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

[autocoach]

Before going too far in arguing standards I would suggest reading the following http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pdf/TN_1_1_2.pdf which discusses the issues of finescale standards and includes a pointer to a calculator for the necessary clearance dimensions for track and switches. I would not suggest re-doing the NMRA work in this area just because it was "not Invented here". Much of it was developed with full cognizance of UK practice and issues. I believe DOGA "fine" standards are consistent with this approach.

 

Recent Bachmann production appears to use the cone and fillet NMRA wheel designs - yes there are more than the RP25 design wheels. I could not verify that with Hornby products although my Hornby Maunsell coaches appear to have similar design wheels. This NMRA wheel designs allows good tracking even on sharp radius curves with a built in tolerance for less than perfect trackwork. Note that the recommended NMRA for regular 16.5 mm track is 14.8 mm to clear the check gauge at the frog/common crossing.

[Joseph_Pestell]

So it is just wishing in the dark? I thought so.....

 

See post #521.

 

Nothing would ever happen on this planet if everyone was as negative as you.

[martin_wynne]

Note that the recommended NMRA for regular 16.5 mm track is 14.8 mm to clear the check gauge at the frog/common crossing.

 

The NMRA change to "targeted" dimensions from a spreadsheet instead of the previous correct prototype system of max and min dimensions has led to lots of anomalies and flaws such as this.

 

Setting RP25/110 wheels to 14.8mm back-to-back causes the BEF dimension to be 15.6mm (flanges 0.8mm thick) which exceeds the 15.2mm check gauge by a massive 0.4mm, making bumpy running and derailments almost inevitable as the flange hits the nose of the vee. Fortunately the RTR manufacturers have had the sense to ignore these changes and stick to the original NMRA H0 14.4mm back-to-back.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Everyone inventing their own individual track gauge is a bad idea.

 

Why?

 

The prototype widens the track gauge according to the radius on sharp curves.

 

The commercial model railway standards include built-in gauge widening to allow their use on sharp "train-set" curves. It makes sense for modellers who are not using such curves to remove the built-in widening and use a narrower track gauge for straight track and gentle curves. Modellers who have done that in both 0 gauge and 00 gauge have reported excellent results, so are unlikely to agree that it is a "bad idea".

 

There is nothing intrinsically correct about the 16.5mm gauge dimension in 4mm/ft scale. It has no prototype meaning, so there is no reason to regard it as sacrosanct.

 

Martin.

[frobisher]

Im not negative...i just dont chase castles in the sky......

Which is odd as you do seem to like shooting at them...

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't suppose that Mickey is really as negative as he often seems on RMWeb (not just this thread).

 

Over the last few years, we have seen a remarkable number of models (locos mainly) that were on wishlists make it onto the manufacturers' catalogues. Why should it be any different for r-t-l pointwork which addresses a potentially larger market?

 

Certainly, there are difficulties to overcome: both commercial and technical. But a thread like this permits better understanding of those problems and therefore how to resolve them.

 

But, Mickey, still a long way to go. How are Sheffield Wednesday doing?

[hayfield]

Im not negative I jsut dont see the point in wishing for things

 

 

as for the Wednesday I hope they are doing as bad as normal, or worse even....wrong end of Sheffield South Barnsley for me

 

 

Mickey

 

To give Joseph his due he is trying to do something and unlike me (I can build turnouts quite easily) you have said you would buy some !!. Lets wait and see what happens

[Andy Y]

Calm it please Mickey, track topics are hard enough to keep clear as it is.

[Peter Bedding]

Why?

 

The prototype widens the track gauge according to the radius on sharp curves.

 

The commercial model railway standards include built-in gauge widening to allow their use on sharp "train-set" curves. It makes sense for modellers who are not using such curves to remove the built-in widening and use a narrower track gauge for straight track and gentle curves. Modellers who have done that in both 0 gauge and 00 gauge have reported excellent results, so are unlikely to agree that it is a "bad idea".

 

There is nothing intrinsically correct about the 16.5mm gauge dimension in 4mm/ft scale. It has no prototype meaning, so there is no reason to regard it as sacrosanct.

