RTR Market Sectors

[Ian J.]

Those of us who are fortunate enough to have space for 36" radius curves would indeed like manufacturers to make models designed for that radius and nothing less in "00".

 

However many do not have as much space and want a "roundy roundy"so have to use smaller radius curves (I used to when I lived in a small flat).  We would be excluding such people from the market as well as dealing a "death blow" to the train set market if we persuade manufacturers to abandon production of locos and stock suitable for second (or even first) radius curves.

 

So I think we are stuck with the present situation - unless we build bigger houses in future.

 

David

 

I think the problem with the 'roundy roundy' in limited space group is that they want to have the detail and looks of accurate models on the straights, but then ask for them to go round ridiculously tight curves for 'playing toy trains'. But that alone doesn't preclude a hi-fi sector - it just means that modelling in limited space requires a different sort of layout, end-to-end, micro, boxfile, etc., instead. Yes it would have to be higher priced, but then we know that. The only question is just how big is that market? Many here and elsewhere believe it is tiny to non-existant. I believe otherwise.

[highpeak]

 

I think this is correct, and I think it means that the OP's hi-fi market probably won't be catered to, at least not in R-T-R.

 

 

 

Can't get this reply outside the box today so here goes. The locomotives from Hornby and Bachmann far exceed the detailing on super-detailed scratchbuilt and kitbuilt locos that I ever saw and, believe me,  more probably passed through my hands than anyones in the UK during my 40-odd years in painting & lining. The hi-fi market is dominated today by plastic RTR manufacturers. Who would have thought that would happen 20 years ago...

A somewhat similar thing has happened in the US. The hi-fi market could be considered as that segment served by the custom brass manufacturers, limited run models built in the Far East. While that is still a viable market, it seems to me that it isn't quite what it was because the quality of RTR models has improved so much in the US as it has in the UK.

That may be an oversimplification, and it's difficult to compare markets that are in many ways quite different, but I think the general idea holds.

[Jeff Smith]

I think it is horses for courses. Probably from a commercial standpoint the RTR manufactures need a certain level of bread-and-butter sales to sustain their bottom lines. This will always be the train set/toy end of the market and as such require a satisfactory return on investment. This would apply to US, UK and Continental markets. In the UK there will always be basic 00 so that additional rolling stock can be bought over the years (for birthdays etc) and it will still run alongside the older stuff on standard track. I don't forsee any change in this situation, and as has been pointed out, the only disadvantage with 00 is the narrow-gauge appearance - mechanically the Continental/US RTR is no better.

 

EM/P4 modellers are happy to take advantage of the improved products but nevertheless may still buy a second hand item to modify rather than new. As my interest is in the modelling not the running (it still has to work though) I don't care too much what the paint scheme is as I will probably be re-painting it anyway, together with new wheels and maybe even a new chassis. If, due to market forces, the standard of RTR dropped this would not bother the EM/P4 group as much as the out-of-the-box group who for a variety of perfectly valid reasons would not or could not modify to suit their own requirements. I've seen several posts wishing for a manufacturer to produce an existing product in a different livery - personally I would say have a go and repaint but nevertheless I can understand a relutance to do this to £150 model unless confident of the outcome.

 

However, back to the topic, I don't think there is a big enough market to sustain HiFi products, ie £300+ models, as the range would be quite limited (given the number of prototypes and liveries) which would dilute the demand even more than the higher prices. We, as consumers, are basically at the mercy of market forces which in the past has seen some companies fold and others emerge. A puzzling one for me is PECO. It has now introduced Code 83 specifically for the US H0 market but still produces 16.5mm track with US sleeper spacing essentially for 00 use - why not replace this with 'correct' appearance code 75 00 track???

[Ian J.]

