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

[Jeff Smith]

It certainly would be interesting to understand the management decision at Beer that introduced the code 83 US range and the subsequent sales figures for this and how it impacted sales of code 100 and 75?

[Mike Storey]

If I may be so bold - I think the consensus could be that there are already two RTL FB and BH plain line manufacturers (C&L/Exactoscale and SMP) who provide something along the lines that many of us would like to see, at a reasonable cost, and that the major issue is the pointwork. I would go with one of these except that neither provides FB pointwork in simple to construct versions, unless as a special commission. As I will have over 14 turnouts in the scenic area, this becomes too expensive (perhaps £700 plus). If such a point range as Exactoscale can provide, could be mass produced as RTL, then it would probably meet most of our aspirations. The issue then, is the cost of doing so, which still appears to be above the £20 mark most people appear to consider marketable.

 

This thread has got somewhere (unlike many, many others!), despite misgivings from some, because I think the input from the various views has led us to the above. I believe Joseph is going to have a stab at engineering a better looking Peco-style turnout, which gives the sleeper size and spacing but retains the hinged blade and crossing angle for cost, reliability and compatability reasons (unless I have misunderstood?). So unless anyone else has an equally good proposition in mind, perhaps we should wait for the results of that, and just have the usual banter (including disagreement with this post of course) meanwhile?

[Godfrey Glyn]

I seem to remember being told by someone who worked at PECO that Mr Pritchard Senior was quite keen to produce something more acceptable for UK modellers but was frustrated because he couldn't get any agreement as to what people wanted. Not a lot of change there then! Some folk complain that PECO do not respond fast enough to the demands of modellers, and sometimes I can understand that, but which other British Model railway manufacturer that started in the 1940s is still manufacturing - in the UK - and doing well financially? I gather the demand for their L&B stock has been fantastic. I would love them to do something along the lines of Tillig but based on British practice, I would buy it, but would there be sufficient modellers in the UK to make it financially worthwhile?

Godfrey

[Mythocentric]

I think that this may be a good stage at which, as I suggested earlier (and as did Joseph), it would be useful to get a poll out to the membership of RMWeb in general and find out just what they as railway modellers would find acceptable for an improved RTR track system. While I accept that it would not be as comprehensive as a country-wide poll via the relevant magazines it would at least give an indication of what the target market would find acceptable and use this as a guideline. I believe this would help to prevent the circular arguements from some quarters (as would reading the whole thread before jumping in!) and hopefully calm some of the more extreme rantings from some contributors!

 

Regards

 

Bill

[autocoach]

Can it be done in the UK?

 

Micro Engineering in the US make ready to lay HOn3 code 70 turnouts for US $19.95. Their HO code 83 frog angle #6 turnout is $20.95. A more esoteric HO code 70 frog angle #5 turnout is $24.95.  This would indicate the price range for small market specialized RTL turnouts.

 

And they are not a large firm nor is the HOn3 market that big.  Their track products are made in the US, not China.

[Pacific231G]

Can it be done in the UK?

 

Micro Engineering in the US make ready to lay HOn3 code 70 turnouts for US $19.95. Their HO code 83 frog angle #6 turnout is $20.95. A more esoteric HO code 70 frog angle #5 turnout is $24.95.  This would indicate the price range for small market specialized RTL turnouts.

 

And they are not a large firm nor is the HOn3 market that big.  Their track products are made in the US, not China.

I've read reports/reviews that some American modellers actually prefer Peco 83 Line to ME and Peco do now have a small H0n3 range. I would imagine that 83 Line is doing really well. The real irony in all this is that originally Peco did produce (and still do though not so many items) components for hand laid track to BRMSB 00 standards.  

[hayfield]

I seem to remember being told by someone who worked at PECO that Mr Pritchard Senior was quite keen to produce something more acceptable for UK modellers but was frustrated because he couldn't get any agreement as to what people wanted. Not a lot of change there then! Some folk complain that PECO do not respond fast enough to the demands of modellers, and sometimes I can understand that, but which other British Model railway manufacturer that started in the 1940s is still manufacturing - in the UK - and doing well financially? I gather the demand for their L&B stock has been fantastic. I would love them to do something along the lines of Tillig but based on British practice, I would buy it, but would there be sufficient modellers in the UK to make it financially worthwhile?

Godfrey

 

 

A first step is just altering their sleeper bases, I guess the moulds have to be replaced now and then. As for cost I guess if they had one for HO and another for OO they would last twice as long so the costs would be recovered in due time and sales may increase as old HO track is replaced with OO track. Turnouts I agree with you lots of differing requests

[trisonic]

I honestly thought that they were going that way when they introduced their "American" track a couple of years ago. Over here Peco track is at a higher price point and considered by many locals as bullet proof.

