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

[Godders]

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?

Merry Christmas Metr0Land, no need to fight but I don't think a turnout with loose wires flying around looks better than what you get presently and unless they are connected how will they run better than insul frog, they are insulfrog. and as for operating with bare hands uugh! What you seem to want is the worst of both worlds.

[Budgie]

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 running 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?

On my garden railway with electrofrog points, Peco's electric switching of the frog using the point blades works for a few weeks, then stops working for ever, as the metal contacts oxidise and it is impossible to clean them. So the best thing to do is rewire them not to use the point blades for switching, and while I'm at it I might as well connect the closure rails to the adjacent stock rail, making sure that the connection between the closure rail and the frog has been removed. In other words, convert the points to "DCC wiring".

 

When we get any new points, I would expect them to be wired the DCC way, with a built-in switch to change the frog polarity.

[Oakydoke]

I definitely wouldn't want to see a sprung locking mechanism like that on the Peco Streamline points.

Even with Peco, there are people who go to good deal of trouble to remove the ugly plastic lump to improve the looks.

 

Latching can be easily achieved in other, less visually obtrusive ways. A new product should start off with the intention of achieving this goal.

[Clive Mortimore]

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.

Hi Godders

 

Only one point in the Peco range is has you describe, their 3 way electrofrog point.

[Clive Mortimore]

On my garden railway with electrofrog points, Peco's electric switching of the frog using the point blades works for a few weeks, then stops working for ever, as the metal contacts oxidise and it is impossible to clean them. So the best thing to do is rewire them not to use the point blades for switching, and while I'm at it I might as well connect the closure rails to the adjacent stock rail, making sure that the connection between the closure rail and the frog has been removed. In other words, convert the points to "DCC wiring".

 

When we get any new points, I would expect them to be wired the DCC way, with a built-in switch to change the frog polarity.

Hi Jane

 

Any point work relying on the blades to switch the power at the frog will in time out doors or inside fall foul of oxidising. Indoors are easier to keep clean and with care will normally outlast an average layout. Any new product should still have the ability to be used without an external switch system should people not have the confidence to wire their "frogs".

 

My newest layout has Peco insulfrog points to ease the wiring. With the modern drive systems and all wheel pick up on the new diesel models as standard I have no problems with running.

 

I can still remember the dark days when we were told that Lima pancake motors were all we deserved as we were a limited market and why would someone want to make decent models for us "Modern Image" 00 modellers. I am sure the market for British looking 00 track is greater than the "Modern Image" market on its own. From memory most of the people saying the diesel and electric modelling scene was "limited" were steam outline kit builders. 

Edited December 25, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[Peter Bedding]

...............................

 

Any point work relying on the blades to switch the power at the frog will in time out doors or inside fall foul of oxidising. Indoors are easier to keep clean and with care will normally outlast an average layout. Any new product should still have the ability to be used without an external switch system should people not have the confidence to wire their "frogs".

 

My newest layout has Peco insulfrog points to ease the wiring. With the modern drive systems and all wheel pick up on the new diesel models as standard I have no problems with running .....................

 

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this, Clive. When I started to construct my present indoor 00 layout a few years ago, I had a blank sheet of paper (space was the only major limitation), and no other participants to satisfy. Reliability was probably my driving factor, appearance was only important to a degree, my track is mounted only just below eye level. (Much like the real thing in a way). It was always going to be DCC.

 

So, I went back to first principles. "Keep it simple, stupid."

 

I have one short wheelbase loco with limited pickups (an O2 built for me by a Forum stalwart). It is the only loco which hesitates on the insulfrog, so I know to give it a little welly at the right moment. It is only used in pull-push mode with a pair of brass coaches which are heavier than average. So they give it the mass to help nudge it across the break.

 

All other locos are built to modern concepts, which is to say that they have multiple pick ups, and most though not quite all, are r-t-r. Any customisation is limited to repainting.

