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

[Friar Tuck]

Why not just go for #7s instead of #6 and #8s?

 

Having built a few larger angled points in OO, the running gets a bit bumpy the larger the angle, because the gaps in the running rail are that much longer.

 

Can also lead to problems with diamonds and slips, as stock can wander down the wrong road more easily.

[marc smith]

Only just caught up with this thread
Ready to lay, better looking OO track, particularly points is long, long overdue

The number of times I've spoken to modellers and modelling pals,
about this very subject is incredible....
Surely underlining that there IS a market for it....

C'mon Peco - wake up - there's an opportunity here....
I've built quite a few points over the years, in OO and EM gauge
Although I do like seeing the result
It's not a job I enjoy that much
and usually find the tiebar arrangement nowhere near as reliable and durable as an RTR point

[Mike Storey]

Yes, we're reinventing the wheel.  That's because the current wheel isn't very wheel-looking, and some of us would like a better looking wheel.  

 

I can think of at least 4 iterations of OO gauge class 47 shaped wheels that have been reinvented, and there are still some who want a better class 47 shaped wheel - and someone somewhere will see that as an opportunity and dive in.

 

I've also built my own track, and it was quite enjoyable and all that but I don't really want to do it that often.

 

So I'd be very happy to buy a box with a decent B8 bullhead turnout in it, just as I can with a current Peco turnout, and stick on my baseboard and plonk a Bachmann 04 and some 12T coal wagons on it and say to myself 'that looks good' whereas at the moment, I can plonk a Bachmann 04 and some 12T coal wagons on Peco track and think. 'that doesn't look so good'.  As the quality of rtr has improved, the quality of the track we run it on has remained static.  It's as jarring as running the aforementioned Bachmann 04 with a string of Triang coal wagons.

 

If you're happy with that, that's fine.  But I, and clearly a few others, would like to see what could be done that would be better than the default positions of handbuilt or Peco.

 

So far this has been a pretty civil discussion of a possible future track system, well done us. Track threads haven't fared so well in the past as I recall...

 

And now, a picture.

 

Untitled-2.jpg

 

This is what I'd like to be able to buy in OO, ready to plonk straight out of the box.  I might like it even more if it had a more refined tiebar, and if the guard rails and frog wings were machined, not bent.  All achievable in OO.

 

Well, actually, if that was a clamp lock point, that tie bar would be pretty accurate!! Although it would normally be on FB rails. Better looking than 00 Peco track, all the same - is it fictional or a picture of some 0 gauge?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Well, actually, if that was a clamp lock point, that tie bar would be pretty accurate!! Although it would normally be on FB rails. Better looking than 00 Peco track, all the same - is it fictional or a picture of some 0 gauge?

Wonderful that you should think it is O gauge! That is fiNetrax, already mentioned in one of the Doctor's earlier posts. Sadly not ready-to-lay but a lot of the harder points of kit-building have been thought through by Wayne Kinney. Only snag is that some of the components are a bit small for someone like me.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Why not just go for #7s instead of #6 and #8s?

 

Having built a few larger angled points in OO, the running gets a bit bumpy the larger the angle, because the gaps in the running rail are that much longer.

 

Can also lead to problems with diamonds and slips, as stock can wander down the wrong road more easily.

 

I was tempted to go for #7 as a compromise solution with the great advantage of a common crossing angle throughout the entire range. If I can master Peco's tricks and bend the rules of geometry, that could still be an option.

 

For realism though, it looks rather strange if points on main running lines are to the same size as those in goods yards etc.

 

I take your point about wheels dropping into the gap on a long crossing and have certainly encountered it on curved turnouts of soldered construction. We have to be realistic about that and say that if we want realistic looking (or as realistic as possible at 16.5mm gauge) pointwork, it is only going to work with the sort of fine flanges that we see these days and consistent back-to-back settings.

[Budgie]

Double-junction part 2.

 

[...]

 

More next time.

 

Martin.

Martin, thank you very much for this; it is most helpful. Looking forward to the next episode.

[AJ427]

Well, I think that we may just about have refined down what is and is not possible. And hopefully I have gained a bit more idea of what folks would want. From that, I think one could establish a list in order of priority for the first phase.

 

1) 60' (2 x 30' = 120mm) sleeper base with integrally moulded chairs (75BH). Modeller to thread rail (supplied).

2) 60' (2 x 30' = 120mm) sleeper base with integrally moulded fixings (82FB). Modeller to thread rail (supplied).

