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

[Clive Mortimore]

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.

Hi Godders

 

I was using my models as an example. There are many modellers out in RTR land that would like a more British looking ready to play track but will not part with their older models or rewheel them. Having worked in a model shop and given the task of servicing locomotives I know there are varying levels of abilities so rewheeling would be a no-no to a vast number of customers. Even removing the bodies of the locos was outside of the competences of some people. Do we as a vocal part of the hobby tell these modellers that they cannot have British 00 track. They must continue to use H0. What is the point of this thread if we are going to turn away most 00 modellers?

 

By the way the blue one is on Hornby ringfield power bogies and will go through this.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[Godders]

Hi Clive 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, I have enough experience to realise what you say is true regarding skills. My personal thoughts are as stated earlier, by all means upgrade the track but don't expect that there won't be casualties. I believe this is now known as collateral damage. I see from your post that you are no mean track builder and I can see how many people would be jealous of your ability to put it on the dining table. Joking apart, I think you are exaggerating the number of people who would want to build new layouts with new track and then run antique stock on it. I think even on RMWeb there are insufficient people interested to make this project viable. Unless the protagonists up their game and produce written track specifications soon this will fade away.

 

Cheers Godders

[gordon s]

Come on Mickey, there's no place for personal attacks on RMweb.  By all means ask the question, but let's keep it civil...

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

If you re-read all of the thread, you should understand that I have a good knowledge of the basics. I rather expect that every single RMWeb member understands that a #6 turnout goes with another #6 turnout, etc. But within the confines of following the real thing, we can only go so far by altering the switches (A6 or B6, B8 or C8, etc).

 

From an engineering viewpoint, I'm not really convinced by Tillig's flexible turnouts, but I might buy one to deconstruct.

[Godders]

If you re-read all of the thread, you should understand that I have a good knowledge of the basics. I rather expect that every single RMWeb member understands that a #6 turnout goes with another #6 turnout, etc. But within the confines of following the real thing, we can only go so far by altering the switches (A6 or B6, B8 or C8, etc).

 

From an engineering viewpoint, I'm not really convinced by Tillig's flexible turnouts, but I might buy one to deconstruct.

 

Hi Joseph

 

Believe you me I have read and re-read the thread. I think you over estimate the knowledge that people on RMWeb have. However my main point of contention was the possibility of even considering Peco's geometry. I can see no advantage whatsover in their geometry and cannot find a reason for wanting to use it. Actually I would like someone to explain why it is used at all.

 

Cheers Godders

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Clive 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, I have enough experience to realise what you say is true regarding skills. My personal thoughts are as stated earlier, by all means upgrade the track but don't expect that there won't be casualties. I believe this is now known as collateral damage. I see from your post that you are no mean track builder and I can see how many people would be jealous of your ability to put it on the dining table. Joking apart, I think you are exaggerating the number of people who would want to build new layouts with new track and then run antique stock on it. I think even on RMWeb there are insufficient people interested to make this project viable. Unless the protagonists up their game and produce written track specifications soon this will fade away.

 

Cheers Godders

 

You are both right about skills. I used to see any number of people who were surprised that a loco ran badly. "Have you cleaned the wheels?" "No, should I have?" 

 

Even now, go into a shop and purchase ten OO items. Will they have the same wheel standards? No, not even stuff from the same manufacturer. So that is a massive problem. As I wrote a few pages back, even Code 100 Streamline has adapted over the years (three versions at least).

 

Peco 124BH used to get round that (and may still) with adjustable rails but I don't think that's an option for OO.

 

The main thing that OO modellers want is better looking sleepers at better spacing. They are quite happy with the interface between their rolling stock and the Peco rails/crossings. So the engineering is, for the moment, secondary. 

 

This thread could easily get bogged down in engineering technicalities. That would be counter-productive as most modellers are not that interested in that aspect (if they are, they build their own trackwork).

 

No, it's about the business aspect - understanding the market. If the business research which follows on from this concludes that there is a sufficient market, then is the time to deal with the engineering which, like most R&D, will be conducted away from the glare of publicity.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph

 

Believe you me I have read and re-read the thread. I think you over estimate the knowledge that people on RMWeb have. However my main point of contention was the possibility of even considering Peco's geometry. I can see no advantage whatsover in their geometry and cannot find a reason for wanting to use it. Actually I would like someone to explain why it is used at all.

