Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[martin_wynne]

There may be straws in the wind -- notice that the "00/H0" designation has gone missing, and track is now labelled either "H0" or "00" on the Peco web site:

 http://www.peco-uk.com/header.swf?pictures=Header/Ads/C75SteelTrack.jpg

 http://www.peco-uk.com/header.swf?pictures=Header/Ads/OOCode75Tracks.jpg

A parting of the ways in readiness for... ?
 

 

[Godders]

I have followed this thread quite closely from the beginning. My observations are that it is mainly aimed at getting Peco to change their products to be more "British Looking". It occurs to me that Peco is the wrong target. They have little to gain from changing their product, the overall sales will hardly change and it would seem that most people believe that Peco's market is H0 not 00. On the other hand Hornby and Bachmann products are aimed at the 00 market wouldn't it be better for one of these to modify/extend their track ranges to a more visually acceptable product. This would also put commercial pressure on Peco. I am surprised at the number of people on RMWeb that actually use Hornby/Bachmann/Peco set track. I suspect this market is much bigger than we "fine scale" modellers believe and it may well be that the best way to propagate better looking track is via this side of the market. This would provide people who were new to the hobby getting a better idea of prototype track. There is of course still a major problem of range, it has to be fairly small but it could be introduced piece by piece. It could start with say a code 75 FB B6 (very similar to a Peco Large Radius) and with a bit of "design clever" perhaps a bit of flexibility could be built in to enable a little bit of curving. The V crossing, including wing rails, which need not be handed and switch rails could be made available for sale separately for those who would build their own track but don't want the hassle of filing them. The Manufacturer could at this point improve the check clearance by reducing it to 1mm, we know now that virtually all modern stock will pass through this. I personally would like to see 00-SF adopted for turnouts but the mere adoption of the 1 mm crossing flangeway would be a major step forward and the check gauge could be easily modified for those who desired something different than the, hopefully 00-SF standard. For those who wish to run old stock there are two solutions; don't use the new track or change the wheels. Sorry to be harsh but it's time to move on, the whole point of better looking track is to try and move with the times. When Peco introduced code 75 they said that it was only suitable for newer wheels I don't remember, perhaps conveniently, perhaps old age, any mass revolt, most people loved it. 

 

Cheers

 

Godders

[Godders]

There may be straws in the wind -- notice that the "00/H0" designation has gone missing, and track is now labelled either "H0" or "00" on the Peco web site:

 

 http://www.peco-uk.com/header.swf?pictures=Header/Ads/C75SteelTrack.jpg

 

 http://www.peco-uk.com/header.swf?pictures=Header/Ads/OOCode75Tracks.jpg

 

A parting of the ways in readiness for... ?

 

I think it's a typo Martin, the Steel track is in both adverts.

[martin_wynne]

I think it's a typo Martin, the Steel track is in both adverts.

 

That's exactly my point. One product, two different adverts for two different markets. In readiness for two different products? 

[Godders]

I haven't read the full thread but here are some of my opinions:

 

1. Not everyone has the skill to build their own track.

 

2. Not everyone who has the skill wants to build their own track. Reasons for this include (but are not limited to): no time, relatively pricey set up costs if you don't have the equipment already, and simply some people don't enjoy it. We all find different aspects of the hobby enjoyable. Me personally I'd rather see trains moving than building/staring at perfectly prototypical track.

 

3. I would welcome proper British prototype 00 gauge track in RTR form. I don't mind tinkering with the locos/stock so if an RTR P4 option were available I would definitely consider it.

 

4. Marcway do fill this void to some extent but they are a little pricey so I've stuck with Peco Code 75.

 

5. I would love to see a range similar to Peco's Code 75 plus curved diamonds for junctions, tandem 3 ways (with both turn outs going the same way) and maybe some Tillig-esque flexi points.

 

6. Whilst all of the above is all well and good I read an estimate on another thread that said there is probably about 180,000 railway modellers in the country of which not all model in 4mm scale. Given the variety of prototypes that would have to be modelled (BH/FB, concrete sleepers/wooden sleepers etc) I wonder whether the market is big enough to be able to satisfy everyone. I doubt it which is why we're left with compromises. It would take a large set up cost with little promise of a long term return to set up a new track system which is probably why nobody's done it yet.

 

7. Maybe if enough of us got on Peco they would consider changing the sleeper spacing and rail profile on their 75 to 83 so we have a better approximation but the above regarding set up costs will still apply.

1. I agree

 

2. There is a lot of evidence to show that making your own track doesn't need to be costly templates come free courtesy of Templot, jigs are easily made from scrap materials you do need good quality files but these can be had very cheaply from tool shops and virtually last forever.

 

3. rather negates 1.

