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

[Dungrange]

i know this is playing devils advocate Martin but using the logic that modellers run trains of 4mm/ft scale on 4ft 1.5in track shouldnt we also be looking at shrinking the locos and stock down slightly to match a gauge of 4ft 1.5.in as well if its to be done in the way you suggest (properly uh hum as far 00 is concerned) the alternative being to big up the track to P4  

 

I see what youre saying but I am not yet convinced that the 8ft sleeper is the way this should go.  The stock will always be overscale to whatever 00 standards are adopted here so I dont see why the scale of a 4ft 1.5in gauge has to extend to the sleepers simply to stick with the maths - it will still not have the right "look" IMO.  Be interested if others feel the same or strongly disagree.

 

If you shrink the stock down to suit the track gauge, you end up with H0. There have been several unsuccesful attemps to move the 00 market to H0, so I think that is a 'red herring': it is not going to happen.  Sticking with a scale of 1:76.2, if you want a perfect scale representation of track with a gauge of 4' 8.5" then the only way forward is to model in S4.  However, perhaps think of the current debate this way.

 

Prototype track in the UK originally used a sleeper length of 9'.  It was subsequently realised (around the time of the First World War) that a cost saving could be made by reducing the sleeper length to the now standard 8' 6" on the basis that not all of the timber outside of the 'four foot' was actually required.  Now imagine if the universally adopted gauge had been 4' 1.5" rather than 4' 8.5" (and the 'four foot' a bit closer to four feet).  Under such a scenario, it is likely that 8' long sleepers would have become the norm over the UK rail network and as such, this is what we should be seeking to model.  However, all of the other dimensions like sleeper width, depth and spacing would be the same as track with a gauge of 4' 8.5".  I think on the whole that is where the greatest consensus lies.  It is all of the other options such as bullhead rail or flatbottom, 00-SF or something else, where there is greater disagreement among any prospective buyers on here.

 

Sleeper length is always going to be an issue with an incorrect track gauge.  When laid adjacent to a straight platform, the centreline of the track has to be a specific distance from the platform edge.  This distance is the same irrespective as to whether one is modelling in 00, EM or P4 because it is based on stock clearances.  However, the distance between the platform edge and the nearest running line will be greater for 00 than for P4.  If the sleepers are anything less than a scale 8' 6" then the same is true with regards the distance between the platform edge and the ends of the sleepers.  Therefore, when shortening the sleepers, you increase the gap between the platform and the track.  A balance has to be struck, and personally, I feel that an 8' long sleeper is the right balance.

 

I'm therefore in agreement with Martin's suggestions.

 

Regard

 

David

Edited January 3, 2014 by Dungrange

[billbedford]

As the figures are in the Public Domain, I feel more comfortable in highlighting several figures that would cause me to think twice about going into track production.  Whilst sales and profit are interesting on their own, it is the detail in the balance sheet that I find more fascinating.

 

Stock:  £2000k.  Made up of £1297k raw material, £70k WIP and £633k finished goods for resale.

 

Dies and Moulds.  £3,522k with another £238k added this year.  Tooling is depreciated over 3 yrs and the depreciation to date is £3,442k with just £168k added this year.  This suggests that most of the tooling has been written down in the depreciation figure, but nevertheless the figures are a real indicator of the level of investment to get into this market.

 

This would also confirm that the cost of tooling is much higher than you probably believe and despite views to the contrary, Peco have invested another £238k in new or updated tooling in FY13.

 

Don't forget that PPP also include Ratio, Wills and Modelscene(ex-Merit), they also produce a whole lot of narrow gauge models in different gauges. They have recently announce the introduction of a range of Lynton and Barnstable RTR rolling stock which I suspect would take up much of the years tooling budget.

[Dungrange]

Please don't point me to the Exatoscale concrete sleeper track system, if you had read Colin Craig’s review in DEMU's Update you would realise it is not representative of a BR or today's NR standards.

