...

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Time for 'Scale' Trackwork?
ODRAILS
post 28 Jul 2013, 15:22
Post #16


Ticket Collector
**

Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 6-November 10
Member No.: 9,066



QUOTE (6991 @ 28 Jul 2013, 14:01) *
Lads,

It's a touchy subject, but what's the point of wanting scale track when you are not going to run scale stock ?


6991


I believe that there is a need for better looking track than the pseudo continental offerings from PECO.
Personally I would like either SMP to increase it's range of plastic based point kits which are easy to assemble (currently only 36 inch radius LH & RH points and catch points)
OR for PECO to produce it's code 75 range with SMP / C&L sleeper spacing.
Ian


Go to the top of the page
 
+
Richard Lee
post 29 Jul 2013, 15:02
Post #17


Engine Driver
Group Icon


Group: Plus+
Posts: 653
Joined: 30-March 12
From: Northern Bulgaria
Member No.: 12,381



QUOTE (ODRAILS @ 28 Jul 2013, 18:22) *
I believe that there is a need for better looking track than the pseudo continental offerings from PECO.
Personally I would like either SMP to increase it's range of plastic based point kits which are easy to assemble (currently only 36 inch radius LH & RH points and catch points)


Don't know whether it was my poor workmanship, but I experienced running difficulties with my SMP plastic-based OO point kits. For instance, the Hornby M7s didn't like them, but the Terrier was, on the whole, okay. ermm.gif

QUOTE
OR for PECO to produce it's code 75 range with SMP / C&L sleeper spacing.


That would be nice, but would almost certainly limit its appeal to HO modellers in Europe and America. I think Peco sell quite a lot of track there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Brian Considine
post 29 Jul 2013, 17:41
Post #18


No Longer Active.
Group Icon



Group: Members
Posts: 13,318
Joined: 18-May 06
From: UK Margate Kent
Member No.: 702



QUOTE (Richard Lee @ 29 Jul 2013, 15:02) *
That would be nice, but would almost certainly limit its appeal to HO modellers in Europe and America. I think Peco sell quite a lot of track there.


Not really - code 83 is used for HO track - why anyone modelling European would want to use an inferior product when they can buy Tillig is beyound me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+
john woodall
post 29 Jul 2013, 20:59
Post #19


Station Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,611
Joined: 4-February 08
From: Wellington, New Zealand
Member No.: 2,436



Its seems very easy for everyone to keep mentioning the deficiencies of Peco track.

It is a new one to hear that it is "pseudo continental offerings". I always thought that it was track, not really based on any country/regions prototype, but functional as it allowed trains to run on it. Blaming the Europeans/Americans for a British designed and made product is novel!!!!!!!!!

It is cheap which at the end of the day is its appeal.

But if people really wanted to drive change then I believe that they need to stop buying it and buy the better alternatives.

Brian is very accurate in his comments. Look at the big german internet dealers and see if peco is in their list of dealers. 9/10 they are not.

Cheers

John
Go to the top of the page
 
+
neil_s_wood
post 29 Jul 2013, 23:23
Post #20


Minister of Transport
Group Icon



Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Joined: 8-February 06
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 570



Yep, there's nothing continental about PECO. Don't know where that idea came from.

Cheers

Neil


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Graham Plowman
post 30 Jul 2013, 00:30
Post #21


Regional Controller
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,407
Joined: 5-September 06
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 869



This topic has presented a conundrum for years!

The problem is that, for historical reasons, a compromise was made where 00 models run on HO gauge track.
Proper 00 track is called P4 track. I could never understand EM - if one is going to go to all that effort of EM, why go halfway and not all the way to P4 ?

No amount of fiddling with sleepers is ever going to change the fundamental fact of the gauge inaccuracy.

In my opinion, the solution comes down to one of two options: change the gauge of the track to match the 4mm scale rolling stock (perhaps a 'commercial' P4) or change the scale of the rolling stock to 3.5mm to match the currect track and make proper representations of British Track in H0. The problem is which has the least impact ? Probably the HO track option as it is still 'backwards compatible'.
Any other solution will result in a 'hybrid' compromise (track in one scale, sleepers in another) which in my opinion, is probably worse than the problem - at least the current track is all in a consistent scale.

