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

[Peter Bedding]

............ 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....................

 

 

Halleluiah. Thank you, Gordon. And at Epiphany, too.

[t-b-g]

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…

 

Sadly, most of those who chose to build everything (and were well known for doing so) have now departed this world. The hobby is poorer for their passing but there are still one or to about, usually working in scales and gauges other than OO.

 

You can take any discussion about modelling to extreme conclusions. OK, so I don't go and mine the stone to make my ballast!

 

I use RTL flexible track myself as I prefer to spend the time saved on other things.

 

I am not against any RTR or RTL products. I have no problem with anybody who decides to buy points or anything else for that matter rather than make them.

 

All these things are down to personal choice.

 

I just feel that creating a RTL range of points, substantially better than what is available now, is going to be very tricky for anybody to do.

 

Tony

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

A couple of pages back, someone mentioned Coachmann's Greenfield.

 

It's a useful example because we all know that Larry is one of the country's top modelmakers. He certainly has the know-how and skills to build his own pointwork but chooses not to.

 

There are plenty of good reasons to build one's own - and equally good reasons not to. This thread is to progress the layout building of those who choose not to.

[martin_wynne]

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?

 

Hi Tony,

 

Scale 4mm/ft. Sleeper width 10". Timber width 12". Spacing 30". i.e. exactly the same as EM and P4.

 

For 00 the sleeper length is reduced to 8ft. The track gauge is reduced to 4ft-1.5in . The model flangeway is 1.25mm.

 

To select this option in Templot, click the 00-BF gauge setting.

 

For improved running and appearance the alternative 00-SF standard is gaining in popularity. For this the track gauge is 4ft-0.6in and the flangeway is 1.0mm. Also known as EM minus 2.

 

A manufacturer would have to make a judgement here -- 00-SF for improved running and appearance, or 00-BF for smaller radii and increased compatibility with some older models. No doubt he would do some trials and tests with various RTR models, past and present.

 

00-BF is a close equivalent to the DOGA Intermediate standard.

 

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.

 

This varies from site to site, rather than between companies and periods. The timbering of complex chaired junctions is something of a black art, now in danger of being lost. No RTL track system could hope to allow for such variations.

 

That would be another difficult judgement for a manufacturer, choosing the track spacing. If set for the prototype 11ft-2in (6ft way) such timbering conflicts are much more prevalent, and there is insufficient running clearance on sharp curves. But it looks much better and prototypical. If set for a wider spacing, you are back to the train-set look with a very wide space between the sleepers for 00 double-track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

 

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.

 

 

Er....No! Both the 100 and 75 are FB. But the rail fixings resemble chairs - an odd mix visually but one which does make for robust.

 

Their Code 83 FB is far superior with very fine rail fixings and yet still seems to be quite robust.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

I just feel that creating a RTL range of points, substantially better than what is available now, is going to be very tricky for anybody to do.

 

 

 

Tony,

 

We all agree on that point. If it was easy, someone would have done it already!

 

But, only a few years ago, we were told that it was too difficult to produce quality models of locos and rolling stock for the UK market. Our choice of Mk1 coaches was limited to Brake Second, Corridor Composite and Buffet. Now we have far more quality and choice in that field but no ready-to-lay pointwork to run it on. That should change.

[Jeff Smith]

To repeat my opinion from an earlier post for those that have not read the whole thread:-

 

If PECO was to replicate the existing code 75 FB range with new 4mm bases at the same price point this would represent the most likely way to get scale looking OO track into the mass market. This would probably satisfy the majority of current RTL users.

 

Anyone who dislikes any of the current aspects, ie pressed switch rails, tie bar, wiring, geometry, etc, etc, will have to make changes if they care that much. To change any one or group of items would automatically raise the price which many posters have indicated they would not be prepared to pay.

 

This thread has gone around the houses several times (I have followed it from the beginning) and all the input when distilled out leads to the above conclusion. Nothing is free, anyone who wants specific features in trackwork, or any other aspect of this hobby has to pay, either in money or time.

[martin_wynne]

If PECO was to replicate the existing code 75 FB range with new 4mm bases at the same price point this would represent the most likely way to get scale looking OO track into the mass market. This would probably satisfy the majority of current RTL users.

 

Are you sure it would satisfy them? This is what the small radius turnout and "long" crossing would look like:

 

 

When they see it they may not like it after all. The short train-set geometry looks like something fit only for industrial sidings when used with UK timbers and spacings. If you want "scale looking 00 track" you need to adopt the prototype geometry instead.

 

That's not necessarily an argument against a manufacturer doing what you say. Compatibility with existing geometry may be an important consideration. Just be careful what you wish for.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

Er....No! Both the 100 and 75 are FB. But the rail fixings resemble chairs - an odd mix visually but one which does make for robust.

