Godders

Hi Jeff, just picking up on one of your points. In 1960, before the UK was in the EU (1973) we were a founder member of EFTA (European Free Trade Area) of which Austria was one of the members. I seem to remember that Peco shipped its rail products to Austria for partial assembly. This was because there was a tax advantage, of course, in exporting and importing. Not sure when the practice ceased but Peco didn't always "manufacture" track in this country. EFTA still exists. cheers Godders

Joseph, Thank You for your support. There is another way to look at the argument; Peco extended their range with code 83, presumably for the US market, even though they must have had a good share. They took the opportunity to improve their product at the same time by changing the geometry because the market had changed its requirements. The same could be applied to the British market rather than taking from their existing share it could be seen that 00 track (as opposed to 00/H0 track) was retaining the share it has by improvement and not losing its share to a new competitor. This would probably drive sales up because people would not just be building new layouts but rebuilding old layouts to the higher standard. Cheers Godders

Hi Pacific231G, I would like to have a stab at answering your points. You are correct in saying there is a choice to be made of Bullhead versus Flatbottom. However, Bullhead is still around in great quantities and therefore would be suitable for both Steam and Diesel Eras, whereas Flatbottom is only suitable for Diesel. The point about mass market is a tricky one, I have no knowledge of the market but I do believe if there is a market for N, 009, 0, and other similar minority interests then 00 will be a reasonably significant market. RTL v RTR rolling stock; a lot of people would like to have scale track but would not necessarily have the skills or wish to build it , just like the rolling stock. As for moving to EM/P4 that's a whole new ballgame. The very least you need to do to move to EM is change the Back to Backs and the thought of that on a coupled steam chassis is beyond most peoples aspirations. The Standards are a very difficult one. I personally favour 00-SF on the grounds that the standards are exactly the same as EM -2mm for track gauge. The flangeways are reduced to 1mm which aesthetically is pleasing. However, the main advantage is that RTR stock will run well, particularly through the crossing (frog), without modifying anything. Cheers Godders

Clive, I am in full agreement with you. Being of an electrical bent I have always, even in DC days, wired for DCC that is I have always linked from stockrail to switch rail and had polarity changing microswitches operated by the tie/stretcher bar. The point I originally made was that Peco points bought today are not ready to operate they need work to make them reliable and Peco have gone halfway by providing some of the wiring and making some of the links detachable. There are practical problems of providing the polarity switches and hiding them as there are with the the positioning spring but they are challenges production wise not impossibilities. I can think of many ways to do the job but it's more difficult to make them as an individual without the production machinery. cheers Godders

Hi Clive, kind of you to respond with the correction but I was not criticising your English. I'm not quite sure what you were saying with the whole statement. I was trying to say that it has become modern practice for users to wire as I described linking stock rails to switch rails. I was not saying that's the way Peco actually supply them, hence the comment about connecting the wires. Godders

Hi Clive, I'm not sure what you are saying when you say, "is as you describe". Would appreciate a little clarification.

Merry Christmas Metr0Land, no need to fight but I don't think a turnout with loose wires flying around looks better than what you get presently and unless they are connected how will they run better than insul frog, they are insulfrog. and as for operating with bare hands uugh! What you seem to want is the worst of both worlds.

I haven't contributed for a while but I was under the impression that the objective was to produce an improved ( nearer to British) looking line of trackwork. I could quote the contributors but it's clearer just to point out some errors: RTL is not synonymous with Ready To Operate. Peco Electrofrog turnouts are not RTO, they have to have their wires connected via a switch interlinked with the tiebar or use a frog juicer, extra wiring, The latching mechanism is not necessary, it's a nice to have but it spoils the look of the turnout in it's present form. They also need some form of external operating mechanism either mechanical or electro-mechanical, the locking mechanism can be incorporated in this. I am sure it's not beyond the capabilities of someone to come up with a simple in built alternative latching mechanism. Can we get it clear once and for all there is no difference in turnout wiring between DC & DCC. Modern practice is to electrically connect the switch rail to the adjacent stock rail. This is more of an advantage to DCC than DC because DCC trips more easily.

