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

[hayfield]

Listening to the radio the other day about 3D printing, the thoughts of those talking about it was that the cost of the prints will will reduce quite considerably. Therefore it is possible that someone may wish to produce a base to which they could add rails for a ready to lay turnout at a reasonable cost. Looking at what Liverpool Lime Street boys are doing with buffer stops and ground signals its a matter of time for production costs to fall

 

I guess starting out choice will be limited and aimed at the size(s) which will give the best return. Which I would guess be on the smaller size. Stock, switch and the Vee rails could easily be prefabricated and slid through the chairs. The problem being how to engineer the knuckle part (what some call the frog) and wing rails, I would guess someone would come up with a workable solution for that and the tiebar arrangement.

 

What you will not get is an endless list of differing sizes. First thoughts were one type of chair only, but I guess it is quite a simple job in adjusting the program for a different style to be printed. Again looking at the Lima prefab parts, I guess parts of one program could be utilised for a different type of turnout or crossing.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Can you clarify what this topic is about?

 

If it's about treating track as a model, then the starting point is the prototype. You don't try to shorten a locomotive to make it fit your layout, so why think of doing that with the track?

 

The prototype has a full range of short switches and crossings for use in cramped locations. But it doesn't shunt bogie coaches into a small country goods yard. The usual minimum for a running-line crossover would be B-8, and then only at very low speed. 

 

Code75 FB rail in 4mm/ft scale is only suitable for light rail use -- i.e. narrow-gauge and industrials. Nearly all UK prototype FB rail is 6.1/4" high -- which means Code 82 in 4mm scale. Code 83 rail is actually H0 scale equivalent of American rail, although it would be near enough Code 82 in practice. Code 75 FB rail isn't, and looks too small in 4mm scale.

 

If this topic is not about treating track as a model, but just creating another range of toy track geometry with different timbering from Peco, it hardly seems worth the bother. I can't see many modellers wanting to pay a premium for that, or a manufacturer wanting to invest in it.

 

Martin.

 

Martin,

 

Many thanks. I can see why some might be a bit offended by your wording but you raise some important issues that need to be addressed.

 

The purpose of this thread is to look  at ways in which we might make available, to the vast majority of 4mm scale railway modellers, a trackwork range which looks better than the current "default", Peco's HO Streamline. Note that I say better, not perfect. Because perfection can not come from ready-to-lay standardised pointwork. We are making compromises here.

 

If we really want a 100% perfect model, it has to be S4 and fully to scale - not OO. Once we accept that, we should also expect to model all our stations/locations at a pure 1:76.2 scale. But most of us don't have anything like enough space to do that at home unless we stick to branch-line termini (and then only a few small ones), MPDs and the like. Some people prefer to have a layout with more operational potential and that may mean compromises on platform lengths, curve radii, etc. I don't think that I have ever seen a continuous run layout that had prototypical curve radii other than the one which used to run round the light well at Hamleys (before the building was vandalised to give more square metres of retail space).

 

I am certainly going to sketch up a few B8 bits of pointwork and see what the overall impact on space is. As I suggested in a post earlier today, the greater length of each piece of pointwork might be compensated to some degree by being able to arrange them in more compact combinations.

 

I tend to agree with you that 82/83FB is a more appropriate solution than 75FB. But I put it out there to see how others would react. You will know that several layouts have appeared recently in the press which mix SMP track with Peco pointwork. I wanted to know what folks think about that.

 

The "wishlists" often include a desire for some decent (by most people's standards) OO track. I want to use this thread to drill down a bit more into what people want in this respect, how many of them want it and, therefore, whether it might be viable. When I get a clearer idea of the right questions to ask, I might put up a survey and perhaps write an article for one of the magazines..

[Joseph_Pestell]

Listening to the radio the other day about 3D printing, the thoughts of those talking about it was that the cost of the prints will will reduce quite considerably. Therefore it is possible that someone may wish to produce a base to which they could add rails for a ready to lay turnout at a reasonable cost. Looking at what Liverpool Lime Street boys are doing with buffer stops and ground signals its a matter of time for production costs to fall

 

I guess starting out choice will be limited and aimed at the size(s) which will give the best return. Which I would guess be on the smaller size. Stock, switch and the Vee rails could easily be prefabricated and slid through the chairs. The problem being how to engineer the knuckle part (what some call the frog) and wing rails, I would guess someone would come up with a workable solution for that and the tiebar arrangement.