 

Clive, I am not a member of DEMU and therefore have not read the article to which you refer, but another RMWebber indicated that the Exactoscale concrete Fasttrack was supposed to represent the F27 sleeper as manufactured between 1969 and 2003 (see a thread I started last year - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61828-exactoscale-concrete-sleepers/).  Did the review to which you refer make any mention of the Peco Individulay concrete sleepers?  It has nothing to do with the discussion in hand, but something I would be interested in.

 

Regards

 

David

[gordon s]

Thanks Bill.  Apologies if it read that way as I wasn't suggesting it was all track product, just using the figures as an indication of modern day tooling costs for dies and moulds.

[billbedford]

Just checked and RM's registered office is Howe and Davis Ltd which would suggest sales and advertising revenue for RM is not part of the accounts we have bought.

 

They are not.

 

There are 6 companies in the group:

• PRITCHARD PATENT PRODUCT COMPANY (2001) LIMITED -- Activities of Head Offices
• PRITCHARD PATENT PRODUCT COMPANY LIMITED -- Non-specialised wholesale trade
• HOWE AND DAVIS LIMITED -- Activities of amusement parks and theme parks
• PECO PUBLICATIONS & PUBLICITY,LIMITED -- Publishing of consumer and business journals and periodicals
• RATIO PLASTIC MODELS LIMITED -- Dormant Company
• SYCON,LIMITED -- Dormant Company

[gordon s]

Thanks Bill.  I think I've got my head round it.  I suspect RM revenue is reported in the Peco Publications accounts.  RM gives it's registered office as Howe and Davis who account for the theme park (Pecorama?) and retail shop.  It's therefore probable that Peco Pub's operates out of an office/small premises in the buildings/land owned by Howe and Davis.

 

Annual accounts really are fun to read and unravel.

[martin_wynne]

Prototype track in the UK originally used a sleeper length of 9'.  It was subsequently realised (around the time of the Firth World War) that a cost saving could be made by reducing the sleeper length to the now standard 8' 6" on the basis that not all of the timber outside of the 'four foot' was actually required.

 

Hi David,

 

One of the main reasons for the change to 8ft-6in was to allow assembled track panels to be transported within the loading gauge. Previously 9ft sleepers and rails were transported separately to the work site. Or if pre-assembled into track panels, they had to be transported as an exceptional load.

 

Martin.

[billbedford]

One of the main reasons for the change to 8ft-6in was to allow assembled track panels to be transported within the loading gauge. Previously 9ft sleepers and rails were transported separately to the work site. Or if pre-assembled into track panels, they had to be transported as an exceptional load.

 

 

 

Martin.

 

Which pre-grouping companies used pre-assembled track-panels?

[martin_wynne]

Martin.

 

Which pre-grouping companies used pre-assembled track-panels?

 

Pass.

 

The change to 8ft-6in was generally after the grouping.

 

I have some M&GN drawings showing the sleeper length as 8ft-11in.

 

Martin.

[Paul Cram]

Clive

 

I am very sorry to disagree with you, but I think the current offerings from Peco (OO/HO) are much closer to the 50's style of modelling than that offered by SMP etc. I accept that SMP Scaleway has been around for much longer than C&L and Exactoscale, but the thickness of the sleepers on any of these ranges has to my knowledge has very little to do with the copperclad sleepers. Certainly with C&L they started out being all plastic when they were K&L, and they now provide copperclad strip in 2 sizes to match their plastic track. Exactoscale never sold copperclad sleepers. It is far more likely K&L decided on thin sleepers to match ply and rivet construction.

 

The ranges of flatbottom track available from C&L date from a period different to that you are modelling, but both C&L and Exactoscale both provide flatbottom track much closer to the prototype than other RTR offerings. I have spent some very interesting time discussing flatbottom track with Colin and don't forget he supplies components and is interested in providing items to build track for a specific era, so is a bit of a red herring.

