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

[highpeak]

 

I would like to thank Joseph for this thread and the poll because it has given us 00 modellers who would like ready to lay track with an improved appearance chance to say so.

 

It still bothers me that most of those who have said it cannot be done and now saying the poll is rubbish are those who don't want to use 00 ready to lay track......have I missed something as why, if you don't want it, are you telling others they should not have it, it would be impossible to make, there is no market for it etc.

I don't think anybody who models to some standard other than OO or who makes their own track is really opposed to the idea of some better-looking track being available ready to lay. I believe most if not all of the commentary is intended to reveal where the project might run into difficulties, either in being able to produce the product at a realistic price or in being able to come up with a specification that will appeal to the widest market.

And therein lies a bit of a problem. There seems to be some consensus on some aspects of what the product should be but not enough to tool up for it. It all reminds me a bit of a letter Cyril Freezer wrote to MRJ (issue 62 back in 1993). He recalled Sydney Pritchard looking at the issue of Model Railway News that had the first articles on what would eventually become the P4 standards, throwing it on the desk and exclaiming "It's no use making track for these people, they don't know what they want."

If I have missed the post that managed to come up with the production spec, then I apologise.

[trisonic]

It's a shame that only 134 people out of, roughly 22,000 members of RMWeb have bothered voting...

 

Best, Pete.

[Jeff Smith]

It appears from the poll results that the majority of OO modellers who buy RTL track favour code 75 and have spent a reasonable amount on their last layout(s). Whilst there is no guarantee these are all the same people there will be a good overlap. To put this into perspective it would be very useful to have a breakdown of Peco code 75 sales broken down by geographical area (country not county) and individual item, and also how this has varied over say the last 10 years. This info is obviously available to Peco and would be the main driver to establish the risk of going forward with a redesigned OO range - together with estimates of how long the existing tooling will last and whether there is any sales threat on the horizon.

 

What I find fascinating about Peco is the decision(s) to tool up for relatively minor narrow-gauge track types, sales for which must be very minimal compared to mainstream code 75, 100 and even US83.

[Kenton]

 

It still bothers me that most of those who have said it cannot be done and now saying the poll is rubbish are those who don't want to use 00 ready to lay track

If I have been included in that summary (I have said from the outset the poll is rubbish - even if the intention of it is good) I need to correct you as I would want to use better RTL and I do model in OO (as well as several other gauges+scales) and although I do not think it is a viable business proposition. I am certainly not telling anyone that they should not have it. Just that I think it stands as pie in the sky like most wishlists. That's just an opinion and just like I don't care what RTR loco is next produced for OO I may just still buy it if it does eventually materialise and is shown to be as reliable as Peco. I don't care who takes the risk.

 

I do not believe that anyone still participating in this topic - so far in - can be accused with your assumption of not wanting to see improved OO RTL track. Just that we need convincing that it may actually happen and this isn't just another vacuous wishlist topic simply doing its annual fanfare.

 

BTW. There are quite a lot of NG modellers out there (not as many as OO sure) I don't think Peco sell it for the love of it.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Kenton

[andytrains]

RMweb currently has 21,542 Total Members

 

A fair proportion of these are 00 modellers

 

So the figure of 10,000 in total must be far too low, even if all the railway modellers were members of RMweb.

 

 

 

Also if the sample is small in absolute numbers as it is here. One vote going a different way can affect the result by nearly 1%. 

That is a significant variation when deciding whether to invest thousands of pounds in what looks like a marginal business venture.

Out of the railway modellers I know, there are only about 6 or 7 out of 30 that are on RM Web. So work out the numbers. (I can't be bothered).

But I would like to see a new more accurate profile of 00 gauge track.

