as I have, some of the reasons why it hasn't happened yet.

 

My contention is that if the product appeared right now (I said as "if by some miracle", because the getting from Y to Z is the real problem), given the obvious benefit's, highlighted by commentators and reviewers alike; then I believe when faced with the straight forward purchasing option of old track A or new track B, many of those "reasons" will just evaporate away.

 

What may be viewed as disinterest or apathy by some observers now, may in fact be resignation or that sense of hopelessness I mentioned earlier.

How can we guess how many modellers using the current RTR H0 product, would love to have hand built track, or have everything converted to EM or P4, but are unwilling or unable to undertake the task. How many have "settled" on 00, because that is what they consider their limit, given time, space and skill levels. How many are wary of re-gauging their expensive, detailed and sometimes fragile stock?

For many, rather than a complete lack of interest, these among others could be the reasons why so many don't "build their own", or take to the finer gauges of EM or even P4.

 

However, given the availability of easy to purchase, straight off-the-shelf, better looking generic British RTL 00 track, suddenly there's an option that has not been available before. A chance to improve the look of a layout and the stock that runs on it, without the effort or "perceived problems" of having to change gauge; and although it could never be a real substitute for such a leap into EM or P4, it would provide enough of an improvement on the present offering to be worthwhile for many. If this were to be the case, then given the "accepted wisdom" and "word on the street" scenarios I lightheartedly gave earlier, I believe it would also tempt many of those who currently aren't that bothered enough or at all about the track.

 

Here's another scenario. What if the consumer's options are changed for them?

What if the dominant (or is that monopoly) British RTL track vendor (i.e. the Pritchard Patent Product Company Ltd - i.e. Peco) decides for whatever reason to introduce such a range?

Just suppose for a minute they decide it's a viable market, a way to freshen-up their product, an opportunity to stimulate a growth in sales in a flat market, or because they need to re-tool anyway and decide it's an opportunity worth taking.

As I see it, in such a scenario they (Peco) would have two initial choices.

1. to introduce the new line alongside their existing ranges (as they've done with their American Code 83), or

2. displace one of their other ranges

 

In the first case, some say that it will result in conflicting products that would take sales from one another, or abstract sales from the "original" product line.

That is undoubtedly true, but that is exactly what many companies marketing retail wares do all the time, either to expand their range and potential total sales, to capture new sales that the existing line isn't providing, to re-invigorate or re-position their brand or products, or to test market a different or better product line.

Often this can lead to the eventually withdrawal of the older product line, sometimes the situation remains as an expanded range and occasionally the gamble doesn't pay off and the new line is withdrawn.

The usual comment is about abstracting sales from the current product line, but in fact it's only the latter of those 3 outcomes that needs to be avoided. There's an obvious outcome if the old line starts to "suffer" and that will have been anticipated at the outset.

 

In the second case, by displacing an existing product line, the consumer has no option if they wish to purchase from that brand, or it's the only choice available.

Not only will the new product have a good chance of achieving the companies (hypothetical) commercial goals, it would be greeted enthusiastically by those who already wanted it or who now see the benefit once the new product is there.

Those who don't give "two hoots" will have no choice, but it doesn't affect them either way. If they need to buy track, they'll buy track, end of !

There is little risk of lost sales, more likely an improvement. Even better for the manufacturer if the cost of a re-tool had to be incurred anyway and sales are stimulated in the process.

 

There is at least one downside to this. Would the presence of this new style track, deter some people from moving up to EM or even P4?

Suppose a few who might be tempted, or desire to "move up", feel there's less of a reason to do so with a more acceptable compromise on the table?

I can see that upsetting a few folk and it may even be the reason behind some of the antipathy to the idea of better looking 00 RTL track. AFAICS that seems to be the message coming through when this hot topic has been argued over on numerous other occasions, both here and elsewhere.

 

Of course this is all hypothetical, but I hope I've begun to address some of the negative arguments put out, many of which I believe are too simplistic, lack analysis, or are one sided.