My impression from your reply is that you feel OO is for playing trains, while EM/P4 is for modelling. I don't feel it's that simple though. There are a number of OO people like myself who would either like OO to be able to run better (with the better track/wheel standards) or could actually consider an EM or P4 move, if it were easier to do so (i.e., with RTR in those scales, both of which are highly unlikely). So the Hi-Fi OO market is something that we can't currently get into in a straightforward way, and while the track wheel standards are what they are, leaves us with compromised models even if we can adjust the back-to-backs ourselves.

[Jeff Smith]

 

My impression from your reply is that you feel OO is for playing trains, while EM/P4 is for modelling. I don't feel it's that simple though. There are a number of OO people like myself who would either like OO to be able to run better (with the better track/wheel standards) or could actually consider an EM or P4 move, if it were easier to do so (i.e., with RTR in those scales, both of which are highly unlikely). So the Hi-Fi OO market is something that we can't currently get into in a straightforward way, and while the track wheel standards are what they are, leaves us with compromised models even if we can adjust the back-to-backs ourselves.

You are right to some degree, 00 is a good starting point but is limited by what is available commercially and is not readily interchangeable with stock with finer wheel standards. Railway modelling covers a vast spectrum from those who are prepared to ignore completely the 00 inaccuracies and mass produced compromises to those who need the right number of bolts in their track chairs. The gauge doesn't determine the running quality per se, good or bad running can exist in any scale-gauge combination and in any commercially or hand produced loco. The problem with current commercial 00 RTR products is that they are designed for minimum cost manufacturing and assembly. The standards reached far exceed products from 20 or more years ago but are nevertheless mass produced. Mass production means attention to saving a few pennies here and a few there to minimise production costs (I've had some association with the car accessory field and it literally comes down to pennies saved when production runs into the thousands).

 

So, if you want to stay with 00, what do you really want and how much would you be prepared to pay for it, £500? and how interchangeable would it be with what you are already running? You mentioned getting better track and wheel standards. Would you re-lay much of your existing track to accommodate finer wheels? (there already exists some very fine looking 00 track).

 

So here lies the conundrum, if you are fully committed to 00 and do not want to re-lay your track, you are to a large degree served by the existing standards and products. If you want a RTR with a finer wheel standard you will need to replace your turnouts and crossings with some with smaller gaps - but then your existing stock will not run. Have you really thought through what you are asking for?

[coachmann]

Those within the hobby need to have a serious re-think if they think 00 is for playing trains while EM and P4 is for modelling. Neither can I cannot understand why people who are proficient at converting locos to P4 track need RTR manufacturers to make it easier for them. A so-called "compromised" RTR loco at £100 is a very good deal from where I'm standing, and everyone should be happy. Afterall, we never hear the people who can build better complaining.

[Ian J.]

...You mentioned getting better track and wheel standards. Would you re-lay much of your existing track to accommodate finer wheels?...

 

Yes.

[Ian J.]

Those within the hobby need to have a serious re-think if they think 00 is for playing trains while EM and P4 is for modelling. Neither can I cannot understand why people who are proficient at converting locos to P4 track need RTR manufacturers to make it easier for them. A so-called "compromised" RTR loco at £100 is a very good deal from where I'm standing, and everyone should be happy. Afterall, we never hear the people who can build better complaining.

 

It's less about making it easier for people who are already EM or P4 modellers, it's about making those gauges available to a wider modeller base. However, that's a scale/gauge debate I don't want to get into here. Suffice it to say that a better track/wheel standard in OO is about getting better quality running without so many derailments, wobbling locos and stock, and bu**ered up coupling and uncoupling.

 

Edit: Though I'd alluded to it in previous posts, it's worth mentioning in this reply that it's also about having fewer compromises within the design of stock (oversized splashers, etc).

[Jeff Smith]

 

Yes.

Ian, so what you are really asking for is P4 wheels and track standards but at 16.5mm gauge (P4 refers to the track and wheel standard and does not have to be 18.83mm, eg Irish broad gauge or metre gauge)? And accepting that none of your existing stock will run on it.

[Ian J.]

