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

[Joseph_Pestell]

For many people acceptable and minimum are the same thing.....the lower the basic-unit price the more likely it will sell in the sort of numbers required for commercial success.  With foresight in the basic design, additions/modifications can be made by those who want them and are prepared to pay.  As cost and complexity go up you will get to the point where many would prefer to build their own or a kit or have someone else do it.  This has to be a Ford not a Rolls!

 

The lowest possible denominator is 'straight out of the box, dead frog, power through rail connectors'.  If flexible switch rails are used these will be supplied with link wires to the stock rails already fitted thus no reliance on physical contact between switch and stock rails for electrical continuity - literally RTL.

 

Why fit a micro-switch?  It would have to be tiny to fit within the base/tie-rod profile - we are trying to get away from ugly 'blocks' in the tie-rod area.  Most external switches feature two switches so you can switch the frog and power the route or a repeater etc.  If wiring for DCC you don't need to power the route anyway, this should be continuously fed.

 

If we were producing something for "modern image", one could put the micro-switch to one side and disguise it as a model point motor. But we are looking more at steam era and anyway have to consider points in goods yards etc which still don't have motors.

 

My best guess is that we could be looking at something in the order of 100,000 pieces of pointwork per annum production. To produce a quality microswitch in those sorts of numbers would be horribly expensive. Far better for the modeller to use off-the-peg switches from Maplin ("other suppliers are available") for pennies and adapt them for his/her purposes i.e. manual control or electrical control of the tiebar throw.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......Far better for the modeller to use off-the-peg switches from Maplin ("other suppliers are available") for pennies and adapt them for his/her purposes i.e. manual control or electrical control of the tiebar throw.

 

Bear in mind that almost all (proper) electric point motors incorporate built-in switching and don't require additional switches to be added.

There is also the option of automatic frog polarity switching from electronic devices such as the Fog Juicers, Wabbit, Hare or new Peco SmartFrog.

 

For manual point operation, manually operated point motors like the BluePoint also include built-in switches.

 

 

.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Bear in mind that almost all (proper) electric point motors incorporate built-in switching and don't require additional switches to be added.

There is also the option of automatic frog polarity switching from electronic devices such as the Fog Juicers, Wabbit, Hare or new Peco SmartFrog.

 

For manual point operation, manually operated point motors like the BluePoint also include built-in switches.

 

 

.

 

Ron,

 

We have a few contributors here who are not that keen on control of points by electric motors/solenoids. Hence my comment. That said, anyone who wants to control their points "digitally" (using digit on hand) is probably going to stay with Peco anyway!

 

I had forgotten Blue Point. Isn't that the system Hampton Court MRS were having problems with on their Hamworthy Jct layout?

[Ron Ron Ron]

...... the ideal situation would be points (of whatever geometry/standard might be decided) plus compatible flexi track AND (eventually) a range of components to build points for those who wish to......

.... so if a layout could have ready to lay where the plan could use 'standard' points but where matching components could make the more specialist points to achieve a flowing effect, or whatever would be a winner on all levels.......

I know that that suggestion is taking things beyond the rtl principle, but it might considerably widen the range's appeal.

 

Hi Adrian,

That's an interesting point not raised so far (I think?).

 

It isn't beyond the RTL principle at all. Some other track ranges include some form of self-assembly or kit option alongside their standard range of turnouts.

 

In the Tillig example, they have...

A large range of turnouts and crossings (a much wider range than Peco Streamline).

Some turnouts have a degree of flex to allow for adjustments in the geometry.

Some matching turnout kits (I may be wrong but I think these may be fixed geometry - I'll check later).

Flexi track (choice of rail ties in wood, concrete and steel)

Non flexi straight sections in various lengths (just like set track, but to the same standard as the flexi).

Some fixed radius curves.

 

In Peco's case they have the individual lay components, but I'm not sure of the current status with those products.

 

However, I'm not sure at this stage if point kits would be a useful addition, especially if the new 00 product is close enough to the existing kits from the current suppliers.

 

Regards

Ron

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......anyone who wants to control their points "digitally" (using digit on hand) is probably going to stay with Peco anyway!

I can't see how that follows, unless by Hand operation you mean physically swinging the point blade with your fingers?

 

 

I had forgotten Blue Point. Isn't that the system Hampton Court MRS were having problems with on their Hamworthy Jct layout?

