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

[Joseph_Pestell]

That depends on how fast Peco want a return on their investment - and really we are just guessing.

I still think the biggest stumbling block to get over is sheer marketing inertia - they've already marketed their code 75 range as "Fine Scale".....

 

Best, Pete.

 

It is fine scale HO.

[martin_wynne]

Having just caught up with the thread this afternoon, I read this.....

 

 

 

However some on this topic have made it clear that they are not interested in kits -- they want ready to lay turnouts straight out of the box, as in the topic title. This is a topic about consumerism, not model-making.

 

For a start, as stated at the beginning, this topic is not about kits but about Ready-To-Lay (RTL) track. The stuff that 90%+ of all modellers in 00 use.

That was made very clear at the beginning and repeated on later pages.

 

However, it's the second part of that sentence and the next that I find most revealing !

 

It appears from that post, that everyone who uses or has used a Peco turnout (code 75, 100, 83, 55 or whatever), or a turnout from Tillig, Roco, Atlas, Shinohara, etc, etc; are not really modellers. Apparently we are just into consumerism !

It must go without saying, that the same applies to anyone who's bought made up turnouts from Marcway. You are not a modeller either.

Is buying RTR locos and rolling stock included as well?

 

It's nice to know that one is considered (along with 90% of the hobby) as almost below contempt, by certain sections of the hobby.

 

Apologies to all the good folk on RMWeb. I don't want to break the house rules, but the words contemptuous and arrogance could have been applied in my response..

 

Hi Ron,

 

I said nothing about people being modellers or not. I said "This is a topic about consumerism, not model-making".

 

As you and others have repeatedly stated (and again above) that this topic is about buying ready-made commercial track (as consumers) and not about building track by hand or from kits (model-making), I'm a bit baffled what is so inaccurate or upsetting about my statement.

 

I know many of those who buy ready-made track are skilled modellers in other respects, as is very evident elsewhere on RMweb.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited January 4, 2014 by martin_wynne

[Joseph_Pestell]

C&L and SMP plain track is more expensive than PECO  because of the cost of production. It is also sold direct and therefore has no makup for a retailer. Is it the price that reduces the demand for this product or the lack of RTL points?

 

I do not use RTL plain track for one reason and that is that the key is wholly contained within the chair and does bot protrude like the individual components. I therefor prefer to make my own plan track. I have to make the points anyway. How many others are making this decision?

 

Ron Ron Ron asserts that whether it is commercially viable is a decision for the manufacturer rather than him as a consumer of the product, If that is the case then it will not happen as they have already decided that it is not worth their while to produce.  The only way the situation will change is if a persuasive business case can be made or a manufacturer like Len persuaded to take a chance.

 

I first met Len at the Barking exhibition in the early 80s. He was demonstrating his formcraft bricks and we were exhibiting our layout Hawnby. I invited Len along to the ELAG of the S4 society and we spent an evening discussing injection moulding. The group suggested that  a plastic track system for P4 would be a good idea as the whitemetal chairs were time consuming to add cosmetically and at that time not viable as a complete chair. Len did commercial injection moulding but was also a railway modeller interested in P4. Formcraft bricks was his first foray into 4mm production. He was not convinced that there was a sufficient market but we manage to convince him enough to come up with a chair that was used as the basis for the first 3 bolt chairs. These were produced and shown to a number of people. The EM and S3 societies agreed to sell them as their own products. It was only when Alan Gibson got involved that the number of chair sales took off, presumably because EM and OO modellers were buying them. A 2 bolt mould was produced and the moulding machines were running 24/7 to keep up with demand. Eventually Len decided to stop supplying via Alan Gibson and to sell direct. The demand was at this point tailing off. The business was sold on to John Pottinger (another member of the ELAG) and a 4 bolt chair produced. Len then got involved with Exactoscale and produced new moulds for bridge chairs and the Exactoscale products in competition with C&L.. The business was subsequently sold twice to end up where it is today. The prices have had to be increased as the Exactoscale prices were not covering costs and the original tooling was wearing out.

 

Some where within the above pandrol clips were produced for flat bottom track and PECO responded by introducing their own I can't now remember what happened in that direction as flat bottom track was and is of no interest to me.

 

I would think to be siuccesful then a early return on investment is necessary. What that means in respect of numbers I do not know but a minimum of 2 points a diamond and a slip would be the minimum requirement and I would hazard a guess that the costs of these would be in the region of a £100k. Is that enough items to satisfy those building a layout? Would you be able to generate enough sales to recoup the investment in 3 to 5 years?

