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

[Ron Ron Ron]

 ..........I suspect that Mr. Arnold's statement is therefore little more than 'PR babble' intended to impress the shareholders .......

 

I think the shareholders may be restricted to the Pritchard family, as the group of Peco companies are a private family affair.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not totally true.  I said 15 years, not 50.  We had tools and fixtures designed on CAD and had CNC machines back in the 80's….

 

So sorry, that doesn't account for tools being a 'fraction of the cost'.  I like to know a bit more about your statement.  Have you seen quotes for 2, 4, or 8 impression tools?  From memory in connector manufacture, multi impression tools with separate inserts to allow a range of sizes were anywhere between £20k and £40k depending on the complexity.

 

I'm fairly open minded, but sometimes statements are made that perhaps are an exaggeration or without any real substance.  In this discussion tooling costs really are central to any cost justification and can make a huge difference to any business case.

 

I don't know what it is that you were making but I suspect something more high value. Beer was certainly not that well-equipped back then although, as we can see from those press cuttings, they have upped their game as this sort of kit becomes more mainstream (and itself much cheaper).

 

As others have pointed out, the savings really add up on the items that have to be replicated. You would have already been doing that 15 years ago though.

 

So probably true that tooling costs not so much reduced over the last 15 years but certainly by a lot by comparison with 20 - 50 years ago which is when we saw the last serious investment in model railway track manufacturing.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[gordon s]

Thanks Joseph.  We were making connectors for electronic equipment such as PC's and instrumentation.  We were involved with major blue chip clients and sold a wide range of products in considerable volume.  Typically a connector would sell for around £2-£5, so cheaper than a turnout, but a range of sizes had to be available, so tools were of modular construction with inserts to allow several sizes out of each tool.  Volume wise, we would expect to sell around a million parts.

 

I suspect a mould tool for a turnout base would be simpler and perhaps the tolerances would be a little more relaxed, but the size would be greater.  Bearing in mind inflation etc, I could still see tooling being in the region of £10k-£20k depending on the number of impressions and type of moulding material.

 

I'm really interested in how manufacturing methods may have changed since the 80-90's and how this is reflected in tooling costs.  It would be great if someone had some relevant experience in this field as I would appreciate knowing some current cost structures.  As always inflation has a huge part to play, so this may well offset improvements in manufacturing techniques.  The biggest cost factors in connectors were labour time and the incidental cost, depreciation of the tools and commercial overheads.  The material cost of a moulding and contacts were relatively small.  With a large number of variants, assembly was generally by hand in batch production.  Any tooling was limited to simple assembly and alignment fixtures.  The cost of auto assembly in terms of depreciation meant only the highest volume connectors could take advantage of that process.

 

So you are left with a moulded base in RH and LH format, a selection of stamped and drawn parts and then hand assembly.  Costs up front would be the tooling and then various minimum order quantities on the stamped and drawn parts.  Add those together and you are looking at considerable working capital to fund the materials and the costs of stock and distribution.  Like all new products, sales at the front end would be low and it could be some time until you move towards a break even point.

 

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just trying to be realistic at what can be achieved.  Of course if you are already a well established business, then those costs can be contained by using existing parts and modified tools.

[Jeff Smith]

Gordon, the press releases for Peco indicate that the fixed rails are placed within the dies (possibly by hand but not sure) and the sleeper bases moulded around them. This would leave a further assembly step just to add the switch rails and link wires.

 

I believe one of the reasons Peco has managed to keep production in the UK is that most products are basic injection moulded items with very little further assembly whereas loco and rolling stock manufacture is currently very skilled-labour intensive. This however may change in the future with 3D printing developments.

[Budgie]

For what it's worth the code 75 concrete sleeper points are now out. I've not seen them closer than hanging behind a model shop counter, so I can't be sure exactly what Peco have done - you'd probably need a ruler and a direct side by side comparison. But I have seen the new Code 75 concrete sleeper Streamline flexible track. And that has appreciably longer and wider sleepers than the old code 100 concrete sleeper, spaced slightly wider apart - or indeed than the code 75 wooden sleeper. As a result it looks rather better and rather more British than we are used to from Peco. I am hoping that the new concrete sleeper points represent a similar advance

I had a look at the Peco site, and the only code 75 concrete bearer points listed there so far are the right- and left-hand medium-radius points. I assume they are introducing them gradually.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks Joseph.  We were making connectors for electronic equipment such as PC's and instrumentation.  We were involved with major blue chip clients and sold a wide range of products in considerable volume.  Typically a connector would sell for around £2-£5, so cheaper than a turnout, but a range of sizes had to be available, so tools were of modular construction with inserts to allow several sizes out of each tool.  Volume wise, we would expect to sell around a million parts.