 

All the track is live at all sections. I certainly do not put droppers on every piece of track for the sake of it, but even with a simple track plan many sections of the pw get connected. If anything, I wired in accordance with the principles promoted by CJF in his various track plans. Some sections of track only derive power through Peco track connectors, and they do not fail in practice. And frankly, this conforms with my expectation and experience.

 

 

PB

Edited December 25, 2013 by Peter Bedding

[gordon s]

Hallamshire?  Is that where all the trolls come from?….

[Mythocentric]

There is a lot of bridges around here so ya never know who lives under em all

 

 

Genuine point I made though, I got my money all ready to put my money where my mouth is and buy some of these points if and when the arrive

 

There are other ways of making a point without resorting to sarcasm, belittling the efforts of others or outright insult! You mention elsewhere that you model in P4, a fact that I don't recall you mentioning on this thread offhand and build your own track. so clearly you have some personal agenda. So do I (to 00, 4mm), as do Martin Wynne, Gordon and other contributors to this thread and yet we all accept that there is a great and long-overdue need for an improved 'rtr' track system to UK outline! I honestly can't see why you find yourself unable to accept that!

I'm not certain that I agree with Gordon about the number of Trolls in Hallamshire, but there's certainly one. That's a pity because from what I've seen of your posts elsewhere you could probably make a valuable contribution to a thread which is trying to make a difference for all railway modellers, not just a chosen few!

 

Regards

 

Bill

Edited December 25, 2013 by Mythocentric

[Ron Ron Ron]

........I Think a decent 4mm scale / OO Gauge would be not only a very good thing, but a very desirable thing for the hobby in general....

 

Mickey, half the time I haven't got clue what point you're trying to make, if any; but if you generally believe 4mm / 00 Gauge track is a desirable thing and think it would be a benefit to the hobby (...particularly to the biggest section of the hobby by far), why not get behind it, rather than do nothing but make what appear to be snide and sarcastic comments.

 

.....BUT

 

If it isnt going to happen, it isnt a lot of use wishing it would do so.....

I think we all accept the likelihood of it happening doesn't look too good and hasn't done for a long while; but times are changing and so are attitudes.

Every year that passes, the chances of it happening are improving and the intransigence of the largest maker of RTL track in the UK market makes them look worst and more dated year by year.

Those modellers who support and back the call for improved track products need to push more than ever and it won't help to just throw in the towel and accept a second best ...no, make that third rate, compromise.

 

Maybe the modelling community shouldn't have desired and demanded better RTR models. We could have all just accepted the "no market for it round here" response and been grateful for the dated 20 & 30 year old toys that kept being rehashed?

 

 

......I dont see anyone else even mentioning parting with any readies so far?

 

I don't understand this repeated remark?

What is that supposed to mean?

 

 

 

.

[hayfield]

 

Those modellers who support and back the call for improved track products need to push more than ever and it won't help to just throw in the towel and accept a second best ...no, make that third rate, compromise.

 

Maybe the modelling community shouldn't have desired and demanded better RTR models. We could have all just accepted the "no market for it round here" response and been grateful for the dated 20 & 30 year old toys that kept being rehashed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Ron

 

Wholly agree with you. Its about time those who spend their money on these super new locos and rolling stock demanded better looking track work. It will only happen when they stop buying HO scale track work.

 

However the big BUT is if they buy decent plain track they are stuck with HO turnouts, would the combination of having both OO and HO track intermixed look even worse. Coachman has got away with it on his layout with skilful laying of track and paintwork. 

[Godders]

Hi Godders

 

Only one point in the Peco range is has you describe, their 3 way electrofrog point.

Hi Clive, I'm not sure what you are saying when you say, "is as you describe". Would appreciate a little clarification.

[backofanenvelope]

I haven't read the whole thread as I am not interested in 00 track but the thought crossed my mind of a crowd-funded Kickstarter project that way unless the whole amount is raised it doesn't get the go ahead. I realise CAD work etc needs to be done and it not that simple to bring to market but........ Then all interested can be a part and benefit the whole community, just saying'

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive, I'm not sure what you are saying when you say, "is as you describe". Would appreciate a little clarification.