ME flex track is very good except for the rail colour (and lack of choice of turnouts and crossings)

Best, Pete

Edited December 22, 2013 by trisonic

[hayfield]

I've read reports/reviews that some American modellers actually prefer Peco 83 Line to ME and Peco do now have a small H0n3 range. I would imagine that 83 Line is doing really well. The real irony in all this is that originally Peco did produce (and still do though not so many items) components for hand laid track to BRMSB 00 standards.  

 

 

Their fibre bases for turnouts seemed to have nearly a 4mm sleeper spacing but the timbers on the turnouts varied in widths. 

[autocoach]

All I was pointing out with the reference to ME HOn3 track is that a small/medium size company could undertake such an enterprise and deliver a RTL product for a smaller market at a price point that would meet the market expectations at least of this group (DIY, EM and P4 advocates excluded.) and without going to the Far East.

 

It seems most of you enjoy arguing about the idea of RTL BR prototype 16.5 mm gauge track rather than being a Nike and JUST DO IT. I guess it proves Pritchard right.

Edited December 23, 2013 by autocoach

[AJ427]

In other words, as close to ready-to-lay as it gets is £46/turnout.  Yes we could save money by making bits ourselves, but the thread title is 'ready-to-lay' and so as far as I've been able to find out, the nearest better looking than Peco is the Exactoscale turnout in a bag, and its £46 and we'd still have to assemble it ourselves.  I wonder what the cost would be if that turnout was available ready to lay?  Another £10? 

 

Peco's code 75 large radius electrofrog is £10.50 from eHattons.... 

 

Unless the price is at least in the ball park with Peco, is the cost a deal breaker?  My desired model of Thurso would cost me £105 in Peco turnouts, or £460 for Exactoscale (and I'd still have to assemble them).  I want better looking track, but am I prepared to pay that much more?  If it was £50/turnout to have something like Exactoscale ready to lay, would I fork out £500 just for the points?  

 

I'm not sure - I might, if they looked darn good and worked straight out of the box.  But it would be a big mental shift to accept turnouts at twice the price of a carriage, and half the price of a loco.

 

Could our ideal RTL points be made to sell at around the £15 mark for a B8?

 

If you want as close to RTL as it gets that's probably the Marcway range which are handbuilt copper clad soldered construction (SMP components). That type of construction wouldn't be acceptable to some though I would guess. The range starts around £25.

 

While it would be very nice to get a RTL 00 turnout for £15 I think that's really unrealistic as an expectation, especially for a new product. I would agree that £40+ is too much though.

[Adams442T]

Can it be done in the UK?

 

Micro Engineering in the US make ready to lay HOn3 code 70 turnouts for US $19.95. Their HO code 83 frog angle #6 turnout is $20.95. A more esoteric HO code 70 frog angle #5 turnout is $24.95.  This would indicate the price range for small market specialized RTL turnouts.

 

And they are not a large firm nor is the HOn3 market that big.  Their track products are made in the US, not China.

 

I suspect that, as often is the case, the US market even for a limited interest product is much larger than the UKs for something similar.  I know from many years ago when I was manufacturing WW1 model aircraft pilots and ground crew the US demand was ten times that of the UK.

[Clive Mortimore]

If you want as close to RTL as it gets that's probably the Marcway range which are handbuilt copper clad soldered construction (SMP components). That type of construction wouldn't be acceptable to some though I would guess. The range starts around £25.

 

While it would be very nice to get a RTL 00 turnout for £15 I think that's really unrealistic as an expectation, especially for a new product. I would agree that £40+ is too much though.

Hi Andrew

 

Marcway points were discussed earlier in the thread and they are not really ready to lay. They do not have a self-locking mechanism to hold the switch blades over as found with other ready to lay systems. A point motor or lever frame with a self-latching device is needed. 

[Richard Lee]

Hi Andrew

 

Marcway points were discussed earlier in the thread and they are not really ready to lay. They do not have a self-locking mechanism to hold the switch blades over as found with other ready to lay systems. A point motor or lever frame with a self-latching device is needed. 

My OO gauge 36" Marcway points look good to me, but seem to take up significantly more space than Peco Streamline medium or the SMP based plastic kits.  They are fairly stiff compared to some other points, and I found it impossible to operate them with wire in a tube.  (Maybe someone else has been skilled enough to implement wire in a tube with them.)  As Clive said, you need a self-latching point motor, or manual lever.  As supplied, they rely upon the switch blades to change polarity, which works reasonably well if you clean the relevant bits with a glass-fibre pen; however, DCC using people might want to modify them to implement some kind of switching mechanism.

