Mike Storey

True Joseph, but as per the RTL track thread you started, it seems likely that Peco would opt to take this forward primarily for Flat Bottom, leaving Bull Head as a market still to be filled. Keep going!!

I concur - I operated the three Tillig Elite turnouts I used on a trial layout with tortoise motors (two underneath and one from the side) and they worked fine in terms of throw. But there was a problem with one of the turnout blades, which developed a kink over time (3 months) and started to angle over. Maybe it was a Friday afternoon one. I have never had a Peco turnout fail.

A fruit drink made from a very lonely reptile?

If their Smartfrog is what I think it is, such an animal is already available under the name of hexjuicer (or something like that) - not cheap!!

I second this - the incorporation of a continuous point blade would be welcome, but not essential in my view, if the cost or technical obstacles to reliability of doing so become concerns. If the tie bar(s) and sleepering can become more authentic, then the hinged blade can be disguised quite acceptably with weathering (although it will never look quite as good as a continuous blade obviously).

Actually, it is a sharp move as bi-block is now common across France and many other countries in Europe, but I think only one other manf. produced it (although I have never seen it in stock). So it has a big market here. I continue to think Peco are innovative and the letter back from them shows an opening door for our purposes on this thread.

We know that most of the manufacturers take the annual wish-list poll on RMWeb fairly seriously, given the spate of fulfilments in recent years. So maybe we should use that as a deadline (is it April again?) to communicate our consensus (assuming we reach one) to them all and see if anyone picks up the baton?

I can confirm that Tillig Elite rail needs much less preparation before painting, as it already seems to be "keyed" - if pre-coloured metal can be used at negligible extra cost, then I would fully support that, for this reason.

Anything is possible of course, but Hornby sell their track widely in Europe, as HO, along with their Hornby International ranges, and I believe source their track from the same place as Bachmann (stand to be corrected on that), so it would require a separate range made only for the UK and that small number of us modelling UK practice in a far off land - a relatively small market overall, compared to the international market both currently cater to. I don't think many of us expect to see improved OO scale track at the same price as the current RTL offerings, as has been suggested by some. But, as with the massive improvements in RTR UK outline rolling stock and traction, there needs to be a market target price at which modellers are prepared to pay for the improvements. At present, only Tillig Elite provide a much better alternative in appearance (albeit still to HO geometry and with reported reliability problems) but at a cost which makes purchase of more than a few, somewhat daunting. As far as I know, these are made in Austria (??). Judging from comparison of consumer item prices between the UK and the EU, a significant part of this will be local production costs, including labour rates, taxes and social charges, I guess we would need to know whether off-shoring the production would bring this down significantly, for a simple large rad turnout, to something around the £20 to £25 mark, which is approaching double the cost of existing Peco wares, but still cheaper than Tillig or the ready-assembled offerings from the likes of C&L or Marcway. As stated often in the thread, most people are not looking for perfection, but just an improvement on sleeper size and spacing, and perhaps a better looking tie-bar, but without losing the essential reliability that Peco offer. Joseph may get towards an answer soon when he has managed to mock one up. If someone like Peco can make a decent unit profit at that price, within the usual business requirement of a three year payback, then for them to actually do it will require an informed idea of the size of the real market. The market cannot comment until there is something to comment about, hence a prototype for appraisal.

Just in case a fair number of people don't know, SM32 stands for Sixteen Millimetre (scale) 32 (mm) gauge track, which is to say that it is usually used to represent 1ft11.5/ 2ft narrow gauge track (such as several in North Wales) in a scale of 16mm/ft, or 1/19.5 scale - mostly by live steam modellers in their gardens, such as myself, but not exclusively. (G45 usually used to represent metre gauge railways, often in 1:24 scale, and mostly using track or battery powered electric traction, but not exclusively). Peco set and flexi-track is very dominant in SM32, and is often often in short supply, there being no other RTL competitor I am aware of (unless one uses coarse O gauge track, which some have done). This is a good example of Peco being innovative, as, until they entered the market, the scale was largely dominated by those with an engineering bent, who built their own track or used components from long-gone Bonds o' Euston Road etc. They created a mass market which drove the, largely British-made (Roundhouse, Argyll, Merlin, Wright and others) live scale steam manufacturers into a relatively high volume industry, which hosts (probably) the largest garden railway show in the world each year (now In Peterborough each April). It is difficult to parallel this innovation with OO, which is already a mature market, but no-one should claim Peco are not innovative. I suspect, as others have said, that there is no clear standard in OO into which they should evolve and have a viable winner, so they remain cautious. I just wish they would attempt something along the lines of Tillig's products, but more robust and at a more attractive price.