 

My best guess is that it would be a bit more than £100k. But the good news is that the materials costs and assembly cost don't look too bad (nobody has mentioned packaging by the way). So if there is adequate demand then, yes, I think that the initial range could recover it's investment quite quickly.

 

It's a judgment call as to whether one starts with a limited range (lower investment but slower adoption) or goes for bust with a larger range (e.g. two radii of turnout) right from the start (higher investment but greater appeal to potential converts).

[jjb1970]

I really think that OO track gives a large part of the improvement in appearance offered by EM or P4. Yes it is still not accurate and the gauge difference is significant enough to be noticeable but it transforms the look of British OO layouts I think and makes OO an awful lot less visually compromised than when running on HO track. I'd love a major manufacturer or a new entrant like DJ to do it, their is a precedent in a smaller manufacturer entering the track market as Rapido of Canada have also entered the track market.

[ThaneofFife]

With a fair few people banding there own figures around, nobody has yet broken any of them down into sub-categories because of course you cant design and sell a universal turnout expecting it to meet every modellers specific needs (please, lets not hear anymore about the benefits of scratchbuilding as some king of reply as weve heard it all ad nauseum). 

 

What would you start off with?  Whats the most popular era and region of layout from which you could possibly arrive at a concensus of opinion that the first new turnout should have xyz chairs, xyz rail height, bullhead or FB, should it be a B6, B8 etc.???  I am not even sure if some regions or branches had bespoke sleeper sizes or spacings etc to add to the mix.

 

I dare any successful new range of bullhead must all be the same and thus some modellers will need to accept it and compromise.  Same goes for flat bottom although I have a feeling the number of variations of FB chairs is rather less than with BH but the same principle would apply - you would have to settle for a single style of FB track.

 

Where does one start?

Edited January 4, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[trisonic]

The North American market is simpler in that there is no complication of Bullhead vs Flat bottom Rail. If you model a prototype within the last 30 or 40 years Bullhead will probably be wrong. So far as I know Rapido have only introduced a Fleixible track - no turnouts and they do not produce it in Code 70 which I use.

There are tons of variables....

 

Best, Pete.

 

Edit: Written before reading the Thane's latest post.

Edited January 4, 2014 by trisonic

[ThaneofFife]

Hi Ron,

 

I said nothing about people being modellers or not. I said "This is a topic about consumerism, not model-making".

 

As you and others have repeatedly stated (and again above) that this topic is about buying ready-made commercial track (as consumers) and not about building track by hand or from kits (model-making), I'm a bit baffled what is so inaccurate or upsetting about my statement.

 

I know many of those who buy ready-made track are skilled modellers in other respects, as is very evident elsewhere on RMweb.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

A small fraction of the, so far, 33 pages may have touched on the consumers aspect of the topic (when trying to arrive at some figures for buyers) but the wrong opinion will be shaped saying it is the topic when it patently isnt.  It is just that, one aspect of many.

Edited January 4, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hi Ron,

 

I said nothing about people being modellers or not. I said "This is a topic about consumerism, not model-making".

 

As you and others have repeatedly stated (and again above) that this topic is about buying ready-made commercial track (as consumers) and not about building track by hand or from kits (model-making), I'm a bit baffled what is so inaccurate or upsetting about my statement.

 

I know many of those who buy ready-made track are skilled modellers in other respects, as is very evident elsewhere on RMweb.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Martin, sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the meaning of your post. However, I have re-read it several times over and still cannot interpret it in any other way, or the tone that I think it implies, than being anything but a swipe at others.

I've also received comments from a couple of people who have similarly understood your words to be a snipe.

If that was not your intention, then I'm sorry for interpreting your words incorrectly and hopefully we can put it to bed, so to speak.

 

For the record, now that I have taken an early retirement, I am hoping to have a go at kit building and even scratch building some track at some point (no pun intended) in the future. I admire people who take the time and care to get as realistic track as possible to suit their modelling subject and I also think that track building is something that should be encouraged. Hence I feel I ought to give it a go and see what I can do for myself.

However, that doesn't stop me from firmly believing that the current situation with RTL track for the British 00 market, has long over-run its course. IMHO it is no longer acceptable in this day and age, to be left with a Hobson's choice of an inappropriate, dated and some would say anachronistic product, when it is well within the capabilities of manufacturers to come up with something far far better. I'm hoping you hold a similar view.