 

4. now you've hit the nail on the head, it's about perception. £100 for a loco is expensive but acceptable, £27 for a handmade turnout is "ridiculously expensive". How many turnouts do you need, how many locos have you got and I bet you didn't "need" most of them.

 

5. Agreed but better geometry and flangeway clearances.

 

6. Nobody seems to know how many people "Play with trains" I suspect it's a heck of a lot more than 180,000 but most of them are more akin to train sets.

 

7. Lots of people change sleeper spacings on plain track, there are even tools to assist but you're right it would be nice to have. This one threw me, why do you want to change the rail profile?

 

 

 

. 

[Godders]

That's exactly my point. One product, two different adverts for two different markets. In readiness for two different products? 

Come on Martin, you'll be telling me next that you believe in Father Christmas and fairies with magic wands.

[sub39h]

7. Lots of people change sleeper spacings on plain track, there are even tools to assist but you're right it would be nice to have. This one threw me, why do you want to change the rail profile?

 

I was under the impression Code 83 was more accurate in terms of scale size? Is that not why C&L track is Code 82?

 

7. Lots of people change sleeper spacings on plain track, there are even tools to assist but you're right it would be nice to have. This one threw me, why do you want to change the rail profile?

 

I was under the impression Code 83 was more accurate in terms of scale size? Is that not why C&L track is Code 82?

[martin_wynne]

Come on Martin, you'll be telling me next that you believe in Father Christmas.

 

Of course I believe in Father Christmas -- doesn't everyone?

 

Peco are masters of marketing. If they are trying to ditch the 00/H0 designation there would be a reason for that.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

I was under the impression Code 83 was more accurate in terms of scale size? Is that not why C&L track is Code 82?

 

The correct size for UK heavy rail FB in 4mm scale is code 82. The prototype rail is 6.1/4" high. (FB-109, BS-110A, BS-113A sections).

[frobisher]

I have followed this thread quite closely from the beginning. My observations are that it is mainly aimed at getting Peco to change their products to be more "British Looking". It occurs to me that Peco is the wrong target. They have little to gain from changing their product, the overall sales will hardly change and it would seem that most people believe that Peco's market is H0 not 00. On the other hand Hornby and Bachmann products are aimed at the 00 market wouldn't it be better for one of these to modify/extend their track ranges to a more visually acceptable product. This would also put commercial pressure on Peco.

I'm not sure that Hornby would have much interest to be honest. They've rationalised the Hornby International track range to be the Hornby UK set track range now, down from the 3-4 legacy ones inherited from the Lima group and 00 track would be very wrong for the H0 market.

 

Whilst Bachmann has a relatively recently produced set track range that not entirely coincidently mirrors the Hornby one, they might have the appetite to try something different.

 

I am surprised at the number of people on RMWeb that actually use Hornby/Bachmann/Peco set track. I suspect this market is much bigger than we "fine scale" modellers believe and it may well be that the best way to propagate better looking track is via this side of the market.

Hornby are the biggest supplier of track in the UK market, with Peco a relatively distant (but significant) second as I understand it. There are a surprising number (to me) of members' layouts that feature Hornby or Peco set track when you look here, yet the same members are quite obsessive about the detailing etc of their locos etc. (this is not in any way a denigration - model to the challenges you want to address, after all it's a hobby).

[Godders]

Hi sub39h

 

Posted Today, 10:23

sub39h, on 19 Dec 2013 - 10:05, said:

I was under the impression Code 83 was more accurate in terms of scale size? Is that not why C&L track is Code 82?

 

The correct size for UK heavy rail FB in 4mm scale is code 82. The prototype rail is 6.1/4" high. (FB-109, BS-110A, BS-113A sections).

 

 

Martin has beaten me to it , I apologise.

 

Cheers

 

Godders

[Joseph_Pestell]

7. Maybe if enough of us got on Peco they would consider changing the sleeper spacing and rail profile on their 75 to 83 so we have a better approximation but the above regarding set up costs will still apply.

 

Because of the way that pointwork is manufactured, a producer with an existing product does start with a considerable advantage. So long as the geometry and the rail profile stays the same, the assembly jigs (effectively a slide for the mould tool) could be re-used for the new range with OO sleepering.

 

So if a rival manufacturer were to introduce ready-to-lay BH pointwork (plastic base), one might well see Peco respond with an FB track to OO standards.

[Joseph_Pestell]

There may be straws in the wind -- notice that the "00/H0" designation has gone missing, and track is now labelled either "H0" or "00" on the Peco web site:

 

 http://www.peco-uk.com/header.swf?pictures=Header/Ads/C75SteelTrack.jpg

 

 http://www.peco-uk.com/header.swf?pictures=Header/Ads/OOCode75Tracks.jpg

 

A parting of the ways in readiness for... ?