 

What you will not get is an endless list of differing sizes. First thoughts were one type of chair only, but I guess it is quite a simple job in adjusting the program for a different style to be printed. Again looking at the Lima prefab parts, I guess parts of one program could be utilised for a different type of turnout or crossing.

 

 

Listening to the radio the other day about 3D printing, the thoughts of those talking about it was that the cost of the prints will will reduce quite considerably. Therefore it is possible that someone may wish to produce a base to which they could add rails for a ready to lay turnout at a reasonable cost. Looking at what Liverpool Lime Street boys are doing with buffer stops and ground signals its a matter of time for production costs to fall

 

I guess starting out choice will be limited and aimed at the size(s) which will give the best return. Which I would guess be on the smaller size. Stock, switch and the Vee rails could easily be prefabricated and slid through the chairs. The problem being how to engineer the knuckle part (what some call the frog) and wing rails, I would guess someone would come up with a workable solution for that and the tiebar arrangement.

 

What you will not get is an endless list of differing sizes. First thoughts were one type of chair only, but I guess it is quite a simple job in adjusting the program for a different style to be printed. Again looking at the Lima prefab parts, I guess parts of one program could be utilised for a different type of turnout or crossing.

 

John,

 

As I am currently mainly modelling (but very little) in N, I have followed the fiNetrax development (milled point bases) and also considered the possibilities of 3D printing.

 

3D printing looks to me like a great way to make custom-designed pointwork kits. I don't think it can work for ready-assembled track because I don't think that one could reliably print around the jig that is holding the rails in place. Not yet anyway - but certainly something to keep an eye on. And perhaps someone from the 3D Printing Forum here can advise. Sliding rail through chairs would be just too labour-intensive to be cost-effective on a commercial product.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have been sketching out some curved points today, still using Trax2. I definitely need some help from a mathematician with draughtsman skills!

 

If one feeds in the standard Peco radii (1524/762) and with curve through the checkrail area, it rates it as a no7 turnout, so only 8 degree angle. And yet the Peco is, like the rest of the range 12 degree. How do they tweak the laws of physics (I feel like Scotty on the USS Enterprise)?

 

To get a no6 turnout, to match the others drawn so far, I had to have a much greater difference between the two curve radii. I tried two options: curve continuing through the checkrails, straight through the checkrails. The latter produces quite an elegant looking turnout with radii (IIRC: it's on the other  laptop) of 2400/800. The big advantage is that it can share the same crossing unit as an ordinary turnout or even the crossover unit. It's also only about the length of a Peco curved turnout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think you are absolutely right Gordon - hence my earlier point about what basic formations were likely to be required, before any thought about crossing angles and switch lengths come into play.  And I think too that before it goes much beyond those basics it comes up against a major obstacle which is the way people visualise track - and for many modellers that visualisation stems largely from Peco geometry rather than from prototype knowledge although i suspect that Templot has down something to change that viisualisation for some people (Martin could perhaps tell us how many?).

 

But this then goes a stage further and that is where the rub comes.  Some modellers, probably quite a lot of the less experienced ones or with lesser knowledge of the prototype, look at cramming a lot into a relatively small space, often because they 'need' lots of trains and rolling stock.  The virtue of less is more is not always appreciated and they tend to look at and be led by plans which suggest how simple it is to cram stuff in (the magazines don't sometimes help here) and that means short pointwork of every sort and greater crossing angles.  The rub really hits home when those people - in reality a large majority of railway modellers I reckon, are face with longer pointwork which eats unexpected amounts of space; Jeff took us through exactly that scenario as he developed Kirby Luneside, but he had enough space to get away with it, many don't have that luxury.

 

So readjusting thinking and visualisation can be a problem, and a hurdle to sales of even the miniaturisation  of the tighter BR standards for pointwork.  In my mind step No.1 should be deciding how to cope with that as part of developing a standard for a new 4mm scale, 16.5mm gauge model railway track - and 'coping with it' will influence the adopted geometry because unless that is done it will never sell.  I know what I want for my 'ideal' layout and I am fortunate in being able to visualise fairly well what will fit into a given space (I reckon that as I could do it successfuly in 12":1ft scale it should be feasible in 4mm:1ft scale, it usually has been) but taht is me - a new range of track needs geometry, plan books, and a change in thinking if it is to succeed, otherwise it would be someone's very expensive failure.