 

Cheers Godders

 

There is some advantage to having the same angle on all pointwork (but also some disadvantages). If you have read the thread, you will know that I am very critical of the 12 degree angle of Peco. I can see why they used it for 24" radius points 50 years ago but not why they have persisted with it.

 

I certainly see no need to ape it as any layout that used both Peco and another range would presumably have just one interface point and that on plain line somewhere (preferably hidden off-scene)..

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, I have enough experience to realise what you say is true regarding skills. My personal thoughts are as stated earlier, by all means upgrade the track but don't expect that there won't be casualties. I believe this is now known as collateral damage. I see from your post that you are no mean track builder and I can see how many people would be jealous of your ability to put it on the dining table. Joking apart, I think you are exaggerating the number of people who would want to build new layouts with new track and then run antique stock on it. I think even on RMWeb there are insufficient people interested to make this project viable. Unless the protagonists up their game and produce written track specifications soon this will fade away.

 

Cheers Godders

Hi Godders

 

I am not sure that written track specifications are the way to go. My feeling is to try and demonstrate that what is on offer to those who do not have the ability to make their own turnouts and crossings could look better and be more suitable with our modern models. As a group we need to be able to prove that there is a market for better looking track.

 

I think the manufacturers should decide what route they should go down, bullhead or flat bottom, "Peco" type geometry or to use something close to scale (scale of course would be P4). We should be willing to give any one developing a new model track system our combined wealth of information to help them. 

 

As for your question about why people use Peco's geometry. Open the box, shake out the point, push on the fishplates, ram on the three tracks, wrap the wires from the controller around the ends of the track to the point switch, put the loco on the track, power up and play. I track lay a layout quicker using Peco that I can build a single point.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[Jeff Smith]

What is really meant by "Peco's geometry"? I know that two same hand and size points result in a consistent double track spacing but surely the common crossing angle is different for the different length points?

[Jeff Smith]

Just looked back at #193 and realised that maybe the same crossing angle is used for long and short points.

[Godders]

Just had a think and have come up with a possible answer to the Peco geometry question. If you connect a small radius turnout with a large radius turnout the main roads will be parallel and 50.8mm centres. This is paradoxical because that is only possible if the crossing angles are equal, which they are clearly not. The small radius angle turnout is 1 in 4.7, the large radius turnout angle is 1 in 5.93. However, what we have ignored is that the small radius turnout has a straight section at the end of the branch connection and this is tangent to the branch connection of the large radius turnout which is curved. The question is why would you want to connect  these two items. The answer is no but the geometry of the slip is based on the small radius turnout and has the same crossing angle, this enables the slip to be short and connect with everything thus reducing the number of components in the range.

 

cheers godders

[Pacific231G]

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. 

 

 

Most of the "froth" was between 4mm/ft and 3.5mm/ft scale for 16.5mm (00 GAUGE) track during the 1920s. By the mid 1930s most (though by no means all) small scale modellers had settled on 4mm/ft scale.

 

During the war, with manufacturing closed down, the model railway magazine editors met together as the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau to develop standards. They seem to have assumed that scale modellers would go for "00 Fine Scale" using 18mm gauge rather than sticking with 16.5mm. That never really happened and the BRMSB rechristened "00 FS" as EM in 1948. Peco were advertising "Individulay" track for both 00 and EM and with both BH and FB rail until at least the end of 1951 but their newer Peco-Way assembled track was AFAIK only available in16.5mm gauge but sleepering was still to BRMSB standard. 

 

Cyril Freezer was one of the minority of small scale modellers who took up EM after the war and, as a GWR enthusiast,  even attempted mixed gauge track using 18mm and 28mm. He did  though describe a mixed gauge crossover as like "three double slips jangled up together by a maniacal engineer with a grudge against the human race"  so went for something simpler loosely based on Ashburton. He described all this in "My Notebook" in the January 1952 Railway Modeller.

 

An article in the same edition includes these words "Having mastered soldering, no difficulty should be experienced in making your own points to any formation.....there is a great deal of fun and a lot of satisfaction in making your own. Our advice then is Have a Go! We know of nothing of nothing more satisfying to the home constructor than to see for himself how smoothly the rolling stock passes over a point of his own construction"  The author of the article was none other than "Mr. Peco" - Sydney Pritchard- a few months after he had taken Railway Modeller over from Ian Allan along with its editor Cyril Freezer.