It may well be that taking into account the arguments I and others have put forward, the viability still isn't there. I'm quite happy to accept that. However, if it isn't ultimately viable, I still believe some of those negative arguments are either weak, false, or only valid given certain circumstances.

Is the subject is a wee bit more involved than some may realise? (I include myself in that category of course.)

Fire away chaps !

 

Regards

Ron

 

(shoot me down in flames, but at least I was up for the fight !)

 

 

 

.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Ron

 

I actually think a better track would encourage people to move up to the finer scales as it would get people thinking about it.

 

If both types were available at the same places and the same cost you would still find that the existing range would thrive. Why? Because it matches what a lot of people already have. Better looking 00 track ain't better lookin if it's mixed. I can say this with confidence simple because peco code 100 still exists and still sells. Code 75 has been out for years, if oo modellers were really interested in track then code 100 would have disappeared years ago.

 

It all comes back to 2 simple points

 

1 most people don't care

2 those that do can't agree what better actually is.

 

Until an agreement on point 2 is reached there will be no progress. Anything else is just daydreaming

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Ron

 

You are over complicating it. After all if you remember I offered to do a spacing jig so I could hardly be called an opponent.

 

When I said cant agree I didnt mean what type of chair or rail. What people cant agree on is far more fundimental than that. They cant agree on the size of the sleepers (length and width) or the spacing of them. Like I said I offered to so a re-spacing jig but no one could agree on what the spacing should be. Thoughts on chair types are completely irrelevant (and might i suggest a red herring on your part to avoid answering the actual point). Like you say its about a better set of compromises and its THAT where people cant agree. I think organisations like the Double0 guage society should be leading the way on this. As Martin pointed out the standards are there but people still want it their way.

 

Your point on newcomers is good but remember most newcomers wont know what Peco is. They will most likely have a trainset from Bachmann or Hornby and they will extend it (for a while) with track from Bachmann or Hornby. Perhaps the focus is completely wrong looking at Peco at all? If you want to instigate a change towards what 00 track looks like it has to come from the very beginning. If Bachmann and Hornby could agree on a new track for their trainsets then you can use the consistent with what a person has already card to your advantage. It would be a brave MD who would authorise something that 'looks' inconsistent with their competitors.

 

My point about code 100 vs code 75 is that code 75 came later and WAS a new track (just not in the way you want it to be) I had better compromises (as you advocate) with regard to the visual look of the rail so in that regard it ticks all of the boxes you need for your definition of a new track. It should have killed code 100 off years ago but it hasn't - perhaps, again this comes back to the original train set - it has to be compatible.

 

I still maintain it ultimately come down to 2 key point - I dont know where you got 'one simple factor from'

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Dukedog]

Am I missing the point? (No pun intended)

 

Why all this fuss about Peco producing better looking 00 gauge track? there are other manufacturers making track and point work.

 

Flexi track and turnout kits are already available from C&L and SMP and if you don't fancy building your own Marcway offer SMP style turnouts ready built.

 

So what's the problem here? or, as i said at the start, am I missing something?

 

Cheers!

Frank

[PWSlack]

The dogged determination to stick to non-scale track gauges, no matter what, is the poor relation of the hobby...

['CHARD]

The dogged determination to stick to non-scale track gauges, no matter what, is the poor relation of the hobby...

 

Am I right in thinking that to get the gist of this viewpoint, one should also read your signature line comment?

[gordon s]

That's the second time you have made a similar comment, PWS. See posts 107 and 108. This thread is about 00 track. A lot of us are very happy modelling in 4mm with 16.5mm gauge. This is nothing to do with 'finescale' whatever that may be.

 

We are all modellers and enjoy the hobby. Just because we accept 16.5mm as a gauge, it doesn't mean we are any less worthy....

[coachmann]

It doesnt matter if one lives in Europe, Australia or on Mars, British railways RTR = 4mm/OO. It is far too late to change the locos and rolling stock and so we need 4mm/OO track, not some corny old OO/HO track. Is this too much to ask in the 21st Century?