 

Ian, so what you are really asking for is P4 wheels and track standards but at 16.5mm gauge (P4 refers to the track and wheel standard and does not have to be 18.83mm, eg Irish broad gauge or metre gauge)? And accepting that none of your existing stock will run on it.

 

No. Precisely not. I'm asking for the back-to-back of OO to be tightened up so that instead of 14mm or less (in some cases as little as 13.5 on some Hornby stock I've had) with the ridiculously wide check rail gaps of 2mm or more and arguably absurdly wide wheels with deep flanges, I'd like to see back-to-backs of no less than 14.5mm, check rail gaps of 1.2mm, and wheels much narrower (I'm not sure exactly how narrow they could be, but I suspect somewhat wider than a P4 wheelset. Maybe an EM one?). I believe RP25 is the profile that Dapol is now using, and that, combined with a stricter BTB and check rail gap should go a long way to improving running.

[coachmann]

No. Precisely not. I'm asking for the back-to-back of OO to be tightened up so that instead of 14mm or less (in some cases as little as 13.5 on some Hornby stock I've had) with the ridiculously wide check rail gaps of 2mm or more and arguably absurdly wide wheels with deep flanges, I'd like to see back-to-backs of no less than 14.5mm, check rail gaps of 1.2mm, and wheels much narrower (I'm not sure exactly how narrow they could be, but I suspect somewhat wider than a P4 wheelset. Maybe an EM one?). I believe RP25 is the profile that Dapol is now using, and that, combined with a stricter BTB and check rail gap should go a long way to improving running.

So why can't you do this yourself? Is it beyond your capabilty to slide wheels along axles, as is routinely carried out by modellers working in EM gauge. Also build your own points with 'tighter' checkrail clearances.

 

This thread is beginning to sound like a request for 00 fine scale or whatever it's called. RTR is available to all and if folk want to alter it to suit individual tastes then no one is stopping them. But to expect the other 99% to jump in to finance your dreams is niave.

[martin_wynne]

I'm asking for the back-to-back of 00 to be tightened up so that instead of 14mm or less (in some cases as little as 13.5 on some Hornby stock I've had)

 

That must very old. All modern RTR produced in the Far East generally conforms to the NMRA H0 standard for the US market -- 14.4mm back-to-back, with wheels RP25/110 2.8mm wide. The flangeway gap is 1.3mm.

 

It all runs on 00-BF, and most of it on 00-SF (EM minus 2 -- 16.2mm track gauge with the same clearances as EM). You seem to be a bit out of date.

 

Martin.

[Ian J.]

Martin: The Hornby stock was the recent Gresleys and Staniers, so not old at all.

 

Coachmann: I am not looking just for better track/wheel standard, and that's actually secondary to my concern for loss of the higher detailed models, and I have no direct problem of easing out wheels to better back-to-backs (something I'm sure some modellers would baulk at doing). What I am thinking is that if the higher fidelty of design and detailing that many of us ask for is to cost more, then surely the quality of the chassis and track/wheel standard is part of validating that cost as well?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Suffice it to say that a better track/wheel standard in OO is about getting better quality running without so many derailments, wobbling locos and stock, and bu**ered up coupling and uncoupling...

 This aspect, I have to ask 'what would be the current problem?'. Confine your purchases to the all new design post 2000 OO productions, lay a good flexitrack system carefully with a minimum plain track radius circa 30" and 36" minimum rad points, replace any duff wheelsets and ensure all vehicles run freely and smoothly, adjust couplers carefully for height and position, ensure all mechanisms are smooth running and then operate them at scale speeds and acceleration rates (and I feel all these things come within the purview of a finescale orientation) and nothing falls off the rails. Nothing. I can reverse a full size train through any point ladder no trouble. When I get a derailment there is an assignable cause. Wasp on line,  fallen off underframe detail, were the last two. (Left out of consideration are the robust operational methods of those of tender years, knock it around and it will fall off.)

