Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

RTR 18.83


Ian J.

Would you consider a change to RTR 18.83?  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. If RTR 18.83 was available, would you consider it?

    • Yes, give it to me now!
      3
    • For my next layout, definitely!
      2
    • At some point in the future, definitely.
      0
    • I might do, if it was worked out right.
      2
    • Only if it became the de-facto standard for 4mm RTR and all manufacturers supported it.
      6
    • No, not a hope!
      18
    • I don't model 4mm scale standard gauge, and am not interested
      4
    • I model in P4, and wouldn't accept anything less than P4 standards
      8


Recommended Posts

After following the thread on 'Finescale verses Coarse' in the Questions area, I had a thought as to the viability of RTR 18.83, and specifically how many of us would consider it.

 

Notes:

  • I'm not talking about RTR P4 as the tolerances are too exacting and therefore costly, and meaning the minimum radius curve is too gentle. So an intermediate standard would be required (one easily tightened to P4 if the P4 modeller desires it). For the sake of argument let's call that standard 'i83'.
  • The minimum radius of the models as produced would be 3 feet.
  • I am also supposing that the models would be designed such that gauge-narrowing to EM and even OO would be possible.
  • The range of models produced would be aimed at the modeller and not the toy market, and would as such exclude the 'train set curve' market.

If you feel other options for the poll should be available, please let me know and I will endeavour to add them.

 

Edit: two additional options added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we have an 'I'm a P4 Modeller' option please? As such products would still, I suspect, require work for my use in P4.

 

However, I don't think it would work - another set of standards could just confuse people!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you thinking of Pendon profile ? - slightly deeper flanges.

I don't have any exact specification in mind, but I would imagine that there would be clearance to allow slightly deeper flanges, as well as a slightly narrower back-to-back at perhaps at most 0.4mm less, and a slightly wider check gauge perhaps by 0.2mm more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

Are you meaning locos or track?

 

If its locos anything less than a P4 profile wheel would be just as useless to me as 00. If its track I would always build my own anyway.

 

RTR EM might be a better option but either of them just aint gonna happen.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest dilbert

I voted for 'No, not a hope'' - the approach to rectifying (if this is even pragmatic) the OO gauge/4mm scale issue I believe would be better adressed by abandoning 1:76 and moving to 1:87 - this does not alienate the toy market either.

 

Re. OO gauge RTR, I think it's a question of 'put up or shut up'' - OO gauge is rather long in the tooth and I don't see this changing, even at a slow pace. I wonder what the cost impacts would look like - wagons and coaching stock shouldn't have major issues, the loco side would be more financially demanding... dilbert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you meaning locos or track?

 

If its locos anything less than a P4 profile wheel would be just as useless to me as 00. If its track I would always build my own anyway.

 

RTR EM might be a better option but either of them just aint gonna happen.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Theoretically both stock and track. Obviously I wouldn't expect those such as yourself who already have established P4 trackwork and standards in place to change to a less tight standard, but if such a thing were ever to happen I'd hope that the stock would be considered, if only because the conversion to full P4 standards would be more straightforward, allowing for such things as easy change of wheelsets to 'drop ins' that are available from the likes of Ultrascale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jim s-w

Hi Ian

 

Thats the thing though - especially with locos they are just a wheel swap if you go down the ultrascale route. It wouldnt be any more straight forward than it is now.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I don't think it would work - another set of standards could just confuse people!

What ! even more than they are already? ;)

I've never quite understood the arguments for P4 against EM and the difference between them - I understand even less the proposal for a 3rd way of splitting hairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian

 

Thats the thing though - especially with locos they are just a wheel swap if you go down the ultrascale route. It wouldnt be any more straight forward than it is now.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Hi Jim,

 

For the currently produced diesels and electrics maybe, but for steam locomotives it's not as straightforward due to brake block positioning and valve gear. In fact, if really good detailed bogies were modelled with brake block positioning correct, then the same could be said for diesels and electrics too, as well as bogies on coaches and the brake gear positions for wagons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Sorry, I also don't think this is realistic - if you are aiming at a slightly coaser version of 18.83, there won't be enough clearance for wider wheels etc. Nice dream, but......