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.

Yes, although tried many times before by the drawing offices of some of the Big Four (particularly the Southern) and then by BR, it never really came off, and more effort was expended, right through into late BR days, on standardising to national designs from the many old component company peculiarities. But now, Network Rail (mainly their contractors) design and order turnouts to a set geometry, and make more and more use of pre-assembled units. Turnouts on curves (on running lines) are avoided where possible, as are scissors, three-way or such like, unless absolutely necessary (such around Borough Market junction). This keeps capital and maintenance/renewal costs as low as possible. However, for modelling purposes, this will have little relevance except to those modelling the last decade or so, and even then, it will be many years before all non-standard geometry has been displaced out on the ground. Even point motors are still not standardised! BR attempted this with the clamp-lock, but it proved troublesome in many situations, although robust in others.

If I may be so bold - I think the consensus could be that there are already two RTL FB and BH plain line manufacturers (C&L/Exactoscale and SMP) who provide something along the lines that many of us would like to see, at a reasonable cost, and that the major issue is the pointwork. I would go with one of these except that neither provides FB pointwork in simple to construct versions, unless as a special commission. As I will have over 14 turnouts in the scenic area, this becomes too expensive (perhaps £700 plus). If such a point range as Exactoscale can provide, could be mass produced as RTL, then it would probably meet most of our aspirations. The issue then, is the cost of doing so, which still appears to be above the £20 mark most people appear to consider marketable. This thread has got somewhere (unlike many, many others!), despite misgivings from some, because I think the input from the various views has led us to the above. I believe Joseph is going to have a stab at engineering a better looking Peco-style turnout, which gives the sleeper size and spacing but retains the hinged blade and crossing angle for cost, reliability and compatability reasons (unless I have misunderstood?). So unless anyone else has an equally good proposition in mind, perhaps we should wait for the results of that, and just have the usual banter (including disagreement with this post of course) meanwhile?

That's fine for Catholics Clive, but what about the rest of us???

If we want to get realistically prototypical about cost, in my final few years as a project director on Network Rail track enhancements and renewals, a single turnout would be budgetted at £0.25 million, but that included all the revised/new signalling, track circuit changes, etc, specific to that change. The signalling aspects were by far the most expensive part of that calculation, and the turnouts had become standardised catalogue items, delivered to site, almost ready to lay. The civils component of the turnout equated to around £80k to £100k. At the time, when calculating business cases for line enhancements, we would estimate a new 4 car EMU at around £10m full life cost (they use a rather larger figure now I believe). The initial capital cost has been hard to calculate these days, as almost all are sold on a mileage-availability long term deal, but let's say £5 million. On that basis, if one takes say the 4 CEP from Bachmann, as a keystone, a ready to lay point should cost 2.5% of the EMU, cost RRP £189 (??), so that a simple turnout should cost around £5. Whoops, that doesn't work does it, and I think we ordered somewhat fewer turnouts nationally each year than Peco make - I'll get my coat......

This doesn't seem to rhyme. Is it that New Age poetry stuff?

Well, actually, if that was a clamp lock point, that tie bar would be pretty accurate!! Although it would normally be on FB rails. Better looking than 00 Peco track, all the same - is it fictional or a picture of some 0 gauge?