Let's all get behind this cause and see what we can do about it.

Rant mode off.

 

Best regards

Ron

[gordon s]

Retailer's discounts are usually 30% with another 15% for bulk orders i.e full cases.

 

I don't disagree Bill, but for this exercise I took Hatton's gross margin from their own accounts.  If their margins on Peco track are higher then that will increase the volume sold.  As I said, I enjoy playing with numbers in 'what if' scenarios.  I just hoped it gave a feel for the potential.  I accept I could be miles out, but put it out there for discussion in the absence of any other numbers. 

 

Edit:  It would appear that Hatton's are discounting down to their own margin goals.  They are selling at £2.80 whereas Antics sell their Code 100 for £3.40.  

Edited January 4, 2014 by gordon s

[Mike Storey]

Are not Gauge 1 and G-45 a more global range of products? I dunno what SM32 is........

I do remember my brother having a OO-9 layout back in the seventies that had some RTR stock, long since disappeared.

 

 

Just in case a fair number of people don't know, SM32 stands for Sixteen Millimetre (scale) 32 (mm) gauge track, which is to say that it is usually used to represent 1ft11.5/ 2ft narrow gauge track (such as several in North Wales) in a scale of 16mm/ft, or 1/19.5 scale - mostly by live steam modellers in their gardens, such as myself, but not exclusively. (G45 usually used to represent metre gauge railways, often in 1:24 scale, and mostly using track or battery powered electric traction, but not exclusively). Peco set and flexi-track is very dominant in SM32, and is often often in short supply, there being no other RTL competitor I am aware of (unless one uses coarse O gauge track, which some have done). This is a good example of Peco being innovative, as, until they entered the market, the scale was largely dominated by those with an engineering bent, who built their own track or used components from long-gone Bonds o' Euston Road etc. They created a mass market which drove the, largely British-made (Roundhouse, Argyll, Merlin, Wright and others) live scale steam manufacturers into a relatively high volume industry, which hosts (probably) the largest garden railway show in the world each year (now In Peterborough each April).

 

It is difficult to parallel this innovation with OO, which is already a mature market, but no-one should claim Peco are not innovative. I suspect, as others have said, that there is no clear standard in OO into which they should evolve and have a viable winner, so they remain cautious. I just wish they would attempt something along the lines of Tillig's products, but more robust and at a more attractive price.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....What would you start off with?  Whats the most popular era and region of layout from which you could possibly arrive at a concensus of opinion that the first new turnout should have xyz chairs, xyz rail height, bullhead or FB, should it be a B6, B8 etc.???  I am not even sure if some regions or branches had bespoke sleeper sizes or spacings etc to add to the mix.

 

I dare any successful new range of bullhead must all be the same and thus some modellers will need to accept it and compromise.  Same goes for flat bottom although I have a feeling the number of variations of FB chairs is rather less than with BH but the same principle would apply - you would have to settle for a single style of FB track.

 

Where does one start?

 

You are right in that there will have to be compromise and it would not be possible to replicate all sorts of variations, no matter how common or how obscure.

Debating and even arguing about such details would be futile IMHO and attempting to gain a consensus on the finer aspects would just be a detraction from achieving the over-riding objective. i.e. to get a much better looking and more appropriate replacement for the current offering.

I've used the nebulous term "better looking" because a line has to be firmly drawn in the sand somewhere and I strongly suspect any generic solution will very likely have to be a hybrid, rather than a definitive prototype.

 

Maybe a starting point would be to look at the era's and subjects that are most popularly modelled.

I understand that largest areas of interest are 1950's and 60's BR, including the "transition period", followed by the post-steam BR era and post-privatisation periods.

Would that indicate that both FB & BH styles are needed? Probably yes, if both can be accommodated.

How much further would you really need to go with the finer details?

I would contend that it isn't very far and that a generic compromise on details like chairs and rail fixings would satisfy most requirements. After all those sort of details are not at the forefront, or even mentioned, when people express their dissatisfaction with the current H0 product.

It's the general appearance that seems to be the major issue, with sleeper size and spacing being the most common aspect, followed by the need for BH rail in a RTL form. Then comes mention of the hinged switch blades, the plastic lump containing the spring mech and DCC-ready compatibility.

Those who have seen or used pre-weathered, or darkened rail (including me), have suggested that it would be worth considering because it's a no cost benefit that does make a useful difference.

Any finer details such as chairs etc, don't seem to be complained about as far as I can see.