Martin We don't want subtle, we want bold Cavalier, Light Brigade, Henry V action, "Once more unto the breach, Dear Friends............. ........................

One of the things that puzzle me and believe you me there are many is why people are insistent that the market is too small for Peco to justify a separate range. I can't believe that there 0 scale, SM32, G45, 00-9, H0n3 and H0m ranges are that big. As I was looking through the Peco track range I noticed that they supply code 200 Peco SL-806 Frog/ Wing Rails for £4.40 (Unsoldered) and Peco SL-808 Turnout Blades for £5.00, similar in 0 gauge but nothing in 00. It was the price that attracted my attention. Why are C&L ones so expensive.

Hi sub39h Posted Today, 10:23 sub39h, on 19 Dec 2013 - 10:05, said: The correct size for UK heavy rail FB in 4mm scale is code 82. The prototype rail is 6.1/4" high. (FB-109, BS-110A, BS-113A sections). Martin has beaten me to it , I apologise. Cheers Godders

Come on Martin, you'll be telling me next that you believe in Father Christmas and fairies with magic wands.

1. I agree 2. There is a lot of evidence to show that making your own track doesn't need to be costly templates come free courtesy of Templot, jigs are easily made from scrap materials you do need good quality files but these can be had very cheaply from tool shops and virtually last forever. 3. rather negates 1. 4. now you've hit the nail on the head, it's about perception. £100 for a loco is expensive but acceptable, £27 for a handmade turnout is "ridiculously expensive". How many turnouts do you need, how many locos have you got and I bet you didn't "need" most of them. 5. Agreed but better geometry and flangeway clearances. 6. Nobody seems to know how many people "Play with trains" I suspect it's a heck of a lot more than 180,000 but most of them are more akin to train sets. 7. Lots of people change sleeper spacings on plain track, there are even tools to assist but you're right it would be nice to have. This one threw me, why do you want to change the rail profile? .

I think it's a typo Martin, the Steel track is in both adverts.

I have followed this thread quite closely from the beginning. My observations are that it is mainly aimed at getting Peco to change their products to be more "British Looking". It occurs to me that Peco is the wrong target. They have little to gain from changing their product, the overall sales will hardly change and it would seem that most people believe that Peco's market is H0 not 00. On the other hand Hornby and Bachmann products are aimed at the 00 market wouldn't it be better for one of these to modify/extend their track ranges to a more visually acceptable product. This would also put commercial pressure on Peco. I am surprised at the number of people on RMWeb that actually use Hornby/Bachmann/Peco set track. I suspect this market is much bigger than we "fine scale" modellers believe and it may well be that the best way to propagate better looking track is via this side of the market. This would provide people who were new to the hobby getting a better idea of prototype track. There is of course still a major problem of range, it has to be fairly small but it could be introduced piece by piece. It could start with say a code 75 FB B6 (very similar to a Peco Large Radius) and with a bit of "design clever" perhaps a bit of flexibility could be built in to enable a little bit of curving. The V crossing, including wing rails, which need not be handed and switch rails could be made available for sale separately for those who would build their own track but don't want the hassle of filing them. The Manufacturer could at this point improve the check clearance by reducing it to 1mm, we know now that virtually all modern stock will pass through this. I personally would like to see 00-SF adopted for turnouts but the mere adoption of the 1 mm crossing flangeway would be a major step forward and the check gauge could be easily modified for those who desired something different than the, hopefully 00-SF standard. For those who wish to run old stock there are two solutions; don't use the new track or change the wheels. Sorry to be harsh but it's time to move on, the whole point of better looking track is to try and move with the times. When Peco introduced code 75 they said that it was only suitable for newer wheels I don't remember, perhaps conveniently, perhaps old age, any mass revolt, most people loved it. Cheers Godders