[Ron Ron Ron]

From anecdotal evidence (some in this thread too) it seems the Marcway points are much stiffer than others with flexible point blades.

That example doesn't rule out the use of such blades in a RTL product, even though there is still the issue of requiring a latching function to be performed by a mechanism, point motor, stronger actuator wire or other device.

Hinged blades can still be avoided.

 

Also, from what has been said above, the Marcway points would ideally still need to be modified for DCC use.

Maybe it's time they updated their product offering too?

 

I refer back to the Tillig RTL example, where the points are now fully ready for DCC/DC frog polarity switching (product updated 2 years or so ago) and the blades are not as stiff or resistive as has been reported for the Marcway example.

 

 

.

[AJ427]

Hi Andrew

 

Marcway points were discussed earlier in the thread and they are not really ready to lay. They do not have a self-locking mechanism to hold the switch blades over as found with other ready to lay systems. A point motor or lever frame with a self-latching device is needed. 

 

True Clive, but they are an example of as close to RTL as is currently available and a lot closer than the C&L kit which was being used as a price comparison and which isn't remotely RTL.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is a catch 22 situation in that H0 track without rolling stock looks reasonable because it is in proportion with itself. It's only when you put an 00 vehicle on it that it looks wrong. But part of that looking wrong is the narrower gauge. However, clever proportioning of sleeper width, length and spacing can help to hide this, even when there are no trains present.

 

Up to a point. I think that the Peco HO track (even Code 75) looks wrong in an environment without trains but with 1:76 scale structures.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks Pete.  Yes, in terms of plain track it can be done now and with some care over laying, painting and ballasting, 00 track can be made to look reasonably acceptable, but you still have to make your own pointwork and there are many who don't have the skill, inclination or time to make their own, hence this latest thread.  

 

Over the years I have seen many threads on this subject and when this one came alive a few weeks back, I can't deny my first reaction was 'here we go again' but thanks to the various inputs from knowledgeable members of the forum, this one started to show some signs of going somewhere and perhaps overcoming the usual negative comments and actually moving forwards with a case to present to any potential manufacturer.  

 

My concern is that it is starting to go the same way as previous threads by getting bogged down in detail and the usual circular arguments.  In some ways inviting more posters to contribute will only muddy the waters further as you are never going to satisfy all the modellers with a semi universal product.  Eventually there comes a point ('scuse the pun) when you have to make your case and go with it.  The longer these things go on, the less likely anything will happen and perhaps this is why no one has yet accepted the challenge and offered a product that will be an improvement over what is currently available.

 

Even though I make my own, I would still support other modellers in their wish for an improved product, but these requests always seem to become bogged down in time, as there is no single answer.  Sooner or later someone will take a brave decision and offer a new product, but don't be at all surprised if it is met with negative comments from those where it fails to provide what they want or were expecting.  Whether the potential sales to even 50% of the possible market, which is already highly fragmented, will warrant the investment remains to be seen.

 

I can't believe for one moment an improved track system has not been discussed at Bachmann, Hornby, Peco et al, but we have yet to see one.  Perhaps we are realising why….

 

That last point is interesting. I am sure it will have been discussed at Beer. I'm not so sure that it has received the same attention at Barwell and Margate. But then, as others have pointed out here, it's a bit odd that Bachmann do the publicity shots for their locos and rolling stock using SMP track. That seems like something of a tacit admission.

 

As to the rest. Yes, it's complicated. Even for "standard" pointwork, there is such a wide range of variations that it is quite difficult to decide what is the best compromise solution. But the same could be said for Hornby's decision to go for a D16/3 rather than one of the other D16 variants.

[gordon s]

…but I think that's the issue, Joseph.  It will be difficult, if not impossible to decide the compromise solution, so sooner or later someone is going to have to say this is what we want or this is what we are going to produce.  Yes a survey may help, but my gut feeling is that you will end up with even more confusion and the whole process/project may then flounder as others have done before.

 

There is certainly a need, but we all recognise there are a mass of variants and compromises will need to be made.  As you are never going to satisfy everyone, you may as well make your own decision and put forward a proposal based on sound logic rather than fact.  Presented with a limited range of pointwork in UK style spacing, the modeller can then make their own choice.  UK sleepers and a B7 turnout for example or a wider range with the incorrect sleeper spacing from current producers.  Funnily enough I suspect it could go either way with some accepting a wider range but H0 spacing...

