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

[Budgie]

Cue Andy Y...

 

Why, is he going to make the decision?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Budgie

[Trevellan]

Why, is he going to make the decision?

 

If only...

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

.

 

 

It would seem that, with its recently enhanced design and tool-making capacity, Peco is far keener than it used to be to attack new markets with new product ranges. Good for them. The UK needs more exporters.

 

Somewhere further back in the thread, one of our US contributors said that the 83 range had been well received there. I can see why it would be and certainly likely to appeal more to modellers of US/Canadian prototype than their previous ranges.

 

So, yes, I share your view that Peco will make a start on a proper 00 range this year. I would expect that to be a resleepering of their current Code 75FB. But we shall see. It will also be interesting to see how they manage with yet another Streamline range for stockists to have to handle. Perhaps time to knock one of the Code 100 ranges on the head?

 

Does it invalidate a project to produce RtL 75BH pointwork? I don't think so, although it might alter some of the choices to be made about tooling, materials and assembly as the volumes would be lower.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Joseph_Pestell

[Ron Ron Ron]

So, yes, I share your view that Peco will make a start on a proper 00 range this year. I would expect that to be a resleepering of their current Code 75FB. But we shall see. It will also be interesting to see how they manage with yet another Streamline range for stockists to have to handle. Perhaps time to knock one of the Code 100 ranges on the head?

 

Does it invalidate a project to produce RtL 75BH pointwork? I don't think so, although it might alter some of the choices to be made about tooling, materials and assembly as the volumes would be lower.

 

Rationalisation of their current ranges may be likely, rather than increasing the number of ranges.

If the objective is to rejuvenate the market and increase sales, then it would make sense to ensure the retailers were stocking the product, even if that means holding back, stepping down or withdrawing one of the current product lines.

 

I think most people would bet on any new 00 offering from them being a FB based range.

That appears to leave the only opening for others to be aimed squarely at the BH market for ready made turnouts and crossings.

 

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[Peter Bedding]

Chaps,

 

Dissent does not come easily to me, and least of all in public. But on one point I will take issue.

 

Several of our worthy Forum members have criticised the loose-heeled or hinged-switch-rail turnout which has been a feature of Peco Streamline since Pontius was a pilot.

 

Now, due to my limited experience of life, I have always believed that if I needed to criticise someone else's product, then I would need to submit supporting and objective relevant evidence. And unless I have missed something here (followed by humble pie, sackcloth and ashes), that has been overlooked.

 

My own experience of Streamline includes Codes 75 and 100, Electrofrog and Insulfrog. And in every instance, my problems have only arisen from my own ham fists. The product itself has always proved robust, reliable, long-lasting, affordable and almost goof-proof.

 

So if they work, admirably, then what is the issue? As Martin Wynne has explained, earlier, on the real railway they lasted in significant numbers to the end of steam. Therefore from an aesthetic point of view they are acceptable for a high proportion of Bull Head installations.

 

If someone is going to take on the task, of submitting a convincing case both to an investor, and then to a manufacturer, for a risk-carrying venture, then I submit the case will not carry the day if such strong feature of Streamline is completely excluded from the technical submission.

 

PB

[Joseph_Pestell]

Chaps,

 

Dissent does not come easily to me, and least of all in public. But on one point I will take issue.

 

Several of our worthy Forum members have criticised the loose-heeled or hinged-switch-rail turnout which has been a feature of Peco Streamline since Pontius was a pilot.

 

Now, due to my limited experience of life, I have always believed that if I needed to criticise someone else's product, then I would need to submit supporting and objective relevant evidence. And unless I have missed something here (followed by humble pie, sackcloth and ashes), that has been overlooked.

 

My own experience of Streamline includes Codes 75 and 100, Electrofrog and Insulfrog. And in every instance, my problems have only arisen from my own ham fists. The product itself has always proved robust, reliable, long-lasting, affordable and almost goof-proof.

 

So if they work, admirably, then what is the issue? As Martin Wynne has explained, earlier, on the real railway they lasted in significant numbers to the end of steam. Therefore from an aesthetic point of view they are acceptable for a high proportion of Bull Head installations.

 

If someone is going to take on the task, of submitting a convincing case both to an investor, and then to a manufacturer, for a risk-carrying venture, then I submit the case will not carry the day if such strong feature of Streamline is completely excluded from the technical submission.