 

I think that I could agree with all of that. There are still too many of us who are modelling other models rather than the real thing.

 

But there is also another area of altered perception. We don't generally look at our models from the same angle or distance (to scale) as we look at the real thing. So sometimes what is strictly to scale and correct on a model does not "look right".

 

Some of that too is about focussing our attention on parts of the layout itself and not being distracted by other paraphernalia in the room (note the efforts at Peterborough North to get rid of the bookshelves. As someone who has designed and built theatre sets, this aspect interests me.

 

And even our perception of the real railway is twisted by looking at so many photos taken with telephoto lenses which foreshorten distance and, in particular, sharpen the radii of curves.

[Grovenor]

I have been sketching out some curved points today, still using Trax2. I definitely need some help from a mathematician with draughtsman skills!

The required skill is all taken care of in Templot, you can produce loads of curved points in just a few minutes with minimal effort, Templot is THE tool for this job.

Keith

[martin_wynne]

I have been sketching out some curved points today, still using Trax2. I definitely need some help from a mathematician with draughtsman skills!

 

Hi Joseph,

 

Unfortunately the curved turnout templates in Trax are not prototypical. They are excessively long and difficult to build because of the unnecessary extra length on the switch blades. Also in Trax it is very tricky to create proper curved crossovers.

 

As Keith mentioned, you would do much better with Templot. Turnouts can be curved to any radius simply by bending them with the mouse. In fact all the templates you need for your project can be produced in Templot with a few clicks -- you don't need any draughtsman skills or maths.

 

Templot is free to use -- download from: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_postx.php?post_id=10771

 

Templot files of ready-made templates matching Peco turnouts can be downloaded from: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=294&forum_id=10

 

Like this:

 

 

 

Here below I have created a range of curved templates in Peco style, simply by curving the straight one at the bottom. These all have the same 12-degree exit angle (and the daft bent timber on the end):

 

 

 

Here below is a range of prototype-pattern A-7 turnouts for 00 gauge, similarly curved:

 

 

 

Here is the printed template for one of them. I added the rail foot edges for FB rails:

 

 

 

That's ok for light FB rail, but heavy FB should normally have the wing and check rail flared ends machined, rather than bent, like this:

 

 

 

Lots of friendly help with Templot at: http://85a.co.uk/forum/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited December 11, 2013 by martin_wynne

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks, Martin. Those are really useful drawings.

 

I can see that I will have to have another go at Templot. My first attempt was not very fruitful and, as a bit of a technophobe, it takes me a while to "get" any software. I don't have that much time at the moment.

 

The other advantage is that Templot will work on this, faster, laptop which, for some reason will not support Trax2.

 

Edit to add: Not sure that I understand your comment about curved points in Trax2 being too long and difficult to build (excessive switch length). The ones I drew up yesterday had much the same dimensions as the ones you have drawn on Templot. I will upload later once I go on to the steam-driven laptop.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Joseph_Pestell

[gordon s]

If you want any help with Templot, Joseph let me know and I'll happily give you a short tutorial.  To get started there are only a few key strokes you need to know and then you'll be up and running.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If you want any help with Templot, Joseph let me know and I'll happily give you a short tutorial.  To get started there are only a few key strokes you need to know and then you'll be up and running.

 

Thanks, Gordon. I will give it a go but you may be underestimating my lack of ability (and patience!) with IT.

[gordon s]

No problem at all.  Just PM me and I'll happily spend some time with you on the phone in a live tutorial.  I'm a bit of a luddite re computers and mobile phones, so if I can do it, anyone can….

[Colin_McLeod]

For a double junction:

To keep the various radii consistent, then strictly speaking there should be two different radius turnouts (2" different) and a diamond with one straight road and one curved road matching the radius of larger radius point to build a double junction.