Whoops should read "is as you describe"...

[hayfield]

I haven't read the whole thread as I am not interested in 00 track but the thought crossed my mind of a crowd-funded Kickstarter project that way unless the whole amount is raised it doesn't get the go ahead. I realise CAD work etc needs to be done and it not that simple to bring to market but........ Then all interested can be a part and benefit the whole community, just saying'

 

What would be the best way to make the bases, 3D printing?

 

If as above how much would a base cost to print ? 

 

Would it be cheaper to print both left and right bases on the same print?

[Godders]

Whoops should read "is as you describe"...

Hi Clive, kind of you to respond with the correction but I was not criticising your English. I'm not quite sure what you were saying with the whole statement. I was trying to say that it has become modern practice for users to wire as I described linking stock rails to switch rails. I was not saying that's the way Peco actually supply them, hence the comment about connecting the wires.

 

Godders

[Richard Lee]

No, i said I have made track in P4  (and EM and OO) not that I do now

 

Although, as you say,  you are are not making P4 track now, I am very pleased for you that Scalefour News gives you a lot of pleasure.  

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79430-scalefour-news-185/&do=findComment&comment=1250933

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive, kind of you to respond with the correction but I was not criticising your English. I'm not quite sure what you were saying with the whole statement. I was trying to say that it has become modern practice for users to wire as I described linking stock rails to switch rails. I was not saying that's the way Peco actually supply them, hence the comment about connecting the wires.

 

Godders

Hi Godders

 

The practice of adding wires is not one that I undertake and is not one that is needed to make Peco points work once tipped out of the box. Now I have read of modellers adding wires to improve the conductivity as the use of point blades is not always that good, see Jane's (Budgie) post yesterday.

 

Any new design of point work could/should have a built in electrical connection from the stock rails to the switch blades. While improving appearance why not try to improve reliability.

[Pacific231G]

If there really is a significant mass market amongst 00 modellers for  "use straight out of the box"  16.5mm gauge track- or more particularly points-  using 4mm scale sleeper spacings (but should they be based on modern or steam era practice?) which is what I understand is being asked for here, then it would be commercially viable for someone, even Peco, to make such track. I suspect the reality is that it simply wouldn't sell in anything like the required quantity and I'll try to justify that.

 

I've recently had a couple of conversations with keen collectors of Hornby and Bachmann RTR locos and stock who weren't even aware that the gauge was incorrect for the scale. They currently use Hornby track but might move up to Streamline. If the sleeper spacings were different from what they're used to I suspect they'd probably decide that it "looked wrong" and stick with Hornby.

 

I think the question of RTL track is different from the quality of RTR rolling stock. Relatively few modellers have the skills to build a loco from scratch or even a kit to the same standard as a good RTR scale model but building scale trackwork, at least for simpler trackwork such as common turnouts, is a far easier task even if most of us don't bother.  How many modellers are there who care enough about their trackwork to not want to use H0 scale track with 00 sleeper spacing but who wouldn't then rapidly take the further step of building their own track and pointwork from kits or from scratch and possibly moving to EM or P4?  That group would be the market for anyone making RTL trackwork for 16.5mm gauge but with 4mm scale sleeper spacings and width and I wonder if its really large enough for a mass manufacturer to retool for.

 

The other big difficulty is to come up with a commonly agreed set of standards for what is always going to be a compromise. Would you for example stick with the 1940s BRMSB standards or adopt something more like RP25? Who would establish those standards (DOOGA maybe?)

 

We might be looking at a very different situation if the BRMSB really had been some kind of permanent standards body equivalent to the NMRA or MOROP, perhaps with the ongoing backing of the magazine editors and the leading MRCs, rather than simply an ad-hoc committee of magazine editors who met over a few years during and just after the war to write a set of standards then faded away. 