 

Martin.

 

Except, of course, for those who model a prototype of 4ft 1.1/2" gauge; the target market of most r-t-r manufacturers.

 

PB

[Colin_McLeod]

go on the n then Colin...why did you disagree with me?

This presssing butttons is just silly

Because you said "So it is just wishing in the dark? I thought so" 

It is not just wishing in the dark so I disagreed partly because of that statement and partly because of the totality of your negative postings on this thread.

 

The OP was asking what type of RTL track would members like, and this thread keeps going off topic to a discussion of alternatives to RTL

 

However, I do agree with you about pressing buttons.   The "Disagree" button and the "Incomprehensible/Unsure of meaning" button cause a lot of grief when used incorrectly.

 

I dont know whether I have interperted the meaning of the buttons as intended by Andy Y, but the following is what I think they are intended to mean:

 

IMO the following is OK

"Disagree" when an incorrect statement is made

"Incomprehensible/Unsure of meaning" when the post does not make sense

 

IMO the following is not OK

"Disagree" when the post expresses an opinion different to that of the person disagreeing

"Incomprehensible/Unsure of meaning" when the  post does make sense, but the person pressing the button just does not understand it.

The mixing of "incomprehensible" with "unsure of meaning" in the one button is IMO a folly as someone can be unsure of the meaning of a perfectly correct post.

 

Buttons already pressed  LOL

 

Agree x 5897

Edited December 30, 2013 by Colin_McLeod

[martin_wynne]

Except, of course, for those who model a prototype of 4ft 1.1/2" gauge

 

Touché

 

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Because you said "So it is just wishing in the dark? I thought so" 

It is not just wishing in the dark so I disagreed partly because of that statement and partly because of the totality of your negative postings on this thread.

 

The OP was asking what type of RTL track would members like, and this thread keeps going off topic to a discussion of alternatives to RTL

 

However, I do agree with you about pressing buttons.   The "Disagree" button and the "Incomprehensible/Unsure of meaning" button cause a lot of grief when used incorrectly.

 

I dont know whether I have interperted the meaning of the buttons as intended by Andy Y, but the following is what I think they are intended to mean:

 

IMO the following is OK

"Disagree" when an incorrect statement is made

"Incomprehensible/Unsure of meaning" when the post does not make sense

 

IMO the following is not OK

"Disagree" when the post expresses an opinion different to that of the person disagreeing

"Incomprehensible/Unsure of meaning" when the  post does make sense, but the person pressing the button just does not understand it.

The mixing of "incomprehensible" with "unsure of meaning" in the one button is IMO a folly as someone can be unsure of the meaning of a perfectly correct post.

 

Buttons already pressed  LOL

 

Agree x 5897 

Colin

 

This post has gone off on a tangent some times, but does not keep going off the topic. There may well be others reading this thread who perhaps would like to know about other solutions. Most threads do wander off topic sometimes, especially the larger ones

 

Again those who knowledge about prototype matters is growing, may ask for something which in practice may not be suitable or commercially viable. Assistance from those with a better understanding of the subject will help to move the discussion on

 

Prototype printing is going off on a tangent, but just may be the vehicle to enable a range of better looking turnouts and crossings to be produced. If this is the case then its well worth going off tangent every now and then

[Metr0Land]

Something’s been puzzling me.

 

We seem to have a consensus on here that Peco won’t introduce nouvelle-OO (for want of a better expression) unless there’s some likelihood of a competitor taking sales from Code 75/100.  Indeed having 3 lots of OO track could be confusing, not to mention adding to the woes of stockists.

 

Having said that, Peco do have a pretty large range now across all scales so adding one more to their entire output isn’t such a big leap (for themselves)?

 

What’s puzzling me is this.  Why did Peco introduce Code 75?  My memory may be fading  but I don’t recall there being a competitor at the time who would be stealing share from Code 100. If that is true, then surely the argument would have gone that there was no need to invest in Code 75 because they would simply divert sales from Code 100?