 

I really don't think the aesthetic specification is as complicated as is being made out. I'm doubtful it can be for a product such as this.

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

...no-one should claim Peco are not innovative.

 

Despite their past appearance, I think you are right. They have been introducing various "surprise" elements into their product range in recent times.

 

It's been a big surprise for me to find out today, via another topic on the forum, that Peco are now going all DCC on us. Heaven's above ?????

For a company that not too many years ago, was said to be averse to the very idea of the internet and way being the times on all things electronic, to see that they're bringing out a range of DCC electronic gizmo's (bought in from elsewhere) is a bit of a shock.

Whatever next? .......Mmmmmm?????

 

 

....I just wish they would attempt something along the lines of Tillig's products, but more robust and at a more attractive price.

I totally agree with that. A British style 00 version of Tillig Elite would be a vast improvement over their current range.

 

 

 

.

[trisonic]

 I just wish they would attempt something along the lines of Tillig's products, but more robust and at a more attractive price.

And there's the rub (not picking on you, Mike) but Brits want everything for nothing - it ain't possible.

 

I'd like to have a go at manufacturing this stuff but would want to charge at least three times what Peco charge just to cope with all the whining from everybody.......

 

Best, Pete.

[hayfield]

I must admit that sometimes I wonder how items are made and shops make a profit at selling items. A yard of track for £2.70 when bought in a box of 12. As said the taxman takes £0.45, the shop makes (30% retail mark up) £0.68 this leaves £1.53 a yard for Peco to make the item and deliver it to the retailer and retain some gross profit.

 

A large radius point being sold for £10.50, again £1.75 to the taxman, then a 30% retailers margin leaves £6.12 for production costs,packing, transport and profit per item. If the item is sold at a semi premium price of £21 then there is £12.24 to play with but at that differential there has to be some large advantages/ selling points over Peco. if sold direct there is £17.50 to play with and perhaps a discount could be considered for bulk buys to encourage those who would need to replace perfectly good existing track. The other part to consider is that any company starting out would have to pay far more for raw materials than Peco do, though a premium price would offset this.

 

Item 1 is an easy one correct sleeper size and spacings

Item rail is a minefield as there are 2 camps, flatbottom and bullhead

Item 3 Chair detail S1 3 bolt would have the highest sales and any chair detail would be better than what's available now, and for many they would not know what type of chair is correct anyway. More importantly to have the correct special chairs at crossings,switches and check rails (production costs nill as all in the initial tool making)

Item 4 the tiebar, locking switch required, alternative to holes in sleepers for point motors and some form of switch for the common crossing

Item 5  Type of switch blade, though I guess again like the chairs most would be happy with what ever is provided

Item 6 Ability to be clicked together to provide turnout formations, this would prevent near scale track centres

Item 7 Robust electrics which do not need any form of adaptation

Item 8 Robust build quality, ability to withstand being re-laid several times

Item 9 investment into a minimum of 3 turnouts, a diamond crossing and slip initially.

 

Given all of this and the fact that I may have missed some requirements, I would expect the only people with the ability to make and market these items would be an existing player. Just think back to what Hornby was supplying in stock 20+ years ago, no one would ever have thought they would have the will and ability to supply the quality of product they now do. Would it be unreasonable to expect them to bring their track up to the standards of their rolling stock? (that would satisfy the group which desires set track and its an easy step to provide lengths of flexi track. How much better would their Flying Scotsman or Star look going through a decent turnout on to a nice piece of track !! Stranger things have happened

[t-b-g]

I have only just seen this thread.

 

I can't be bothered to read it all but I have skimmed through and I am astonished at some of what has been said.

 

So we want "scale" points but we want generic ones that are not based on a particular prototype.

 

Would you say the same about a carriage or a loco?

 

Railway modelling is lots of things to lots of people. I appreciate that to some people, track is a necessary evil to allow their trains somewhere to run. For such people, trackwork is currently available to cover that requirement. 

 

To me, the track is as important a part of the picture as a signal, a building or a wagon. Calling for a "scale" but "generic" point is just a contradiction in terms. Such a thing cannot exist. A point can be a "scale" model (or nearer scale in OO) or "generic" but cannot be both.

 

Would any of us use a "generic" carriage, which resembled no known prototype but was available in many different liveries? We did in the 1950s/1960s but please not now.

 

We want sleepering to "accepted" OO standards. Do such "accepted" standards exist? As far as I know there are no accepted standards for such things.