Reallistically, if Peco were to make a proper 3.5mm scale representation of British track, I don't believe the vast majority know enough about track to know whether it was correct or not. It should be pointed out that Peco sleeper spacing is pretty close to modern concrete sleepering.

And finally, since most people seem to run the trains on toy-trainset sub-2 foot 6 radius curves, I cannot agree that any rolling stock (eg a pacific loco with all its overhang) is going to look any more reallistic on 'better 00 track' than it does [not] now!


--------------------
Graham Plowman
(British outline 00 - NCE PH PRO-R, Lenz 100 - DCC Sound and computer controlled signalling/interlocking of Ashprington Road with SSI software)
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Richard Lee
post 30 Jul 2013, 06:35
Post #22


Engine Driver
Group Icon


Group: Plus+
Posts: 653
Joined: 30-March 12
From: Northern Bulgaria
Member No.: 12,381



I believe that it is a bit defeatist not to try to get slightly better OO track, if that is what you want. Having said that, not everyone wants that, and there is no reason for them to be badgered about something that they are not concerned about.

Can not speak for other OO modellers, but the chances of me ditching my (rather modest) collection of OO stock, 4mm buildings, vehicles and figures in favour of British outline HO in 3.5mm to the foot scale, if and when it became available, are close to non-existent.

On the face of it, the ready-to-run P4 sounds more interesting. Just as a matter of interest, though, what is the minimum recommended radius for P4? Is it possible that many people would find the larger radius curves a bit restrictive for their layouts? Is it possible that it may cost slightly more than OO? What are the commercial implications for the model train manufactures for the additional costs and lack of backward compatibility?
Go to the top of the page
 
+
woolwinder
post 30 Jul 2013, 09:59
Post #23


Fireman
****

Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 17-January 07
From: GERMANY
Member No.: 1,357



I don't really know why there is so much discussaion. Life is too short to spend it all just complaining about track. I use a mixture of Code 83 and Code 100 and am quite happy with it. At least it all functions with a large variety of locos and rolling stock, and I get the pleasure of watching trains, not track !!!
However, if you REALLY want to get something done, I strongly suggest that you ALL join DOGA and strengthen their voice in this area. That is the most likely way to get some progress. They DO talk to manufacturers, and the manufacturers DO listen to them.

gresley
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Graham Plowman
post 30 Jul 2013, 10:08
Post #24


Regional Controller
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,407
Joined: 5-September 06
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 869



Richard (Lee),

My personal view is that HO gauge track on 00 sleepers as a solution is worse than the problem. The problem could easily be solved if manufacturers made a proper representation of British Track in HO scale and therefore, 16.5mm gauge - but it won't happen because it would be unique to one country.

Since so many people seem to be quite accepting of Tillig track which is an HO representation of European track, I find it amusing that they won't accept H0 for British track!

The option for wholesale conversion to HO is also out of the question for me.

The other option is P4 which is also out of the question for me as I have so much rolling stock that the conversion costs would be astronomic. Many RTR models are still made not to be suitable for conversion and to be perfectly honest, having done it, converting most RTR outside Walshearts valvegear locos is not something most people could or even should be expected to do - it is just too hard.

The 'large radius curves' argument against P4 is a myth. There are plenty of P4 layouts with 3 foot radius curves and less.

I will sit on the fence for the time being until a better option appears.


--------------------
Graham Plowman
(British outline 00 - NCE PH PRO-R, Lenz 100 - DCC Sound and computer controlled signalling/interlocking of Ashprington Road with SSI software)
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Ravenser
post 30 Jul 2013, 13:19
Post #25


Footplate Inspector
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 6-September 06
Member No.: 871



QUOTE (john woodall @ 29 Jul 2013, 20:59) *
Its seems very easy for everyone to keep mentioning the deficiencies of Peco track.

It is a new one to hear that it is "pseudo continental offerings". I always thought that it was track, not really based on any country/regions prototype, but functional as it allowed trains to run on it. Blaming the Europeans/Americans for a British designed and made product is novel!!!!!!!!!

It is cheap which at the end of the day is its appeal.

But if people really wanted to drive change then I believe that they need to stop buying it and buy the better alternatives.

Brian is very accurate in his comments. Look at the big german internet dealers and see if peco is in their list of dealers. 9/10 they are not.