Edited December 26, 2013 by Pacific231G

[Godders]

Hi Godders

 

The practice of adding wires is not one that I undertake and is not one that is needed to make Peco points work once tipped out of the box. Now I have read of modellers adding wires to improve the conductivity as the use of point blades is not always that good, see Jane's (Budgie) post yesterday.

 

Any new design of point work could/should have a built in electrical connection from the stock rails to the switch blades. While improving appearance why not try to improve reliability.

Clive, I am in full agreement with you. Being of an electrical bent I have always, even in DC days, wired for DCC that is I have always linked from stockrail to switch rail and had polarity changing microswitches operated by the tie/stretcher bar. The point I originally made was that Peco points bought today are not ready to operate they need work to make them reliable and Peco have gone halfway by providing some of the wiring and making some of the links detachable. There are practical problems of providing the polarity switches and hiding them as there are with the the positioning spring but they are challenges production wise not impossibilities. I can think of many ways to do the job but it's more difficult to make them as an individual without the production machinery.

 

cheers Godders

[Godders]

If there really is a significant mass market amongst 00 modellers for  "use straight out of the box"  16.5mm gauge track- or more particularly points-  using 4mm scale sleeper spacings (but should they be based on modern or steam era practice?) which is what I understand is being asked for here, then it would be commercially viable for someone, even Peco, to make such track. I suspect the reality is that it simply wouldn't sell in anything like the required quantity and I'll try to justify that.

 

I've recently had a couple of conversations with keen collectors of Hornby and Bachmann RTR locos and stock who weren't even aware that the gauge was incorrect for the scale. They currently use Hornby track but might move up to Streamline. If the sleeper spacings were different from what they're used to I suspect they'd probably decide that it "looked wrong" and stick with Hornby.

 

I think the question of RTL track is different from the quality of RTR rolling stock. Relatively few modellers have the skills to build a loco from scratch or a kit to the same standard as a good RTR scale model but building scale trackwork, at least for simpler trackwork such as common turnouts, is a far easier task even if most of us don't bother.  How many modellers are there who care enough about their trackwork to not want to use H0 scale track with 00 sleeper spacing but who wouldn't then rapidly take the further step of building their own track and pointwork from kits or from scratch and possibly moving to EM or P4?  That group would be the market for anyone making RTL trackwork for 16.5mm gauge but with 4mm scale sleeper spacings and width and I wonder if its really large enough for a mass manufacturer to retool for.

 

The other big difficulty is to come up with a commonly agreed set of standards for what is always going to be a compromise. Would you for example stick with the 1940s BRMSB standards or adopt something more like RP25? Who would establish those standards (DOOGA maybe?)

 

We might be looking at a very different situation if the BRMSB really had been some kind of permanent standards body equivalent to the NMRA or MOROP, perhaps with the ongoing backing of the magazine editors and the leading MRCs, rather than simply an ad-hoc committee of magazine editors who met over a few years during and just after the war to write a set of standards then faded away. 

Hi Pacific231G, I would like to have a stab at answering your points.

 

You are correct in saying there is a choice to be made of Bullhead versus Flatbottom. However, Bullhead is still around in great quantities and therefore would be suitable for both Steam and Diesel Eras, whereas Flatbottom is only suitable for Diesel.

 

The point about mass market is a tricky one, I have no knowledge of the market but I do believe if there is a market for N, 009, 0, and other similar minority interests then 00 will be a reasonably significant market.

 

RTL v RTR rolling stock; a lot of people would like to have scale track but would not necessarily have the skills or wish to build it , just like the rolling stock. As for moving to EM/P4 that's a whole new ballgame. The very least you need to do to move to EM is change the Back to Backs and the thought of that on a coupled steam chassis is beyond most peoples aspirations.

 

The Standards are a very difficult one. I personally favour 00-SF on the grounds that the standards are exactly the same as EM -2mm for track gauge. The flangeways are reduced to 1mm which aesthetically is pleasing. However, the main advantage is that RTR stock will run well, particularly through the crossing (frog), without modifying anything.

