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

['CHARD]

And to think, as a child of ten or so, I took it on trust that those N locos were proportionally correct.  I remember looking in the Observer's Book of British Railways Locomotives to establish what D5379 actually was, realising that it lacked realism and then getting massively sidetracked in the list of Western names at the back of the book.....

Edited December 29, 2013 by 'CHARD

[JeremyC]

This may or may not add something to the discussion, but possibly provides an idea of what RTL points made by a small independent manufacturer would cost.

 

Weinert Modellbau in Germany is an independent manufacturer of high quality models and kits. They produce a range of large radius points called 'Mein Gleis'. These are, according to their website, designed to be complimentary to the Peco range. The price for one of their points is 44 pounds.

 

Jeremy

Edited December 29, 2013 by JeremyC

[martin_wynne]

This may or may not add something to the discussion, but possibly provides an idea of what RTL points made by a small independent manufacturer would cost.

 

Weinert Modellbau in Germany is an independent manufacturer of high quality models and kits. They produce a range of large radius points called 'Mein Gleis'. These are, according to their website, designed to be complimentary to the Peco range. The price for one of their points is 44 pounds.

 

Thanks for the link. It is H0 code 75 FB track in German style:

 

 

Image from: http://www.mein-gleis.de/images/stories/MeinGleis-8seiter-2013.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grovenor]

I heard it suggested somewhere that Peco are making it for him. And, certainly on the last page of that pdf he is offering Peco rail. So maybe Peco are prepared to take on commissions.

Keith

[martin_wynne]

So maybe Peco are prepared to take on commissions.

 

Peco group subsidiary Sycon Ltd does contract plastic moulding:

 

http://www.yell.com/s/plastic+mouldings-seaton.html

 

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/sycon

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Peco group subsidiary Sycon Ltd does contract plastic moulding:

 

http://www.yell.com/s/plastic+mouldings-seaton.html

 

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/sycon

 

Sycon Ltd is listed as a "Dormant company" with £600 capital.

[Bernard Lamb]

Thanks for the link. It is H0 code 75 FB track in German style:

 

 

This track has been mentioned in either the German or H0 sections of the forum.

We then come to the same problem that we face in the UK. There is no such thing as "German style".

I would class this track as similar to Marcway in that it will only appeal to a limited market.

Better track for a lot of situations but at quite a premium in terms of cost.

Ironically to model Saxon railways for example the Peco points with short switches would be more accurate.

Many years ago Cyril Freezer made a remark on the lines of "They don't know what they want. If they tell us we can make it".

I applaud the attempt to try and identify a choice that would sell, but I fear that it will be a difficult task.

Bernard

[martin_wynne]

Many years ago Cyril Freezer made a remark on the lines of "They don't know what they want. If they tell us we can make it".

 

What you are looking for is someone who does know what he wants, with the capital to make it happen. This is how the Exactoscale P4 turnout kits came in to being -- Andrew Jukes needed them for his own layout.

 

Instead of looking for the right design, this topic might do better looking for the right person.

[Jeff Smith]

I am an interested observer of matters 00 but have modelled in P4 since the mid-eighties. The discussions of the variations in 00 standards has opened my eyes to some of the difficulties faced by modellers unwilling or unable to make alterations to off the shelf items. It makes me glad to be following a consistent standard even though I have to do much of the work myself...but there again for me that's the aspect of the hobby I enjoy most.

 

Our hobby covers a broad spectrum of skills and aspirations but I can't help thinking that perhaps the market between Hornby/Set Track users and those willing to improve their skills and their track, ie the current UK Streamline purchasers, is smaller than we think.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am an interested observer of matters 00 but have modelled in P4 since the mid-eighties. The discussions of the variations in 00 standards has opened my eyes to some of the difficulties faced by modellers unwilling or unable to make alterations to off the shelf items. It makes me glad to be following a consistent standard even though I have to do much of the work myself...but there again for me that's the aspect of the hobby I enjoy most.

 

Our hobby covers a broad spectrum of skills and aspirations but I can't help thinking that perhaps the market between Hornby/Set Track users and those willing to improve their skills and their track, ie the current UK Streamline purchasers, is smaller than we think.

 

It may indeed be smaller than we think. That needs a bit more study. But given the size of the market for better locos and rolling stock, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is a market big enough to be viable, especially in an age when tooling costs are a fraction of what they were.

[gordon s]

' especially in an age when tooling costs are a fraction of what they were'.