Cheers

John



John: I'm not quite sure what Peco track is , but it isn't British track in any scale

First of all we have to remember that Peco have a whole series of 16.5mm gauge track ranges- by my count , 6 of them (Setrack, Streamline code 100 in insulfrog and live frog, the 83line US Code 83 range, Code 75 Streamline, and 0-16.5mm.)

The code 83 US range is emphatically not British - it is pukka US HO track, with standard US geometry, US tight sleeper spacing, and NMRA flangeways . We can certainly take this out of the discussion - other than to note that it ought now to be Peco's main product for the US market . We can also exclude 0-16.5mm other than to note that it is worth Peco's while to produce a range of 16.5mm track with a different sleeper spacing for a niche market, and that such a range can be viable with a limited number of items in the range - it doesn't have to have 6 or 8 types of points , in both left and right hand versions plus multiple types of slip and diamond, available in both live and dead frog in order to find a place in the market


The sleeper spacing on Peco Streamline is not British, not even in HO. The interwar de facto standard for running line sleeper spacing in Britain was 2'6" centres. Pregrouping railways used rather wider spacings , increasing the further you go back in time. Sleepers on sidings were wider spaced than running lines. Post war the spacing seems to have gone down to 2'4" on main line , and these days you'd be talking about 2'4"-2'0" depending on how busy and how high speed the line is . The relevant figure for modelling purposes is not the standard in force for new work at the date of the layout but the standard for new work at the date when the track was originally laid - in the case of the 1950s secondary line, that very probably means "in the 1930s"

2'6" = 10mm centres in 4mm scale , and 8.75mm in HO/3.5mm scale. 2'0" (which means concrete sleepers on main lines cleared for 125mph running) is 8mm

SMP flexible track uses 9mm centres, Peco's sleeper spacing is 7.5mm . This is way too tight for wooden sleepering in Britain even in HO , never mind OO.

Peco track - all of it - is flatbottom rail. Even into the early 80s model railway pundits would say that this on its own made it wrong for British track - because British track "with a few recent exceptions" was all bullhead rail. For the steam era this still basically holds true

I've heard it suggested that Peco Streamline code 75 is a good representation of post war French main line track. I suspect it may be a decent representation of NSWGR track from WW2 to the 1990s - certainly that was flatbottomed rail on wood sleepers, and if I ever do any Antipodean modelling that would be the way I'd go. But British track - no

And that's before we get to the fact that Peco track is too coarse for modern wheels

QUOTE
But if people really wanted to drive change then I believe that they need to stop buying it and buy the better alternatives.


Which are? What we are discussing is the pernicious effects of a long term deeply entrenched monopoly with high barriers to entry. Peco have had the UK market to themselves without a serious competitor since the early 70s - 40 years (Hornby only sell track to the trainset market) Surprise sureprise - the product has hardly changed since the early 70s. The obvious parallel would be with the E German car industry, where there was one manufacturer, and you could buy a Trabant or a Wurtzburg and that was it, for several decades. So there was no pressure to change or improve . Or India, where the only domestically made car was a Morris Oxford and they went on making them, completely unchanged, for 35 years. I'm sure people constructed ingenious arguments proving that the Morris Oxford was the perfect car for India and calls for something better and more modern were unreasonable , incoherent and ignored economic realities (Especially if they had vested interests as importers of foriegn cars into India and didn't want to see their market undermined by a credible domestic product)

There is no benefit in Peco competing with themselves - so they can basically take the UK market for granted and need not bother catering for it's needs or developing new products for it. Even though it is almost certainly well over 50% of their sales

As an aside Peco's product range is a bit of a mess- they have too many ranges, with products having no clear focus in terms of which bit of the market they are targeted on . It needs rationalisation, frankly - personally I'd start by phasing out code 100 Streamline live frog
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Brossard
post 30 Jul 2013, 14:13
Post #26


Station Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,312
Joined: 16-August 07
From: A Bloke in Quebec
Member No.: 1,958



A detailed and thoughtful analysis Ravenser. smile.gif I was thinking, in response to other comments, that we shouldn't be too quick to "diss" Peco - if it wasn't for them where would the hobby be today?

Peco code 100 points seem to be very popular over here - I can't recall seeing Peco code 83 in the shop I occasionally visit. "Not invented here" syndrome I wonder. Perhaps other contributors from Canada and the US can shed more light on this.

As you rightly point out, Peco have no incentive to change their offering. If Peco code 100 is indeed popular here (and I have no data other than my observation at shows), this range will be with us for some time to come.

