Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Question that's very obvious: are there any manufacturers lined up to make the stuff to run on this track? Unlikely that Peco would be launching a track range without this in place.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
...True track gauge in 120 scale is 11.9583333mm, an error of 0.04 of a mm or 0.35%. So it well and truly overcomes the "better track" argument. It is better than both OO and O gauge in that respect.

If they can get this close to the correct track gauge in TT then it demonstrates that there is absolutely no excuse why they cannot mass produce P4 !...
As I am sure you recognise the barrier to a true scale 4mm is not technical. It's about space requirement. That's why we have HO mechanisms in OO models.

If some brand had been brave back in 1990 with the fixed link to HO-land opening, and had launched contemporary D+E models in HO, by now we would have no scale/gauge problem in UK RTR modelling, fior the period since steam was withdrawn. UK HO D+E will work just as well as all the rest of the world's HO D+E.

The recidivists like myself wanting steam, would still be in OO if using RTR. All the UK's narrow width dimension, thus less space for outside valve gear, and close fitting splashers on driving wheels limitations, which forced the OO compromise will equally apply to 1:120 TT.

This makes the choices for anyone venturing steam models in TT 'interesting'. Might it be the case that those wanting Walschaerts gear pacifics and similar size locos are told 600mm minimum radius, or some similar figure? That would enable correct exterior appearance, no need for the 'vari-scale' approach of stretching the width dimension. With a new introduction, it should be possible to 'reset' minimum radius expectations. (Your inside cylinder 0-6-0 will be quite happy on 200mm radius or thereabouts, so the choice lies with the layout builder - compact curves = small locos - if you want a main line with big engines then much larger radii are necessary.)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
...Resetting the minimum radius expectation is long overdue....
And regarding this aspect:
There's a 'reset' alright, Peco's 'medium' radius point is 36" substitution radius, (and Peco claim it is close to B6) which is near equivalent to the 60" radius required for large outside cylinder and valve gear steam models to operate reliably in P4. That's on sale now, along with matching flexitrack; with 'small' (unspecified, possibly 24" radius?) points and a diamond crossing listed to come. No 'set track' provision...

This is a very welcome development. Perhaps Peco will be moved to expand this thinking into some of their other track ranges?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
I am right with you that the intent was to create a new and different market to obtain continued spending from those that enjoy model railway, but have bought 'everything' they want in OO.

The finer track and wheel standard for superior appearance and much reduced scale compromise, requiring a much larger minimum radius curve proportional to the scale than has ever previously been the norm in RTR scales, is what I see as the USP.

The pitch may well be on the lines 'If you have the space for a 36" minimum radius OO layout, in that same space a finescale model railway of superior appearnce may be constructed in TT:120'. Competes with OO on 'fewer compromises', doesn't attempt to invade N gauge 9" radius territory for 'Waterloo in six by four feet'.

Will it fly? Possibly, before the Putin economic torpedo was launched. Now? Not so much...
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top