 

The kind of reliability in operation that we sweated for forty some years ago, is now available off the shelf. And the tweaking necessary to get this performance has fallen significantly in the last half dozen years. It used to be that most purchases had to be much worked on to obtain the full potential of the design. But increasingly they come out of the box very good indeed, and the tweaking is largely elective to suit my own operational requirements, and because it is enjoyable. A very satisfactory situation in that we are getting the refinement developed on HO, for a low price.

[Jeff Smith]

 

No. Precisely not. I'm asking for the back-to-back of OO to be tightened up so that instead of 14mm or less (in some cases as little as 13.5 on some Hornby stock I've had) with the ridiculously wide check rail gaps of 2mm or more and arguably absurdly wide wheels with deep flanges, I'd like to see back-to-backs of no less than 14.5mm, check rail gaps of 1.2mm, and wheels much narrower (I'm not sure exactly how narrow they could be, but I suspect somewhat wider than a P4 wheelset. Maybe an EM one?). I believe RP25 is the profile that Dapol is now using, and that, combined with a stricter BTB and check rail gap should go a long way to improving running.

EM generally uses re-gauged OO wheels, so EM track needs the same checkrail and closure rail gaps as OO.

[Ian J.]

I've had to take a bit of time out to think about what's recently happened to this thread. The movement towards discussing general track/wheel standards wasn't something I intended.

 

However, as we are in that territory at the moment I want to reiterate that in regards to a hi-fi sector based on manufactured RTR (which in my OP definition doesn't exist as such) and priced around £250 for a larger loco, then in relation to the chassis I feel it would make sense to have a tightening of the track/wheel standard to something akin to finescale OO so that the running qualities are better and can justify such an increase in price. I am not advocating such a standard for the upper mid-fi that is currently produced by the likes of Bachmann, Hornby, etc., within which I'm quite happy to do re-gauging and if necessary re-wheeling to suit a finer standard, so I'm not expecting "the other 99% to jump in to finance [my] dreams." I mentioned these aspects in my reply to Coachmann earlier, but this seems to have been deliberately disregarded.

 

Edit: Spelling and grammar correction.

[highpeak]

The original post defined Hi-Fi as: "[consisting] of virtually entirely separate details except where it would be really wasteful or utterly pointless to do so; it would have a much stricter wheel/gauge/track standard, allowing such things as splashers to be correct size; sprung buffers for prototypical usage, etc. It might even allow for an accurate scale gauge combo at its upper end."

The first part of the spec focuses on whether details are separate or not, but an equally important aspect of fidelity might be the apparent edge thickness of some parts. For instance, while everybody was debating the handrails on the Duke of Gloucesters smoke deflectors, the thing that struck me was how thick the smoke deflectors had to be in plastic. If you made the handrails separate parts, I still don't think it would be up to this spec. I doubt you could do scale thickness in plastic, so that part would probably need to be etched brass (and might still be pretty fragile). So a high-spec model will involve a lot more than injection molding plastic.

I think Ian had a point with wheel standards, I remember being a bit disappointed when I discovered that wheel standards were all over the shop on the same loco never mind between different engines.  But as Martin Wynne pointed out, that issue has been pretty much resolved. And as Martin also pointed out, refining the standard further brings with it some constraints that a lot of modellers wouldn't really be able to cope with, making the potential market for this high-spec RTR pretty small.

I think the high-spec model exists already, just not as RTR. It's the much higher quality RTR product plus the input of the likes of Comet, Brassmasters and the modeller. Granted, it's not the RTR you are looking for, but it's more achievable than it was ten or fifteen years ago.

[Jeff Smith]

 

IVe read thru this thread several times and Im still not sure what its subject and aims are?

I tend to agree even though I have responded a few times - I've probably just added to the muddle....

 

Ian I think what you are asking for is a 'gold' standard of 00 model costing up to 100% more than the existing top of the range. For this premium you hope for a refined undercarriage with maybe finer looking wheels, tighter BTB and perhaps some suspension other than the controlled slop currently available. Also extra attention to bodywork detail but nevertheless based on existing body mouldings (I wasn't aware that splashers were oversised on some and new mouldings would I'm sure be prohibitively expensive). I don't think you mentioned a preference for steam or diesel/electric but I suspect steam as wheel conversions tend to be more difficult but at the same time more worthwhile on steam.