 

Their Code 83 FB is far superior with very fine rail fixings and yet still seems to be quite robust.

 

Apologies! I didn't know the code 75 has flat bottom rail. Just goes to show how much it matters to me at normal viewing distance, which is all I have seen it at.

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Scale 4mm/ft. Sleeper width 10". Timber width 12". Spacing 30". i.e. exactly the same as EM and P4.

 

For 00 the sleeper length is reduced to 8ft. The track gauge is reduced to 4ft-1.5in . The model flangeway is 1.25mm.

 

To select this option in Templot, click the 00-BF gauge setting.

 

For improved running and appearance the alternative 00-SF standard is gaining in popularity. For this the track gauge is 4ft-0.6in and the flangeway is 1.0mm. Also known as EM minus 2.

 

A manufacturer would have to make a judgement here -- 00-SF for improved running and appearance, or 00-BF for smaller radii and increased compatibility with some older models. No doubt he would do some trials and tests with various RTR models, past and present.

 

00-BF is a close equivalent to the DOGA Intermediate standard.

 

 

This varies from site to site, rather than between companies and periods. The timbering of complex chaired junctions is something of a black art, now in danger of being lost. No RTL track system could hope to allow for such variations.

 

That would be another difficult judgement for a manufacturer, choosing the track spacing. If set for the prototype 11ft-2in (6ft way) such timbering conflicts are much more prevalent, and there is insufficient running clearance on sharp curves. But it looks much better and prototypical. If set for a wider spacing, you are back to the train-set look with a very wide space between the sleepers for 00 double-track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Can't do a thanks/agree/like all at once so I will write it instead!

 

That certainly sets out some of the difficulties better than I could.

 

Tony

[billbedford]

Er....No! Both the 100 and 75 are FB. But the rail fixings resemble chairs - an odd mix visually but one which does make for robust.

 

Their Code 83 FB is far superior with very fine rail fixings and yet still seems to be quite robust.

 

Tooling for single piece pointwork with proper bullhead rail would be eye-wateringly expensive.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

To repeat my opinion from an earlier post for those that have not read the whole thread:-

 

If PECO was to replicate the existing code 75 FB range with new 4mm bases at the same price point this would represent the most likely way to get scale looking OO track into the mass market. This would probably satisfy the majority of current RTL users.

 

Anyone who dislikes any of the current aspects, ie pressed switch rails, tie bar, wiring, geometry, etc, etc, will have to make changes if they care that much. To change any one or group of items would automatically raise the price which many posters have indicated they would not be prepared to pay.

 

This thread has gone around the houses several times (I have followed it from the beginning) and all the input when distilled out leads to the above conclusion. Nothing is free, anyone who wants specific features in trackwork, or any other aspect of this hobby has to pay, either in money or time.

I Agree !

 

Back in post #287 in this thread I wrote:  "In summary of the thread so far (excluding history and why are where we are, fascinating though it is...) :  Yes ! C&L and SMP are visually better than PECO !!!

So for " Ready to Run" or "Ready to Lay" - whatever - we need (someone like) PECO or Tillig to offer their existing track and points with something approaching UK sleeper spacing/proportions.

Anyone agree?

Ian

P.S. I use SMP track with SMP plastic based  3' radius point kits for my simple end to end because I can't stand the appearance of PECO H0-ish code 75 and code 100 track (even though I admit it's robust and well made)

I would much prefer a PECO or Tillig code 75/Code 83 range of ready to lay points with sensible 00 sleeper proportions (in future projects)

[gordon s]

If you haven't already seen Martin's work, you may wish to look at post 833.  As Martin says, 'be careful what you wish for'….

[Ravenser]

The Peco small radius point with OO sleepering looks like something from round the back of the gas works because that's what it is. An awful lot of people are in OO because the space they have for their hobby forces them to use tight radii - tighter than were found in real life . Those committed to guages which simply exclude such tight radii have accepted a constraint on their modelling so long ago that they never think of it and can't  grasp the idea that the constraint would be intolerable to many.

 

A point that looks like a real point in industrial sidings is a marked advance on a point that resembles nothing you've ever seen. Especially if it's used in the sidings or on an industrial layout.....

 

If gradually replicating Peco geometry, I think you'd start with medium radius, then do large, and leave small radius till last. But the sharp small point would still be better than today's Peco. Especially as you could then use genuine OO flexible track without jarring the eye

 

I have 2'6 radius Marcway on one place on the layout, and I regard the look as much better than Peco.

 

Picking up t-b-g's point about a generic coach , that's exactly what the Triang-Hornby clerestories were and are (they don't accurately match any GW diagram), and they've been very useful to the hobby. The Ratio GW 4 wheelers and even the MR suburbans have been used in a similar way.