 

I still can't help believing that the more you canvass opinion, the more confusing the brief will become.  Occasionally you have to trust your own judgement and go with it. 

 

As regards distribution from a new entry, I would favour a web based operation backed by some very good PR/networking.  It would be considerably cheaper than a retail network and extensive magazine advertising.

Edited December 23, 2013 by gordon s

[Oakydoke]

"As regards distribution from a new entry, I would favour a web based operation backed by some very good PR/networking. It would be considerably cheaper than a retail network and extensive magazine advertising.

That makes a lot sense. Cut out the middleman in order to contain costs and take advantage of the trend towards direct selling.

Hornby are doing that too, or so it seems.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Oakydoke

[hayfield]

Hi Andrew

 

Marcway points were discussed earlier in the thread and they are not really ready to lay. They do not have a self-locking mechanism to hold the switch blades over as found with other ready to lay systems. A point motor or lever frame with a self-latching device is needed. 

 

 

 Clive

 

I accept that some form of simple wire in a tube or other method is needed to keep the switch blades in position, which is exactly the same as the GEM and Formway ready to lay points from times past). But just because you don't like them, does not make them a kit !!.

 

I accept that you may want to use a turnout with a self latching system, so this make is not for you, and agree with you that any new product should be self latching. But you can take them straight out of a box, lay them and with no additional wiring use them once you have either fitted some form of point motor or wire in the tube (can be as simple as a short L shaped piece of wire) Don't forget many modellers use wire in the tube or point motors with their self latching points anyway.

 

Some of the best operating layouts I have seen use wire in a tube back to a lever frame, which mimics real railway practice before point motors were used. One layout at a local show operated a Branch Line Terminus from a miniature ( 1/10th size appx) signal box (the lever frames operated point motors) at the front of the layout and drew quite a crowd as it added to the viewing experience

[Joseph_Pestell]

That makes a lot sense. Cut out the middleman in order to contain costs and take advantage of the trend towards direct selling.

Hornby are doing that too, or so it seems.

 

Potentially, yes. Cutting out the retail mark-up means that one starts with a 33%/40% price advantage - or more likely it means that one can absorb higher manufacturing costs while still selling at the same price as Peco in a retailer.

 

The issue then is, as Gordon said, doing the PR well enough to generate sufficient sales volume.

 

I would not exclude going the direct route to begin with and with all the tooling costs front-loaded onto a relatively small break-even quantity. Then, when that number is reached, one can afford to distribute via the retail sector as the cost per unit is reduced while, at the same time, the retail sector can see that there is demand for the product.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Andrew

 

Marcway points were discussed earlier in the thread and they are not really ready to lay. They do not have a self-locking mechanism to hold the switch blades over as found with other ready to lay systems. A point motor or lever frame with a self-latching device is needed. 

That's actually fairly normal Clive. Shinohara and Tillig points don't AFAIK have a latching mechanism either. Before Peco produced Streamline with an over centre spring, anyone moving up to ready to lay track that was a step above clip together on the dining room table proprietary "toy" track just fitted local point levers pending any more sophisticated arrangement. I've long used the Caboose Industries "ground throws" as they're pretty rugged and the sprung version obviates the need for an omega or Z loop. I've used the same ones on several layouts and a  couple of track pins and a bit of bent wire (not even that with Caboose industries as they come with the relevant connectors for most brands)  isn't rocket science. 

Edited December 25, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Godders]

I haven't contributed for a while but I was under the impression that the objective was to produce an improved ( nearer to British) looking line of trackwork. I could quote the contributors but it's clearer just to point out some errors: RTL is not synonymous with Ready To Operate. Peco Electrofrog turnouts are not RTO, they have to have their wires connected via a switch interlinked with the tiebar or use a frog juicer, extra wiring, The latching mechanism is not necessary, it's a nice to have but it spoils the look of the turnout in it's present form. They also need some form of external operating mechanism either mechanical or electro-mechanical, the locking mechanism can be incorporated in this. I am sure it's not beyond the capabilities of someone to come up with a simple in built alternative latching mechanism.

 

Can we get it clear once and for all there is no difference in turnout wiring between DC & DCC. Modern practice is to electrically connect the switch rail to the adjacent stock rail. This is more of an advantage to DCC than DC because DCC trips more easily.

[Metr0Land]

Sorry Godders I don't want to get into a fight this morning of all mornings, but surely Peco Electrofrog are RTO (if you don't want to wire them up).

 

I have loads of them for improved runing versus Insulfrog, but they are all manually operated by Hand of God - I see no reason why the 'new' ones (if we ever get them) shouldn't be any different?