 

For this to be a commercial option it would still have to run on existing 00 track, although perhaps with a minimum radius as it would be well above train-set price, and be interchangeable with other 00 equipment. You would I'm sure like all current locos to be available in a gold version but probably only the more popular ones would be in order to ammortize the costs.

 

There, have I got it right? My view as an experienced modeller, is that all this can be achieved relatively easily for less than twice the price of the existing products and with a lot more enjoyment and satisfaction.

[coachmann]

Jeff is right, all the extra fineness is achievable if people are prepared to do things for themselves. RTR is innexpensive for a reason, and modellers throughout the history of the model railway hobby have always benefitted from this. People who expect Hornby or Bachmann to produce the things outlined in this thread are after something on the cheap. Plastic RTR does not work like that. 

 

Everyone in business is producing to a price to fit a market segment. I product my own products to prices that are attractive to buyers and give a return on my labour and investment. But once things go beyond the standard specification (asking for EM or P4 gauge for instance), manufacturing time and prices increase considerably.

[Ravenser]

No. Precisely not. I'm asking for the back-to-back of OO to be tightened up so that instead of 14mm or less (in some cases as little as 13.5 on some Hornby stock I've had) with the ridiculously wide check rail gaps of 2mm or more and arguably absurdly wide wheels with deep flanges, I'd like to see back-to-backs of no less than 14.5mm, check rail gaps of 1.2mm, and wheels much narrower (I'm not sure exactly how narrow they could be, but I suspect somewhat wider than a P4 wheelset. Maybe an EM one?). I believe RP25 is the profile that Dapol is now using, and that, combined with a stricter BTB and check rail gap should go a long way to improving running.

 

Ian:

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialtrack.htm

 

All post 2000 OO production is at least 14.1mm back to back and normally 14.3mm-14.5mm  (based on what actually comes out of the factory , rather than nominal standards) All major OO manufacturers claim to be using RP25/110 wheel profile, which is what the linked wheeldata sheet describes . 13.5mm sounds like vintage Triang to me . Even 1990s Hornby was 13.9mm nominal

 

Peco setrack flangeways were 1.55mm even 15-20 years ago, and Streamline 1.39mm . I don't know where 2.0mm flangeway comes from: I don't think anything would run on that

[Ian J.]

Mickey: Part of my original idea for the thread was to get a feeling as to what definitions could be applied to our hobby's market segments, that are not otherwise defined. This stemmed from the Hornby 2013 thread and Hornby's apparent decision with 'design clever' to 'quit' the upper mid-fi market. My disappointment that they are pulling out of quality improvements from the point of view of fidelity of detail just made me wonder if others felt the same, and whether others might also feel that there was another potential quality level to be explored. As usual, it seems I'm just faffing about again, as far as other people are concerned.

 

Ravenser: Sorry to have to repeat myself again, but I already said in reply to Martin Wynne's query regarding the Hornby models that they were the Gresleys and Staniers from recent years, that is the last six or so that they've been about. They are not the old Triang stuff. They had BTBs down to 13.5mm, which I had to correct as they wouldn't run through a Peco point. I'm also sure that the wheels on some of the Bachmann and Hornby don't match the RP25/110 profile that is apparently on the Dapol stock I have. However, I don't know who is 'correct', Dapol, or the others. It may be that Dapol are using an even finer standard for all I know. Flangeway gaps is my gaff. I wasn't being accurate enough.

 

Jeff: Yes, I suppose a gold, or even a 'platinum' standard could describe it.