 

Why is that Joseph?  OK, I've been out of manufacturing for 15 years or so, but what has changed with mould tools, stamping dies and assembly machines to reduce the costs to a 'fraction of what they were'?

 

I wasn't aware of that and like to keep my head up to date with modern manufacturing methods.

Edited December 30, 2013 by gordon s

[Ron Ron Ron]

......I can't help thinking that perhaps the market between Hornby/Set Track users and those willing to improve their skills and their track, ie the current UK Streamline purchasers, is smaller than we think.

 

Can I refer you back to post 503 on page 21.

 

Markets don't have to exist, to a very great degree they are created.

Even if a small market already exists, it can be significantly increased by changing and improving what's on offer.

 

30 years ago, there was no market for home computers.

10 years ago, there was only a tiny market for "smart" mobile phones.

5 years ago, there was no market for Tablet computers.

15 years ago, there was said to be no market for super detailed RTR in 00.

15 years ago, there was said to be no market for quality, smooth can motors in RTR.

10 years ago, there was said to be no market in the UK for DCC.

5 years ago, there was said to be no market for RTR EMU's in 00.

3 years ago, there was said to be no market for a modern day, super detailed, RTR Blue Pullman to be produced.

 

The P4 track company arrived out of the blue and increased the market for kit building.

 

At the other end of the scale, Peco decided to introduce ranges of narrow gauge track for much smaller niche markets.

How much did that cost to tool up?

 

Need I go on?

 

There also appears to be some confusion in this discussion between having a market, or creating a market and economic viability.

Although these are related and in economic terms totally inter-dependent; they are quite different aspects of the issue and shouldn't be confused.

 

Assuming the price, build quality and availability issues are well balanced, British style 00 RTL track will sell itself and create its own market.

As to whether it's a viable economic proposition is another matter and for would-be manufacturers, or commissioners to decide.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

[martin_wynne]

especially in an age when tooling costs are a fraction of what they were.

 

???

 

Rapid-prototyping is now much easier and faster than it was, but such tools are not suitable for production runs. Some interesting stuff about Peco moulding and toolmaking:

 

 http://www.wittmann-group.co.uk/news/2013/06/peco-stays-on-track-with-wittmann-automation/

 

 http://www.britishplastics.co.uk/machinery/Peco-stays-on-track-with-Wittmann-automation/

 

 http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/peco_hails_new_machines_1_634287

 

 http://www.verosoftware.com/news/casestudies/OntherighttrackwithVISI

 

 http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/education/tool_boost_for_peco_apprentice_1_659983

 

Unfortunately this press release has been withdrawn, but it is still available in Google's cache without the pictures, see: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OWS1-LR35_YJ:www.gtma.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Vero-PECO-VISI-case-study-070612-GTMA.pdf

 

Martin.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Interesting stuff Martin. Thanks for posting those links.

 

Do I understand correctly, that for a manufacturer who has the latest technology and tools, design to manufacturing is not only a faster process, but more cost efficient, i.e. cheaper?

[ThaneofFife]

A quick reminder of the way it was in N gauge not so long ago... Off topic, but I guess slightly relevant with regard to weird scale/gauge combinations...

The Minitrix 27 in particular must have been designed by a blind man but for many years, there was no alternative so we made do.

 

lima_n.jpg

 

(sorry to go OT for a minute..... but woe!!.....that Class 27 looks terrible now but my dad a couple of them back in the day and you never batted an eyelid.  As an adult he might have had reservations of its lack of accuracy (maybe he accepted it for a model of the 70s) but as a kid I certainly didnt spot those awful bogies with the sort of half body half bogie set up going on.  It had working lights though   Always thought the Lima N gauge Class 86 was ok just sat a bit too high up.

Thanks for the link. It is H0 code 75 FB track in German style:

 

MeinGleis-8seiter-2013_page5_image2.png

 

Image from: http://www.mein-gleis.de/images/stories/MeinGleis-8seiter-2013.pdf

 

These look interesting and code 75 too.  If I stick to 00 I may have to look into them but against say a Peco 83 Line US style turnout at about 1/3 of the cost they clearly arent going to compete on price.........I would be tempted more to go with Tillig.

I spoke to a PECO rep at the Warley show in 2011 and he told me that they were to bring out a code 75 set of left and right handed super long turnouts (Hornby call them Express points but these were going to be longer) in concrete sleeper.  We didnt discuss sleeper spacing and so I assume that if or when these turnouts appears the spacing will be unchanged from other streamline products.

 

Can I refer you back to post 503 on page 21.