 

I suspect a mould tool for a turnout base would be simpler and perhaps the tolerances would be a little more relaxed, but the size would be greater.  Bearing in mind inflation etc, I could still see tooling being in the region of £10k-£20k depending on the number of impressions and type of moulding material.

 

I'm really interested in how manufacturing methods may have changed since the 80-90's and how this is reflected in tooling costs.  It would be great if someone had some relevant experience in this field as I would appreciate knowing some current cost structures.  As always inflation has a huge part to play, so this may well offset improvements in manufacturing techniques.  The biggest cost factors in connectors were labour time and the incidental cost, depreciation of the tools and commercial overheads.  The material cost of a moulding and contacts were relatively small.  With a large number of variants, assembly was generally by hand in batch production.  Any tooling was limited to simple assembly and alignment fixtures.  The cost of auto assembly in terms of depreciation meant only the highest volume connectors could take advantage of that process.

 

So you are left with a moulded base in RH and LH format, a selection of stamped and drawn parts and then hand assembly.  Costs up front would be the tooling and then various minimum order quantities on the stamped and drawn parts.  Add those together and you are looking at considerable working capital to fund the materials and the costs of stock and distribution.  Like all new products, sales at the front end would be low and it could be some time until you move towards a break even point.

 

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just trying to be realistic at what can be achieved.  Of course if you are already a well established business, then those costs can be contained by using existing parts and modified tools.

 

An interesting post, Gordon. Your items were individually low value but of much higher value in terms of overall turnover. So your company's investment in what was then very expensive kit was no doubt more justified than it would have been for Peco.

 

All your other points about the financial implications are absolutely right - which is what makes it so difficult for a new entrant.

 

As Jeff mentions, you are not quite right about the process of putting the points/track together. Although it is quite labour-intensive (or was when I last visited Peco about 14 years ago), it is basically a mechanised moulding process with the plastic base moulded onto the metalwork which is held in the mould by slots in a tool.

[billbedford]

Not quite out of the blue. It appeared because one man (Andrew Jukes) was prepared to finance what he wanted for his own layout.

 

...and another man (Len Newman) had a great deal of experience designing tooling for trackwork. 

Edited December 31, 2013 by billbedford

[Godders]

Gordon, the press releases for Peco indicate that the fixed rails are placed within the dies (possibly by hand but not sure) and the sleeper bases moulded around them. This would leave a further assembly step just to add the switch rails and link wires.

 

I believe one of the reasons Peco has managed to keep production in the UK is that most products are basic injection moulded items with very little further assembly whereas loco and rolling stock manufacture is currently very skilled-labour intensive. This however may change in the future with 3D printing developments.

 

Hi Jeff, just picking up on one of your points. In 1960, before the UK was in the EU (1973) we were a founder member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) of which Austria was one of the members. I seem to remember that Peco shipped its rail products to Austria for partial assembly. This was because there was a tax advantage, of course, in exporting and importing. Not sure when the practice ceased but Peco didn't always "manufacture" track in this country. EFTA still exists.

 

cheers Godders

[Jeff Smith]

Hi Jeff, just picking up on one of your points. In 1960, before the UK was in the EU (1973) we were a founder member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) of which Austria was one of the members. I seem to remember that Peco shipped its rail products to Austria for partial assembly. This was because there was a tax advantage, of course, in exporting and importing. Not sure when the practice ceased but Peco didn't always "manufacture" track in this country. EFTA still exists.

 

cheers Godders

Interesting, I really have no idea of the histories of the various UK model manufacturers except what I have read in odd articles (e.g. Kitmaster).

[hayfield]

 

As Jeff mentions, you are not quite right about the process of putting the points/trplacegether. Although it is quite labour-intensive (or was when I last visited Peco about 14 years ago), it awarebasically a mechanised moulding process with the plastic producinglded onto the metalwork which is held in the mould by slots in a tool.

Certainly both stock and switch rails can be slid into position. I guess some enterprising person could design a way of clipping the common crossing into place. Another reply stated that turnouts were sent to Austria for assembly. I guess if someone who is not aware of Peco's process may well find a different solution in producing a turnout base.