3) A6 turnout LH - 75BH (consisting of an LH A switch unit and a #6 crossing)

4) A6 turnout RH - 75BH (consisting of an RH A switch unit and a #6 crossing)

5) B8 turnout LH - 75BH (consisting of an LH B switch unit and a #8 crossing)

6) B8 turnout RH - 75BH (consisting of an RH B switch unit and a #8 crossing)

7) #8 diamond - 75BH (consisting of a K crossing unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

8) #8 single slip - 75BH (consisting of single slip unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

9) #8 double slip - 75BH (consisting of double slip unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

 

All the first phase would need to be launched together or in close succession. The rest could follow over a more protracted period but would include #8 turnouts diamonds and slips in 82FB as well as curved points and 3-way for 75BH.

 

Leaving that for the more distant future, it seems to me that the initial range needs 11 moulds, 9 assembly jigs and some other tooling for producing crossings, checkrails and the like. Not forgetting some vacform tooling to produce some eco-friendly packaging. None of the mouldings would need to be very big so tooling costs should not be that excessive.

 

It really ought to be a goer. So why hasn't it happened?

 

I think it may be that all the previous manufacturers (not just Peco, not just in the UK) have made the same mistake that they used to make with locomotives: trying to produce something that works both as a scale model and as a toy. The sort of product that we are looking at here - not dissimilar to  an SMP plastic based point - is quite fragile until laid in place on the layout. But for our purposes, that is absolutely fine.

 

I've been reading with interest and liking the way it's going now. Although I do build my own BH turnouts it's time consuming and I'm never 100% happy with the consistency and reliability so anything ready-to-run or even a simple kit with a plastic base with thread on components would be most welcome. The Lima modular system also looked most interesting.

 

One thing that annoys me about C&L plain BH track is the thin underscale sleeper height - I believe it's like this so as to be compatible with copper clad turnouts. It makes it difficult to ballast and the web becomes very prominent (almost to the top of the sleeper) meaning you have to cut it out as ballasting over it brings the ballast too high to the rail and you lose the tell-tale open look that's typical of BH track. I think SMP may be thicker but also still underscale. So this is something I'd like see rectified in any new system and it would also help with robustness.

 

Another thought is that (I think) the Tillig turnouts have a degree of in-built flexibility allowing some curvature of straight turnouts. Is this something that could be incorporated into our proposal?

[Mythocentric]

Well, I think that we may just about have refined down what is and is not possible. And hopefully I have gained a bit more idea of what folks would want. From that, I think one could establish a list in order of priority for the first phase.

 

1) 60' (2 x 30' = 120mm) sleeper base with integrally moulded chairs (75BH). Modeller to thread rail (supplied).

2) 60' (2 x 30' = 120mm) sleeper base with integrally moulded fixings (82FB). Modeller to thread rail (supplied).

3) A6 turnout LH - 75BH (consisting of an LH A switch unit and a #6 crossing)

4) A6 turnout RH - 75BH (consisting of an RH A switch unit and a #6 crossing)

5) B8 turnout LH - 75BH (consisting of an LH B switch unit and a #8 crossing)

6) B8 turnout RH - 75BH (consisting of an RH B switch unit and a #8 crossing)

7) #8 diamond - 75BH (consisting of a K crossing unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

8) #8 single slip - 75BH (consisting of single slip unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

9) #8 double slip - 75BH (consisting of double slip unit and 2 #8 crossing units)

 

All the first phase would need to be launched together or in close succession. The rest could follow over a more protracted period but would include #8 turnouts diamonds and slips in 82FB as well as curved points and 3-way for 75BH.

 

Leaving that for the more distant future, it seems to me that the initial range needs 11 moulds, 9 assembly jigs and some other tooling for producing crossings, checkrails and the like. Not forgetting some vacform tooling to produce some eco-friendly packaging. None of the mouldings would need to be very big so tooling costs should not be that excessive.

 

It really ought to be a goer. So why hasn't it happened?

 

I think it may be that all the previous manufacturers (not just Peco, not just in the UK) have made the same mistake that they used to make with locomotives: trying to produce something that works both as a scale model and as a toy. The sort of product that we are looking at here - not dissimilar to  an SMP plastic based point - is quite fragile until laid in place on the layout. But for our purposes, that is absolutely fine.

 

Well summed-up Joseph! Hopefully we can now develop the idea to a proposal for any interested manufacturer if we keep our heads together. Perhaps we could engage Wayne Kinney's interest given his superb N guage product, (which at least prove to the doubters that it can be done and possibly take their silly heads off and think for a change!). I should think that if Wayne is successful, and I sincerely hope he is, it will at least raise a few eyebrows amongst the powers-that-be in the industry proving that it is a long-overdue development.