 

Markets don't have to exist, to a very great degree they are created.

Even if a small market already exists, it can be significantly increased by changing and improving what's on offer.

 

30 years ago, there was no market for home computers.

10 years ago, there was only a tiny market for "smart" mobile phones.

5 years ago, there was no market for Tablet computers.

15 years ago, there was said to be no market for super detailed RTR in 00.

15 years ago, there was said to be no market for quality, smooth can motors in RTR.

10 years ago, there was said to be no market in the UK for DCC.

5 years ago, there was said to be no market for RTR EMU's in 00.

3 years ago, there was said to be no market for a modern day, super detailed, RTR Blue Pullman to be produced.

 

The P4 track company arrived out of the blue and increased the market for kit building.

 

At the other end of the scale, Peco decided to introduce ranges of narrow gauge track for much smaller niche markets.

How much did that cost to tool up?

 

Need I go on?

 

There also appears to be some confusion in this discussion between having a market, or creating a market and economic viability.

Although these are related and in economic terms totally inter-dependent; they are quite different aspects of the issue and shouldn't be confused.

 

Assuming the price, build quality and availability issues are well balanced, British style 00 RTL track will sell itself and create its own market.

As to whether it's a viable economic proposition is another matter and for would-be manufacturers, or commissioners to decide.

 

 

.

 

 

 

.

I hope Rons logic here also applies equally to high quality updated AC electric locomotives in 00

[martin_wynne]

The P4 track company arrived out of the blue and increased the market for kit building.

 

Not quite out of the blue. It appeared because one man (Andrew Jukes) was prepared to finance what he wanted for his own layout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Why is that Joseph?  OK, I've been out of manufacturing for 15 years or so, but what has changed with mould tools, stamping dies and assembly machines to reduce the costs to a 'fraction of what they were'?

 

I wasn't aware of that and like to keep my head up to date with modern manufacturing methods.

 

Digital. Before (back in the day that Streamline was first being produced) a highly skilled tradesman had to make all the tooling. Now a computer does it.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Not quite out of the blue. It appeared because one man (Andrew Jukes) was prepared to finance what he wanted for his own layout.

 

By "out of the blue", in a way that's what I meant.

He created the market for his own product and grew the (tiny) market for handbuilt track as a result.

 

 

.

[martin_wynne]

Digital. Before (back in the day that Streamline was first being produced) a highly skilled tradesman had to make all the tooling. Now a computer does it.

 

Operated by a highly skilled tradesman. Using software prepared by a highly skilled designer. On equipment which costs far more than an old manual milling machine.

 

It's now a much faster process. But I doubt very much that it is any less costly.

 

Unless you get someone in China to do it all for you.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Operated by a highly skilled tradesman. Using software prepared by a highly skilled designer. On equipment which costs far more than an old manual milling machine.

 

It's now a much faster process. But I doubt very much that it is any less costly.

 

Unless you get someone in China to do it all for you.

 

Martin.

 

Fair comment: But as those press releases which you kindly provided mention, they have been able to reduce time spent by 30% even when compared to their previous CAD/CAM equipment which itself would have been a step-change from old technology. That sort of time saving can pay for a lot of kit if you use it intensively enough.

[Budgie]

These look interesting and code 75 too.  If I stick to 00 I may have to look into them but against say a Peco 83 Line US style turnout at about 1/3 of the cost they clearly arent going to compete on price.........I would be tempted more to go with Tillig.

I spoke to a PECO rep at the Warley show in 2011 and he told me that they were to bring out a code 75 set of left and right handed super long turnouts (Hornby call them Express points but these were going to be longer) in concrete sleeper.  We didnt discuss sleeper spacing and so I assume that if or when these turnouts appears the spacing will be unchanged from other streamline products.

Those points remind me of Tillig track rather than Peco, it has to be said.

 

If Peco do bring out a set of super-long points, I hope the angle of the diverging track will be (much) less than twelve degrees. I agree that the double-track spacing using them should be the same 52 mm. as with all the others.

 

Of course, while they're at it, they might like to make a scissors crossover between two tracks 52 mm. apart.

[gordon s]

Digital. Before (back in the day that Streamline was first being produced) a highly skilled tradesman had to make all the tooling. Now a computer does it.

 

Not totally true.  I said 15 years, not 50.  We had tools and fixtures designed on CAD and had CNC machines back in the 80's….