 

As for the webs between the sleepers, they do actually match the requirements of several people on this thread. In that you can have sections of dead straight track.

 

I do accept a lot on this thread want ready to lay track, if it does happen they the range will be limited. As for aiming at those who buy set track, I personally think that part of the hobby are quite happy with what's on offer now. Its those who want to migrate away from that range and have a selection of turnouts which look more like the real thing (see Martin Wynn's contributions to this thread) and track to match,  I personally think for the reasons stated by many others in this thread some form of flexi track is initially the only viable solution financially for a niche market set of track.

When Len was first persuaded to do plastic chairs and sleepers they were originally scale thickness and with holes to take pegs from the chairs (I stll have some of this track). They were set to 18.83 gauge (with slots to allow widening on curves)as that was what we model. Len didn't want to get involved with distribution and Alan Gibson took this on. It was he who wanted thin sleepers to match existing track and to remove the pegs so that a multiplicity of gauges could be accommodated. We did look at producing ready to run P4 points but the tooling costs were prohibitive.

[gordon s]

Interesting Paul.  Your last sentence says it all about any new entrant into this market place.

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive

 

I am very sorry to disagree with you, but I think the current offerings from Peco (OO/HO) are much closer to the 50's style of modelling than that offered by SMP etc. I accept that SMP Scaleway has been around for much longer than C&L and Exactoscale, but the thickness of the sleepers on any of these ranges has to my knowledge has very little to do with the copperclad sleepers. Certainly with C&L they started out being all plastic when they were K&L, and they now provide copperclad strip in 2 sizes to match their plastic track. Exactoscale never sold copperclad sleepers. It is far more likely K&L decided on thin sleepers to match ply and rivet construction.

 

The ranges of flatbottom track available from C&L date from a period different to that you are modelling, but both C&L and Exactoscale both provide flatbottom track much closer to the prototype than other RTR offerings. I have spent some very interesting time discussing flatbottom track with Colin and don't forget he supplies components and is interested in providing items to build track for a specific era, so is a bit of a red herring.

 

As for the webs between the sleepers, they do actually match the requirements of several people on this thread. In that you can have sections of dead straight track.

 

I do accept a lot on this thread want ready to lay track, if it does happen they the range will be limited. As for aiming at those who buy set track, I personally think that part of the hobby are quite happy with what's on offer now. Its those who want to migrate away from that range and have a selection of turnouts which look more like the real thing (see Martin Wynn's contributions to this thread) and track to match,  I personally think for the reasons stated by many others in this thread some form of flexi track is initially the only viable solution financially for a niche market set of track.

Hi John

 

I recall speaking with Len in Karlgarin Models soon after his track system had been released under the Alan Gibson range, before K&L models sold them direct. He said that the thin sleepers were the same thickness as copper clad to maintain the same rail height as so many modellers already had built their own points. Also see Paul's post regarding the "thick and thin" sleepers.

 

The only reason so many people on this thread seem to be against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance to match their 00 locomotives is because they make their own points in EM or P4 and appear not to let go of their "We do things poperly and you 00 modellers do not." attitude. They have not read the OP. Just as I said would happen, to Mike Storey when he suggested that the discussion on 00 track was moved from the Dave Jones wishlist thread to one of its own.

 

There would be no P4 or EM if it was not for the huge market in 00.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

['CHARD]

Clive, I suppose this is the ideal thread for a spot of point scoring 

[frobisher]

Which is really the big problem that the new entrant OOTrackCo faces. Peco has a head start and can therefore do it cheaper.

Or take the time honoured route of most companies growing a track range, get Roco to make it for you.

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive, I am not a member of DEMU and therefore have not read the article to which you refer, but another RMWebber indicated that the Exactoscale concrete Fasttrack was supposed to represent the F27 sleeper as manufactured between 1969 and 2003 (see a thread I started last year - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61828-exactoscale-concrete-sleepers/).  Did the review to which you refer make any mention of the Peco Individulay concrete sleepers?  It has nothing to do with the discussion in hand, but something I would be interested in.