 

I actually prefer the appearance of OO track with the sleepering spacing and lengths adjusted to mitigate the underscale gauge, preserving the proportions of the track. I believe that C & L flexible track has 8' length sleepers and looks all the better for it. OO track with scale 8' 6" or even worse 9' sleepers really looks "narrow gauge" to me, with an unrealistic length of sleeper either side of the rails.

 

Whatever any manufacturer does will only ever please a small minority.

 

For everybody else, whatever is produced will be as just wrong as what is available now.

 

It is very rare for a layout made up from the few set formations available to look right. As "trisonic" says, trackwork should flow and making up any layout from a small number of points makes that virtually impossible without major work.

 

In fact, his post is probably the best argument I have seen for those advocating building pointwork. I have built all my own for 30 plus years. It is easy (especially now that crossings/blades can be bought), fairly quick (2 hours for a copperclad or 4 hours for a chaired point) and you can have any formation you like. You can also, from the ranges available, select appropriate chairs and create sleepering arrangements to suit the period/are you are modelling.

 

I remain 100% convinced that there are people who say that they cannot do it when they really mean that they don't want to do it!

 

And yes, building pointwork is model making. You are making a model of a point.

 

What you do with the point after you have bought it may be modelling but going to a shop and buying a ready made product is not modelling! It is a consumer purchasing a product!

 

So anybody who has made points, then laid and ballasted them has achieved much more in modelling than somebody who has bought a point then laid and ballasted it.

 

Is it really so arrogant to enjoy the satisfaction of making things and to encourage others to try to do the same?

 

Sometimes it really seems that some of us really do want everything served up on a plate for us. Frank Dyer, Peter Denny and many others are perhaps looking down on us and wondering just what we are becoming.

 

I'll stop now and start putting a tin hat on and digging a trench.

 

Tony 

Edited January 5, 2014 by t-b-g

[ThaneofFife]

I have only just seen this thread.

 

I can't be bothered to read it all

 

I remain 100% convinced that there are people who say that they cannot do it when they really mean that they don't want to do it!

 

What you do with the point after you have bought it may be modelling but going to a shop and buying a ready made product is not modelling! It is a consumer purchasing a product!  So anybody who has made points, then laid and ballasted them has achieved much more in modelling than somebody who has bought a point then laid and ballasted it.

 

Is it really so arrogant to enjoy the satisfaction of making things and to encourage others to try to do the same?

 

Tony 

 

Tony you do yourself absolutely no favours at all ending your reply by suggesting you need to fetch a tin hat - it smacks of being intentionally provocative and I dont think youve brought anything helpful to this discussion what-so-ever.  I feel a taxi would be far more appropriate.

 

You allege that some of the "people" (here) dont want to do it (model their own points that is) yet you admit to not being bothered to read the whole of this thread - thats a laughable contradiction.  Do as I say, not as I do, eh? 

 

The thread is pock marked with too many of these types of responses which in turn leads to the offending posters resorting to some over thought back-pedalling.  On the history of these 33 odd pages, I am now just waiting for some subversive out there to come on and blatantly just crack on and say that those who would like to see high standard RTL trackwork in 00 where we can remove it from the box and run trains is for layabouts, ner-do-wells, good for nothings, lazy slobs next.......honestly will those that have nothing but veiled bile to dish out just go away.

 

I also cannot see the lessons we should learn from you when you suggest that somebody who makes their own points lays them, ballasts and weathers them has achieved more than somebody that lays a point from the box ballasts and weathers - its the bleedin' obvious that MORE has been achieved but you are implying that that of itself takes away all modelling credibility of the man that chose to buy his turnout and lay from the box.

Just comes across as dare I say it snobbish.  I will avoid using the "E" word.

 

Are you "encouraging" (cough, cough) us to make our own points in order than we can then call ourselves modellers and if we dont then we are the pariahs or lepars of the hobby? 

 

I am sure Frank, Peter et al would have had more than enough self control to keep any of those less than savoury perceptions of us at bay and respect the requirements of those that have brought the more useful contributions and comments to this thread.

 

It is very sad to keep seeing comments like the last post but alas its a relatively free arena to speak up and I dare say such comments will not be the last despite my plea.  I guess its too big an ask for some to resist.

Edited January 5, 2014 by ThaneofFife

[Ron Ron Ron]

I have only just seen this thread.

 

I can't be bothered to read it all......

 

If I may say so, I think you ought to have read the thread before wasting time on your lengthy but misjudged post.