I don't know about Hampton Court MRS's experience. I was under the impression the Blue Point was very reliable, if installed correctly and not "frigged about" with?

 

 

 

.

[billbedford]

My best guess is that we could be looking at something in the order of 100,000 pieces of pointwork per annum production. To produce a quality microswitch in those sorts of numbers would be horribly expensive. Far better for the modeller to use off-the-peg switches from Maplin ("other suppliers are available") for pennies and adapt them for his/her purposes i.e. manual control or electrical control of the tiebar throw.

 

This is rapidly turning into the RMWeb version of fantasy football.

[Jeff Smith]

I can't see how that follows, unless by Hand operation you mean physically swinging the point blade with your fingers?

 

I don't know about Hampton Court MRS's experience. I was under the impression the Blue Point was very reliable, if installed correctly and not "frigged about" with?

 

 

 

.

 

Hand operation probably means using the tie-bar extensions with fingers......

 

I have just installed 6 (under-board) Blue Points for my On30 layout using Micro Engineering code 83 FB points (cast isolated frogs) and push-rod operation from the base board edge.  No problems with the installation or wiring so far.  They are about $10 each over here and seem pretty robust (Tortoise motors are $20+).  For reference the points are about $25 each and are of course 16.5mm so comparable in size and construction to what we are discussing here, in fact the same price as Peco O-16.5 points.

[Mike Storey]

Nothing like that at all. The SmartFrog is an electronic module for automatically switching the polarity of a powered frog.

 

By the way, it's not a Hexjuicer either. It's a Frog Juicer.

The Hex Frog Juicer is a 6 output version, the Dual Frog Juicer is 2 output version and the Mono Frog Juicer is guess?

 

A fruit drink made from a very lonely reptile?

[Godders]

A fruit drink made from a very lonely reptile?

Oh dear, I really don't find ignorance funny.

 

Particularly from one whose chosen country of residence is known for this particular culinary speciality.

 

1. Juicers don't just make fruit drinks.

2. The frog is not a reptile it is not a fruit, it is an amphibian.

3. We have no way of knowing if the frog was lonely, only that it was alone.

 

Therefore: "A mono frog juicer" is a device to make juice from one amphibian.

Shame on you

 

Cheers Godders

Edited January 9, 2014 by Godders

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've just checked the Hamworthy thread and it was BluePoint that Jon was having difficulties with. He got them to work in the end but it would seem that the latching spring in the switch is just a bit too strong. Fine it using rigid rod (e.g. bike spokes) to control the points from the edge of the board but more tricky with a flexible system such Mercontrol which has some slack in it. 5mm movement at the tiebar was requiring 10mm+ movement at the leverframe.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is rapidly turning into the RMWeb version of fantasy football.

 

That will be another comment from Mickey about Sheffield Wednesday then???

[Godders]

This is not off topic. Is there a way in the forum to upload excel files and maintain the table formatting?

 

TIA Godders

[Kal]

Hi

 

Not trying to throw a spanner in, I would actually want what is being suggested but..

 

Something to bear in mind, and sorry if it has already been covered but.....  If it were to be Peco that was to make this track and turn outs, it needs to be compatible with other things in their range such as point motors, other track systems, electrical products etc.

 

Redesign of the track is one thing , but if they have to alter other product lines, or worse make them obsolete, the resistance to change is much higher.

 

If Peco or another established vendor is the aim, then you need to make sure that whatever you do is compatible with existing lines.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Kal

[billbedford]

That will be another comment from Mickey about Sheffield Wednesday then???

 

The more you plough on without doing the basic market research the more ridiculous your figures look.

[KTM]

Unfortunately any 'off the shelf' system is going to be a compromise and will never cost-effectively cover all the options available when using something like Templot to cover all angles for perfectly smooth looking trackwork.

 

But then how many modern image modellers still use bullhead rail, for example, instead of FB and Pandrol clips on concrete sleepers?

 

Peco's O gauge range, for example, left right and Y are available in FB rail as well as flexi, but the curved points and slips aren't - and then they wonder why BH sells much more than FB.

 

I've always liked the look of BH rail from my OO days, if only because it makes the track appear 'finer' which could be considered neccessary with 16.5mm gauge..

 

Of course, if you want to model FB you have to use FB. Even in O gauge, I've decided not to worry about that kind of detail as long as my track looks 'right'.