 

For a crossover on a curve:

The same goes for curved points.  Take for example. two Peco curved points used as a crossover. The larger radius is on the "main line" on one turnout, but is on the "crossover line" on the other.  Ideally the radii for the two "mainline" portions should differ by 2", and the radius of the "crossover" should be the same on each turnout.  This would require a range of two different left hand and two different right hand points. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

For a double junction:

To keep the various radii consistent, then strictly speaking there should be two different radius turnouts (2" different) and a diamond with one straight road and one curved road matching the radius of larger radius point to build a double junction.

 

For a crossover on a curve:

The same goes for curved points.  Take for example. two Peco curved points used as a crossover. The larger radius is on the "main line" on one turnout, but is on the "crossover line" on the other.  Ideally the radii for the two "mainline" portions should differ by 2", and the radius of the "crossover" should be the same on each turnout.  This would require a range of two different left hand and two different right hand points. 

 

I think that you have neatly summarised why no manufacturer has gone here (apart, I think, from Wrenn who built it as one unit with trainset curves and centres). Far too much cost for something that is only going to sell in small numbers.

 

One probably can get away with a bit of a bodge where the innermost turnout is set a bit back from the diamond. But even so it still represents a lot of extra tooling.

 

When (or perhaps if) I can get to grips with Templot, I will experiment with the double-junction. That is something that can't be drawn on Trax2.

[martin_wynne]

One probably can get away with a bit of a bodge where the innermost turnout is set a bit back from the diamond.

 

Hi Joseph,

 

That's not a bodge, it's the way that the prototype does double-junctions. Apart from matching the geometry better, offsetting the switch toes makes it easier to fit the point rodding.

 

 

this, faster, laptop which, for some reason will not support Trax2

 

Trax2 should normally install and run ok on all 32-bit versions of Windows, but there are problems on 64-bit versions.

 

Trax2 itself will run on 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and 8, it is only the installer program which won't. You can get round this with a bit of faffing about, like this:

 

1. Install TRAX on Windows XP (if not already). If you don't still have

an XP computer you may have a friend who does.

 

2. Put the TRAX CD back in the cupboard. You won't need it again.

 

3. In XP, close TRAX if running and then copy the entire TRAX folder:

 

\Trax2\

 

and paste it to a USB memory stick.

 

You can find that folder at:

 

C:\Program Files\KRB Publications\Trax2\

 

4. If you used a friend's XP computer, you should now delete TRAX from

that computer, otherwise you will be breaking the TRAX licence terms.

 

5. Transfer the USB stick to your 64-bit Windows computer and then copy and

paste the entire folder to somewhere new such as:

 

C:\MY_OLD_XP_STUFF\Trax2\

 

or wherever you want to put it, provided it's nowhere near any folder owned

by Windows, such as My Documents or the \Program Files (x86)\ folders.

 

If you haven't already created a folder such as \MY_OLD_XP_STUFF\ it's

a good idea to create one as a general dumping ground for your old files.

 

6. Right-click on and create a shortcut to this file:

 

C:\MY_OLD_XP_STUFF\Trax2\Trax2.exe

 

and drag the shortcut onto the desktop.

 

7. TRAX then runs fine.

 

8. If you want the Help to work you need to download the free

Microsoft .hlp viewer for Windows 7 or Vista. Get it from:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

 

TRAX1 probably works equally well as above,

but I haven't tested it.

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Back here after an hour playing with Templot. I am a long way from understanding it all but actually I don't need to master anything like all of it. A few quirks which don't seem user-friendly but I am sure someone on the Forum will soon explain what I need to do to get round/eliminate those.

 

Reading the "idiot's guide" included in the many documents (it's not called that btw!), Martin makes the key point that Templot is optimised for producing pointwork templates - which is what I need for this thread. When I failed before with Templot, it was when using it for designing a whole layout which is a rather different and more complex function.

 

So, back to the metaphorical drawing board. The Templot templates have very different sleeper patterns which, interestingly, seem to offer the possibility of more common parts and therefore less tooling cost.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Having had a few posts of technical stuff, let's get back to the business/marketing aspect. I'm on more familiar territory with that!

 

What if someone brings out this new track, it starts selling well and so Peco react and produce their own? Does this new manufacturer's track become the "Betamax" of the model railway world? Or does it have a unique selling proposition that will encourage modellers to stay with it rather than the more widely available Peco "VHS"?