 

Based on a false assumption of what is being asked, you have got a number of basic facts wrong.

 

 

So we want "scale" points but we want generic ones that are not based on a particular prototype.

No mention has ever been made of the word scale, as in referring to a replica of an exact prototypical item.

 

.....I appreciate that to some people, track is a necessary evil to allow their trains somewhere to run. For such people, trackwork is currently available to cover that requirement.

You appear to assume that there's a black and white situation where people either want absolute accuracy and a replication of a specific prototype, or they don't care what the trackwork looks like and will just make do with a pair of drawn wire rails in whatever shape or form they come in.

Sorry, that's nonsense.

The overwhelming, repeat overwhelming proportion of the hobby modelling to 4mm/ft are doing so in 00 and on RTL track.

The desires and requirements of those modellers are spread over a range from those who are not that bothered, to people who do recognise that the dated H0 offering leaves a lot to be desired and would welcome something that looks a lot better in respect of proportion to the scale, taking into account the under scale track gauge and something less toy-like in appearance. Given an actual choice (i.e. actually available) between the current offering and a 00 alternative, it is very likely that even those happy with the current product would recognise the 00 option was a better choice.

 

To me, the track is as important a part of the picture as a signal, a building or a wagon. Calling for a "scale" but "generic" point is just a contradiction in terms. Such a thing cannot exist. A point can be a "scale" model (or nearer scale in OO) or "generic" but cannot be both.

Generic is being used in the sense of detail, e.g. what type of rail fixings (pandrol clips, chairs etc.), specific sleeper types (local variation, era etc.). Generic is not being used in regard to scale.

We are not talking about the equivalent of hand built track, but an improved RTL range to replace the current inappropriate and dated RTL product offering.

RTL track is generic; it's all about trying to get a much better and more appropriate version of that. 

 

Would any of us use a "generic" carriage, which resembled no known prototype but was available in many different liveries? We did in the 1950s/1960s but please not now.

Of course not, but for right or wrong, the majority will and do make a compromise on trackwork. Fact.

However a compromise is not a fixed proposition. There are better compromises than others.

e.g. a lot of P4 layouts. Beautiful scale models running on lovely flowing trackwork, but ultimately fake because of being on an shrunken and out of scale layout.

 

We want sleepering to "accepted" OO standards. Do such "accepted" standards exist? As far as I know there are no accepted standards for such things.

Now you are making things up. Who said that?

 

I actually prefer the appearance of OO track with the sleepering spacing and lengths adjusted to mitigate the underscale gauge, preserving the proportions of the track. I believe that C & L flexible track has 8' length sleepers and looks all the better for it.

If you had actually read the thread, you will have realised that is exactly what people are asking for.

 

OO track with scale 8' 6" or even worse 9' sleepers really looks "narrow gauge" to me, with an unrealistic length of sleeper either side of the rails.

Again if you had read the thread, you will have seen that that is recognised and that most people understand that.

Nobody is asking for scale length sleepers.

 

Whatever any manufacturer does will only ever please a small minority.....

....For everybody else, whatever is produced will be as just wrong as what is available now.

On what do you base those assertions?

 

 

It is very rare for a layout made up from the few set formations available to look right. As "trisonic" says, trackwork should flow and making up any layout from a small number of points makes that virtually impossible without major work.

 

In fact, his post is probably the best argument I have seen for those advocating building pointwork. I have built all my own for 30 plus years. It is easy (especially now that crossings/blades can be bought), fairly quick (2 hours for a copperclad or 4 hours for a chaired point) and you can have any formation you like. You can also, from the ranges available, select appropriate chairs and create sleepering arrangements to suit the period/are you are modelling.

You are talking about a different subject (hand and kit building) to that of this topic.

It looks to me like you've missed the whole point of the thread.

 

I remain 100% convinced that there are people who say that they cannot do it when they really mean that they don't want to do it!

I agree that many who don't, could. However there are plenty of people who openly admit they don't want to build their own and never will.

 

 

....anybody who has made points, then laid and ballasted them has achieved much more in modelling than somebody who has bought a point then laid and ballasted it.

 

Is it really so arrogant to enjoy the satisfaction of making things and to encourage others to try to do the same?

Building your own, doing some modelling....all to be admired and something to aspire to; but for those who look down their nose at anything less, or make no bones about being smug about it... that's where the arrogance comes in. It's not imaginary either.

 

 

If you are not interested in buying or using RTL track, that's perfectly fine.