No signs of buns flying through the air yet. cool.gif

John



--------------------
John

Go to the top of the page
 
+
David Todd
post 30 Jul 2013, 14:24
Post #27


Minister of Transport
Group Icon


Group: Plus+
Posts: 6,323
Joined: 28-October 11
From: Kent. UK.
Member No.: 11,373



QUOTE
No signs of buns flying through the air yet.
............All posting's , appear to have a flame retardant substance,applied,before publishing..........

H&S..........requirement, these days............


--------------------
........dt........


Link below,is to my layout, Dover Priory and Town Yard.Kent Uk
https://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index...showtopic=20477

]Click this link and watch my Naff Video Company,clips,of my layout
http://www.youtube.com/user/ferriesdover/videos
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Richard Lee
post 30 Jul 2013, 17:09
Post #28


Engine Driver
Group Icon


Group: Plus+
Posts: 653
Joined: 30-March 12
From: Northern Bulgaria
Member No.: 12,381



QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 30 Jul 2013, 13:08) *
Richard (Lee),

My personal view is that HO gauge track on 00 sleepers as a solution is worse than the problem. The problem could easily be solved if manufacturers made a proper representation of British Track in HO scale and therefore, 16.5mm gauge - but it won't happen because it would be unique to one country.


Fair enough. Your choice. Nothing less than Protofour looks ideal for 4mm modelling of standard gauge. For those mere mortals (such as myself) who have not got the ability to do Protofour, it seems to me to be a question of deciding which particular compromises are the least personally unacceptable. I like the look of the SMP OO track, so chose it. Other people must make their own choice, which should be respected.

Have a feeling that both C&L and SMP have slightly shorter sleepers for their OO track than either their EM, or anyone's P4 track; I believe that they are a scale 8' instead of the 8' 6" that is normal for post-grouping track.

Have seen side-by-side pictures of various 4mm track, including, Peco Streamline code 100 and code 75, SMP and C&L OO gauge, C&L EM gauge and P4, with locomotives on. In my opinion, P4 looks better than EM, which looks better the OO track, which looks better than Peco code 75, which looks better than Streamline code 100. If I felt that I could do either EM or P4, then I would.

QUOTE
Since so many people seem to be quite accepting of Tillig track which is an HO representation of European track, I find it amusing that they won't accept H0 for British track!


Tend to agree with you on this one, although if I did Continental HO, I think I would like Tillig a lot.

QUOTE
The option for wholesale conversion to HO is also out of the question for me.

The other option is P4 which is also out of the question for me as I have so much rolling stock that the conversion costs would be astronomic. Many RTR models are still made not to be suitable for conversion and to be perfectly honest, having done it, converting most RTR outside Walshearts valvegear locos is not something most people could or even should be expected to do - it is just too hard.


Fair enough. I get the impression that diesels tend to be easier to convert, but I like steam locomotives a lot better.

QUOTE
The 'large radius curves' argument against P4 is a myth. There are plenty of P4 layouts with 3 foot radius curves and less.


Thanks for that information. I have tried to keep the curves on my new layout to not much less than 3' radius, because I think it looks better. Still don't feel confident about doing P4 anytime soon, though!

QUOTE
I will sit on the fence for the time being until a better option appears.


Fair enough.
Go to the top of the page
 
+
Ravenser
post 30 Jul 2013, 17:16
Post #29


Footplate Inspector
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 6-September 06
Member No.: 871



QUOTE (Brossard @ 30 Jul 2013, 15:13) *
A detailed and thoughtful analysis Ravenser. smile.gif I was thinking, in response to other comments, that we shouldn't be too quick to "diss" Peco - if it wasn't for them where would the hobby be today?

Peco code 100 points seem to be very popular over here - I can't recall seeing Peco code 83 in the shop I occasionally visit. "Not invented here" syndrome I wonder. Perhaps other contributors from Canada and the US can shed more light on this.

As you rightly point out, Peco have no incentive to change their offering. If Peco code 100 is indeed popular here (and I have no data other than my observation at shows), this range will be with us for some time to come.

No signs of buns flying through the air yet. cool.gif

John



You raise an interesting issue here, which underlines why I think Peco need to start rationalising their ranges . There are some shops in the UK - notably the ModelZone chain , now in administration, where they don't stock code 75 . Just the 2 code 100 ranges: insulfrog and live frog.