 

Curiously Freezer's notebook in that edition seems to have been the last time he ever mentioned EM in terms of his own modelling though he certainly featured plenty of EM layouts. This suggest that Sydney Pritchard had by then decided to focus entirely on 16.5mm gauge track so didn't want his editor advocating something else. That was though a very long time before the Model Railway Study Group started advocating P4 in the mid 1960s.

[Joseph_Pestell]

What is really meant by "Peco's geometry"? I know that two same hand and size points result in a consistent double track spacing but surely the common crossing angle is different for the different length points?

 

That's what you would  expect. And indeed, further study has showed that the angles are slightly different but by making a few other adjustments Peco has created a range which is all compatible in angles so that one can make up a crossover from 1 short-radius (604mm) and 1 long-radius (1524mm) point.

[Clive Mortimore]

Most of the "froth" was between 4mm/ft and 3.5mm/ft scale for 16.5mm (00 GAUGE) track during the 1920s. By the mid 1930s most (though by no means all) small scale modellers had settled on 4mm/ft scale.

 

During the war, with manufacturing closed down, the model railway magazine editors met together as the British Railway Modelling Standards Bureau to develop standards. They seem to have assumed that scale modellers would go for "00 Fine Scale" using 18mm gauge rather than sticking with 16.5mm. That never really happened and the BRMSB rechristened "00 FS" as EM in 1948. Peco were advertising "Individulay" track for both 00 and EM and with both BH and FB rail until at least the end of 1951 but their newer Peco-Way assembled track was AFAIK only available in16.5mm gauge but sleepering was still to BRMSB standard. 

 

Cyril Freezer was one of the minority of small scale modellers who took up EM after the war and, as a GWR enthusiast,  even attempted mixed gauge track using 18mm and 28mm. He did  though describe a mixed gauge crossover as like "three double slips jangled up together by a maniacal engineer with a grudge against the human race"  so went for something simpler loosely based on Ashburton. He described all this in "My Notebook" in the January 1952 Railway Modeller.

 

An article in the same edition includes these words "Having mastered soldering, no difficulty should be experienced in making your own points to any formation.....there is a great deal of fun and a lot of satisfaction in making your own. Our advice then is Have a Go! We know of nothing of nothing more satisfying to the home constructor than to see for himself how smoothly the rolling stock passes over a point of his own construction"  The author of the article was none other than "Mr. Peco" - Sydney Pritchard- a few months after he had taken Railway Modeller over from Ian Allan along with its editor Cyril Freezer.

 

Curiously Freezer's notebook in that edition seems to have been the last time he ever mentioned EM in terms of his own modelling though he certainly featured plenty of EM layouts. This suggest that Sydney Pritchard had by then decided to focus entirely on 16.5mm gauge track so didn't want his editor advocating something else. That was though a very long time before the Model Railway Study Group started advocating P4 in the mid 1960s.

Hi David

 

I think Peco's decision might have been influenced by Hornby Doublo, Tri-ang, Graham Farish and Trix all using 16.5mm track. This is still the position today that the main manufacturers produce their models to run on 16.5mm track. Now I believe we are in a chicken and egg situation which is going to be very hard to get away from, the models are built to run on 16.5mm track so we need to make 16.5mm track, but we make the models to 16.5mm because that is the track that is produced. The history of how we arrived in this state is very interesting but we need to move forward at convince the various manufacturers that a track work system that looks like 4mm British track is what we the British railway modellers would like in place of the H0 continental or US systems on offer today.

 

Any 00 track system will be a compromise simply because it is 00 but the likes of Marcway and C&L have shown that visually things can be better, but as we have discussed these systems are not suitable for everyone as they are not ready to play like Hornby or Peco.

 

Any new system has to be the step from train set to railway modelling replacing the route that many of us have taken in the past.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sorry, I forgot to reply earlier to a post which commented on the thinness of C&L and SMP sleepers.

 

I think that is a very valid point. I can remember finding it very hard to ballast SMP in a way which looked good, at least so far as the running lines were concerned. It was all too flat.

 

Plastic is not that expensive and I think that it is worth having the sleepers to scale depth as well as scale width. Dr G-F's picture of the fiNetrax point shows the sort of thing to aim for.