 

The point is that 16.5mm track is decades behind every other type of 4mm RTR 00 modelling. If we're talking coaches , track is currently at the same stage as early 1950s RTR coaches - lithographed tinplate , or crude representational efforts in plastic. We are suggesting politely that OO track should move on to the same level as the early 60s Triangf "scale Mk1s" or the clerestories 

 

To be honest , t-b-g has effectively demonstrated why this discussion is really for those actually working in OO, not those committed to other gauges.Those not in OO don't get a veto on what happens in OO . I don't get to tell N gauge modellers  what they should and shouldn't do... 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Are you sure it would satisfy them? This is what the small radius turnout and "long" crossing would look like:

 

 

When they see it they may not like it after all. The short train-set geometry looks like something fit only for industrial sidings when used with UK timbers and spacings. If you want "scale looking 00 track" you need to adopt the prototype geometry instead.

 

That's not necessarily an argument against a manufacturer doing what you say. Compatibility with existing geometry may be an important consideration. Just be careful what you wish for.

 

 It is for this reason that I feel the good 'toe in the water' trial would be a virtual equivalent to Peco's current 'large radius' (nominally 60") points. These are usefully pretty close to a typical compact point in 'tight' mainline locations, around 6 chain radius which could be negotiated at dead slow by large locos and steam era length gangwayed coaches. For those who have ridden over it, Kings Cross station throat in the steam and early diesel era had many points of this radius.

 

The new 'small radius point' becomes a 4 chain unit, roughly 40" suitable for use in goods yards and the new 'large' more like 10 chain, and how good that would look...

[martin_wynne]

I don't get to tell N gauge modellers what they should and shouldn't do... 

 

You don't get to tell 00 modellers either.

 

This is a forum. Everyone can have their say, but nobody need take the slightest notice of it.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

It is for this reason that I feel the good 'toe in the water' trial would be a virtual equivalent to Peco's current 'large radius' (nominally 60") points. These are usefully pretty close to a typical compact point in 'tight' mainline locations, around 6 chain radius which could be negotiated at dead slow by large locos and steam era length gangwayed coaches. For those who have ridden over it, Kings Cross station throat in the steam and early diesel era had many points of this radius.

 

Here you go. Lower turnout is Peco large radius turnout. Upper turnout is the same geometry with UK timbering.

 

 

It's somewhat shorter than a B-6, with a curviform crossing to get the 12^o exit angle. The actual turnout radius is 1138mm (44.8"). That's the equivalent of 284ft (4.3 chains) radius. (Peco's very nominal 60" radius is the substitution radius.)

 

I rather doubt that there were turnouts as short as this in running line locations at Kings Cross, but never say never.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

You don't get to tell 00 modellers either.

 

This is a forum. Everyone can have their say, but nobody need take the slightest notice of it.

 

Martin.

 

 

As a OO modeller , I'm an interested party when it comes to OO track. People who don't model in OO aren't. I'm not quite sure what's controversial about the idea that the people whose opinions finally matter on a gauge-specific issue are the people actually working in that gauge?

 

Put it another way . You or I may have opinions on who should be US President but we don't get a vote . So our opinions are irrelevant. However US citizens do get a vote - so they decide who actually is President

Edited January 5, 2014 by Ravenser

[Grovenor]

People who don't model in OO aren't. I'm not quite sure what's controversial about the idea that the people whose opinions finally matter on a gauge-specific issue are the people actually working in that gauge?

The person/organisation taking this forward is free to heed or ignore any opinions expressed, meanwhile there is no need to insult and complain about any opinion presented that is deemed to come from someone whose opinion is thought not to matter. Rebut the opinions if you wish, but such rebuttals are getting very repetitive, better to just ignore the offending contributions.

Keith

[martin_wynne]

As a 00 modeller , I'm an interested party when it comes to 00 track. People who don't model in 00 aren't.

 

How do you know that I'm not a 00 modeller? Or anyone else posting here? Or someone who might convert to 00 if a product matching their wishes became available?. Or a model shop owner wishing to stock and sell such a product?

 

RMweb is a forum where anyone can have their say. Members don't have to first prove that their opinion is worthy of consideration. And everyone is free to ignore it.

 

Martin.

[billbedford]

As a OO modeller , I'm an interested party when it comes to OO track. People who don't model in OO aren't. I'm not quite sure what's controversial about the idea that the people whose opinions finally matter on a gauge-specific issue are the people actually working in that gauge?

 

 

Ultimately the people who will decide whether you get the products you so desire are probably not modellers at all.