 

As a next step to guage (no pun intended!) interest I wonder if it would be permitted to arrange a small poll of the membership of RMWeb regarding the proposal. I would think that it would at least give us a reasonable indication of a potential initial market for such a product. Perhaps a word with Andy Y as to conducting it at some point.

 

Regards

 

Bill

Edited December 12, 2013 by Mythocentric

[gordon s]

Only just caught up with this thread

Ready to lay, better looking OO track, particularly points is long, long overdue

 

The number of times I've spoken to modellers and modelling pals,

about this very subject is incredible....

Surely underlining that there IS a market for it....

 

C'mon Peco - wake up - there's an opportunity here....

I've built quite a few points over the years, in OO and EM gauge

Although I do like seeing the result

It's not a job I enjoy that much

and usually find the tiebar arrangement nowhere near as reliable and durable as an RTR point

 

I'm not sure where the opportunity for Peco is.  Those that build their own track will continue to do so.  If Peco build the new product, people will buy it, but the odds are those are the same people that bought Peco before, so where is the opportunity?  All they are doing is replacing one product income with another.  The additional sales as such are small...

 

There is an opportunity that a newcomer could tool up the product and take market share from Peco, that I can see, but the risk is always that Peco will kill any newcomer at source by suddenly offering the product we all want.  Investing a large sum of money with such a possibility is a risk indeed.  Of course there are ways to mitigate that via pricing and margin return, but it is still a risky strategy.  

 

Think about the games multinationals get up to with their pricing and distributor network should a competitor try to take market share...

[martin_wynne]

I take your point about wheels dropping into the gap on a long crossing and have certainly encountered it on curved turnouts of soldered construction.

 

Here we go again.

 

Wheels will only drop into crossings if they are too narrow for the track standard. It doesn't matter how long the crossing, they will not drop in if they are the correct width. For 00-BF and DOGA Intermediate the minimum wheel width is 2.8mm (RP25/110). Partly the trade is too blame for this misunderstanding by selling the same 2.3mm wheels (RP25/88) for 00 as they do for EM.

 

The solution however is to adopt the 00-SF standard (EM minus 2). With 1.0mm flangeways as for EM, 2.3mm wheels will not drop into the crossing no matter how long it is.

 

The 00-SF geometry is simple. The widest part of the crossing gap is just in front of the nose of the vee. That's two 1.0mm flangeways plus the width of the blunt nose (0.25mm if to scale). Total gap width 2.25mm, or less if sharp-nose vees are used. An object 2.3mm wide cannot fall into a gap 2.25mm wide.

 

This topic is going over and over again stuff which has already been gone over a dozen times. And repeating all the same misunderstandings yet again.

 

Martin.

[The Stationmaster]

better looking but still not round like a wheel......

 

OO is fundametally wrong, if you make it more like SMP it looks narrow gauge..... I can live with that for my OO stuff but if I want proper Ill go back to P4 which might be harder but is also righter

 

Pink Fish time Mickey - the thread is about 00 (so it started wrong and it's staying wrong and everyone seems aware of that).

 

 

I'm not sure where the opportunity for Peco is.  Those that build their own track will continue to do so.  If Peco build the new product, people will buy it, but the odds are those are the same people that bought Peco before, so where is the opportunity?  All they are doing is replacing one product income with another.  The additional sales as such are small...

 

There is an opportunity that a newcomer could tool up the product and take market share from Peco, that I can see, but the risk is always that Peco will kill any newcomer at source by suddenly offering the product we all want.  Investing a large sum of money with such a possibility is a risk indeed.  Of course there are ways to mitigate that via pricing and margin return, but it is still a risky strategy.  

 

Think about the games multinationals get up to with their pricing and distributor network should a competitor try to take market share...

 

Alas I think you are right Gordon.  This is one reason why I would prefer to see a range start with BH rail and thus not be quite such a head-on clash with Peco.  The market will then decide - assuming it is a level playing field which in itself is a risk of course - so ideally it should be a new entrant who at the appropriate moment as Peco try to tread all over him will sell out to them.  But I still think my money might be a tad safer in the bank than investing in production facilities for a new range of BH pointwork.  I'd be more than happy to pay the price a premium product s likely to command but I'm far from keen to empty the piggy bank to stake the manufacturer I'm sorry to say.