 

PB

 

I think that the issue is less with loose-heel as such (for the reasons that you articulate very well) but that as a model:

1) The points are made from a metal pressing rather than filed rail. That looks poor in FB and almost certainly will look very poor in BH.

2) It has the potential to create electrical continuity issues, especially for the DCC users.

[AJ427]

 

My own experience of Streamline includes Codes 75 and 100, Electrofrog and Insulfrog. And in every instance, my problems have only arisen from my own ham fists. The product itself has always proved robust, reliable, long-lasting, affordable and almost goof-proof.

 

So if they work, admirably, then what is the issue? As Martin Wynne has explained, earlier, on the real railway they lasted in significant numbers to the end of steam. Therefore from an aesthetic point of view they are acceptable for a high proportion of Bull Head installations.

 

 

The current Streamline offering is hinged flatbottom and not bullhead.

 

The point about Peco's reliability and robustness is a good one though. With care it can be ripped up and reused several times and will last for years so many new purchases will be just to add to an existing collection of pointwork for a new layout. With this sort of stagnation the introduction of a new product may in fact provide an impetus for additional sales rather than eating into sales of the current offering as has been suggested. e.g. I'm planning a new layout, I have 10x Streamline turnouts already and I need 5 more to complete, OR do I buy 15 of their "new improved British outline OO"?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Peter, if the loose heal switches had phased out from mainline use long ago, regardless of the many that Martin has said to be still in evidence on some branch lines or in yards, does that not indicate that they were becoming less common and that flexible switches were becoming more commonplace on the whole?

Were they restricted to BH rail in the UK?

 

Bearing in mind that we are told that the majority of people are modelling the BR steam era of the 50's and 60's (with the 60's "transition era" gradually becoming the more dominant) and that the various post steam periods accounts for the bulk of the remainder, then surely to bias the style of track towards the loose heal switch would be rather unbalanced, in terms of representation?

 

My interpretation (which may be wrong) is that the majority of those building their own trackwork, whether in 00 or the finer 4mm gauges, are predominately modelling the various steam era's.

Do the C&L, Exactoscale and SMP/Marcway point kits and components sold to this market, include the loose healed switch?

It seems to me that would be the more particular group of modellers for the correct style of point work for the steam era.

 

More of an issue in my mind is as Joseph says, the model interpretation frankly looks a bit c**p.

Streamline may possess good qualities such as robustness and reliability (excluding contact tabs), but it simply isn't good enough in the looks department any more.

 

.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[trisonic]

If the proposed model turnout is not loose heeled - and the vast majority of prototypes in Britain are not - then the model will need either a "motor" to change it or some kind of modified locking gizmo on it. So far as I know the current spring loaded system will not work.

 

My opinion is that this modification is as important as sleeper spacing to make a British looking turnout/switch. Loose heeled switches still predominate in North America, however. The weird thing is that non-loose heeled switches (being one piece) are probably easier to manufacture (apart from the mechanism need to lock them in position as mentioned in my first paragraph).

 

Best, Pete.

[Kal]

Just thinking out loud  again.....dangerous I know.

 

But rather than an either or with Peco, maybe there could be a partnership......i.e Peco did the high volume stuff, but supported another small supplier in producing more bespoke items that were complimentary and tailored as an extension for more decerning buyers, but obviously demanding a higher price due to the lower volumes.

 

Maybe it is pie in the sky, but hey, when I have a daft idea I just have to share it.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Kal

[martin_wynne]

If the proposed model turnout is not loose heeled - and the vast majority of prototypes in Britain are not - then the model will need either a "motor" to change it or some kind of modified locking gizmo on it. So far as I know the current spring loaded system will not work.

 

On the prototype, flexible switch blades are linked by the stretcher bar and sprung against each other. This means that the force needed to open one blade is balanced by the relaxing of the force needed to open the other blade. The resulting net force needed to drive the pair of blades across is not much greater than for loose-heel switches. Flexible switches are rodded to the same size levers in the signal box as loose-heel switches, they are not provided with extra cranks or levers to increase the drive force.

 

I see no reason why a model flexible switch should not work with the same over-centre spring device as a model loose-heel switch. It would need careful design and assembly of course.

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

I agree with you in principle Martin. It is just that very few modelled  flexible switch blades that I've experienced (maybe because they've been FB?) needed a bit more oomph to stay in position - the tendency was to relax somewhat just off-centre.