Code83line is the dedicated product for the US market , with correct US tight sleepering , correct code 83 rail , to NMRA standards and US boxes . Code 100 doesn't tick any of the boxes - coarse , heavy , different geometry, not US outline. But how can Peco sell code83 if model shops don't stock it and modellers can't therefore source it?

The attitude that "I can only carry a couple of track ranges in my shop - so I'll carry the two types of code 100 Streamline. Don't have room to stock code83line/code 75 as well" is a real issue. I'm convinced this has been a key factor in restricting code 75 in the UK - people buy Streamline code 100 because people buy Streamline code 100

And it's a huge issue for things like Tillig or any non-Peco brand operating in the UK. Where do you get the stuff? It all reinforces the Peco monopoly.

Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting Peco stop making code 100 track completely. My proposal was a bit more subtle. The key point is not to think of "Peco track" or "code100 track" as the product - but to be more specific . Then it becomes clear just how many ranges Peco are actually running. In code100 alone, they produce Setrack (to toy train geometry), Streamline code 100 deadfrog and Streamline code 100 deadfrog . The poor shop has to stock too complete ranges of pointwork - insulfrog and livefrog. No wonder he says "I haven't got room for yet another complete range of points"

So I was suggesting Peco phase out livefrog points on code100. This leaves them with a Streamline code 100 deadfrog range, plus the small Setrack code100 deadfrog range. Code100 then becomes the product for those with "legacy" stock and "legacy" layouts , plus the toy train market .

Code 75 - and in N America code83line - can be strongly promoted as the premium modern product for those building a new layout, and running stock made in the last 15 years. The retailer can be told "Now you only have to stock one code 100 range, so that means there's space on your shelves for our code 83 / code 75 range , which you tell us you can't stock because you only have space to carry a couple of ranges" . And it gives code 75/code 83 a clear selling point - it's the more sophisticated livefrog option . At that stage there is no longer an obstacle to Peco tightening up the clearances on code 75 to suit modern wheels: because code 75 is clearly established as the product for the more sophisticated user. You have old coarse wheels? We have code 100 for you. A second unique selling point for code 75 - finer standards for better running with modern stock. (It would be very useful if they adopted the DOGA OO Intermediate Standard for their code 75 range)

This would not require any investment in new tooling (you'd upgrade the code75 tooling as it fell due for replacement), and the retailer doesn't need to carry any extra stock to carry both options. But it focuses the product range much more effectively , simplifies stock holding, reduces the amount of tooling required and would seem to help everyone all round.

The trouble is , Peco have crowded the British market so effectively they are crowding out their own products as well . And they have the peculiar attitude that they really don't want people to know if they have made any improvements to aproduct. They do sometimes make small improvements but they never tell anyone - I believe on occasion they have even denied that an improvement has been made . They'd much rather you didn't know . The one thing you'll never ever see is an advert "New Improved Product from Peco!" trumpeting all it's wonderful new features. I don't know why they're like this - perhaps they're afraid of frightening the horses at the bottom end of the market

None of this, of course, solves the big issue of track with sleeper spacing that looks more or less like British wooden sleepered track. I don't think that is going to come from Peco, at least initially. It will require someone to launch a rival product - which will then put Peco under pressure to respond or see their UK market position under threat

I don't see that happening until the British economy has recovered properly and is growing strongly on a sustained basis - so not for perhaps 5 years

In the meantime , it's buy Marcway - as I've done - or build your own points (gauges available from DOGA....)

Go to the top of the page
 
+
Ravenser
post 30 Jul 2013, 17:19
Post #30


Footplate Inspector
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 763
Joined: 6-September 06
Member No.: 871



QUOTE
Have seen side-by-side pictures of various 4mm track, including, Peco Streamline code 100 and code 75, SMP and C&L OO gauge, C&L EM gauge and P4, with locomotives on. In my opinion, P4 looks better than EM, which looks better the OO track, which looks better than Peco code 75, which looks better than Streamline code 100. If I felt that I could do either EM or P4, then I would.


But there's a big gap between the 4mm scale P4/EM/OO track on the one hand and peco code 75/code100 on the other . Thats where the step change comes, and why this is and remains such a vexed issue
Go to the top of the page
 
+

12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS    Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th July 2020 - 16:44