[Peter Bedding]

Joseph has asked why our ideas are not "a goer".

 

I would venture to suggest it is because none of us here are committing any risk capital to underwrite our ideas.

 

The late CJF once related an anecdote about a situation which has similarities to the present. Throughout the 1950s there had been much froth concerning the errors and compromises of 00, and some radical chaps had proposed specifications for EM and EEM track and wheels. Mr Peco took this seriously, and started work on producing hardware for EM. Then along came a fresh group of chaps with some fairly harsh criticism of the other EM people and their recommendations, and proceeded to launch a series of ideas for yet another title, Peethree or some such. At this stage, Mr Peco was quoted as saying "they don't know what they do want", abandoned further interest in EM, and went back to the certainties of H0 and 00.

 

Which is, some 40/50 years later, where we are now. 

 

I have no interest in veiled suggestions of a solution from the far side of the Equator. When it is in the shops, I can make an informed choice. Until then, the track I bought for MoF has some merits which cannot be overstated. Viewed sideways on, the worst errors tend to disappear. Viewed from any angle, it works reliably, time after time after time, and I could afford it.

 

PB

[Jeff Smith]

I'm not sure where the opportunity for Peco is.  Those that build their own track will continue to do so.  If Peco build the new product, people will buy it, but the odds are those are the same people that bought Peco before, so where is the opportunity?  All they are doing is replacing one product income with another.  The additional sales as such are small...

I'm not so sure about that assumption. Some people build their own track out of frustration but may well opt for a ready to lay Peco product if it satisfied their appearance (and performance) requirements. I wonder if code 100 sales are still strong - perhaps it is time to cut back code 100 production and switch to a new product line. There are other code 100 HO products out there as well as code 100 set-track for anyone still running large flanged wheels. Also, I would imagine that the Code 83 HO range would satisfy the US market so why persist with code 100 and code 75 HO?

[Clive Mortimore]

Joseph has asked why our ideas are not "a goer".

 

I would venture to suggest it is because none of us here are committing any risk capital to underwrite our ideas.

 

The late CJF once related an anecdote about a situation which has similarities to the present. Throughout the 1950s there had been much froth concerning the errors and compromises of 00, and some radical chaps had proposed specifications for EM and EEM track and wheels. Mr Peco took this seriously, and started work on producing hardware for EM. Then along came a fresh group of chaps with some fairly harsh criticism of the other EM people and their recommendations, and proceeded to launch a series of ideas for yet another title, Peethree or some such. At this stage, Mr Peco was quoted as saying "they don't know what they do want", abandoned further interest in EM, and went back to the certainties of H0 and 00.

 

Which is, some 40/50 years later, where we are now. 

 

I have no interest in veiled suggestions of a solution from the far side of the Equator. When it is in the shops, I can make an informed choice. Until then, the track I bought for MoF has some merits which cannot be overstated. Viewed sideways on, the worst errors tend to disappear. Viewed from any angle, it works reliably, time after time after time, and I could afford it.

 

PB

Hi Peter

 

If you read through the thread you might notice that some of the people confusing things have a vested interest in model railway track and the concept of ready to lay 00 track might not be in their interest.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[Craigw]

Hi Peter

 

If you read through the thread you might notice that some of the people confusing things have a vested interest in model railway track and the concept of ready to lay 00 track might not be in their interest.

 

Clive,

 

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next aluminium foil hat wearing cupboard dweller, but let us be realistic here.

 

The main person pointing things out is Martin who produces Templot - for free. 

 

Templot will still be downloaded and installed - for free - by people who work in scales or gauges other than OO.

 

So, where or what is this vested interest?

 

Regards,

 

Craigw

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Yes, it's all gone a bit Dan Brown all of a sudden... I'm pretty sure Martin isn't a member of the Knights Templar

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not sure where the opportunity for Peco is.  Those that build their own track will continue to do so.  If Peco build the new product, people will buy it, but the odds are those are the same people that bought Peco before, so where is the opportunity?  All they are doing is replacing one product income with another.  The additional sales as such are small...

 

There is an opportunity that a newcomer could tool up the product and take market share from Peco, that I can see, but the risk is always that Peco will kill any newcomer at source by suddenly offering the product we all want.  Investing a large sum of money with such a possibility is a risk indeed.  Of course there are ways to mitigate that via pricing and margin return, but it is still a risky strategy.  

 

Think about the games multinationals get up to with their pricing and distributor network should a competitor try to take market share...