[Jeff Smith]

Ultimately the people who will decide whether you get the products you so desire are probably not modellers at all.

Probably not, however they may retain the services of modellers to test the waters!

[Mythocentric]

 

 

Ultimately the people who will decide whether you get the products you so desire are probably not modellers at all.

Bill, I agree with you fully on that point!

It's already been mentioned on here that as far as track goes we are in the same position as we were before all those superb models started appearing as a result of growing dissatisfaction from the market, i.e., us! From my own point of view as an 'average' (whatever that is!) modeller I model in 4mm to 00 gauge for the simple reason that I am reluctant to start, nor can I afford to start re-wheeling over 90 locos, the vast majority of which are steam and an even greater quantity of rolling stock to P4 or EM standards. However, I do build my own track because there is no, to my mind, track available RTR which comes close to matching those models excellent appearance. For the last four layouts I've used kits for my turnouts but this time via the generous assistance of Martin Wynne I'll be building everything myself, hook, line and common crossing! I wish I didn't have to but there it is! I don't have anything against those people who model in EM/P4 which is a matter of personal choice, in fact I admire them, but I do resent those members of that area of the hobby, and even more surprisingly those who do use 00 gauge who assume an 'holier-than-thou' attitude and denigrate the efforts of those people like Joseph and others who try to make a difference! Even more so when I read some of the not-so-subtle attacks made against Martin Wynne on this thread from those same people. I'd ask those people to consider, how many of you would have been able to create those often superb layouts without Templot to achieve that flowing, prototypical trackwork you're so proud of?

I make no bones about my belief that Peco are hide-bound and have a "this is what we make so this is what you'll use" attitude. It's an attitude many other manufacturers shared in the recent past. They at least listened to their buyers and responded. There are dangers in not doing so! In fact, I used to work for a company (in the baking industry) with just that attitude due to it's practical (worldwide)monopoly on it's product, while it's much smaller competitors paid heed. The end result was that I helped dismantle the machinery and saw it being distributed amongst it's former competitors as far afield as Romania before being made redundant along with the rest of it's employees!

At the end of the day we're all railway modellers regardless of the scales or gauges we work to. As Bill said, the people who make the products are probably not. We have changed minds and attitudes in the past and we can do so again, but the only way we can do that is if we all pull in the same direction! Isn't it time we put our differences aside started doing just that?

Regards

Bill (the other one!) Edited January 5, 2014 by Mythocentric

[Paul Cram]

 

 Even more so when I read some of the not-so-subtle attacks made against Martin Wynne on this thread from those same people. I'd ask those people to consider, how many of you would have been able to create those often superb layouts without Templot to achieve that flowing, prototypical trackwork you're so proud of?

 

 

I have although I haven't attacked Martin or belittled the OO modellers that I am aware of.I have tried to add some perspective in terms of tooling costs.

[martin_wynne]

I'm happy to be attacked, belittled, or dismissed as a raving lunatic -- provided you don't get any facts wrong.

[Mythocentric]

Hi Paul

 

I'm not actually pointing any fingers at individuals. Those people who aim adverse rather than constructive criticism at the thread should know who they are, at least if they are honest with themselves! I agree with you that some perspective is needed when it comes to tooling costs. It is a vital and necessary part of the process all too often overlooked by the majority. However it is not an impossiblility that cannot be overcome. Economics is central to the commercial viability of any company if it is to succeed. Equally important is its ability to adapt to the needs of a changing market.

If I may take my former employers example a little bit further. The company I worked for was developed from supplying domestic bakeware to a (the) major supplier of bakeware for the baking industry worldwide As the baking industry changed that companies response was to make minor adaptations to existing products (much of which designs dated back to the 1940's) to meet that change, ignoring the demands of their customers about the lack of genuine innovation needed to supply the equipment they actually wanted and asked for! Meanwhile the gentleman who eventually bought out the company I worked for set about supplying just what the baking industry was in need of. A modern product matched to the demands of its customer base. An expensive procedure no doubt, but he started small (so small in fact that he was treated as something as an in joke by my companies management who firmly believed that he would eventually go under) and built his way up by listening to and supplying the needs of his customers! The eventual outcome as stated previously is history!

There are clearly some interesting parallels there with the attitude displayed by Peco. I only hope the end results aren't similar. Incidentally, the gentleman himself wasn't actually involved in the industry until he founded his company. In fact he was a farmer! He was however wise enough to see an opportunity beckoning and took it, so it may not be such a good idea to hope Peco wise up as so many of us seem to be doing, because they probably won't What is important is that we get behind the person or company who does and support them to our fullest extent. That can only be of benefit to railway modelling and its future as a whole!

 

Regards

 

Bill

Edited January 6, 2014 by Mythocentric