 

Everyone: In defining 'hi-fi' I never expected anyone to believe it would be a mass market seller to replace the current offerings. This isn't about making the biggest amount of bucks possible, but about advancing the quality of RTR to a level above the pinnacle currently reached for a modest profit level, and maybe sharing some of the tooling of the mid-fi ranges. Modern tooling techniques seem to be able to cope with these kinds of variations (though I'm not a tool designer or maker so can't comment with any authority on that). Additionally the price gap between the current manufactured RTR and handbuilt RTR is very big - £120 compared to £1000 for similar locomotive types, so I've always thought there's another market sitting in that gap. There have always been some complaints regarding manufacturers having to compromise OO models to take account of tight trainset radii, so I was looking at something like hi-fi to move on beyond that constraint. It would have to be considered a new market that might attract some people from the existing RTR, and perhaps find some value for those of EM/P4 as raw materials for their conversions (much like now, only with more accurate bodies still).

 

It seems that most respondents here just feel I'm causing a faff for no reason at all as of course we're all so capable of improving everything out there to a much finer standard than could ever be done by any manufacturer despite the finish they've proven able to do. So, like with the Hornby 2013 thread, I'm going to retire from this one too. Do with it what you will.

[coachmann]

It seems that most respondents here just feel I'm causing a faff for no reason at all as of course we're all so capable of improving everything out there to a much finer standard than could ever be done by any manufacturer despite the finish they've proven able to do. So, like with the Hornby 2013 thread, I'm going to retire from this one too. Do with it what you will.

Ian, expecting RTR to be produced in EM or P4 is a well trodden path and what most respondents have been trying to do it get you to see that what you're asking is never going to happen. It's also unneccesary when the people that want to improve RTR have already learned how to do so. It's not brain surgery....It's called railway modelling. To say you want to improve RTR to a much finer standard is rich when RTR had come on in leaps and bounds in the past 13 or so years. Did you contribute to these improvements? Some railway modellers did.

[Jeff Smith]

It seems that most respondents here just feel I'm causing a faff for no reason at all as of course we're all so capable of improving everything out there to a much finer standard than could ever be done by any manufacturer despite the finish they've proven able to do. So, like with the Hornby 2013 thread, I'm going to retire from this one too. Do with it what you will.

 

Well it was fun while it lasted.  I believe the important thing with any serious talk about modifying existing items or tackling a kit or a scratch build is to have a realistic idea of how you expect it to turn out.  This applies to other things like home DIY.  You've got to recognise when you can achieve your vision and when to leave it to the professionals.  Many a good RTR or kit has been spoiled by people overestimating their skills.  Have a go by all means as that's how you learn but also be aware of your limitations......an early lesson for me was a plan for a massisve 00 tail-chaser loft layout - only the station boards got finished and it turned into a branch terminus, however it did get to a few exhibitions.

 

So long and thanks for all the fish-plates.......

[Paul Cram]

Those within the hobby need to have a serious re-think if they think 00 is for playing trains while EM and P4 is for modelling. Neither can I cannot understand why people who are proficient at converting locos to P4 track need RTR manufacturers to make it easier for them. A so-called "compromised" RTR loco at £100 is a very good deal from where I'm standing, and everyone should be happy. Afterall, we never hear the people who can build better complaining.

 

I think you are missing the point in respect of P4 and EM. The current standard of RTR locos is consistent with that that can be produced by kit builders. It means that the process of getting something running in P4/EM can shortened. The brassmasters conversions also help to speed the process. It is not a matter of making things easier just a way of encouraging people to try a more accurate track system.

[coachmann]

I think you are missing the point in respect of P4 and EM. The current standard of RTR locos is consistent with that that can be produced by kit builders. It means that the process of getting something running in P4/EM can shortened. The brassmasters conversions also help to speed the process. It is not a matter of making things easier just a way of encouraging people to try a more accurate track system.

Track gauge matter now't when layouts increasingly look alike because they are populated by RTR locos and rolling stock. When folk can build a decent convincing layout in 00 gauge with attention to historical accuracy, prototype operation, scenics, signalling and so-forth, only then can they further improve appearance by adopting P4. The sum total of a model railway layout is definitely not the track.