[Clive Mortimore]

 If I have been included in that summary (I have said from the outset the poll is rubbish - even if the intention of it is good) I need to correct you as I would want to use better RTL and I do model in OO (as well as several other gauges+scales) and although I do not think it is a viable business proposition. I am certainly not telling anyone that they should not have it. Just that I think it stands as pie in the sky like most wishlists. That's just an opinion and just like I don't care what RTR loco is next produced for OO I may just still buy it if it does eventually materialise and is shown to be as reliable as Peco. I don't care who takes the risk.

 

I do not believe that anyone still participating in this topic - so far in - can be accused with your assumption of not wanting to see improved OO RTL track. Just that we need convincing that it may actually happen and this isn't just another vacuous wishlist topic simply doing its annual fanfare.

 

BTW. There are quite a lot of NG modellers out there (not as many as OO sure) I don't think Peco sell it for the love of it.

Hi Kenton

 

Should you wish to be included by all means include yourself but please note I did say "It still bothers me that most of those....." not all.

[andytrains]

I am quoting from the first entry of this topic:-

 

"Yes, there have been threads on this subject before. They have tended to get locked after a "gauge war" has broken out. And that's a pity because we may as well recognise that the vast majority of 4mm scale railway modelling involves the use of 16.5mm (OO) track and, given the existing manufacturers' commitment to that standard, it's not going to change anytime soon."

 

"If your preference is EM or P4, that's great - but this thread is not for you."

 

As an EM modeller who wants to see better 00 gauge track, 'I better get me coat.'

[Mike Storey]

In summary:

 

OK - so 10,000 is too few. Even if it is 100,000, the poll sample corresponds favourably with the samples businesses regularly utilise for much larger target markets, Whether it is sufficiently representative of 00 modellers generally, in rational terms, rather than matters statistical, can be argued 'til the cows come home. It is very hard to ask for opinions about something which does not yet exist, as most marketeers will tell you. And, most punters are extremely passive. You have to be brave and very thick-skinned to stick your head above the parapet to face the dogs of war in this medium. A pity, but politesse went the way of vellum, although it does cut down the pages....

 

Thus far (with 135 responses, and assuming limited mulitiple voting) it is clear that there is a majority willing to pay more than 20 sovs for new turnouts (and probably a number of those who stated they would pay the next band below, really would pay the extra (not naming any names ...ahem). So, after all the Hornby-bashing about rising prices, it would indicate (but not prove) that there could be a reasonable market for a new premium and premium-priced product

 

Further, I am not sure how many of you that keep saying there is no business prospect for this have established just what kind of market research Peco undertook for their bi-block track? I suggest very little other than the Hornby International peeps saying there was a gap in the market. Would this detract from their Codes 75, 100 and even 83. You bet. But they took a very decent punt. However, the point I made concerning whether an incremental approach would be more successful, uses this as an example, whereby Peco's gamble is based purely on the use of new tooling for the track web, but not for the rail or point work (so far). I think Joseph and others are right to progress this and resist the naysayers, because you don't get if you don't ask. If anyone has a better poll design or suggestions for very cheap market research, let them not just say so, but put something forward that the rest of us can have a go at. Meanwhile, let's keep going.

 

...............drops down back below parapet.

[Mike Storey]

 

I am quoting from the first entry of this topic:-

 

"Yes, there have been threads on this subject before. They have tended to get locked after a "gauge war" has broken out. And that's a pity because we may as well recognise that the vast majority of 4mm scale railway modelling involves the use of 16.5mm (OO) track and, given the existing manufacturers' commitment to that standard, it's not going to change anytime soon."

 

"If your preference is EM or P4, that's great - but this thread is not for you."

 

As an EM modeller who wants to see better 00 gauge track, 'I better get me coat.'

 

 

In Joseph's defence, I believe that comment was added after many pages had been used by several members who were trying to steer the thread well away from its intention (primarily advocates for self-build or EM/P4). If you have a genuine interest in the improvement of 00, but do not currently model in it, it presents a dilemma for you to answer the poll. Would you build a future layout in 00 if the RTL track was to be more realistic, and what price band would you be prepared to pay? If you never intend to go to 00, you are not a prospective customer in the potential target market, and therefore your participation in the poll would be misleading. However, many comments in the thread have come from such people and have been very constructive in the practicalities and engineering, and are extremely welcome, I would suggest.