I'll check the Tillig range to see how they achieved it.

 

Best, Pete.

[The Stationmaster]

The debate is now  (or is that 'again') starting to get commercial and some interesting points (sorry) are emerging so it might be worth considering the marketplace as it stands.  C&L have recently started to stock Peco track products - indicative perhaps of somem sort of growing relationship between the two businesses otherwise it does seem an odd decision, whatever C&L might say about it.

 

Secondly some (many?) of us use either C&L or Scaleway RTL BH track with Peco Code 75 points and hope that nobody notices the sleepering and some other features of the latter.   It hardly seems credible to me that Peco, a pretty astute concern, have failed to notice that, or that they have failed to notice what might be increasingly said on various forums or what comes out of wishlist polls.

 

If we follow Ron's logic about a business needing to keep moving, to keep developing markets, and to innovate then the logic is that Peco might be looking to move in the sort of direction this thread seeks.  In all their developments over the years every new trackwork range of theirs which I can immediately think of has started off with a length of flexitrack followed by left & right hand points and then by other pointwork formations or different radii  etc.  I'm not necessarily suggesting this is what could be happening in view of the latest news in this thread but you never know.  Equally they are bringing to market a new servo based point operating system which does not need an over-centre spring/retaining mechanism in the point itself - next step could might be towards points that work with that system instead of needing to be slightly altered (removing the spring) in order to work with it.

 

So we might be not so much on the cusp of change but certainly not over far away from it - so possibly a concerted campaign at Peco's door could provide a way forward?

[trisonic]

To be honest I don't have the time to check thoroughly into Manually Operated Tillig Flexible switchblades. The only thing I have found in the few minutes available was a tendency for the tie bar to twist leading the rails to cant off vertical - so perhaps we shouldn't go there.........

Don't forget we're talking about ready to lay track and not bespoke trackwork.

 

Best, Pete.

[billbedford]

 The weird thing is that non-loose heeled switches (being one piece) are probably easier to manufacture (apart from the mechanism need to lock them in position as mentioned in my first paragraph).

 

Slide chairs can't be moulded with the switches in place. Meaning that the moulding becomes a multi-stage operation.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If the proposed model turnout is not loose heeled - and the vast majority of prototypes in Britain are not - then the model will need either a "motor" to change it or some kind of modified locking gizmo on it. So far as I know the current spring loaded system will not work.

 

My opinion is that this modification is as important as sleeper spacing to make a British looking turnout/switch. Loose heeled switches still predominate in North America, however. The weird thing is that non-loose heeled switches (being one piece) are probably easier to manufacture (apart from the mechanism need to lock them in position as mentioned in my first paragraph).

 

Best, Pete.

 

A simple pressing is easier to manufacture consistently than filed down blades. But also potentially more difficult at the assembly stage.

 

I see no problem with the locking mechanism being external i.e. on the point motor or on the point lever.

[trisonic]

Fine. I'm out of here. You've obviously got it covered, look forward to seeing the result later this year.

 

Cheers, Pete.

[Ron Ron Ron]

If the proposed model turnout is not loose heeled...... then the model will need either a "motor" to change it or some kind of modified locking gizmo on it. So far as I know the current spring loaded system will not work.....

 

 The current spring loaded device arrangement is too crude and space consuming, apart from being visually intrusive.

Now even Peco themselves are suggesting you can remove it from their own range of Streamline turnouts, if their new SmartSwitch point motor is used instead.

Of course lots of other point motors will also do that job.

 

 

My opinion is that this modification is as important as sleeper spacing to make a British looking turnout/switch.

 

I'm in agreement with you there Pete.

Everything that can be done to move away from the train set, to a more realistic look (within RTL terms) has to be encouraged or welcomed.

 

 

I see no reason why a model flexible switch should not work with the same over-centre spring device as a model loose-heel switch. It would need careful design and assembly of course.

 

Alternatively, leave it for an external method, e.g. point motor mechanism.

Peco themselves are now facilitating the use of an external mechanism, so that their own spring mechanism can be removed from the current Streamline turnouts.

 

 

I agree with you in principle Martin. It is just that very few modelled  flexible switch blades that I've experienced (maybe because they've been FB?) needed a bit more oomph to stay in position - the tendency was to relax somewhat just off-centre.

I'll check the Tillig range to see how they achieved it.