Just had a think and have come up with a possible answer to the Peco geometry question. If you connect a small radius turnout with a large radius turnout the main roads will be parallel and 50.8mm centres. This is paradoxical because that is only possible if the crossing angles are equal, which they are clearly not. The small radius angle turnout is 1 in 4.7, the large radius turnout angle is 1 in 5.93. However, what we have ignored is that the small radius turnout has a straight section at the end of the branch connection and this is tangent to the branch connection of the large radius turnout which is curved. The question is why would you want to connect these two items. The answer is no but the geometry of the slip is based on the small radius turnout and has the same crossing angle, this enables the slip to be short and connect with everything thus reducing the number of components in the range. cheers godders

Hi Joseph Believe you me I have read and re-read the thread. I think you over estimate the knowledge that people on RMWeb have. However my main point of contention was the possibility of even considering Peco's geometry. I can see no advantage whatsover in their geometry and cannot find a reason for wanting to use it. Actually I would like someone to explain why it is used at all. Cheers Godders

Hi Clive I appreciate what you're saying, I have enough experience to realise what you say is true regarding skills. My personal thoughts are as stated earlier, by all means upgrade the track but don't expect that there won't be casualties. I believe this is now known as collateral damage. I see from your post that you are no mean track builder and I can see how many people would be jealous of your ability to put it on the dining table. Joking apart, I think you are exaggerating the number of people who would want to build new layouts with new track and then run antique stock on it. I think even on RMWeb there are insufficient people interested to make this project viable. Unless the protagonists up their game and produce written track specifications soon this will fade away. Cheers Godders

If you want the track to look better you have to reduce the flangeways. The justification for modifying peco track is to bring it more into line with recent rolling stock standards. What is the point of better looking track with steam roller wheels.

I know your heart is in the right place but please learn more track geometry before you go any further. The first thing you need to do is decide on gauge standards. As far as I can see this hasn't been mentioned by you. My suggestion is to adopt the 00-sf standards as they are proven by the EM gauge boys to work correctly. Secondly please don't go down the " Peco's tricks and bend the rules of geometry" route as that's what got us this problem in the first place. Thirdly if you knew anything about track geometry you would realise that if you adopted one crossing angle all the straight forward trackwork would work together. By this I mean the range should initially comprise say; all 1 in 6 or all 1 in 7, then by changing the switches you could get differing lengths of turnout that would be more suitable for either mainline or shunting sidings. You should also be able to build some flexibility into the assembly in the way that Tillig do, to enable curved situations within limits. Despite all this you will never get to a position where every track configuration could be built. Martin Wynne has tried to point you in the right direction, try to get him or one of his followers to advise on geometry.

I think Martin is right in stating the obvious. It is toy track geometry and extremely complex, try reverse engineering it. If you want it to look like the prototype then it has to be scaled from the prototype. Now, if that's what you are saying then say exactly what you want commercially available but be prepared to accept a limited range. Also be prepared to accept restricted minimum radii and or running speeds. If it's the cosmetic looks that you want then some of the examples I've seen of modified Peco make it difficult to detect when camouflaged in ballast, rust coloured paint and other detail changes such as the horrific tie bar.

Rumour has it that the scaffolding is the new way of supporting the wire and to save even more costs it will be rented from one of the new scaffolding franchises. It's even been suggested that the conductor wire be formed from long scaffold tubes but Network Rail have ruled that out because it hasn't been type approved. Cheers Godders

Hi Tony Thanks for the confirmation about the traction tyres. In your other reviews have you done similar haulage tests with other eight coupled or ten coupled locos and noted similar haulage abilities. I know this is off topic but the information would be useful. Thanks Godders

I don't remember seeing anything about them in Tony wright's review. Maybe I missed it. cheers

I've just viewed the BRM/Tony Wright review video, 23 carriages is pretty impressive and more than most of us will ever need. However, the intriguing thing is, how? It plainly isn't just weight as Tony has inferred it was not the heaviest locomotive tested. Is the chassis; sprung or compensated. Have Hornby used a new alloy for the wheels and if so will they be using it on other locos? What is the answer? BTW the model looks absolutely superb and despite the fact that I have little money and it is not of any particular pertinence to me I shall probably get one. Finally for anyone to suggest it is not good value for money I suggest you look at some of the offerings we had in the past and compare their price with today's equivalent and you'll see that this and other trains made today are far better value for money. Cheers Godders