However this topic is about RTL and not about hand or kit building, which is another topic in itself.

The RTL situation is a real issue that many feel ought to be addressed.

You may not agree, that's entirely your choice; but may I humbly request you don't try to subvert or mis-represent the issues being discussed, just because it doesn't suit your own agenda.

 

Regards

Ron

 

 

.

[martin_wynne]

 

However this topic is about RTL and not about hand or kit building, which is another topic in itself..

 

Hi Ron,

 

While it is certainly another topic on RMweb, I'm not sure that it is another topic in the mind of a potential manufacturer.

 

When you take out all those 00 modellers who are happy with their existing track*, those who would admire a new product but wouldn't be willing or able to pay extra for it, and those who build** track by hand or from kits, how big a market is really left?

 

*a number which may increase, when they see what the new track actually looks like if it retains the existing short geometry.

 

**C&L have reported a big increase in sales in the last 2 years. Which is likely to increase further when their proposed new range of Exactoscale 00 kits is available.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

We want sleepering to "accepted" 00 standards. Do such "accepted" standards exist? As far as I know there are no accepted standards for such things.

 

I believe that C & L flexible track has 8' length sleepers and looks all the better for it. 00 track with scale 8' 6" or even worse 9' sleepers really looks "narrow gauge" to me, with an unrealistic length of sleeper either side of the rails.y 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Yes, an accepted standard does exist for 00 gauge. It was published by the BRMSB in 1949 and is as valid today as it was then. It specifies 8ft sleepers for 00.

 

The fact that it has been totally ignored and forgotten for years doesn't invalidate it.

 

As regards a "generic" track -- this is quite difficult for FB.

 

However, a generic track is easy for bullhead. The REA 1925 designs for bullhead track with flexible switches have remained largely unchanged for almost a century. It was adopted by all companies and regions except the GWR and BR(W).

 

If the new 00 track matched the REA designs for 4ft-1.5in track, it would be appropriate for the vast majority of model layouts. As you haven't read the rest of the topic, here again is such a C-10 turnout:

 

 

There were minor variations in chair designs from different foundries, but hardly enough to worry about. The big variations in chair designs occurred in the pre-grouping era pre-1923, and it would be madness to go there with a ready-to-lay product.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Phatbob]

At the risk boring people with a repeat post, under this thread I'd just like to repost what I'd already written in the DJM wishlist thread:

 

"Well, in the wods of the Spice Girls, "what I really, really want" is some decent 00 track, rather than rebadged H0.  Something akin to SMP scaleway flexitrack, with say some 3' radius points and crossovers to suit.  Closer track centres (say EM standards) and points to a high standard of realism, so more like Tilig than PECO."

[t-b-g]

"My solution would be to take a range of existing HO track, retain all the rail parts and just give it a new base with sleepering to accepted 4mm dimensions."

 

From the OP.

 

I may not have read every post on every page but I have read enough to know what the thread is about. It is about obtaining the unobtainable! It is asking for a manufacturer to produce a universal, generic, scale track system that will allow a builder to create realistic looking layouts. No "set track" type system has ever done that or will ever do that straight out of a box.

 

There are calls for robust construction coupled with calls for a finescale appearance. Finescale and robust don't sit easily together.

 

There are calls for a small range of standard points that just clip together alongside calls for being able to create realistic formations, which requires a large range of adaptable points.

 

Any existing manufacturer would be spending development costs to replace their own sales. Any new manufacturer will have to break into a market place which has been almost a monopoly, at least in the country, which isn't going to be easy.

 

Peco probably have the biggest share of the track market. They do code 100 and code 75 track, so people can have bullhead or flat bottom track.

 

The difference between well laid, painted and ballasted  Peco track and some hand made track is not actually that great. The example of Widnes Vine Yard has been quoted before and I think it is a good example of what can be achieved by using current RTL track and applying some modelling skills to it. To me, it is only the appearance of the typical Peco tie bar that gives away the origin of the points on that layout.

 

The ongoing Grantham project is another excellent example of taking a RTL product and by being willing to alter it to suit locations, getting that "flowing" trackwork look but it needed some careful thought and the application of some modelling skills.

 

The common factor is the application of modelling skills, which can make current RTL track look very acceptable indeed.

 

Equally, I have seen many layouts where the track has been less than perfectly laid, ballasted and painted. Those layouts undoubtably give people pleasure, so it probably matters not a great deal but the best RTL points in the world wouldn't improve the overall look of the track on them.