 

 There is no locking mechanism with the Tillig Elite points. They rely on an external mechanism, which is usually a point motor.

 

To be honest I don't have the time to check thoroughly into Manually Operated Tillig Flexible switchblades. The only thing I have found in the few minutes available was a tendency for the tie bar to twist leading the rails to cant off vertical - so perhaps we shouldn't go there.........

Don't forget we're talking about ready to lay track and not bespoke trackwork.

 

Best, Pete.

 

Tillig is RTL.

The Tie Bar is the only issue of concern with that range (apart from unfortunately not being 00). The use of nasty snap action solenoid type devices being the biggest cause of problems.

A slightly more robust Tie Bar assembly would address that issue.

 

I see no problem with the locking mechanism being external i.e. on the point motor or on the point lever.

I'm happy to go along with that.

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Ron Ron Ron

[Pacific231G]

I agree with you in principle Martin. It is just that very few modelled  flexible switch blades that I've experienced (maybe because they've been FB?) needed a bit more oomph to stay in position - the tendency was to relax somewhat just off-centre.

I'll check the Tillig range to see how they achieved it.

 

Best, Pete.

I don't think they have. I had the devils own job getting enough force onto their H0m turnouts to throw the blades properly- a directly connected Caboose Industries HO sprung ground throw couldn't do it-   and I wouldn't think of using solenoid motors with them. H0 turnouts would have longer blades so the force needed at the tie bar would be less.  I've never come across a turnout with flexible switch/point blades that didn't spring to somewhere near the centre but Martin's comment about counter springing is interesting: I wonder though whether it would be achievable in a mass produced product.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Pacific231G

[Jeff Smith]

A Tortoise or similar stall motor has comfortably enough power to hold flexible switch blades against stock rails (I have built P4 points with this arrangement). Also a Blue Point manual switch should have adequate spring force.

[Mike Storey]

A Tortoise or similar stall motor has comfortably enough power to hold flexible switch blades against stock rails (I have built P4 points with this arrangement). Also a Blue Point manual switch should have adequate spring force.

 

I concur - I operated the three Tillig Elite turnouts I used on a trial layout with tortoise motors (two underneath and one from the side) and they worked fine in terms of throw. But there was a problem with one of the turnout blades, which developed a kink over time (3 months) and started to angle over. Maybe it was a Friday afternoon one. I have never had a Peco turnout fail.

[highpeak]

The Bullfrog switch machine by Fast Tracks http://www.handlaidtrack.com/v/vspfiles/documents/ug22.pdf is also quite capable of switching flexible points and maintaining mechanical alignment. 

 

I don't know whether it could be miniaturised and used as an alternative for the Peco spring arrangement. It is a very easy device to install and a bit less expensive than the Blue Point machines.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The Bullfrog switch machine by Fast Tracks http://www.handlaidtrack.com/v/vspfiles/documents/ug22.pdf is also quite capable of switching flexible points and maintaining mechanical alignment. 

 

I don't know whether it could be miniaturised and used as an alternative for the Peco spring arrangement. It is a very easy device to install and a bit less expensive than the Blue Point machines.

 

I had not come across those before. Laser-cut timber seems an odd material to use for the purpose and they also seem to need a lot of assembly.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I had not come across those before. Laser-cut timber seems an odd material to use for the purpose and they also seem to need a lot of assembly.

 

They are available ready-built or as a self assembly kit, which looks very easy and simple to put together.

Definitely one of those "I wish I'd thought of that" ideas.

 

 

 

.

[Vistisen]

I concur - I operated the three Tillig Elite turnouts I used on a trial layout with tortoise motors (two underneath and one from the side) and they worked fine in terms of throw. But there was a problem with one of the turnout blades, which developed a kink over time (3 months) and started to angle over. Maybe it was a Friday afternoon one. I have never had a Peco turnout fail.

I have 12 tillig points all powered by DCC concepts DCC point motors, The operate perfectly.They survived my hamfisted attempts at track laying so they are roubust! The biggest issue I had with then is that the fishplates are such at tight fit that if you are not careful while pushing the adjacent track on to them you can actuall force the inner rail of the frog backwards just enought to cause the sharp point of the frog to move backwards sufficently to cause derailments. This I solved by using a mini grinder to  open up for wheel clearences again. Now I know that gripping the rail with pliers rather than holding the track base is the way to join track pieces.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Vistiaen