 

Regards

 

David

Hi David

 

No it was a review on the Exactoscale track and sleepers.

[pete55]

Clive, I suppose this is the ideal thread for a spot of point scoring 

 

Or if Clive referred to the OP, starting a gauge war and getting the thread locked.

[Paul Cram]

I have deliberately kept out of this topic because I model P4. I have only added the above comments to clear up the reason for thin sleepers as I was involved in the development at that time. Tooling costs have become cheaper relatively speaking due to technology but would still cost a substantial sum. A lot of the cost is involved in production setting up the tool on the injection moulding machine. Constantly changing tools for different runs is what adds to the cost.

[gordon s]

Can't speak for others Clive, but the reason I started building my own track a few years back is because I wanted flowing trackwork and that couldn't be done with RTR pointwork.  My original layout builds used Tillig as I disliked the Peco point blades, but even with Tillig I couldn't get the flow I wanted.  

 

It was nothing to do with doing things properly.  If that were the case I would gone to EM or P4, but like others I have a good stock of locos etc and couldn't face the costs of conversion.  The thing is we all have our specific interests in modelling and those are often linked to our skillset.  Some can build track, some build locos, some make masterpieces of their scenery.  There are very few, if any, modellers that can do it all, so we polarise our efforts to those areas that we can do and are dependant on others for those we can't.  

 

I certainly don't begrudge anyone wanting new RTR track and would be pleased as the next man if anyone were to build it.   The real issue is that there have been numerous threads like this that do go round the same issues and those that have this vision of a new product tend to ignore, or are unwilling to accept, the realities of the market itself and the costs involved.

 

We are now on page 31 and still haven't reached an agreement of what is required.  I suspect you may never reach agreement as there are so many variants and even then there will be compromises in the design to accommodate moulding and assembly requirements.  Feel free to disagree, but to my mind the only ones that are really in a position to solve this conundrum are Peco and they may well have commercial reasons not to.  

 

Without putting a solid business case to a potential manufacturer (or an investor), this subject will always be 'blue sky' thinking.

 

Even though I will continue to build my own pointwork, I really do wish you luck with this project, but without a detailed cost versus return business proposal, no one will make the investment.  

Edited January 3, 2014 by gordon s

[cromptonnut]

 

The only reason so many people on this thread seem to be against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance to match their 00 locomotives is because they make their own points in EM or P4 and appear not to let go of their "We do things poperly and you 00 modellers do not." attitude.

 

I have experienced the same attitude from some O gauge modellers because I choose to be creative with the limited Peco O gauge range.

Edited January 3, 2014 by cromptonnut

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive, I suppose this is the ideal thread for a spot of point scoring 

Hi Chard

 

I have tried to advocate for those who would like an improved 00 track system instead of the various H0 systems that are on the market. I think that was the route Joseph was hoping it would take, with people putting in their suggestions on how to achieve this. Perhaps we are wrong in thinking this is possible and we should all get out our soldering irons and make our own track, that includes the chap who cannot get the body of his Lima diesel locomotive model or the guy who is unable to open a tin of paint.

 

I suppose it is fair to tell those not so skilled put up and shut up.........

 

Off to make a passing loop branch line station in  P4, if I live long enough.

[billbedford]

The only reason so many people on this thread seem to be against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance to match their 00 locomotives is because they make their own points in EM or P4 and appear not to let go of their "We do things poperly and you 00 modellers do not." attitude. 

 

What a load of dingo's kidneys.

 

Nobody is against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance. However nobody has a clue about how to make it happen, much less whether it can be sold profitably.

[hayfield]

Hi John

 

I recall speaking with Len in Karlgarin Models soon after his track system had been released under the Alan Gibson range, before K&L models sold them direct. He said that the thin sleepers were the same thickness as copper clad to maintain the same rail height as so many modellers already had built their own points. Also see Paul's post regarding the "thick and thin" sleepers.