[andytrains]

In Joseph's defence, I believe that comment was added after many pages had been used by several members who were trying to steer the thread well away from its intention (primarily advocates for self-build or EM/P4). If you have a genuine interest in the improvement of 00, but do not currently model in it, it presents a dilemma for you to answer the poll. Would you build a future layout in 00 if the RTL track was to be more realistic, and what price band would you be prepared to pay? If you never intend to go to 00, you are not a prospective customer in the potential target market, and therefore your participation in the poll would be misleading. However, many comments in the thread have come from such people and have been very constructive in the practicalities and engineering, and are extremely welcome, I would suggest.

I would go to 00 at the drop of a hat if there was decent ready to lay track.

No qualms given the high standard of recent RTR locos and stock.

I also believe that we have had our models relatively on the cheap for quite a few years, and, that we need to be more selective as to what we buy if things are going to be of higher quality and consequently more expensive.

Edited January 22, 2014 by andytrains

[Jeff Smith]

I would go to 00 at the drop of a hat if there was decent ready to lay track.

What would you move from - just curious?

[Colin_McLeod]

What I find fascinating about Peco is the decision(s) to tool up for relatively minor narrow-gauge track types, sales for which must be very minimal compared to mainstream code 75, 100 and even US83.

 

Perhaps it is cheaper to tool up for track making that we thought.  That can only be a good thing for a potential new 00 range.

[billbedford]

It still bothers me that most of those who have said it cannot be done and now saying the poll is rubbish are those who don't want to use 00 ready to lay track......

 

But it's still vapourware, and out's going to remain vapourware at least until someone starts talking to people in the trade about what the realistic size of the 4mm pointwork market is and what proportion of that market could be expected to buy into your new products. Until that information is obtained then no one can know whether there's the slightest chance that you could produce a viable product. 

[sub39h]

What would you move from - just curious?

 

his sig says his current layout is EM. my guess would be that

[Jeff Smith]

his sig says his current layout is EM. my guess would be that

Ah, did not spot that......

['CHARD]

Vapourware: noun.

 

1. An advertised product, often computer software, whose launch has not happened yet and might or might not ever happen.

 

 

EDIT: definition included, just in case anyone else was wondering.  Never be afraid to ask - chances are loads of others have no idea either.

Edited January 22, 2014 by 'CHARD

[Mike Storey]

But it's still vapourware, and out's going to remain vapourware at least until someone starts talking to people in the trade about what the realistic size of the 4mm pointwork market is and what proportion of that market could be expected to buy into your new products. Until that information is obtained then no one can know whether there's the slightest chance that you could produce a viable product. 

 

But Bill, what you makes you think that "the trade" would not do that anyway. They are not going to take the word of a bunch of enthusiasts, but they might bother to make those enquiries if a reasoned, if not proven, case is presented to them, with a list of technical/aesthetic requirements as a starter for ten. Peco's response, and the words attributed to others many decades ago, is that the trigger would be a consensus on the requirements. They would make the final decision on whether to take the risk, not us, and companies frequently take decisions on less than this, especially in the IT world!.

 

If you had similar difficulties with getting things to market, or a failed commercial project that we might learn from, please share them. But I, for one, just don't understand the background to your negative vibes.....  

[Mike Storey]

I would go to 00 at the drop of a hat if there was decent ready to lay track.

No qualms given the high standard of recent RTR locos and stock.

I also believe that we have had our models relatively on the cheap for quite a few years, and, that we need to be more selective as to what we buy if things are going to be of higher quality and consequently more expensive.

 

Hope you have voted then, even if the poll is considered imperfect by some.!

[Jeff Smith]

But Bill, what you makes you think that "the trade" would not do that anyway.........