 

Gordon, I raised this issue a couple of pages back. I totally agree that it is a key issue but I think that I know a way to mitigate the risk.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Clive,

 

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next aluminium foil hat wearing cupboard dweller, but let us be realistic here.

 

The main person pointing things out is Martin who produces Templot - for free. 

 

Templot will still be downloaded and installed - for free - by people who work in scales or gauges other than OO.

 

So, where or what is this vested interest?

 

Regards,

 

Craigw

 

I don't think that Clive was referring to Martin. As you say, Martin gains nothing from Templot as free software.

 

But I should like to place on record that Martin's knowledge has been greatly useful to this thread and helped my thinking on the matter.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Yes, it's all gone a bit Dan Brown all of a sudden... I'm pretty sure Martin isn't a member of the Knights Templar

 

meh, i should have said 'the Knights Templot'

 

Missed an open goal, I blame the 11 hour work days 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Let's not make it personal when it comes to financing a project like this. The question is simply whether it can be done profitably or not. If it can be done profitably, someone should invest even if they have no interest at all in model railways and have never heard of RMWeb.

 

Perhaps I should go on Dragons' Den?

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I'd try Mr Waterman or some other rail friendly entrepreneur first....

[Budgie]

Also, I would imagine that the Code 83 HO range would satisfy the US market so why persist with code 100 and code 75 HO?

I think you would be surprised. Other manufacturers (such as Atlas) persist with code 100, as well as Peco, so there must be a market for it.

[Godders]

I was tempted to go for #7 as a compromise solution with the great advantage of a common crossing angle throughout the entire range. If I can master Peco's tricks and bend the rules of geometry, that could still be an option.

 

For realism though, it looks rather strange if points on main running lines are to the same size as those in goods yards etc.

 

I take your point about wheels dropping into the gap on a long crossing and have certainly encountered it on curved turnouts of soldered construction. We have to be realistic about that and say that if we want realistic looking (or as realistic as possible at 16.5mm gauge) pointwork, it is only going to work with the sort of fine flanges that we see these days and consistent back-to-back settings.

 

I know your heart is in the right place but please learn more track geometry before you go any further. The first thing you need to do is decide on gauge standards. As far as I can see this hasn't been mentioned by you. My suggestion is to adopt the 00-sf standards as they are proven by the EM gauge boys to work correctly. Secondly please don't go down the " Peco's tricks and bend the rules of geometry" route as that's what got us this problem in the first place. Thirdly if you knew anything about track geometry you would realise that if you adopted one crossing angle all the straight forward trackwork would work together. By this I mean the range should initially comprise say; all 1 in 6 or all 1 in 7, then by changing the switches you could get differing lengths of turnout that would be more suitable for either mainline or shunting sidings. You should also be able to build some flexibility into the assembly in the way that Tillig do, to enable curved situations within limits.

Despite all this you will never get to a position where every track configuration could be built.

 

Martin Wynne has tried to point you in the right direction, try to get him or one of his followers to advise on geometry.

[Clive Mortimore]

Here we go again.

 

Wheels will only drop into crossings if they are too narrow for the track standard. It doesn't matter how long the crossing, they will not drop in if they are the correct width. For 00-BF and DOGA Intermediate the minimum wheel width is 2.8mm (RP25/110). Partly the trade is too blame for this misunderstanding by selling the same 2.3mm wheels (RP25/88) for 00 as they do for EM.

 

The solution however is to adopt the 00-SF standard (EM minus 2). With 1.0mm flangeways as for EM, 2.3mm wheels will not drop into the crossing no matter how long it is.

 

The 00-SF geometry is simple. The widest part of the crossing gap is just in front of the nose of the vee. That's two 1.0mm flangeways plus the width of the blunt nose (0.25mm if to scale). Total gap width 2.25mm, or less if sharp-nose vees are used. An object 2.3mm wide cannot fall into a gap 2.25mm wide.

 

This topic is going over and over again stuff which has already been gone over a dozen times. And repeating all the same misunderstandings yet again.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

Apart from being narower than normal 00, 00-SF would not be any good for those of us who have older models and have not rewheeled them.

 

I suppose I best bin these instead of finishing them.

 

[Godders]

Hi Martin

 

Apart from being narower than normal 00, 00-SF would not be any good for those of us who have older models and have not rewheeled them.

 

I suppose I best bin these instead of finishing them.

 

010a.jpg

If you want the track to look better you have to reduce the flangeways. The justification for modifying peco track is to bring it more into line with recent rolling stock standards. What is the point of better looking track with steam roller wheels.