 

Cheers Godders

Edited December 26, 2013 by Godders

[Clive Mortimore]

If there really is a significant mass market amongst 00 modellers for  "use straight out of the box"  16.5mm gauge track- or more particularly points-  using 4mm scale sleeper spacings (but should they be based on modern or steam era practice?) which is what I understand is being asked for here, then it would be commercially viable for someone, even Peco, to make such track. I suspect the reality is that it simply wouldn't sell in anything like the required quantity and I'll try to justify that.

 

I've recently had a couple of conversations with keen collectors of Hornby and Bachmann RTR locos and stock who weren't even aware that the gauge was incorrect for the scale. They currently use Hornby track but might move up to Streamline. If the sleeper spacings were different from what they're used to I suspect they'd probably decide that it "looked wrong" and stick with Hornby.

 

I think the question of RTL track is different from the quality of RTR rolling stock. Relatively few modellers have the skills to build a loco from scratch or a kit to the same standard as a good RTR scale model but building scale trackwork, at least for simpler trackwork such as common turnouts, is a far easier task even if most of us don't bother.  How many modellers are there who care enough about their trackwork to not want to use H0 scale track with 00 sleeper spacing but who wouldn't then rapidly take the further step of building their own track and pointwork from kits or from scratch and possibly moving to EM or P4?  That group would be the market for anyone making RTL trackwork for 16.5mm gauge but with 4mm scale sleeper spacings and width and I wonder if its really large enough for a mass manufacturer to retool for.

 

The other big difficulty is to come up with a commonly agreed set of standards for what is always going to be a compromise. Would you for example stick with the 1940s BRMSB standards or adopt something more like RP25? Who would establish those standards (DOOGA maybe?)

 

We might be looking at a very different situation if the BRMSB really had been some kind of permanent standards body equivalent to the NMRA or MOROP, perhaps with the ongoing backing of the magazine editors and the leading MRCs, rather than simply an ad-hoc committee of magazine editors who met over a few years during and just after the war to write a set of standards then faded away. 

Hi David

 

A few points, if you read some notable modellers post on this forum there would be no market for diesel locomotive models, let alone those really nasty EMUs. I think there is a market for something that has typical British sleeper spacing. I fully agree that over a period of time track work has changed on the real thing. This is an issue that any potential manufacturer would have to sum up, what would sell and which is easier to make at an affordable price? Hopefully a clever manufacturer would see that both bullhead and flatbottom would sell.

 

Oh dear, those poor collectors seem to have never read anything on 00, HO, EM and P4. I wonder if the boxes are ever opened?

 

Why should the quality of the track be inferior to that of the rolling stock on it if someone models in 00. The track readily available has not progressed from when modellers used lichen and coloured sawdust for their scenics. I think we can start to move on. You are saying that few modellers have the skills to build their own locos, they are the same people who are being directed towards a point in a bag by others writing on this topic. They are the ones I am advocating for. Remember there was no market for detailed British outline steam locos or so we were told.

 

Is it now the time to write a revised standard, we do not have to keep to some old historical one that may be no longer relevant. 

Edited December 26, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[Joseph_Pestell]

I haven't read the whole thread as I am not interested in 00 track but the thought crossed my mind of a crowd-funded Kickstarter project that way unless the whole amount is raised it doesn't get the go ahead. I realise CAD work etc needs to be done and it not that simple to bring to market but........ Then all interested can be a part and benefit the whole community, just saying'

 

I have certainly considered "crowd-funding". Potentially a market such as ours is ideal for it.

 

I am beginning to reach a point where I am fairly certain what should be made and next I need to put some costings on that. Only when I have a clearer idea of the total funding needed can I properly evaluate what the right way of financing such a project is.