 

If you had similar difficulties with getting things to market, or a failed commercial project that we might learn from, please share them. But I, for one, just don't understand the background to your negative vibes.....  

Perhaps Bill is secretly developing his own OO RTL track and is attempting to reduce the competition....

[billbedford]

What I find fascinating about Peco is the decision(s) to tool up for relatively minor narrow-gauge track types, sales for which must be very minimal compared to mainstream code 75, 100 and even US83.

 

100% of a niche market maybe more valuable to Peco than a much smaller proportion of a more general market, especially if these track types support some of their other products.

[chris p bacon]

100% of a niche market maybe more valuable to Peco than a much smaller proportion of a more general market, especially if these track types support some of their other products.

Now you are theorising without evidence.

 

 

Welcome to the club, it's not exclusive.

[Budgie]

What I find fascinating about Peco is the decision(s) to tool up for relatively minor narrow-gauge track types, sales for which must be very minimal compared to mainstream code 75, 100 and even US83.

I'd like to see Peco make dual-gauge track, both OO and OO9 or, more likely, HO and HOe, with proper points with switchblades on all three rails, not like the ones Tillig do, where the point is on either the standard gauge or the narrow gauge but not both.

 

Then I can relay my garden railway in this stuff and run OO/HO and N, even at the same time, as the fancy takes me.  (That's me pointing out Rule 1 to any objectors to this idea!)

[Ron Ron Ron]

......and out's going to remain vapourware at least until someone starts talking to people in the trade about what the realistic size of the 4mm pointwork market is and what proportion of that market could be expected to buy into your new products. 

 

 

But Bill, what you makes you think that "the trade" would not do that anyway. They are not going to take the word of a bunch of enthusiasts, but they might bother to make those enquiries ......

 

Maybe Bill can explain what he means by "the trade" in that post?

 

Mike, correct me if i'm wrong, but I read it as you understood "trade" to mean the manufacturer, which isn't what I understood from Bill's post.

Hopefully that one will be cleared up?

 

 

 

.

[billbedford]

Anyone who is thinking of making an investment will want to know what sort of return she is join to get for her capital. This return will be in main proportional to the number of items that can be sold. The price, by and large, will also be dependent on the volume of sale, especially if injection moulding is involved, i.e. the bigger the expected volume the lower the price that can be charged.

 

These particular products, British outline OO gauge pointwork, will be going into a mature market. By that I mean that just producing these points is very unlikely to increase the number of people building OO layouts. As a consequence each set of new points sold would be a substitution for a set of points in an existing range. Some of these may be from the set track ranges, but most are likely to be from Peco's streamline range. So what the investor really needs is to know is the volume sales of Streamline points. From this information of volume sales of the new points can be seen as a proportion of sales of existing products, and a target of say 40 or 50% of streamlined sales could be set for the new points.

 

Of course she could ask Peco but they are likely to see her as competition and not give her an answer. As an alternative she could ask wholesalers, such as Guagemaster or box shifters such as Hattons. If she asked enough of this type traders then she would be able to form a good estimate of the volume sales of these points. Not only that, but traders are likely to give her much more information about the market for points and also tell her whether they were likely to stock the new points. This would give a good indication of what the initial sales are likely to be.

 

However there is a large risk should borne in mind. That is, because sales are being taken from just one company, i.e. Peco, then it is possible that between the time that a commitment has been made to new tooling and the new products on the market, Peco could bring out their own rival range, and so negate any investment made by our investor.

[HillsideDepot]

I take the point about it being a mature market, but that doesn't seem to stop duplication in other areas of the hobby. If I want an OO class 47 I can choose from Hornby (ex Lima), Heljan, Vi-Trains, Bachmann. OK, people will argue which looks most like a 47, and will have a favourite. With ready to lay track it's pretty much Peco, which doesn't look right, or nothing.

 

Having followed this thread from the start, and heard all the various views expressed, I still find it surprising that the trackwork hasn't moved with the times. Perhaps it never will, but I can hope.