That's largely why this thread was started! What is becoming apparent though is the variety of opinions as to what a "decent 00 track system" means. Many will want Bullhead accuracy whereas many will want FB accuracy, and all want a reasonable price. Should 00-SF be the primary starting point to lobby for, or is that too optimistic (in that it would be commercially unviable) so should 00-BF be the starting point, or another standard? It seems to me that OO scale width and length sleepers (as opposed to the current HO) plus maybe metal check rails at more to-scale separation, seem the easiest improvements, but the limitation of the market appeal then to just UK outline modellers presents a commercial viability problem? That is well worth putting to the main RTR manufacturers. I would also like to see continuous point blades, but more informed people have pointed out the engineering and possible reliability problems that could pose, as well as potential high cost implications (although disputed). Any other key requirements to add to this?

Have read through the many comments (a lot in just 24 hours or so) but I have not seen the answer which partly generated this thread. The single greatest visual difference which Peco could make to their point work is to substitute the hinged blade (which looks so awful) with a continuous blade. A Peco rep once told me, some years ago, that to do so would cause innumerable problems and drive the cost upwards very significantly. (This is partially borne out by the expense of Tillig's version, which I did flirt with but cost put me off wholesale conversion to them.) But I have never seen a satisfactory explanation as to why this could not relatively easily be achieved, at a moderate extra cost . Does anyone know? If a continuous blade was introduced at moderate extra cost, they would have my business in volume, as I can disguise every other drawback with weathering, ballasting and suchlike.

Can't see that proposition going very far I'm afraid! Would you attach slow point motors or solenoids? If the latter, many would not touch them with a bargepole. Would I buy them with decoders included, even though I operate on DCC? No, because, like many, I prefer to use DC for my point motors and signals operation. Peverse? Yes.

Thanks - please let us know the outcome when you get a moment! I think many of us would like to pursue that. Mike

There appears to be no commitment - it was just a proposal from the Chinese, to follow on from Hinkley Point. Chinese funding, whole or in part, is almost inevitable, whether directly or via others. The issue would be construction (and operation) as the Chinese have no experience in Europe on rail construction, and such a track record together with knowledge, would be a vital factor in any bid. They would have to partner with one or more of the usual suspects. I would imagine they really want to flog their trains and get a toe-hold in European high speed train procurement, which is (currently) a separate funding package. I think they will have a battle on their hands from the likes of Alstom, Siemens and Hitachi. Let's see what they propose.

Perhaps we should start a new thread - Peco 00 points in Code 75? I don't know how to do that - do you, or can someone tell me how? Thanks

I don't think Peco, of all people, can be accused of that, given the new ranges they regularly announce. But, I completely agree with your logic over the Code 75 target market, but would assume that they do not think there would be enough, or any profit in it, at current price sensitivities. I think it would perhaps be in our interests, at the next set of wishlist polls, to specifically quote this as a new product many of us would like, rather than just the very general "more realistic UK track" that appears regularly now. What do others think?

Peco plain track is easy to improve in appearance by cutting the sleeper web and spreading out the sleepers to a more pleasing representation. However, it is the sleeper lengths which would need to be longer (as per SMP/Marcway) to get closer to realism in 00, without actually going to EM/P4. Jointed point blades are a pain to look at, but the problem as explained to me by a Peco rep at a show some years ago, is that once a continuous blade is used, every point must have a separate, slotted point handle (attached as part of the point to one side or separately supplied) to keep the blades in one position or the other, and the whole assembly would have to be much stiffer if to be used without being fixed down to a track bed. The centre sprung mechanism would be insufficient to hold it over, apparently, although I wonder why. Thus, the price would go up and the overall realism would not necessarily improve. If made to SMP or Tillig standards, then they would lose much of their mass appeal (easy to use, reliable), where they make most of their money. You see the same repeated across Bachmann, Hornby and Fleischmann ranges. I flirted with Tillig for a short while, but the costs outweighed the benefits. In practice, if you dirty Peco points up enough, you can hardly see the join, Ernie.... but SMP or Marcway are the best way to go for bullhead realism. I stuck with Peco to match the FB track (although you can mix them as per prototype in the past) but now I see you can get FB points in kits - doh!!