Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[52D]

You have made a very good and careful case and it makes a hell of a difference. perhaps you should email Peco with a link to the relevant pages of this thread so they can do some market research.

[manna]

G'day Gents

Like the reworked Peco, one way to get there attention, maybe to point out that they would use Less plastic, bigger spacing's-less sleepers, Graeme, have you weighed the original and the modified versions, IF, there is a difference that maybe a powerful incentive for them to listen.

manna

[Horsetan]

.... IF, there is a difference that maybe a powerful incentive for them to listen.

Since when have PECO actually listened to anyone? They famously make their own decisions and don't really get swayed by the public.

I seem to recall they finally moved into producing Code 75 track years after other track producers. Until then they were quite content to plough their own Code 100 furrow, knowing that the market was undiscriminating.

[manna]

G'day Gents

But if they could save a couple of Pence per unit !!!! that's an incentive.

manna

[Atlantic 3279]

What do you suggest in the way we should approach Peco on this subject? It might be handy to have some sort of agreed course of action.

Woodcock29

Postby 52D » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:32 am

perhaps you should email Peco with a link to the relevant pages of this thread so they can do some market research.


I'm open to suggestions on the best way forward, though I share Ivan's scepticism regarding Peco's willingness to listen.

I'm also led (by more than one source) to believe that Peco were actively considering something more British in the way of OO track not many years ago, but that the idea was dropped following interference in the discussions by "somebody" whose identity seems to be protected by rather strange legal considerations. Dark forces preventing progress?

O Gauge Peco pointwork looks miles better than their OO. Even their HOm track which may not have been meant for the purpose but which has been eagerly adopted by TT modellers has, to my eye, a better proportioned appearance than their OO. Why should OO modellers put up with the rubbish? The markets for minority scales and narrow gauge curiosities surely cannot be more valuable than that for decent OO, but I see no hope of Peco moving without a push.

The limited number of responses so far to this part of the thread unfortunately do not fill me with confidence about the possibility of Peco being given a sufficiently firm push.

[JASd17]

I am not sure this is an LNER Forum problem alone. I do not follow the 'other side' that closely, so apologies Graeme if some of the following has been discussed.

It occurs to me that Peco have let down finescale modelling, especially in OO, for so long that they should not be the only target of any campaign. Why should they change; they must perceive their core market is secure?

If there is any kind of market economy (?) then another manufacturer could/should step into the breach, although differing PW methods may make this a minefield even for the most willing outfit.

Having said all of the above, hand-built point work and flexi-track is probably the best way to achieve a particular formation in any case. But I take the point that less hand-building of turnouts has its appeal.

Ramble ramble.

John

[Horsetan]

...I'm also led (by more than one source) to believe that Peco were actively considering something more British in the way of OO track not many years ago, but that the idea was dropped following interference in the discussions by "somebody" whose identity seems to be protected by rather strange legal considerations. Dark forces preventing progress?....

Probably someone within the Pritchard family not wanting to relinquish any sort of control.

To me, PECO are synonymous with stagnation. Everyone else moved on ages ago, whilst they poke about half-heartedly with ideas that others ran away with years before. In the '60s/70s they may well have been innovative, but that's where it ended.

[Atlantic 3279]

Probably someone within the Pritchard family not wanting to relinquish any sort of control.

That is what I would have instinctively suspected, but the most detailed version of the account that I've heard suggests that it was an outside party, claiming to represent an organisation with which he actually had no remaining official ties. I'd love to find out the ID of the wrecker. In fact I think we all ought to be free to know who the fly in the ointment really is!

[Horsetan]

Probably someone within the Pritchard family not wanting to relinquish any sort of control.

That is what I would have instinctively suspected, but the most detailed version of the account that I've heard suggests that it was an outside party, claiming to represent an organisation with which he actually had no remaining official ties. I'd love to find out the ID of the wrecker....

Suggests either of two things to me:

1. A fantasist.
2. Vested interests.
3. Both of the above....oh wait, that's three things

*leaves room, comes back in, starts again*

[Kestrel]

Nobody wanted the Spanish Inquisition !