[Godders]

Certainly both stock and switch rails can be slid into position. I guess some enterprising person could design a way of clipping the common crossing into place. Another reply stated that turnouts were sent to Austria for assembly. I guess if someone who is not aware of Peco's process may well find a different solution in producing a turnout base.

Hi John, I'm wondering why we are even discussing the minutiae of assembly. We haven't got consensus on any of the following yet; track type: Bullhead or Flatbottom, Rail profile: 75, 82 ...., Rail material; Steel, Hi Nickel, ;Pre-finished in rust coloured track or not, Track Standards: 00-Peco, DOGA commercial, DOGA FS, 00-SF..... preferred formats; A5, B6, C8...... Timbering, etc, etc, etc.

 

I am sure there are many enterprising or even run of the mill production engineers who can advise on the best way to assemble components.

 

On a political note perhaps our prayers have been answered on assembly costs.

 

According to the government, from today, there are going to be millions of migrants clamouring for menial jobs......like assembling model railway turnouts?? or

 

Perhaps we could force unemployed people to do community service.....like assembling model railway turnouts??

 

If they were young unemployed people we could encourage them to become railway modellers thus swelling our ranks.

 

BTW does anyone know how to stop Bold and larger font highlighting my preferences.

 

Cheers Godders 

[Budgie]

If we are waiting for consensus, we may end up waiting for ever. What we really want is for a benign dictator to decide what needs doing and get on and do it.

[hayfield]

Godders

 

Happy new year. Sounds like you had a good evening.

 

I think it needs someone to take the bull by the horns with this one, and just do it.

 

Better looking points seems to be universally required. I guess bullhead rail would be the easiest to work and covers a greater time span. As for gauge it has to work with stock straight out of the box. So either standard 00 or bite the bullet with 00SF.

 

You will never get 100% agreement on this one. But any type of point in 4mm scale for OO stock would be an improvement. I have just looked at a couple of recent Railway Modellers and can't for the life of me understand why so many put up with awful looking track when their stock is so good. Sorry if I have offended anyone

[Metr0Land]

If we are waiting for consensus, we may end up waiting for ever. What we really want is for a benign dictator to decide what needs doing and get on and do it.

 

K-Tel and Ronco used to decide what we wanted to buy at Christmas.....  and we did!

[Godders]

If we are waiting for consensus, we may end up waiting for ever. What we really want is for a benign dictator to decide what needs doing and get on and do it.

 

How about a referendum and a petition to the various manufacturers.

 

Godders

[martin_wynne]

K-Tel and Ronco used to decide what we wanted to buy at Christmas.....  and we did!

 

I didn't.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi John, I'm wondering why we are even discussing the minutiae of assembly. We haven't got consensus on any of the following yet; track type: Bullhead or Flatbottom, Rail profile: 75, 82 ...., Rail material; Steel, Hi Nickel, ;Pre-finished in rust coloured track or not, Track Standards: 00-Peco, DOGA commercial, DOGA FS, 00-SF..... preferred formats; A5, B6, C8...... Timbering, etc, etc, etc.

 

I am sure there are many enterprising or even run of the mill production engineers who can advise on the best way to assemble components.

 

On a political note perhaps our prayers have been answered on assembly costs.

 

According to the government, from today, there are going to be millions of migrants clamouring for menial jobs......like assembling model railway turnouts?? or

 

Perhaps we could force unemployed people to do community service.....like assembling model railway turnouts??

 

If they were young unemployed people we could encourage them to become railway modellers thus swelling our ranks.

 

BTW does anyone know how to stop Bold and larger font highlighting my preferences.

 

Cheers Godders 

 

How assembly is done has a major bearing on costs and therefore selling price. It can't be ignored even at this stage.

 

There are very sound commercial reasons to prefer BH to FB but from a production viewpoint FB is probably easier and cheaper to achieve.

 

I am interested by your suggestion of a rust-coloured rail. That would have to be achieved by coating all the rail with the end-user then cleaning off the top with a track rubber or similar. Obviously there would be some additional cost but probably not major when considering the greater realism that it would achieve.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[Pacific231G]

If we are waiting for consensus, we may end up waiting for ever. What we really want is for a benign dictator to decide what needs doing and get on and do it.

That could only be a manufacturer. Not a benign dictator so much as someone willing to risk their own money on guessing not what modellers need but what they would actually buy.