 

Jon

[Jeff Smith]

In light of the letter I got back from Ben Arnold at Peco, I think it's safe to assume that Peco will, at some point in the not-too-distant future, bring a correctly spaced flexible track to the market. I don't think it's too much of an assumption that matching pointwork will then follow. To further the point that Kal made (above) this will obviously have to be compatible with their existing range from a marketing point of view. This new trackwork (being from an established, even dominant, UK manufacturer) will be available in almost every model shop in the country and from every online box shifter. I'll even go so far to say that there will be a plentiful supply. People will buy it because they know the name. People will see it for sale in full page magazine spreads and every UK magazine will review it, for good or bad. If the only new feature is the more prototypically spaced sleepers, it will get my money for sure. I doubt, however, that properly spaced sleepers will be the only new feature, especially with regard to the imminent release of their new servo controlled point motor. Personally, I'm just going to wait and see. I fear, Joseph, that unless you move quickly or have already made a deal with Peco, you're going to be pipped to the post. I do admire your "all things to all people" approach, but Peco will go for the "most things to most people" approach and will probably achieve the lion's share of the market.

 

Just my own thoughts, and as usual, I wait to be proven totally wrong...!

I think you are exactly right in your prediction. Furthermore I think it will almost certainly be FB rail and probably utilize existing code 75 metalwork. Initial introduction will be flexitrack and left and right medium radius points with frog arrangement to suit the new Peco point switch etc. This will complement the existing BH offerings out there and leave that market sector clear.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is not off topic. Is there a way in the forum to upload excel files and maintain the table formatting?

 

TIA Godders

 

You should be able to save a worksheet as a .pdf or .jpeg and upload that.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The more you plough on without doing the basic market research the more ridiculous your figures look.

 

Bill,

 

I tried my best to make light of your comment - not because I did not understand the point that you wished to make but because I wished to maintain the positive outlook of this thread.

 

I am not a grandmother but then nor do I need to be taught how to suck eggs.

 

The figure that I gave, admittedly more "fag packet" than the work which will ultimately be done, is actually quite well founded albeit on other data. We will come back to it in a few years time and see what the real figure is.

[Joseph_Pestell]

In light of the letter I got back from Ben Arnold at Peco, I think it's safe to assume that Peco will, at some point in the not-too-distant future, bring a correctly spaced flexible track to the market. I don't think it's too much of an assumption that matching pointwork will then follow. To further the point that Kal made (above) this will obviously have to be compatible with their existing range from a marketing point of view. This new trackwork (being from an established, even dominant, UK manufacturer) will be available in almost every model shop in the country and from every online box shifter. I'll even go so far to say that there will be a plentiful supply. People will buy it because they know the name. People will see it for sale in full page magazine spreads and every UK magazine will review it, for good or bad. If the only new feature is the more prototypically spaced sleepers, it will get my money for sure. I doubt, however, that properly spaced sleepers will be the only new feature, especially with regard to the imminent release of their new servo controlled point motor. Personally, I'm just going to wait and see. I fear, Joseph, that unless you move quickly or have already made a deal with Peco, you're going to be pipped to the post. I do admire your "all things to all people" approach, but Peco will go for the "most things to most people" approach and will probably achieve the lion's share of the market.

 

Just my own thoughts, and as usual, I wait to be proven totally wrong...!

 

I think one of the consensus points we have reached on this thread is, precisely, that we should not seek to be "all things to all people". On the contrary, the route to success would be to target a slightly different market to the one that Peco will be targetting.

 

It might be a bit premature (rather like with the Code 100 single slip back in the 1970s) to assume, from one letter, that Peco are indeed about to swing into action. But if they do, due to other wishlists and this thread, then so much the better. As I wrote yesterday, that will be a "win" for UK railway modelling - indeed it will be a very big win.

 

There is no sense in me "doing a deal with Peco" and still less sense in them doing a deal with me or anyone else that wants to produce a product that will reduce their own sales.

 

PS: As a Londoner, I am very aware that you wait for ages for a bus and then two (or more) come along together.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've always liked the look of BH rail from my OO days, if only because it makes the track appear 'finer' which could be considered neccessary with 16.5mm gauge..

 

Of course, if you want to model FB you have to use FB. Even in O gauge, I've decided not to worry about that kind of detail as long as my track looks 'right'.