[Herbert Nigel]

The problem as I see it is that Peco have no incentive to change their current 00 track work range. Whilst many of us would prefer it to be more accurate to the British prototype, it is still the nearest, most suitable system available to the mass market and as such appears to be the system of choice for the majority. Even those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay for professionally built track on the "viewing side" still seem to use Peco products in off scene areas and fiddle yards. Why? Because it's relatively cheap and works.
Put simply, as long as people are buying it, Peco have no need to change and what's the alternative? Build your own? Adapt the Peco range? You have yourself demonstrated it is possible to do so but admitted the effort is not worth it. I agree Some specialist manufacturers now produce plain line of more realistic appearance (in what is, let's face it, a completely inaccurate guage) but they do not as yet produce ready built S&C to match it, only kits of bits for self construction. (They also charge twice the price of the Peco range for their plain line).
If these manufacturers were to expand into ready made S&C units to match the plain line they already supply then an alternative to Peco would exist, hopefully leading to lower pricing (through increased sales) and Peco would at last face competition and potentially accept it's time for change!
The best news is that a certain Australian company have indicated their intention to pursue development of a new, improved and more realistic 00 track system. If Peco don't watch out they may lose their almost monopolistic position as preferred supplier of 00 track systems to the British market. It'll be their own fault.
Oh, incidentally, even if every member of the LNER forum responds to this subject I doubt it will change Peco's sales strategy. Only competition will do that.

[UpDistant]

I may be wrong, but I was always under the impression that Peco trackwork was HO gauge, hence the rather fore-shortened sleeper spacing on both plain track and S&C. LNER standard sleeper spacing was 2'7" between adjacent sleeper centres (apart from at the rail ends where the spacing was less). Would someone like to look at their Peco Streamline and measure the distance between sleeper centres? 4mm:1ft should be 10.3mm; 3.5mm:1ft works out at 9.0mm.

If you want "proper" track, especially S&C items, you really have little option other than build it yourself. This is particularly true if you want sleepered S&C rather than timbered S&C (North Eastern Area).

I've also read somewhere on the interwebby that C&L are going to market ready assembled finescale S&C in P4, EM and OO gauges. But, big but, this will inevitably be at a not inconsiderable cost as these will be hand assembled from their own kits.

There are choices out there - it's your train set.

[Atlantic 3279]

Peco sleeper spacing and sizes, let's be clear, are not even HO representations of typical steam era British practice. Peco sleepering is shorter, slimmer and even more crowded - about 7.3mm spacing or barely 2ft 1inch in HO scale and only 1ft 10 inch in 4mm scale. SMP Scaleway has 9mm sleeper spacings, centre to centre, and therefore looks right because the track features are in proportion to the gauge. Peco is strikingly far more tightly packed.

[Kestrel]

I first bought SMP track and point kits about 40 years ago and would never buy Peco no matter how much cheaper it was. You put track down once and why shouldn't you pay for the best? You'd think nothing of paying £100-150 for a new detailed locomotive so why not have decent track for it to run on?

Marcway charge £43 for a 10 yard box of SMP OO/EM track (£47 for P4) compared to Peco's finescale at £72 for 25 yards (Hatton's price). This works out to Marcway £4.30/yard, Peco £2.88/yard but surely the extra expense is worth it.

Peco is for toy trains, SMP is for model railways.

When a new magazine arrives, the first thing I look at is the track used in the various layouts and cringe when I see Peco. People spend hours on scenery, scale buildings etc to get them as near to perfection as they can but then let themselves down by laying rubbish track.

What amazes me is how few shops even know about Marcway/SMP track but I guess they would have to add their % on to the price and it would be even more expensive.

No matter what is said, Peco will continue churning out their track and if people are gullible enough to buy it, so be it.

[Atlantic 3279]

I can't argue with any of Kestrel's remarks.

On the matter of handbuilt pointwork to "match" Scaleway, I may have something to show later today which, for me, may at last address the problems of how to build something strong, quickly and inexpensively, complete with a decent chaired bullhead appearance. I've never been impressed by the idea of relying on solvent welds for structural strength in in a point made up from plastic sleepers and plastic C&L chairs. The full, time-saving range of pre-made C&L parts are also very expensive in my view. Cast metal chairs or etched fold-up chairs from various suppliers, if you can get them, are expensive too, and the need to slot the chairs onto the rails before you finalise the positions of the rails seems awkward to me. In altering the preceding Peco point I noticed that when C&L chairs are split in two for cosmetic application to a point, there's a problem if the prototypical clearance between the foot of the rail and the timbers isn't present - the chair, although of correct height, is too tall for use if the rail rests directly on the timbers, as it automatically does if you solder rail to copper-clad in the usual way. It turns out that after some thought, I may have devised a way to produce cosmetic chairs of a type to suit, very cheaply.....