 

The only reason so many people on this thread seem to be against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance to match their 00 locomotives is because they make their own points in EM or P4 and appear not to let go of their "We do things poperly and you 00 modellers do not." attitude. They have not read the OP. Just as I said would happen, to Mike Storey when he suggested that the discussion on 00 track was moved from the Dave Jones wishlist thread to one of its own.

 

There would be no P4 or EM if it was not for the huge market in 00.

 

 

Clive

 

Thank you for the info, my assumptions were wrong. Most of the P/S4 and EM modellers I speak with do not look down at those who chose to use OO gauge. However like every hobby/passtime there are those who like to look down at others who do not follow their own particular interests within said hobby, 

 

I firmly believe those who model in OO gauge should be able to buy products every bit as good as those modelling in EM or P4 gauges. For example etched rolling stock kits can be built to OO, EM or P4 gauges quite easily, likewise a piece of OO gauge rolling stock can be converted to EM or P4 gauges. As for track nobody makes anything for the RTR market in any gauge. Quite strange!!

 

I have a friend who has a layout in his loft with set track, all he is interested in is collecting and running trains, 2 of us have assisted him with laying his track as he is more academic than practicable. He loves the finely detailed rolling stock but not too interested in track or scenery. As I said his interest is in  owning and running stock. Why have I mentioned this, well set track suits him down to a tee. I cannot see him ever wanting to buy a better looking track, so it will be pointless aiming this product at those like him. 

 

I hear what Martin Wynn says about sizes of turnouts, my head says compromise and use a configuration similar to the Peco range, but looking more like the prototype. My heart goes out to those C10 turnouts. Space is always the deciding factor and for the majority this will dictate the size of turnouts that can be used. 

 

I can understand any manufacturer who just gets the odd request for a product change to politely ignore the requests. As I said earlier when they start loosing market share they will do something. Those who want better track should start with what's available and vote with their wallets, even if it means having to cut the odd bit of webbing and cutting to the required length. Sometimes if you really want something you have to do something about it.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....We are now on page 31 and still haven't reached an agreement of what is required.  I suspect you may never reach agreement as there are so many variants and even then there will be compromises in the design to accommodate moulding and assembly requirements. 

 

I think this time around, the discussion has been different.

Rather than disagreement, there has been acceptance that there are differing ideas and that consensus will likely require an arbiter and a degree of compromise.

There has been more agreement than I've ever seen before in such a discussion on this subject and a welcome lack of the usual confusion and mis-understanding about the objective of the exercise.

The discussion on the requirements may not be bottomed out, but the overall goal is fairly clear and that is a good starting point IMHO.

 

Usually these threads fall apart, partly due to disagreements, partly because the objective is not understood and in no small measure by "spoiling tactics".

Thankfully we have mostly avoided that, so rather than being negative, I feel there has been some progress no matter how small.

 

 

.

[martin_wynne]

The only reason so many people on this thread seem to be against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance

 

I can't find anyone against the idea. Let alone "so many".

 

The disagreements are about the means to make it happen, and whether enough people would buy it at the likely cost for someone to make the necessary investment.

 

Several posters are happily building their own track instead, and have merely pointed out the fact that they are doing so, and the advantages it offers. None of them have suggested that a commercial 00 track shouldn't be produced, and some have even said that they would probably give up hand building and buy it.

 

In the end nothing posted here will make the slightest difference to anything. It is the man with the money who would decide what, if anything, gets produced.

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

What a load of dingo's kidneys.

 

Nobody is against the idea of 00 track with a British appearance. However nobody has a clue about how to make it happen, much less whether it can be sold profitably.

 

 

Bill

 

As you have been supplying modelling parts for some time now, have you any idea as to costs and possible manufacturing process please.