 

I think that the flexible continuous pointblades (rather than hinged pressings) could be part of that.

 

Even more so, a firm commitment to modelling either BH or FB, not something that attempts to look a bit like both.

 

And the sort of flexibility (Lima Nova-style) to build up complex formations in a reduced space.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Way back at the beginning of the  thread, someone added a 3-way point to the list that I had created.

 

Is a 3-way point necessary when modelling the modern railway (FB rail)? They do not seem that common these days apart from in carriage sidings which are often BH anyway.

 

A 3-way would be a much more expensive item to tool for because it would not share much by way of common parts with other pointwork. If selling in reduced numbers, it would have to be rather expensive to recoup those costs.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Right back at the beginning of this thread, we set it as a given that tooling costs for trackwork are high.

 

But is this still true in the modern era of CAD? If it is possible to produce highly-detailed models of locomotives that sell in quite small numbers (000s rather than 0000s) and amortise the tooling costs, surely pointwork can't be that difficult/expensive especially if designed to maximise the common components.

 

I think we all accept that a rail-built crossing ("frog") is the best, but in an era of advanced plastics technology, perhaps we should revisit the concept of a crossing that is moulded with the sleeper base

[martin_wynne]

Is a 3-way point necessary when modelling the modern railway (FB rail)? They do not seem that common these days apart from in carriage sidings which are often BH anyway.

 

"Three-throw" turnouts (like the Peco one) were quite rare in BH, never used in running lines, and are almost unknown in heavy rail FB.

 

However, "Tandem" turnouts (which Peco call "Asymmetric") were very common in BH and are also used in FB. They do save a great deal of space, so are even more attractive to modellers than to the prototype. Here is a straight tandem turnout in FB:

 

 

Curved ones can be even more space-saving. Tandem turnouts can also be single-sided or double sided as above. They also come in type 1 (with the second switch in the main road of the first switch as above) and type 2 (with the second switch in the diverging road of the first switch). Type 1 tandems are far more common. 

 

Many thanks to Michael Davies for the pic. A hi-res version of the original is in the Image Gallery on Templot Club, along with dozens of hi-res close-up pics of FB turnouts from Michael. See:  http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view.php?user=1679#gallery_top

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

"Three-throw" turnouts (like the Peco one) were quite rare in BH, never used in running lines, and are almost unknown in heavy rail FB.

 

However, "Tandem" turnouts (which Peco call "Asymmetric") were very common in BH and are also used in FB. They do save a great deal of space, so are even more attractive to modellers than to the prototype. Here is a straight tandem turnout in FB:

 

 

Curved ones can be even more space-saving. Tandem turnouts can also be single-sided or double sided as above. They also come in type 1 (with the second switch in the main road of the first switch as above) and type 2 (with the second switch in the diverging road of the first switch). Type 1 tandems are far more common. 

 

Many thanks to Michael Davies for the pic. A hi-res version of the original is in the Image Gallery on Templot Club, along with dozens of hi-res close-up pics of FB turnouts from Michael. See:  http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view.php?user=1679#gallery_top

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I would not even consider (for the reasons you outline) a symmetrical 3-way point. I did mean a tandem as per the Peco Code 75FB among others. The reasons that I gave for not doing it (individual tooling) still apply.

 

BTW, where is that photo taken? It looks a bit too dry to be the UK and the warehouses also look not quite right.

[Clive Mortimore]

For a double junction:

To keep the various radii consistent, then strictly speaking there should be two different radius turnouts (2" different) and a diamond with one straight road and one curved road matching the radius of larger radius point to build a double junction.

 

For a crossover on a curve:

The same goes for curved points.  Take for example. two Peco curved points used as a crossover. The larger radius is on the "main line" on one turnout, but is on the "crossover line" on the other.  Ideally the radii for the two "mainline" portions should differ by 2", and the radius of the "crossover" should be the same on each turnout.  This would require a range of two different left hand and two different right hand points. 

 

On the real railway normally the two turnouts are the same it is the curve through the diamond and beyond that start to make the junction tracks the correct distance apart.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

Way back at the beginning of the  thread, someone added a 3-way point to the list that I had created.