 

 

But they don't make any OO track. That's why we are here.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I really do hope the Peco do make some scale OO track......They make very good workable track and IMO dont get the credit they deserve as one of the real cornerstones of this hobby

 

I think that is fair comment. The hobby in this country would not be where it is if we had not had Peco. Much of what they have done has been very good (hence their domination of the European market for track on modellers' layouts) but I feel that they could have achieved rather more with greater ambition and less conservatism. 

[martin_wynne]

But they don't make any OO track. That's why we are here.

 

OK I give up. If you can't see a subtle marketing change, so be it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

yeah they do its called Streamline

Wrong on two counts.

 

All their ranges of flexitrack are called Streamline.

 

None of them are scaled to OO (4mm/foot) standards just to OO gauge (16.5mm) with HO sleepering.

[Joseph_Pestell]

OK I give up. If you can't see a subtle marketing change, so be it.

 

No, I don't rule out that you may be right. If so, I hope they get on with it and make an announcement soon that clarifies the matter.

[Godders]

One of the things that puzzle me and believe you me there are many is why people are insistent that the market is too small for Peco to justify a separate range. I can't believe that there 0 scale, SM32, G45, 00-9, H0n3 and H0m ranges are that big.

 

As I was looking through the Peco track range I noticed that they supply code 200 Peco SL-806  Frog/ Wing Rails for £4.40 (Unsoldered) and Peco SL-808  Turnout Blades for £5.00, similar in 0 gauge but nothing in 00. It was the price that attracted my attention. Why are C&L ones so expensive.

[Godders]

OK I give up. If you can't see a subtle marketing change, so be it.

Martin 

 

We don't want subtle, we want bold Cavalier, Light Brigade, Henry V  action, "Once more unto the breach, Dear Friends.............

 

........................

[Armchair Modeller]

Martin 

 

We don't want subtle, we want bold Cavalier, Light Brigade, Henry V  action, "Once more unto the breach, Dear Friends.............

 

........................

 

..Sounds great but where did that get us in the end? - we still lost France and the Crimean War

[Joseph_Pestell]

..Sounds great but where did that get us in the end? - we still lost France and the Crimean War

 

Think of it as the French losing us. And the Ukraine looks a bit messy at the moment too.

[sub39h]

The correct size for UK heavy rail FB in 4mm scale is code 82. The prototype rail is 6.1/4" high. (FB-109, BS-110A, BS-113A sections).

 

I'd guessed 82 was going to be more accurate, but asking Peco to develop a whole new rail was probably asking a bit much. I think we'd be more likely to win if they're reusing their Code 83 rail.

 

When you're using 16.5mm gauge I don't see much of an issue if the rail is 1/1000 of an inch too high 

[Pacific231G]

OO is a gauge not a scale.......

It was originally, alongside gauge 0, 1, 2, and 3, but now in Britain it is neither but rather a particular gauge/scale combination.

 

There was a lot of discussion during the 1920s about whether the scale to be used with 00 gauge (originally 5/8 inch but eventually 16.5mm) should be the correct 3.5mm/ft or the compromise of 4mm/ft. As 4mm/ft started becoming the more popular scale, (though only among the tiny minority of modellers working at such a small scale) those working in 3.5mm started referring to that as half-0 or H0 and that name was adopted by the rest of the world.  00 then came for a while to mean the scale of 4mm/ft whether the gauge was 16.5, 18 or 19mm all of which were being used by British modellers.

 

Although during and just after the war the B.R.M.S.B. had defined standards for 00 with "Standard- 00" using 16.5mm gauge and "Scale- 00" 18mm gauge. That didn't stick and workers using 18mm gauge (including Cyril Freezer) renamed it EM gauge (as in the EM Gauge Society) even though they were using the same scale.

 

Since then 00 in Britain has, at least for track and rolling stock,  meant the particular combination of 4mm/ft scale with 16.5mm gauge. However, for scenery, figures, road vehicles etc it generally refers simply to the scale of 4mm/ft and is also the basis for the British narrow gauge designations of 00n3 and 009.

 

I wonder if this leads to confusion with people thinking that say a model car built to "00 scale" would be wrong for an EM layout

Edited December 19, 2013 by Pacific231G

[frobisher]

OO is a gauge not a scale.......

It's a gauge/scale combo strictly speaking...

[Ron Ron Ron]

OO is a gauge not a scale.......

 

 

It's a gauge/scale combo strictly speaking...

 

Oh no, not another new scale and gauge?

As if it wasn't enough with the current discrepancies and choice of gauges and scales.

When was this new OO announced?

 

 

.