['CHARD]

Thought I ought to have a look at this thread.  I'm currently breaking down a layout I was ultimately unhappy with (all sorts of reasons), and planning its replacement using my stock of C&L flexible track (that I'd bought 2 years ago with a view to relaying like-for-like).  Pointwork is the biggest obstacle to getting a layout in 00-FS to a visual standard that I'm prepared to settle/ compromise-on.

 

Then I noticed there was 20 pages.  I feared the worst.  This was realised somewhere around pp 7-8, where the usual grievances were out and skeletons tumbling cackling from their cupboards.  I rejoined about page 17, by which point agendas were no longer hidden, and so many anacronyms (DOOGA, 00-SF etc) were in play I contemplated selling the entire sodding lot of my collection.

 

I'm planning a double-track oval with no turnouts as my running and photographic layout.  The second layout's sticking with PECO.  The OP had good intentions and I commend him, plus those capable of contributing decent narrative. 

 

As for the rest, those are a couple of hours of my life I won't be getting back.  No wonder we're at heart lococentric; as for me, I'm thinking of sticking to research, and display models only.

Edited December 26, 2013 by 'CHARD

[Joseph_Pestell]

What would be the best way to make the bases, 3D printing?

 

If as above how much would a base cost to print ? 

 

Would it be cheaper to print both left and right bases on the same print?

 

Although I follow a few of the 3D-print threads on here, my knowledge of the process is still a bit limited.

 

However, I think (but willing to be corrected) that 3D-printing would not work for r-t-l pointwork. It might be a good way of making bespoke, made to measure kits. That is because the sleepering on r-t-l pointwork is moulded onto the rails/crossings with them held in a part of the mould tool.

 

Even for kits, I suspect that milling (see fiNetrax) may be a better option than 3D-printing.

 

That said, all digital-based technology is moving on so fast that the whole situation could be different in a year's time.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If there really is a significant mass market amongst 00 modellers for  "use straight out of the box"  16.5mm gauge track- or more particularly points-  using 4mm scale sleeper spacings (but should they be based on modern or steam era practice?) which is what I understand is being asked for here, then it would be commercially viable for someone, even Peco, to make such track. I suspect the reality is that it simply wouldn't sell in anything like the required quantity and I'll try to justify that.

 

I've recently had a couple of conversations with keen collectors of Hornby and Bachmann RTR locos and stock who weren't even aware that the gauge was incorrect for the scale. They currently use Hornby track but might move up to Streamline. If the sleeper spacings were different from what they're used to I suspect they'd probably decide that it "looked wrong" and stick with Hornby.

 

I think the question of RTL track is different from the quality of RTR rolling stock. Relatively few modellers have the skills to build a loco from scratch or a kit to the same standard as a good RTR scale model but building scale trackwork, at least for simpler trackwork such as common turnouts, is a far easier task even if most of us don't bother.  How many modellers are there who care enough about their trackwork to not want to use H0 scale track with 00 sleeper spacing but who wouldn't then rapidly take the further step of building their own track and pointwork from kits or from scratch and possibly moving to EM or P4?  That group would be the market for anyone making RTL trackwork for 16.5mm gauge but with 4mm scale sleeper spacings and width and I wonder if its really large enough for a mass manufacturer to retool for.

 

The other big difficulty is to come up with a commonly agreed set of standards for what is always going to be a compromise. Would you for example stick with the 1940s BRMSB standards or adopt something more like RP25? Who would establish those standards (DOOGA maybe?)

 

We might be looking at a very different situation if the BRMSB really had been some kind of permanent standards body equivalent to the NMRA or MOROP, perhaps with the ongoing backing of the magazine editors and the leading MRCs, rather than simply an ad-hoc committee of magazine editors who met over a few years during and just after the war to write a set of standards then faded away. 

 

A well-reasoned argument based on some focus-group research. I like that.

 

But if track is that unimportant, why do Bachmann photograph their new releases on SMP track?

 

If your friends above went to their local shop and saw a new 00 BH track and pointwork next to the Peco, would they not recognise that it looked better?