If you were to propose RTR EM that might be technically more feasible, but as already said, OO is just too entrenched now for mass-market sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's P4 , 18.83 mm isn't going to work. If the wheels and everything else aren't dead scale , you'll have negative clearences - ie things foul. And the clearences in P4 don't allow more than scale curves. You can't get 3' radius in P4 with decent sized locos. Make the wheels coarser, and the curves will be over scale prototype radius

 

RTR P4 won't work.

 

Therefore RTR 18.83 is not workable , as an engineering issue

 

RTR EM might be workable from an engineering point of view nowadays. But 70 years of pushing EM as a replacement have completely failed to displace OO. Surely that's long enough trying to say it can't be done? OO's market share is overwhelming , EM doesn't match the defacto user standard 16.5mm gauge, it's non-compatible and therefore there cannot be a large enough market for EM to make RTR viable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,

I'm either abstaining or going for "not a hope"!

You see, 00 has been around for so many decades now - it is so incredibly deeply entrenched in so many peoples minds as well as in the manufacturers minds, I've known people scoff at the idea of changing to EM, let alone to P4 or H0.

On the other side of the coin, current P4 modellers would not/could not take up the RTR stuff as it's incompatible with their hand built models.

The one possibility you may have is to forget the RTR P4 idea and go for an RTR EM!

You already have all the standards in place, a substantial existing 'fan base' and the manufacuring tolerances would be no more exacting for EM as for 00 - (ducks head!).

I speak as someone who is more in favour of modelling P4 personally!

An RTR EM gauge model should be capable of being 'convertable' to either 00 or P4 (change P4 wheels or slide the wheels in, for 00!) but with things like brakeblock positions, cylinder positions etc arranged for P4 tolerances.

Either that or gradually move over to full H0 scale in line with the rest of the world!:O

That's my tuppence worth, now I'm running for cover in the armoured bunker!:lol: :lol: :lol:

John E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres an Achilles heel with P4 that is insurmountable, the size of minimum curves, far too vast to attract a general adoption, end to end is the only answer, and it does not appeal to most model railway enthusiast's tastes.

We already cater for P4 with good RTR 4MM OO it is convertible, (or should be), and kits are covered quite well. Most stock can change easily. so RTR P4 versions would have a very limited market. indeed, far below commercially supportable levels.

Stephen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for 'No, not a hope'' - the approach to rectifying (if this is even pragmatic) the OO gauge/4mm scale issue I believe would be better adressed by abandoning 1:76 and moving to 1:87 - this does not alienate the toy market either.

 

Re. OO gauge RTR, I think it's a question of 'put up or shut up'' - OO gauge is rather long in the tooth and I don't see this changing, even at a slow pace. I wonder what the cost impacts would look like - wagons and coaching stock shouldn't have major issues, the loco side would be more financially demanding... dilbert

I'm with Dilbert on this one. Even if RTR 18.83 were to be available and prove popular in the short term, I'm a little long in the tooth to contemplate trying to dispose of the 00 rolling stock and track I've accumulated, especially as the second-hand market would presumably be glutted with such (yes, I know: "They should wait until all the old people die before they change things...").

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as it would be wonderful, I cannot possibly see any of the major manufacturers tooling up for something that might one be just 1% of all 'OO' sales on a good day. We forget that that large proportion of 'OO' purchases are not by die hards like us, but by people simply wanting a train set . These guys probably have little or no interest in forums like this, and might only buy the occasional magazine because it has a pretty cover. It's simple real world business at the end of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the reaction to this poll has been somewhat in the negative and is only concerned with the old debates again, rather than answering the basic question.

 

I would question one or two of the replies as to their veracity, particularly on technical issues as in HO there is a whole world of RTR models that aren't to Proto87 standards that seem to cope quite happily on scale 16.5mm track.

 

However, as the result seems to be pretty clear cut that 'we' wouldn't consider RTR 18.83, I'm going to close off the poll and ask for the thread to be closed, so that the old ground of the OO/EM/P4 argument isn't treaded yet again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...