 

However we now seem to be thinking they won’t introduce nouvelle-OO because it will simply divert sales they would have made anyway.

 

What am I missing?

[Clive Mortimore]

The most sold Peco point is their medium radius, was once called a 3 ft radius point.

 

The plactic base of the first version of the H0 point has been updated at leat 3 or 4 times each time with improvments to meet the improved RTR wheels.

 

At the present time it is avaiable with the following bases,

Code 100 insulfrog

Code 100 electrofrog

Code 70 wooden timbers

Code 70 concrete bearers

O-16.5

 

In O-16.5 it was also avaiable in "Crazy Track" 

 

One more plastic base would not be too much, would it? There would be a slight cost for the new tooling of this base but the rest would be as they already do. So I don't think Peco can be ruled out.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Something’s been puzzling me.

 

We seem to have a consensus on here that Peco won’t introduce nouvelle-OO (for want of a better expression) unless there’s some likelihood of a competitor taking sales from Code 75/100.  Indeed having 3 lots of OO track could be confusing, not to mention adding to the woes of stockists.

 

Having said that, Peco do have a pretty large range now across all scales so adding one more to their entire output isn’t such a big leap (for themselves)?

 

What’s puzzling me is this.  Why did Peco introduce Code 75?  My memory may be fading  but I don’t recall there being a competitor at the time who would be stealing share from Code 100. If that is true, then surely the argument would have gone that there was no need to invest in Code 75 because they would simply divert sales from Code 100?

 

However we now seem to be thinking they won’t introduce nouvelle-OO because it will simply divert sales they would have made anyway.

 

What am I missing?

 

Not in the UK. But in Mainland Europe they were certainly in danger of losing sales to RocoLine (Code 83). The new Code 75 worked beautifully with the European HO weel standards that were current at that time. I recall it well because I built a largish layout for a client at that time. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't think you're missing anything. The notion that Peco will only better their current product if someone else enters the mass-market arena sounds like complete nonsense. I would venture the reason they haven't done so yet is because they see it as a niche market. There may be plenty of people posting on this thread that they want it, but a few people wishlisting doesn't make a new product financially viable with regard to tooling costs etc. I'm personally quite happy with Code 100 and 75 as it is, but if I wanted a more prototypical look, I'd simply use SMP or C&L flexi and get someone to make the points for me. I won't be holding my breath for any new wonder product.

 

But as Dave (Chris P Bacon) has pointed out, points built to order cost 4x the price of Peco. Quite a big extra expense on a large layout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

The most sold Peco point is their medium radius, was once called a 3 ft radius point.

 

The plactic base of the first version of the H0 point has been updated at leat 3 or 4 times each time with improvments to meet the improved RTR wheels.

 

At the present time it is avaiable with the following bases,

Code 100 insulfrog

Code 100 electrofrog

Code 70 wooden timbers

Code 70 concrete bearers

O-16.5

 

In O-16.5 it was also avaiable in "Crazy Track" 

 

One more plastic base would not be too much, would it? There would be a slight cost for the new tooling of this base but the rest would be as they already do. So I don't think Peco can be ruled out.

 

That has to be right: But only for FB (I think). BH would require a complete new start.

[Ron Ron Ron]

I don't think you're missing anything. The notion that Peco will only better their current product if someone else enters the mass-market arena sounds like complete nonsense. I would venture the reason they haven't done so yet is because they see it as a niche market. There may be plenty of people posting on this thread that they want it, but a few people wishlisting doesn't make a new product financially viable with regard to tooling costs etc.

Read post 503 on the previous page (page 21).

 

I'm personally quite happy with Code 100 and 75 as it is, but if I wanted a more prototypical look, I'd simply use SMP or C&L flexi and get someone to make the points for me. I won't be holding my breath for any new wonder product.

That's OK, build your own track (to do so should be commended and admired); but for many people the option of building their own track will not be taken up, for whatever reason, even if they want better RTL track that is more appropriate to 00 than the current Peco offerings.

 

If a "better" alternative was available, from Peco or any other company, I'll wager you might think twice about using the current Peco ranges again for a British 00 layout?