 

So sorry, that doesn't account for tools being a 'fraction of the cost'.  I like to know a bit more about your statement.  Have you seen quotes for 2, 4, or 8 impression tools?  From memory in connector manufacture, multi impression tools with separate inserts to allow a range of sizes were anywhere between £20k and £40k depending on the complexity.

 

I'm fairly open minded, but sometimes statements are made that perhaps are an exaggeration or without any real substance.  In this discussion tooling costs really are central to any cost justification and can make a huge difference to any business case.

[hayfield]

Gordon

 

I am not into engineering and don't know the names of which machines do what.  

 

5 or 6 years ago a friend I played golf with was a jeweller, He got into designing rings on his computer and had them printed in wax to be cast rather than make the master by hand. He told me not only was it quicker but he could do things with the printer he could never do by hand. Then he bought a printer for himself, this whilst costing him several thousand pounds reaped rewards, as everything bar the casting was done in house and he printed masters for others. This is one person on his own working from a small workshop.

 

Advances in manufacturing processes of all kinds are allowing items to be built that could not be dreamed of, or would cost a fortune in years past. The more machines there are obviously creates more capacity. More capacity reduces prices, less dependency on human labour not only reduces costs but brings (or will bring) production back to this side of the world if nothing other than to save expensive shipping costs.

 

Looking at Lens work on the Exactoscale chairs, each one of the 10 chairs on a sprue is a work of art. When in place look superb. But thread all 10 chairs on a short length of rail and they all differ slightly. If these were produced now by the latest technology then I guess each chair on the sprue would be exactly the same. A second tool would cost a lot less as the details of the first is stored in a computer program, and to change from a 3 bolt to a 4 bolt chair again would cost less than the first tool.

 

As said someone looking a fresh at this subject may see an opportunity available to make a profit. As Ben Arnold of Peco said in one of the press releases. 

 

are some of the most exacting customers in the world

stay ahead of the curve our design  

 

Lets hope they are looking at this thread

Edited December 30, 2013 by hayfield

[Ravenser]

 

 

These look interesting and code 75 too.  If I stick to 00 I may have to look into them but against say a Peco 83 Line US style turnout at about 1/3 of the cost they clearly arent going to compete on price.........I would be tempted more to go with Tillig.

I spoke to a PECO rep at the Warley show in 2011 and he told me that they were to bring out a code 75 set of left and right handed super long turnouts (Hornby call them Express points but these were going to be longer) in concrete sleeper.  We didnt discuss sleeper spacing and so I assume that if or when these turnouts appears the spacing will be unchanged from other streamline products

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth the code 75 concrete sleeper points are now out. I've not seen them closer than hanging behind a model shop counter, so I can't be sure exactly what Peco have done - you'd probably need a ruler and a direct side by side comparison. But I have seen the new Code 75 concrete sleeper Streamline flexible track. And that has appreciably longer and wider sleepers than the old code 100 concrete sleeper, spaced slightly wider apart - or indeed than the code 75 wooden sleeper. As a result it looks rather better and rather more British than we are used to from Peco. I am hoping that the new concrete sleeper points represent a similar advance

 

Although it's not perfect , code 75 Streamline concrete gives the modern image modeller something appreciably better than we've had in the past . I suspect the spur was competition - in the form of the Exactoscale "Fasttrack" base. Since Peco are the suppliers of Code 83 rail, they probably became aware that there was a market for better concrete sleeper track than the old code 100 which was their only offering in this sector until recently - as evidenced by a sudden surge in sales of rail. So they've reacted with a new product to block any competition in this niche

 

This suggests that code 75 bullhead may be the direction to take - not only is suitable flexible track already available from C+L and SMP , but suddenly contemporary track in code 75 concrete sleeper is the option best served by existing products    

[Mythocentric]

Thanks for those links Martin! I was particularly interested in Peco Engineering Director, Ben Arnold's statement:

 

Quote:

        ‘model railway enthusiasts – our customers – are some of the most exacting customers in the world. To stay ahead of the curve our design and manufacture has to keep satisfying this passion for microscopic detail. This – and the benefits of modern moulding – contribute to keeping the Peco name at the head of the market place.’

 

Clearly someone at Peco is aware of us - the customers - but it doesn't explain why Peco has such a notorious reputation for not actually listening to them! I suspect that Mr. Arnold's statement is therefore little more than 'PR babble' intended to impress the shareholders with the end user - us - left as a very distant relation!

 

If they did, perhaps this thread and others would not be necessary. Sad to say it is and they don't so keep up the good work everyone and hopefully we will eventually make a difference.

 

Regards

 

Bill