 

Perhaps worth making the sleeper base for 82FB that bit thinner than for 75BH so that it is easy to join the two.

[Pacific231G]

Clive Mortimore, on 13 Dec 2013 - 08:48, said:

 

Hi David

 

I think Peco's decision might have been influenced by Hornby Doublo, Tri-ang, Graham Farish and Trix all using 16.5mm track. This is still the position today that the main manufacturers produce their models to run on 16.5mm track. Now I believe we are in a chicken and egg situation which is going to be very hard to get away from, the models are built to run on 16.5mm track so we need to make 16.5mm track, but we make the models to 16.5mm because that is the track that is produced. The history of how we arrived in this state is very interesting but we need to move forward at convince the various manufacturers that a track work system that looks like 4mm British track is what we the British railway modellers would like in place of the H0 continental or US systems on offer today.

 

Any 00 track system will be a compromise simply because it is 00 but the likes of Marcway and C&L have shown that visually things can be better, but as we have discussed these systems are not suitable for everyone as they are not ready to play like Hornby or Peco.

 

Any new system has to be the step from train set to railway modelling replacing the route that many of us have taken in the past.

Hi Clive

There would never have been any question of Peco NOT making components and track for 16.5mm. By the late 1940s when the company was founded 16.5mm was firmly established as the most popular option for 4mm/ft and GEM and Graham Farish were only offering their track ranges in that gauge. However Peco's "Individulay" offerings were advertised as being suitable for both 16.5 and 18mm. Since the B.R.M.S.B. standards for things like check rail clearances, tyre and flange width and so on were the same for both 00 and EM most of the components would have been common and the main difference was the spacing of the holes in sleepers to take the chairs. Peco also offered their "insulaxles", for modellers moving from 3 to 2 rail, for both 16.5 and 18mm gauge so must have anticipated a decent market for EM by the "average enthusiast" that in the end never really materialised.

 

When Peco introduced "Pecoway" ready assembled track this was only for 00 but they may have judged that anyone working in EM was likely to be at least assembling their own track and pointwork if not building it from scratch.

 

So far as I can tell from Peco's advertising and Sydney Pritchard's column in Railway Modellers of the early 1950s, the fibre based Pecoway did generally follow B.R.M.S.B. standards for sleepering etc. I don't know when they decided to build their ready assembled track to H0 scale instead but it may have come with the arrival of Streamline.

 

Though it's not widely advertised by them, Peco Individulay components using code 82 FB rail are still available in 4mm scale though the range seems to be limited to rail, sleepers (including point sleepering), spikes, Pandrol type rail fastenings, and slide rail base plates for points along with a track gauge for 16.5, 18.2 and 18.83 gauge. I think the range used to include crossing Vs, wing rails and possibly check rails.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Clive

There would never have been any question of Peco NOT making components and track for 16.5mm. By the late 1940s when the company was founded 16.5mm was firmly established as the most popular option for 4mm/ft and GEM and Graham Farish were only offering their track ranges in that gauge. However Peco's "Individulay" offerings were advertised as being suitable for both 16.5 and 18mm. Since the B.R.M.S.B. standards for things like check rail clearances, tyre and flange width and so on were the same for both 00 and EM most of the components would have been common and the main difference was the spacing of the holes in sleepers to take the chairs. Peco also offered their "insulaxles", for modellers moving from 3 to 2 rail, for both 16.5 and 18mm gauge so must have anticipated a decent market for EM by the "average enthusiast" that in the end never really materialised.

 

When Peco introduced "Pecoway" ready assembled track this was only for 00 but they may have judged that anyone working in EM was likely to be at least assembling their own track and pointwork if not building it from scratch.

 

So far as I can tell from Peco's advertising and Sydney Pritchard's column in Railway Modellers of the early 1950s, the fibre based Pecoway did generally follow B.R.M.S.B. standards for sleepering etc. I don't know when they decided to build their ready assembled track to H0 scale instead but it may have come with the arrival of Streamline.

 

Though it's not widely advertised by them, Peco Individulay components using code 82 are still available in 4mm scale though it seems to be limited to rail, sleepers (including point sleepering), Pandrol type rail fastenings and slide rail base plates, and spikes along with a track gauge for 16.5, 18.2 and 18.83 gauge. I think the range used to include crossing Vs, wing rails and possibly check rails.