 

In essence the B.R.M.S.B. was a "benign dictator" (an oxymoron in most other contexts) when it established its original standards as it was an entirely self-appointed body of the then three magazine editors with others co-opted who met from time to time in each other's offices. Britain has never had a representative body of modellers like the NMRA based on individual membership or MOROP based on national associations of model railway clubs and that's probably how we prefer it but the manufacturers, with nothing else to go on,  generally seem to work within their standards.

 

I had a look at the launch of Peco Streamline which was announced at the Toy Fair in 1960. It seems clear that this was a major leap from their existing fibre based track and components to injection moulding which must have involved Sidney Pritchard in  a considerable investment and hence risk. By making track that could be sold internationally that risk would have been reduced but, despite the H0 sleeper spacing, it still looked a lot better IMHO than the then ready to lay offerings from the other manufacturers.

 

The same report on the 1960 Toy Fair in RM also mentioned that G & R Wrenn had announced a new track based on H0 scale for the international market but I don't know what became of that. 

By the way, despite being owned by Peco, RM was always scrupulous about giving fair reviews to products from rival manufacturers.

[sub39h]

Irrespective of the exact style of track one thing I would like to see is set track-esque straights and wide (30"+) curves in various radii. This would serve two functions: easier track laying for those who are experienced model builders and also to prevent scaring off those who would have otherwise gone for set track or those (like me) who don't have masses of experience with flex track.

[sub39h]

I have been "WARNED" off rhis thread, and fair enough but I do have to ask what sub39h actually means there

That I want pieces of track in preformed curves (of large radii) and straights to accompany flex track and points? I didn't think it was that complicated?

Edited January 1, 2014 by sub39h

[highpeak]

I was looking for information about Micro Engineering weathered rail and found this video showing their track being made:

Some interesting comments below the video.
 

Anyway, in response to the comment about weathered rail, Micro Engineering make it alongside non-weathered rail. All it is is a chemical blackening. You'd need to clean it off wherever you planned to solder feeder wires to the rail. There is a discussion on the pros and cons of weathered rail at http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=64779.

 

In my experience, ballasting and weathering track is where most of the time goes whether it's ready-to-lay or handmade.

[Joseph_Pestell]

That I want pieces of track in preformed curves (of large radii) and straights to accompany flex track and points? I didn't think it was that complicated?

 

I can understand the desire for large radius preformed curves but I doubt whether it would sell in sufficient quantities to justify the tooling costs.

 

If you are not too bothered about sleepering, quite a range is available from Shinohara.

[Mythocentric]

Surely that's just creating another form of 'set track' to compete with the existing products! The whole premise of this thread is to see if we can find a way of producing an improved RTR product with greater realism (i.e. to British outline!) than the time-expired alternatives now in existence which will in turn enable railway modellers to bring their track work up the the level of today's high standards in all other aspects! While there admittedly are limits with a range of 'standard' turnouts as to what you can achieve, the threads aim must be of far greater benefit than another form of set track, no matter how large the radius! 'Flexitrack' isn't particularly difficult to use, just curve it to whatever radius you need. While admittedly I don't always agree with Mickey's viewpoint, this time his query is valid!

 

Regards

 

Bill

[sub39h]

Just because a track system has some form of "set track" doesn't mean you have to use it. The benefit is it could potentially extend the market into the "train set crowd' thus potentially making it a more viable proposition overall. Either way, I think straight track would be of benefit to beginners and those more experienced.

[Pacific231G]

Irrespective of the exact style of track one thing I would like to see is set track-esque straights and wide (30"+) curves in various radii. This would serve two functions: easier track laying for those who are experienced model builders and also to prevent scaring off those who would have otherwise gone for set track or those (like me) who don't have masses of experience with flex track.

I think there are two problems with this. The first is that fixed radius curves are just that and, even if of fairly generous radii, don't include a transition curve so will always look somewhat toylike. Laying curves with flexible track makes it far easier to include these. The whole point of flexible track such as Streamline when it was introduced was that it was far easier to lay by a beginner than the fibre based predecessors - especially if you use tracksetta type gauges for the main part of the curve.

 

Non flexible straight track compatible with flexible track can be quite useful for things like end of board tracks simply because it is more rigid (except that it means using Code 100) but for the rest of the layout it presents the problem that the geometry and length of everything including curved sections and points has to all fit together so that track doesn't have to be cut to length. Setrack and its equivalents are very inflexible while still needing a fairly large number of different lengths.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Pacific231G