 

Is a 3-way point necessary when modelling the modern railway (FB rail)? They do not seem that common these days apart from in carriage sidings which are often BH anyway.

 

A 3-way would be a much more expensive item to tool for because it would not share much by way of common parts with other pointwork. If selling in reduced numbers, it would have to be rather expensive to recoup those costs.

I'm undoubtedly showing my ignorance but my impression is that in the "traditional" railway era pointwork was generally tailor made and built on site for each situation by PW engineers working to a set of standards. Nowadays it seems to be more usual for most of it to be made up from individual simple and fairly standard turnouts pre-assembled off site in sections.

 

At the risk of being OT, a couple of years ago I saw, at various stages over several days, a replacement crossover being laid on the Greenford Branch by Colas. The whole thing arrived in sections on a special train and while it obviously hadn't just been bought off the shelf from "Points R Us" it did appear to have been made up from fairly standard sections.

It was a fascinating process and very heavily mechanised and I'd not seen the special wagons before that carried the sections at 45 degrees (to stay within loading gauge) and were connected in turns to a generator to power their hydraulics. I wonder how the time it took would have compared with more traditional on site practices.

The photos were the best I could get as the junction (with the single track eastern chord that connects to the GW Birmingham line back towards Old Oak Common) was in a rather awkward place on an embankment with the footbridge over the A40 some way away.

 

[Steve O.]

Hello there,

Fresh voice, just one opinion.

 

I have a bunch of OO (various heritages, suppliers), a room allocated for a railway (and freshly updated (finally) with more sockets ('outlets') and recessed LED daylight spots and... two new twin girls who should be in the 'things that make me smile' post.

 

Moving to Peco code 75, hoping most of the old Triang-Hornby bumps ok along it. May go for some C&L flexi for the spacing and cut a few plastic links to stretch out the sleepers at each end of the Peco points to merge the spacings (though it may not work too well).

 

Or, may stick 100% with Peco. Time is the real key for me. Appreciate the hand-built track but pragmatically, not going to happen.

 

On the '6 foot' aspect, I may keep it tight on the straights and ease out on the curves. Will have some 2' radius so may have to play.

 

Commercially... can't see a new version happening (poor ROI) but as per an earlier post, why not ask? If it was available I would buy it.

 

Good luck to all.

Cheers, Steve.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hello there,

Fresh voice, just one opinion.

 

I have a bunch of OO (various heritages, suppliers), a room allocated for a railway (and freshly updated (finally) with more sockets ('outlets') and recessed LED daylight spots and... two new twin girls who should be in the 'things that make me smile' post.

 

Moving to Peco code 75, hoping most of the old Triang-Hornby bumps ok along it. May go for some C&L flexi for the spacing and cut a few plastic links to stretch out the sleepers at each end of the Peco points to merge the spacings (though it may not work too well).

 

Or, may stick 100% with Peco. Time is the real key for me. Appreciate the hand-built track but pragmatically, not going to happen.

 

On the '6 foot' aspect, I may keep it tight on the straights and ease out on the curves. Will have some 2' radius so may have to play.

 

Commercially... can't see a new version happening (poor ROI) but as per an earlier post, why not ask? If it was available I would buy it.

 

Good luck to all.

Cheers, Steve.

 

If it's Triang-Hornby, it will definitely be a bumpy ride over the crossing of Code 75 pointwork, and probably on the rail fixings as well, unless you change the wheels.

 

I have not yet been able to work out what the return on investment (ROI) would be because I don't have all the costings. Traditionally manufacturers have always said that it is poor but I can't see why, with modern techniques, it should be any poorer than for limited edition locos. Get the right mix of common components, and it should be a whole lot better.

 

But costs are not the only factor. It is also all about how the product is marketed and distributed. I work in a British industry that has stupidly high costs by comparison with all of our foreign competitors. Yet we still get by (and some of us much better than that!) by marketing and selling as a premium product at roughly double the price. People will pay more for a product that they want or like enough.

[martin_wynne]

BTW, where is that photo taken? It looks a bit too dry to be the UK and the warehouses also look not quite right.

 

Felixstowe

 

See in the centre of this aerial view: http://binged.it/1bW6KqM

Edited December 11, 2013 by martin_wynne