 

You are right that the HO sleepering originated with Streamline which dates, I think, from 1960 (perhaps 61).

 

I don't recall crossings, wing rails, etc. ever having been available in 4mm scale Individulay, possibly the reason it never really took off despite looking very good. They were (are?) for O.

[Pacific231G]

You are right that the HO sleepering originated with Streamline which dates, I think, from 1960 (perhaps 61).

 

I don't recall crossings, wing rails, etc. ever having been available in 4mm scale Individulay, possibly the reason it never really took off despite looking very good. They were (are?) for O.

And definitely still for gauge 1

I've just found Pritchard's articles on point construction using Individulay in the 1953 RM and they supplied a cast frog with special frog chairs, as well as pre made point blades. Check rails were to be made up by the builder and then "soldered to slide chairs using the rollagauge to ensure they are at the correct distance from the wing rail on the frog. This dimension is most important"  The resulting turnout would have been to a standard size that was probably equivalent to a nominal three foot radius which seems to have been the norm at that time.

[martin_wynne]

You are right that the HO sleepering originated with Streamline which dates, I think, from 1960 (perhaps 61).

 

I remember the introduction of Peco Streamline flexitrack. The H0 scale was actually made an advertising feature with the slogan "the finescale longer look". This was I think Peco's first product using plastic injection moulding, and the explanation given at the time was that it enabled them to expand into worldwide markets and earn a better return on what would have been a substantial investment. Perhaps also the thinking in the Peco boardroom (the most secretive place on earth) was that with the rest of the world adopting H0 for RTR models, it would only be a matter of time before the UK RTR makers did the same. Anyone remember Playcraft? -- introduced at the same time (1961): http://www.playcraftrailways.com

 

That didn't happen, but having started in H0 they had little choice but to continue a matching range of pointwork. No doubt the overseas profits also had a bearing on the matter.

 

I recall that matching pointwork was promised at the introduction, but there was a wait before the first matching turnout became available, from memory the short 24^o Y-turnout. There were some rather silly track plans published comprised entirely of this turnout. The advantage of starting with a Y-turnout of course is that you don't have to do both hands. Prototypically it doesn't make much sense because the incidence of perfectly symmetrical splt-deflection switches is actually quite low.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 Perhaps also the thinking in the Peco boardroom (the most secretive place on earth) was that with the rest of the world adopting H0 for RTR models, it would only be a matter of time before the UK RTR makers did the same. Anyone remember Playcraft? -- introduced at the same time (1961): http://www.playcraftrailways.com

 

That didn't happen, but having started in H0 they had little choice but to continue a matching range of pointwork. No doubt the overseas profits also had a bearing on the matter.

 

Martin.

 

An interesting point. At that time, Triang (Rovex) only had a small range of OO (including the Princess which probably was HO) and could have made the change quite easily. Trix was also somewhat underscale at about 1:80, had a small range and could have made the change.

 

What a pity that Playcraft was so poor. If it had been just that bit better, it might have taken off and left us on this thread all discussing whether or not to go to P87 standards. By the time Lima tried British HO in the mid70s, it was probably too late (although the low quality of their 4F and 33 probably played a part as well). Fleischmann's Warship and Bulleid stock was probably a slightly strange choice and a bit expensive by UK standards.

[Jeff Smith]

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the Peco code 83 range, made specifically for US/Canadian use, was different to the code 75 range.  Can someone define what the differences are; geometry, sleeper configuration, anything else?  The point of this question is to determine whether Peco completely re-tooled or whether it is just a variation that could be accommodated with existing tooling.

 

Peco has recently made some interesting business decisions, namely code 83 (assuming new tooling) and more recently the L & B 009 rolling stock which has been extensively discussed in other threads.  It's also interesting (and commendable) that some if not all its products are manufactured in the UK.  Other threads have discussed the impossibility of manufacturing Bachmann or Hornby products in the UK as the resulting retail prices are estimated not to be commercially viable.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the Peco code 83 range, made specifically for US/Canadian use, was different to the code 75 range.  Can someone define what the differences are; geometry, sleeper configuration, anything else?  The point of this question is to determine whether Peco completely re-tooled or whether it is just a variation that could be accommodated with existing tooling.

 

Peco has recently made some interesting business decisions, namely code 83 (assuming new tooling) and more recently the L & B 009 rolling stock which has been extensively discussed in other threads.  It's also interesting (and commendable) that some if not all its products are manufactured in the UK.  Other threads have discussed the impossibility of manufacturing Bachmann or Hornby products in the UK as the resulting retail prices are estimated not to be commercially viable.

 

Yes, the American 83 is to completely different geometry and sleeper/tie spacing from the older HO variants of Streamline (see Coachmann's thread on Greenfield). So it would have required entirely new tooling.

 

Because it is based on standard rail geometry (#6 and #8 crossings), the assembly tooling could probably be used as the basis for OO track (83FB) with altered sleepering.

 

So, in a sense, Peco have a headstart - but not for bullhead rail. Perhaps another good reason for a new entrant to focus on BH rather than FB.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[Jeff Smith]

My understanding of the origin of 1/76 was that early small electric motors would not fit into British outline 1/87 due to the more limited loading gauge. This made British locos about the same size or slightly larger than US/European HO ones. This was convenient as the additional width under the footplate accommodated the need for the exaggerated bogie travel to allow 'train set' curves. I believe I read in another thread that some HO locos are wider than scale for this reason despite being to a larger loading gauge.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Jeff Smith

[Pacific231G]

Jeff Smith, on 13 Dec 2013 - 14:23, said:

 

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the Peco code 83 range, made specifically for US/Canadian use, was different to the code 75 range. Can someone define what the differences are; geometry, sleeper configuration, anything else? The point of this question is to determine whether Peco completely re-tooled or whether it is just a variation that could be accommodated with existing tooling.

 

Peco has recently made some interesting business decisions, namely code 83 (assuming new tooling) and more recently the L & B 009 rolling stock which has been extensively discussed in other threads. It's also interesting (and commendable) that some if not all its products are manufactured in the UK. Other threads have discussed the impossibility of manufacturing Bachmann or Hornby products in the UK as the resulting retail prices are estimated not to be commercially viable.

Jeff

The Peco 83 range is made to NMRA standards for RP25 S4 wheels and, according to Peco, based on prototype A.R.E.A. designs. This make the geometry very different from their code 75 and 100 points. Sizes are quoted as frog numbers as is normal in the US with straight track beyond the frog and very different divergence angles. The ties(sleepers) are also to American specs so there are more narrower ties than for their code 75 and 100 ranges which are very close to scale in H0 for European main lines with 60cm sleeper spacings. The two ties either side of the tiebar are extended on the branch side to take a switch stand- again in conformance with the prototype. The American turnouts appear to use the same locking switch mechanism switch and point blade assemblies as Streamline and they are common to all sizes (just as they are for Streamline) and the turnouts are hinged in the same way.

 

If you go to the Peco website you can download pdfs of every turnout in their range to compare them.

 

The range seems to have gone down extremely well with American modellers who find it reliable and realistic. The new track and turnouts both look typically American and do meet NMRA standards so don't suffer from wheel drop with RP25 wheels. That's a positive I remember from my own days of modelling a N. American Railway (Canadian so -way not -road) using Shinohara no 6 and home made turnouts and I dearly wish the NEM and British 00 gauge manufacturers had simply adopted RP25 years ago as we'd all now enjoy much smoother running.

 

America is a huge market for model railroads so for Peco a competitive product for it would make a whole lot of sense (and AFAIK it's all made in Devon not China so a good British export story)

 

I wonder how the 83 line's metalwork on a sleeper base based on British sleepering would go down here? Would most modern products from Hornby and Bachmann work well on NMRA spec. track?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

My understanding of the origin of 1/76 was that early small electric motors would not fit into British outline 1/87 due to the more limited loading gauge. This made British locos about the same size or slightly larger than US/European HO ones. This was convenient as the additional width under the footplate accommodated the need for the exaggerated bogie travel to allow 'train set' curves. I believe I read in another thread that some HO locos are wider than scale for this reason despite being to a larger loading gauge.

 

As a brief historical summary that is right. It has happened over and over again through the decades. Real O scale is 1:48 (quarter inch to the foot) not 1:43.5, real TT is 1:120 not 1:100 and real N is 1:160 not 1:148. Even 1 scale has proponents at 1:30 and 1:29 when it should really be 1:32 (three/eights inch to the foot).