 

 

.

 

[Mike Storey]

That word "if" rears its ugly head quite a bit in this thread.

The general consensus seems to be that something better than what's already available is needed. But by what percentage of modellers? I reckon that if most modellers in OO can put up with the odd scale/gauge combination, they can live with the sleeper spacings... I would, no doubt, use a new, reliable, more realistic RTL trackwork for my next project if one was available. It's not. So do I put  a hold on modelling? No, of course not. I make do with what's available and modify as required. I'm not, I hasten to add, competent enough with a soldering iron to build my own. I admire those that can/do, but it's not for me

Clive advocated a new sleeper base for the Peco turnouts. That may solve the sleeper spacing, but plenty of people have complained about Peco's other deficiencies. They wouldn't be happy, maybe just slightly happier...

I firmly believe that in the case of track, you will never please everybody. If a "better" alternative ever becomes available, terrific... but I'm pretty sure it won't be long before someone finds something wrong with it in a review...

I've just seen the photos by Peter Bedding (above) and I'm of the opinion that if you can find fault with that from an average viewing distance, you're amongst those that need a better alternative. Unfortunately I'm with those that will no doubt think it looks great. Each to their own.

In my own humble opinion (feel free to disagree, it causes me no lost sleep), this thread started with good intentions but there is very little in the last 15 or so pages that smacks of anything other than wishlisting froth. I think the best thing I can do is step away from this thread and wait patiently for this new product. If it doesn't appear, life (and modelling) will go on.

 

I think many of you are ignoring the fact that Joseph has stated, more than once, that he is going to try to construct a prototype for practicality and costing purposes, to establish viability, and presumably with the benefit of our collective reactions. Armed with this to present to potential manufacturers or investors, it is a hell of a step forward from wishing. Please support him in this endeavour.

[gordon s]

Purely out of interest, I've been tracklaying and ballasting for a while over the Christmas break and this is SMP 00 track painted and ballasted.  As an alternative to Peco Code 75 it scrubs up fairy well...

 

Edited December 29, 2013 by gordon s

['CHARD]

I concur, Gordon.  I shall set out on my next project (sometime in Q1/2014) using my stock of C & L flexi for plain track, with the best of my surplus Peco (no idea what code it all is) in the hidden areas.

 

For now, there will be no pointwork in the visible/ scenic sections.  I may introduce a couple of trailing crossovers in due course, but even these could start off for purely decorative purposes only.  I'm one of those cussed individuals who is no longer happy with the appearance of 00 stock on HO track due to everything about the sleepers, but won't be spending time building points.  Pretty much the perfect consumer for this thread really.

[hayfield]

Purely out of interest, I've been tracklaying and ballasting for a while over the Christmas break and this is SMP 00 track painted and ballasted.  As an alternative to Peco Code 75 it scrubs up fairy well...

 

DSCF5406.jpg

 

 

Gordon

 

Looking at your photo against those of Peco flexitrack makes the case perfectly, as the sleeper size and spacing looks completely different. To my eyes looks more like the real thing.

 

I accept the arguments from some that the 16.5 gauge still looks wrong and the HO proportions of track are more to their liking. Also to those who take it a step further and model in P4 and EM gauges.

 

In my opinion RTR turnouts really fails, is that the sleeper size should be wider than the plain track, not the same width. And the holes in the sleepers where point motors fit. I think the geometry can be forgiven (space saving is a factor) as can the flange and checkway gaps. If the makers took these liberties with locos and rolling stock think of the uproar that would cause

[cromptonnut]

 If the makers took these liberties with locos and rolling stock think of the uproar that would cause

 

You obviously don't remember Lima's foray into N gauge - different scale ratios in each dimension

['CHARD]

You obviously don't remember Lima's foray into N gauge - different scale ratios in each dimension

 

Sometimes selective memory protects us from the worst history has thrown our way   

[cromptonnut]

I suppose it's relevant in the way that there were no ready-to-run alternatives to these strange Lima offering so we "made do", in the same way that we "make do" with Peco track as there is no other ready to use alternative unless you revert to kits.