 

So if I was to build a layout in OO with RTL points, I would fancy my chances of getting a decent appearance because I know it can be done, I have seen it with my own eyes.

 

Tony

[gordon s]

Building track is just one aspect of this hobby and there isn't a modeller alive who can build everything.  Just because some choose not to build their own track, it doesn't follow that they become consumers and not modellers.  They may build their own locos, rolling stock, scenery or even electric control system.  Even those that don't have the talent to build anything of their own, still have imagination and vision to create something that will allow them to enjoy their passion for railways.  It's still modelling, as once the bits come out of the box, they don't automatically find their way onto a baseboard and assemble themselves.  Like everything in life some are more blessed with skills others don't have.  That doesn't change anything, but simply differentiates skill levels.

 

Sorry, Tony, I don't buy this consumer v modeller nonsense.  If we followed your logic there wouldn't be a single modeller in the world.  We'd all be consumers…

[t-b-g]

Hi Tony,

 

Yes, an accepted standard does exist for 00 gauge. It was published by the BRMSB in 1949 and is as valid today as it was then. It specifies 8ft sleepers for 00.

 

The fact that it has been totally ignored and forgotten for years doesn't invalidate it.

 

As regards a "generic" track -- this is quite difficult for FB.

 

However, a generic track is easy for bullhead. The REA 1925 designs for bullhead track with flexible switches have remained largely unchanged for almost a century. It was adopted by all companies and regions except the GWR and BR(W).

 

If the new 00 track matched the REA designs for 4ft-1.5in track, it would be appropriate for the vast majority of model layouts. As you haven't read the rest of the topic, here again is such a C-10 turnout:

 

 

There were minor variations in chair designs from different foundries, but hardly enough to worry about. The big variations in chair designs occurred in the pre-grouping era pre-1923, and it would be madness to go there with a ready-to-lay product.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks for that Martin,

 

I had heard of the standards but have never seen them and don't know what they include.

 

Do they specify sleeper widths and spacings too?

 

One of the biggest variations, as I am sure you know about more than I do, is in the arrangement of sleepering, particularly where there are two points together, such as a double junction or a cross over.

 

That is an area where RTL pointwork really gets into difficulties.

 

Tony

['CHARD]

Thanks for that Martin,

 

I had heard of the standards but have never seen them and don't know what they include.

 

 

I think some respect is due for this reply, after the response you received!  

 

I also think it's fair to say that the 00 standards probably require better promotion.  

 

Ok, if modelling in P4, EM etc we may choose to ignore them, but for them to be quite so camera-shy almost smacks of another form of elitism.  I wasn't aware of them until this thread got into its stride, and I'm as average as modellers come.  

 

I'd also like to thank Martin for his ready contribution of iterative plan views of possible installations.  Without these aids it would be nigh on impossible to make sense of the debate.

[Peter Bedding]

Hi Tony,

 

Yes, an accepted standard does exist for 00 gauge. It was published by the BRMSB in 1949 and is as valid today as it was then. It specifies 8ft sleepers for 00.

 

The fact that it has been totally ignored and forgotten for years doesn't invalidate it.

 

As regards a "generic" track -- this is quite difficult for FB.

 

However, a generic track is easy for bullhead. The REA 1925 designs for bullhead track with flexible switches have remained largely unchanged for almost a century. It was adopted by all companies and regions except the GWR and BR(W).

 

If the new 00 track matched the REA designs for 4ft-1.5in track, it would be appropriate for the vast majority of model layouts. As you haven't read the rest of the topic, here again is such a C-10 turnout:

 

 

There were minor variations in chair designs from different foundries, but hardly enough to worry about. The big variations in chair designs occurred in the pre-grouping era pre-1923, and it would be madness to go there with a ready-to-lay product.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I'm sure that you are right, Martin.

 

However, I believe that there are some other considerations, and that may mean "the market" accepting some details that have been rejected by some. In modern houses, space is even more of a premium than ever. The point geometry has to allow a realistic length for a cross-over. My choice is 3ft, and my garage/railway room must be typical.

 

Also, the linkage between tie rods and switch rails must be sufficiently robust to allow a substantial operating life. (10,000 cycles would not be too much). And the wiring/changeover of the frog cannot be left to chance. And on this point Mr Peco Senior knew exactly what he was doing when he conceived Insulfrog. Whatever complaints have been posted here, no one has complained about operating life or reliability. And funnily enough, these qualities are near the top of my "essential requirements".

 

PB