 

Jon

 

Tillig make quite a lot of the fact that their FB rail profile has a narrower head than competing products.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Tillig make quite a lot of the fact that their FB rail profile has a narrower head than competing products.

 

It works too.

The Code 83 rail height may be marginally taller than Code 75, but the Tillig product looks finer than Peco's Code 75 due to that narrower rail profile. 

I think the lack of toy-like shinyness may also contribute a little to the "finer look".

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Sorry Joseph, but after 40 pages, I wasn't aware that any consensus had been reached. Far from it, in fact.

 

Sorry, your vote doesn't count. Consensus will be decided on your behalf, that's how Democracy works in the real world.      

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry Joseph, but after 40 pages, I wasn't aware that any consensus had been reached. Far from it, in fact.

 

There is probably more than you think.

 

As someone who has to facilitate a lot of meetings, I put forward views to provoke reactions (they are not necessarily my views, just a device to generate discussion). I can draw conclusions from the answers (and sometimes from the lack of answers) that gives an indication of where the areas of agreement lie.  But that is not to say that we should seek to get everyone to agree with every single point. That level of consensus is simply unachievable in a large group with divergent interests. Somewhere along the line, a decision has to be made by a benevolent autocrat.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[Trevellan]

Somewhere along the line, a decision has to be made by a benevolent autocrat.

 

Cue Andy Y...

 

Edited January 9, 2014 by Trevellan

[Ron Ron Ron]

In light of the letter I got back from Ben Arnold at Peco, I think it's safe to assume that Peco will, at some point in the not-too-distant future, bring a correctly spaced flexible track to the market. I don't think it's too much of an assumption that matching pointwork will then follow......

 

It might be a bit premature (rather like with the Code 100 single slip back in the 1970s) to assume, from one letter, that Peco are indeed about to swing into action. But if they do, due to other wishlists and this thread, then so much the better. As I wrote yesterday, that will be a "win" for UK railway modelling - indeed it will be a very big win.

Although that letter doesn't prove conclusively that something is about to happen, I think it more likely than not.

Taking a guess, I'd say Peco's current market for track isn't a significant growth sector.

In fact it is more likely to be contracting due to a number of factors, such as a slowly falling number of the total modeller population, competition from other track ranges (in overseas markets) and the increased availability of track kits and RTL flexitrack.

 

Companies need growth and if your product line sales are stagnant or falling, you have to do something about it.

If marketing (publicity and promotion) isn't enough to do the job, then the options are a product refresh, a replacement range and/or the introduction of new product lines to exploit other market openings and to create new markets.

Peco appear to have been doing the latter over the last few years.

 

Code 83 is almost certainly a response to increased competition in the N. American market, whether or not sales of their existing lines were already falling or predicted to fall.

If anything, the Code 83 would have given them the opportunity to grow their market share, although I've no idea if they've managed to achieve that?

 

The introduction of various narrow gauge ranges may also be a bid to exploit previously un-serviced, or poorly serviced markets. That also presents an opportunity to grow demand in those gauges.

 

That leaves the question of their biggest selling ranges in the home market.

I don't think they can maintain or grow sales of Code 75 and Code 100 by just sitting on their hands and with consistent and ongoing rumblings about the appropriateness and poor visual appeal of their product, there may be an awareness that addressing the 00 issue could be a suitable commercial direction to take.

 

 

.....If the only new feature is the more prototypically spaced sleepers, it will get my money for sure. I doubt, however, that properly spaced sleepers will be the only new feature, especially with regard to the imminent release of their new servo controlled point motor......

 

A refresh is a perfect opportunity to make other improvements and if Peco have looked at what else is out there, I'm hoping they won't restrict changes to just the sleeper spacing.

Streamline as it stands is not much better than their own train-set track. When you take into account the hinged switch blades, the clumsy spring mechanism and its plastic housing and for some, its bright shiny rail finish, there are a few things that can be done without adding too much or any additional cost, bearing in mind they'll have to tool up for a new product anyway.

Enhancements that address some or all of those issues would enable them to clearly differentiate their new product from the old, create a sense of "added value" (very important in such an exercise) and thus create a platform to grow their UK sales.

 

I realise in the absence of any of Peco's sales figures, I'm hypothesising, but I'm convinced if the scenario I've painted hasn't already started to take shape, it won't be long before something like it does.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron