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

[martin_wynne]

If a decently fine, ie narrow top rail was used, like the Tillig or SMP BH, then the standard OO wheels look even worse, especially on a steam locomotive.

 

SMP rail is under scale width (it is only 0.8mm wide).

 

Prototype BS-95R bullhead rail, and most flat-bottom rail, is 2.75" wide at the head, which scales to 0.92mm in 4mm/ft scale.

 

Martin.

Edited December 18, 2013 by martin_wynne

[Dungrange]

Having seen P4 trackwork, I have to say that it looks so much better than Peco Streamline that I want something better.  Unfortunately I probably don't possess the skills to model in P4 and don't have the time to experiment, so I am sticking with 00 for the layout that I am building (albeit I am still on the baseboards).  Having made that decision, and since there are no ready to lay points that look anything like as good as P4 pointwork, I am planning to make a first attempt at building my own points (using the C&L components).  However, if a ready to lay alternative that looks the part were to be marketed in the not too distant future, I would gladly purchase those rather than attempt to build what I want (due to the time saving and probably better running qualities).  So, what would I like.

 

1. Improved sleeper spacing similar to the SMP, C&L and Exctoscale plain line track.  As Martin has highlighted earlier, something that is in effect a 1:76 scale representation of 4' 1.5" gauge track.  Sleepers that are 6" shorter than the prototype and with a closer to scale 2' 6" sleeper spacing.

2. I would prefer scale depth sleepers as I plan to use Exactoscale track (ie 1.6mm depth) rather than 'thin' sleepers.

3. Track standards 00-SF: I initially thought that it was lunacy to narrow the gauge to 16.2 mm, but having read more about 00-SF on RMWeb, I am convinced that is the way to go.

4. I would probably prefer Code 82 Flatbottom rail (being a privatisation era modeller), but would happily purchase Code 75 Bullhead pointwork and I think it is probably a no brainer that commercially it should be the starting point.

5. Continuous point blades.

6. Robust but better looking tie-bars.

7. Prototype geometry rather than 'toy track'.  I would refrain from trying to produce 'short' turnouts to allow modellers to cram in as much track as they can: I don't see these modellers as the target market for better looking track insofar as track tends to look better when the lengths, radii etc are closer to scale.

8. I am not convinced that an extensive range would be required at launch: I would be happy with either a B7 or B8 turnout of both hands.  I wouldn't be interested in a diamond or slip, but I can see these as the next logical step.  Personally I would prefer a tandem (asymetric B8/B8) but the diamond / slips would probably be more popular.

9. Price - probably not commercially viable unless the cost is not any more than Peco Code 75 + 20 per cent.  I'd be willing to pay a bit more insofar as they would still work out cheaper that C&L's 'Turnout in a Bag', but I doubt the turnover would be sufficient to be viable unless the pricing were similar to what Peco offer.

 

I think that's my two-pence worth.  Hopefully we can reach some form of concensus.

 

Regards

 

David

[Joseph_Pestell]

Having seen P4 trackwork, I have to say that it looks so much better than Peco Streamline that I want something better.  Unfortunately I probably don't possess the skills to model in P4 and don't have the time to experiment, so I am sticking with 00 for the layout that I am building (albeit I am still on the baseboards).  Having made that decision, and since there are no ready to lay points that look anything like as good as P4 pointwork, I am planning to make a first attempt at building my own points (using the C&L components).  However, if a ready to lay alternative that looks the part were to be marketed in the not too distant future, I would gladly purchase those rather than attempt to build what I want (due to the time saving and probably better running qualities).  So, what would I like.

 

1. Improved sleeper spacing similar to the SMP, C&L and Exctoscale plain line track.  As Martin has highlighted earlier, something that is in effect a 1:76 scale representation of 4' 1.5" gauge track.  Sleepers that are 6" shorter than the prototype and with a closer to scale 2' 6" sleeper spacing.

2. I would prefer scale depth sleepers as I plan to use Exactoscale track (ie 1.6mm depth) rather than 'thin' sleepers.

3. Track standards 00-SF: I initially thought that it was lunacy to narrow the gauge to 16.2 mm, but having read more about 00-SF on RMWeb, I am convinced that is the way to go.

4. I would probably prefer Code 82 Flatbottom rail (being a privatisation era modeller), but would happily purchase Code 75 Bullhead pointwork and I think it is probably a no brainer that commercially it should be the starting point.

5. Continuous point blades.

6. Robust but better looking tie-bars.

7. Prototype geometry rather than 'toy track'.  I would refrain from trying to produce 'short' turnouts to allow modellers to cram in as much track as they can: I don't see these modellers as the target market for better looking track insofar as track tends to look better when the lengths, radii etc are closer to scale.

8. I am not convinced that an extensive range would be required at launch: I would be happy with either a B7 or B8 turnout of both hands.  I wouldn't be interested in a diamond or slip, but I can see these as the next logical step.  Personally I would prefer a tandem (asymetric B8/B8) but the diamond / slips would probably be more popular.

9. Price - probably not commercially viable unless the cost is not any more than Peco Code 75 + 20 per cent.  I'd be willing to pay a bit more insofar as they would still work out cheaper that C&L's 'Turnout in a Bag', but I doubt the turnover would be sufficient to be viable unless the pricing were similar to what Peco offer.

 

I think that's my two-pence worth.  Hopefully we can reach some form of concensus.

 

Regards

 

David

 

David,

 

Quite a number of interesting matters raised there.

 

I think I misinterpreted Martin's post about 4ft1 1/2 gauge. He clearly did not mean it to be negative.

 

I think that I begin to see the benefit of 16.2mm gauge (OO-SF) but it does seem counter-intuitive to narrow the gauge even further.

 

Unfair to compare with the cost of the C&L kit as that includes a couple of roller gauges which is a one-off expense.

[gordon s]

As a convert and now a committed user of 00-SF, the gauge narrowing is really only in the frog/wing rail area.  This is an area no more than three or four inches long depending on the radii, with the rails flaring out to 16.5mm gauge to join to plain track.  The difference in gauge is just 0.3mm, which when split between the two rails, is a deviation is just 0.15mm or 6 thou in old money.  

 

You really are hard pushed to see such a gauge narrowing, so not really worth worrying about.  The benefits however are huge however, allowing a wide range of wheel standards to run without modification.

[Ramblin Rich]

I'm also keen to see some development in this field, although it's one of those cyclical topics that reappears every year or so. I've built an 00-SF point in copperclad & found the improvement in 'looks' over a RTR Peco point very convincing; the gaps at the the crossing and the check rails is much improved. The running quality is also impressive (even for my bodged-by-eye example) and  I'd definitely advocate 00-SF as the standard to use, it will accomodate virtually all 'modern' stock & my set of points still managed to accomodate a Lima class 31! I was pleased how well it turned out, but if there was a ready-to-run version with chair detail & a bit of flexibility (like the Tillig range) it would tick all the boxes in my mind.

I'd also say that anyone needing to run older stock is probably better off with 'universal' track which will, by definition, not be able to meet the closer standards needed to be 'better looking' (although there might still be a market for universal track with more realisitic sleeper spacing).

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm also keen to see some development in this field, although it's one of those cyclical topics that reappears every year or so. I've built an 00-SF point in copperclad & found the improvement in 'looks' over a RTR Peco point very convincing; the gaps at the the crossing and the check rails is much improved. The running quality is also impressive (even for my bodged-by-eye example) and  I'd definitely advocate 00-SF as the standard to use, it will accomodate virtually all 'modern' stock & my set of points still managed to accomodate a Lima class 31! I was pleased how well it turned out, but if there was a ready-to-run version with chair detail & a bit of flexibility (like the Tillig range) it would tick all the boxes in my mind.

I'd also say that anyone needing to run older stock is probably better off with 'universal' track which will, by definition, not be able to meet the closer standards needed to be 'better looking' (although there might still be a market for universal track with more realisitic sleeper spacing).

 

I dread the word "universal" in this context. It is completely wrong. Universal should mean able to take all wheel standards but no pointwork can do this. Fine wheels will run poorly on flangeways and crossings designed for "pizza cutters". I can see that "coarse scale" is not a term that sounds very appealing to the marketing man but calling it "universal" is as misleading as "the fine scale longer look".

[Pacific231G]

I dread the word "universal" in this context. It is completely wrong. Universal should mean able to take all wheel standards but no pointwork can do this. Fine wheels will run poorly on flangeways and crossings designed for "pizza cutters". I can see that "coarse scale" is not a term that sounds very appealing to the marketing man but calling it "universal" is as misleading as "the fine scale longer look".

I thought universal points were those with closing frogs that don't require check rails so will take anything that will run on plain track. They were once quite popular in the days when proprietary standards didn't go much beyond the gauge. I think Wrenn used to make them and I know that John Ahern used them on the Madder Valley. In principle you can run P87 on 00/H0 track with closing frogs and they didn't look as obviously unrealistic as you might expect.

 

I noticed today while browsing through the latest Model Railroader in WHS that Peco have added an H0n3 range to their North American range (It's Code 70 rather than 83)  More interestingly it's advertised as having a new "Uni-Frog" This is a cast or fabricated metal frog that is insulated at both ends so enabling it to be wired either as an insulfrog or as an electrofrog. From the template the insulation makes it look not quite so good as an electrofrog and oddly the switch doesn't have the extended ties for a switchstand that are normal N. American practice. Also I don't think too many American 3ft gauge lines would have used cast frogs though it's not clear from the template whether it does look more like a casting or a rail built frog.  They currently only offer a #5 switch in H0n3 so would only have to manufacture one frog but I wonder whether this will be rolled out across their range. It would certainly cut down on haivng to market separate electro and insul frog ranges.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Pacific231G

[marc smith]

No, proper EM Gauge uses narrower wheels -- RP25/88 profile (2.3mm wide), as opposed to RP25/110 profile (2.8mm wide) for 00 RTR wheels.

 

It's true that EM will work with RP25/110 RTR wheels widened from 00 -- IF you have room in the model to do it. If you do that you should set such wheels to 16.4mm back-to-back instead of 16.5mm for the usual RP25/88 wheels.

 

Martin.

I've not found a problem yet, when re-gauging the more modern OO wheels to EM

Oddly enough, on my Cashmores scrapyard based EM layout,

all my re-gauged OO wheels run fine

 

But through one particular point (the 3 way)

one set of wheels often takes the "wrong route" over one switch rail

 

... and those wheels? A "proper" Em gauge Ultrascale 08 wheelset!

Even more oddly, a similar Ultrascale 08 wheelset is absolutely fine through the same point

And yes, they have both been checked for Back to back measurements - with the same gauge

 

I have re-wheeled some of my OO wagons with EM wheels purely because I preferred the appearance of the wheels

Most modern OO wheelsets seem to work well when re-gauged to EM

In fact, due to having similar stock

I have forgotten which ones have been re-wheeled and which re-gauged

 

For those doubting whether there is in fact a market for better looking OO track

.... well, there seem to be enough of us on here wanting such a thing

Whenever this topic comes up - there's plenty of interest -  page 14 already!

 

Also, it's quite incorrect to assume people who build their own track would continue to do so

Many build their own track because what they want isn't available

Some would say they enjoy track building, and that's fine

But for others, they do it because they have to

 

Yes, it may cost more to buy track, but time is the most valuable commodity,

and I like many others would prefer to buy good RTR trackwork, if possible

I'm not saying don't build your own track

In fact, I'd recommend building some, to improve your knowledge

 

But take it from me, as your eyesight deteriorates with age

some things become more difficult, and those things you enjoy less become more onerous a task

 

Marc

 

[gordon s]

With regard to pointwork that will accept different wheel standards, you may be interested in these short videos showing the smooth passage of three types of wheel through 00-SF pointwork..

 

Bachmann Class 37 RTR

 

 

Kit built K1with Markit wheels

 

 

Fiatrains LMS 10000 fitted with Ultrascale wheels

 

Edited December 18, 2013 by gordon s

[Joseph_Pestell]

I thought universal points were those with closing frogs that don't require check rails so will take anything that will run on plain track. They were once quite popular in the days when proprietary standards didn't go much beyond the gauge. I think Wrenn used to make them and I know that John Ahern used them on the Madder Valley. In principle you can run P87 on 00/H0 track with closing frogs and they didn't look as obviously unrealistic as you might expect.

 

I noticed today while browsing through the latest Model Railroader in WHS that Peco have added an H0n3 range to their North American range (It's Code 70 rather than 83)  More interestingly it's advertised as having a new "Uni-Frog" This is a cast or fabricated metal frog that is insulated at both ends so enabling it to be wired either as an insulfrog or as an electrofrog. From the template the insulation makes it look not quite so good as an electrofrog and oddly the switch doesn't have the extended ties for a switchstand that are normal N. American practice. Also I don't think too many American 3ft gauge lines would have used cast frogs though it's not clear from the template whether it does look more like a casting or a rail built frog.  They currently only offer a #5 switch in H0n3 so would only have to manufacture one frog but I wonder whether this will be rolled out across their range. It would certainly cut down on haivng to market separate electro and insul frog ranges.

 

It was a surprise to me that they did the US Code 83 range in both insulfrog (plastic) and electrofrog (metal) crossings. Others had shown the way how to allow both DC and DCC operation without the expense of two separate ranges. So this is a logical development.

 

Their US sales must be doing very well to justify this new range.

[Jeff Smith]

I have just been studying the Peco templates on its web-site. If the Code 83 range satisfies the US HO market, why on earth doesn't Peco withdraw the HO Code 75 range and re-tool with UK sleeper bases using the same metalwork??? I believe for all the desire by many to have better geometry they would settle for this.

 

I notice on the Code 83 points what appears to be metal check-rails and smaller closing rail gaps.

[martin_wynne]

Also, it's quite incorrect to assume people who build their own track would continue to do so

Many build their own track because what they want isn't available

 

Many modellers build their own track because it is the only way to follow the prototype. To create flowing pointwork in infinite variety and get the maximum potential from their available space. For example, something like this is never going to be possible using a small range of fixed ready-made pieces, even in the unlikely event it included from the start a contraflexure curved turnout and and a curved crossing:

 

 

From this topic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37186-barnstaple-junction-in-em-gauge/

 

Martin.

[Ramblin Rich]

I dread the word "universal" in this context. It is completely wrong. Universal should mean able to take all wheel standards but no pointwork can do this. Fine wheels will run poorly on flangeways and crossings designed for "pizza cutters". I can see that "coarse scale" is not a term that sounds very appealing to the marketing man but calling it "universal" is as misleading as "the fine scale longer look".

I agree the 'universal' tag is a complete misnomer, which is why I put the quote marks around it! As I said though (and the videos above from Gordon S show convincingly), most modern stock will work on 00-SF and the visual improvement with finer clearances, plus the smooth running make it a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I agree with Martin that hand made is the way to go for complex layouts, but many (if not most) manage with the fixed geometry of Peco and as Marc says above, the balance of time vs convenience would probably swing for out of box product. If there was some flex in the base as per Tillig, it would allow a certain degree of 'personalisation' of the layout.

Having looked at the link the FiNetrax products, even if there was some self-assembly involved, I would be very happy to pay the sort of prices they quote to get the track bases looking so good (plus a degree of markup for larger amount of material involved!). I'm not entirely sure how the kits are presented though - it looks like the blades have to be filed by the user...?

[Dungrange]

David,

 

Quite a number of interesting matters raised there.

 

I think I misinterpreted Martin's post about 4ft1 1/2 gauge. He clearly did not mean it to be negative.

 

I think that I begin to see the benefit of 16.2mm gauge (OO-SF) but it does seem counter-intuitive to narrow the gauge even further.

 

Unfair to compare with the cost of the C&L kit as that includes a couple of roller gauges which is a one-off expense.

 

Joseph,

 

Martin's comment about 00 gauge track being a 4' 1.5" is not negative.  It is a simple fact: 00 gauge track is narrow gauge.  However, when we discuss a desire for better looking 00 track, we want some aspects such as sleeper spacing to be closer to scale, but at the same time, we don't really want to emphasise the narrow gauge.  Anyone that wants perfectly scaled track needs to build their own in S4: the rest of us need to face reality and compromise.  Discussions like this are discussions about finding an acceptable compromise.

 

Regarding the benefits of 00-SF, I agree that it seems counter-intuitive and as I said in my earlier post, I originally thought that it was lunacy.  What is wrong with 16.5 mm gauge plain track (especially if you think about SMP or C&L track)?  Answer: the track gauge is too narrow.  The obvious answer is therefore to increase the track gauge and model in either EM or P4, both of which involve re-gauging / re-wheeling / compensating stock.  A track gauge of 16.2 mm which is moving in the opposite direction doesn't seem to be a logical solution.  Surely someone that proposes a track gauge of 16.2 mm is a lunatic?

 

However, if I subtly change the question to what is wrong with 16.5 mm gauge point work, I would give a different answer.  The biggest problem with the point work is the flangeways, the wing rails, check rails etc, which are a bigger problem to the visual desire for better point work than the gauge per se.  How do we make these aspects of the trackwork look better?  The answer is to move the wing rails closer to the crossing vee and the check rails closer to the stock rails.  There are basically two options here.  One is that we leave the gauge at 16.5 mm and move the wing rails closer to the crossing vee and the check rails towards the stock rails.  The other option is to leave the wing rails and check rails in the same place and narrow the track gauge.  In the first instance, we need to increase the back to back dimension of our wheel sets so that the flanges clear the newly positioned wing and check rails.  If you want to adjust stock, why not go EM or P4?  In the second instance, you don't have to modify the stock and this standard is 00-SF.  I have therefore been converted from seeing this as lunacy, to a wholly sensible way forward.  As Gordon has highlighted, it is just through the pointwork that the gauge needs to be narrowed.

 

Regards the C&L Turnout in a bag, it is possible to purchase these without the track gauges and save £4 per kit.  However, they are still significantly more expensive than a Peco ready to lay point and whilst I'm willing to pay this for a small layout, I'm not convinced that everyone who says that they want a more realistic track will be.  The more point work someone needs to purchase, the more cost becomes a factor in deciding to switch from the established player (ie Peco).  It is mearly an observation rather than a criticism of the cost of the C&L kits.

 

Regards

 

David

[Pacific231G]

I have just been studying the Peco templates on its web-site. If the Code 83 range satisfies the US HO market, why on earth doesn't Peco withdraw the HO Code 75 range and re-tool with UK sleeper bases using the same metalwork???

 

 

 

 

 

Because the H0 market isn't just N. America, it is almost everywhere except here, and Peco would be mad to withdraw the HO code 75 range and risk losing their sales to the large European market.

 

Peco Streamline is very well known and widely used in Europe. For example at the very large French show in Orleans last year I saw very few layouts that didn't use it.  The sleeper spacing of code 100 and 75 Streamline is too wide for N.American prototypes but is correct for modern European track . 

 

I'm actually looking now at an article in Loco Revue on improvng Peco code 75 points,  mainly by replacing the switch mechanism with a simple pcb tie bar and the plastic  check rails with new ones made from rail. It then goes on to describe a more detailed but still straightforward conversion of a long Peco point to P87 standards (the plain track doesn't need converting) using components from Club Proto 87.  What this and other articles don't ever mention though is Peco's point geometry.  

 

"I notice on the Code 83 points what appears to be metal check-rails and smaller closing rail gaps."

 

 

On your other point,  the "83 Line" switches are made to NMRA RP25 standards and these are so well and long established in N. America that there isn't the same need to accomodate different manufacturers' interpretations. I guess this would allow for a smaller closing rail gap. I can though see no reason why metal check rails should not be used on Code 75 and 100 and maybe this will now happen along with the Uni-Frog. 

 

If there was a large enough market for trackwork with British sleeper spacing for 00 - which was what Peco supplied in the 1950s- then I suspect they would manufacture for it. Unfortunately the proportion of 4mm/ft scale modellers who care enough to demand that but don't go to EM or P4 is probably too small for a mass market manufacturer like Peco but is catered for by more specialist suppliers such as C&L.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Jeff Smith]

Because the H0 market isn't just N. America, it is almost everywhere except here, and Peco would be mad to withdraw the HO code 75 range and risk losing their sales to the large European market.

 

Peco Streamline is very well known and widely used in Europe. For example at the very large French show in Orleans last year I saw very few layouts that didn't use it.  The sleeper spacing of code 100 and 75 Streamline is too wide for N.American prototypes but is correct for modern European track .

Point taken - I admit (as is perhaps obvious) that I know very little about HO.......

[autocoach]

Peco Code 75 is almost unknown in the US and large distributors do not stock it. It is available for specialist importers only at 2-3 times the price you can get it from Hattons. Besides in HO in the US and Canada you have mostly modern modellers using Code 83 for mainline and code 70 or even code 55 or 40 (hand laid) for sidings and branch line trackage. Code 83 represents modern heavy trackage applicable from the 1950's on. Code 70 HO RTR track from Shinohara is fairly available. Everyone has improved their lines to be "DCC" ready.

 

I can understand that code 75 would fit well in non-UK European markets as fitting their prototype better. But then again it could work in North America to represent historical mainline trackage set in the 1930's or earlier. Peco would have to market it as such.

[Mythocentric]

There aint  market for mass produced OO gauge track or PECO or some other brave soul would have gone there already.......I like how my post #229 get lots of disagrees but no says why Im wrong...presumably cos Im right again ( No surprises there, of course)

 

Id love a whole system of OO scale track, specially that someone else paid to develop, but Id also love a lot of things that aint gonna happen, so like always  Iget on with what Im doing and not wonder and wherefore as to when the Good Fairy will appear to me

 

Mickey, there is a market for mass-produced 00 gauge track and, funnily enough, that mass produced track is made by PECO!

 

One of the reasons for this, and other previous threads on the subject is that railway modelling has moved on a long way since the 1960's in detail and quality. Regretfully with one exception....PECO! And until someone breaks the stranglehold they have on the market track work will remain a very poor relation unless you are willing to hand-build which many people (the majority!) are unwilling or unable to do!

 

Regards

 

Bill

[Clive Mortimore]

Some of the recent post are making this thread a bit like a train set.....round and round and round ........

 

No one would make super detailed steam locomotives to a British outline because there was not a market for them. Build your own or a kit was the only answer. What happened?

 

All wheel pick up and all wheel drive diesel and electrics for the small British "Modern Image" market, no way. "MI" modeller can always re-chassis with drive system from another country. What happened?

 

So please can the "Nay Sayers" and the Peco historians please help those 00 modellers who now have super detailed steam locos, all wheel drive diesels have something that matches them under their "finescale" wheels.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Some of the recent post are making this thread a bit like a train set.....round and round and round ........

 

No one would make super detailed steam locomotives to a British outline because there was not a market for them. Build your own or a kit was the only answer. What happened?

 

All wheel pick up and all wheel drive diesel and electrics for the small British "Modern Image" market, no way. "MI" modeller can always re-chassis with drive system from another country. What happened?

 

So please can the "Nay Sayers" and the Peco historians please help those 00 modellers who now have super detailed steam locos, all wheel drive diesels have something that matches them under their "finescale" wheels.

 

Clive,

 

That sums it up very well.

 

If manufacturers can now tool up for and produce locomotives that were never considered viable before despite frequent requests (e.g. J15), then why does the same not apply to track and pointwork to proper OO standards? After all, every railway modeller needs track, so the potential market volume is intrinsically greater than it is for GER locomotives which Hornby is suddenly doing two of. (And more power to their elbow. Let's have an updated B12 as well.)

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks again Mickey for your positive post. Collectors tend not to buy track. Layout builders seem to, so why do we have to either lump it or build our own. Remember if the collector wanted a XYZ class of loco before Mr Manufacturer made it he would have had to build it himself. 

 

As for Peco competing with themselves, I am not too sure about this code 100 insulfrog, code 100 electrofrog and code 75? Anyhow who says it has to be Peco?

[AJ427]

Regards the C&L Turnout in a bag, it is possible to purchase these without the track gauges and save £4 per kit.  However, they are still significantly more expensive than a Peco ready to lay point and whilst I'm willing to pay this for a small layout, I'm not convinced that everyone who says that they want a more realistic track will be.  The more point work someone needs to purchase, the more cost becomes a factor in deciding to switch from the established player (ie Peco).  It is mearly an observation rather than a criticism of the cost of the C&L kits.

 

Regards

 

David

 

To be fair to the C&L Turnout in a bag, most of the cost comes from the included pre-built common crossing (£16) and filed switch rails (£10.50). If you buy the components seperately both of these items can be made up from rail lengths by hand fairly quickly and for pennies. If you have the skill to do so.

[sub39h]

I haven't read the full thread but here are some of my opinions:

 

1. Not everyone has the skill to build their own track.

 

2. Not everyone who has the skill wants to build their own track. Reasons for this include (but are not limited to): no time, relatively pricey set up costs if you don't have the equipment already, and simply some people don't enjoy it. We all find different aspects of the hobby enjoyable. Me personally I'd rather see trains moving than building/staring at perfectly prototypical track.

 

3. I would welcome proper British prototype 00 gauge track in RTR form. I don't mind tinkering with the locos/stock so if an RTR P4 option were available I would definitely consider it.

 

4. Marcway do fill this void to some extent but they are a little pricey so I've stuck with Peco Code 75.

 

5. I would love to see a range similar to Peco's Code 75 plus curved diamonds for junctions, tandem 3 ways (with both turn outs going the same way) and maybe some Tillig-esque flexi points.

 

6. Whilst all of the above is all well and good I read an estimate on another thread that said there is probably about 180,000 railway modellers in the country of which not all model in 4mm scale. Given the variety of prototypes that would have to be modelled (BH/FB, concrete sleepers/wooden sleepers etc) I wonder whether the market is big enough to be able to satisfy everyone. I doubt it which is why we're left with compromises. It would take a large set up cost with little promise of a long term return to set up a new track system which is probably why nobody's done it yet.

 

7. Maybe if enough of us got on Peco they would consider changing the sleeper spacing and rail profile on their 75 to 83 so we have a better approximation but the above regarding set up costs will still apply.

Edited December 19, 2013 by sub39h

[frobisher]

It wont be Peco as I just said - somewhat disingenuous to use the code 100/code 75 argument when the latter is an improvement on the former, both of which are splendid working HO track systems, a OO track system would be competing with not complementing the current output...

Not really, not completely. It would allow them to compete for that segment of the market that have decided they can get a better 00 solution (or better compromise) elsewhere. They wouldn't be entirely cannibalising their current UK market, because some people will remain unfussed but this is a market that Peco have put next to no real investment into - other markets are what drove the track range in the first place.

 

That said, I'd agree it's not going to be Peco leading the charge, they have little incentive (plus the infamous Peco inertia).

[AJ427]

can we only post agreements then in this thread?

 

No but the purpose of this thread is to try and determine what an acceptable compromise a OO guage track system would be, what it should include, target market, etc and so far Joseph has done a pretty good job of keeping it on track. Statements along the lines of get a whip round arranged, your wasting your time, build your own, go to EM/P4, no matter how tongue-in-cheek don't really add anything and just turn it into yet another in a long line of pointless OO guage track debates. Fact: Some people (I don't claim to know how many) want and would be prepared to pay for a OO guage track system that's better than the current Peco offering so let's continue to keep this on topic and move it forward.

(all puns intended)