014 mainstream with RTP track sounds like a nice idea but as Paul & others wrote, its unlikely to happen. Roy Link, KB Scale & others currently active have made it much easier than it otherwise would be. Mark Clarke will sell you a smooth running little RTR diesel to get started for under ?100.
I am planning an extension to my ‘Bunny Mine’ gypsum layout to build over the winter, this will require 7 of the Hudson type 2 radius turnouts so I’ll make a start and see how the first one goes. Those who know me also know I’m cack-handed.
I agree that RTR 2ft prototypes such as Quarry Hunslets would be lovely in 014 and grotesque in 016.5 but the market will decide, as ever.?
If PECO were going to enter the 014 market, Dave Malton would have designed the range by now - another great exponent for the gauge.
David
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 at 17:32, Paul Martin < groups2@...> wrote: >> To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.<< ? Try sticking your wallet out instead for more success. ? >> I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way.<<?? Already too late, any RTR scale with RTR locos is going to be aimed at 16.5mm track because the mass market, such that it is, is currently modelling crap bodies on Smokey Joe chassis. ? What you and others here are suggesting manufacturers spend their money on is unrealistic. Bachmann chose 0n30 because they already had much of the track, accessories and common parts in their HO range and it needed the con of the US round the Christmas tree market to make that start with sufficient volumes. Anyone doing RTR NG in 7mm is going to go the same way and use the track that is available.? O14 modellers should be grateful that the Lionheart models have even thought of making 14mm gauge doable as it would have been very understandable for them to have just done 16.5mm. We need to wait and see just what they mean by easy to convert. ? My O14 track is 3D printed using Micro Engineering rail.?? If the first version which is based on L&B sleeper spacing with the simple spiked rail rather than baseplates sells, then it’s not a stretch to then do other formats. I think it is very likely that PECO would produce O14 track for the very reasons you can see in these responses – wildly different variations and O14ers saying I’d still build my own track. I certainly can’t justify the tens of thousands of pounds for the injection moulding tools for O14. ? Someone else’s suggestion was that X could do O14 flex track with Peco or Karlgarlin rail. That also is a non-starter. Anyone setting up to do flex track will want their own supply of rail and not be beholden to an intermediary. My track uses Micro Engineering rail because I can get it. I discussed his rail with Richard at Karlgarlin but we can’t make the price stack up mainly because I am VAT registered and he isn’t which instantly adds 20% to the costs. ? I think O14 by its nature and variety is destined to remain niche. I think the future lies with getting the predicted influx of RTR to think about allowing for O14 in their design whilst also using technology to make niche easier ? ? Paul Martin ? ? ? ? ? I agree, but you miss my point.? I'm not talking about how easy or enjoyable it is for an individual to make track.? I'm talking about getting the underlying basis of a new RTR scale correct before legacy gets in the way. 7mm narrow gauge RTR seems to be coming, as it stands it will be 2-foot prototypes represented on O-16.5.? No one will make their fortune bringing O14 of the shelf track to the market.? There are plenty of other niche products now being bought to market so I don't think it's a complete non-starter.?? It's easy to find problems, different styles of track, different angle of turnouts, etc.? I'm assuming Lionheart plan to get the Manning Wardle through existing Peco O-16.5 turnouts so why not something equivalent in O14? What is lacking is an interested party with means and desire to make it happen, alongside co-ordination with RTR manufacturers.? For instance, I can't believe Heljan aren't following the response and considering whether to offer Lyn in 7mm, with much of the research and design already done for the OO9 model.?? If O14 off the shelf happened we're no longer talking about a niche scale.? It could be in a mix just behind O, O, N and OO9.??Existing O14 modellers may indeed say that's not what they choose this scale for, that's fine.? Personally, the idea of RTR models representing 2-foot prototypes on O-16.5 pains me.? It would be a massive missed opportunity not to get it right now. To the extent I'm trying to stick my neck out and make it happen, which is not my usual moda operandi!? I plan to keep asking questions of various parties.? As I mentioned earlier this is probably not the right place to gain support.? If anyone is interested please feel free to get in touch.
Building O14 track and turnouts is not difficult. I’ve always found it one of the more enjoyable parts of the hobby, but I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. However, RTR O14 track and turnouts seem a little unlikely - partly because of the tooling costs for what is inevitably a niche market, partly because of the disparities in size and design between “skips with everything” industrial trackage on the one hand, and the more sophisticated p.way used on common carrier lines such as the L&B or the Rheidol on the other. The most difficult/tedious parts when scratchbuilding a turnout are the crossing nose + wing rail assembly, and the switch blades. The closure rails and check rails are simply standard stuff cut to length, as are the crossing timbers. Might the answer thus be to supply pre-assambled crossings and pre-planed switch rails, to suitable crossing angles, and perhaps in Peco code 65 for industrial lines and Kalgarin code 82 for big brother?? A properly thought-out stretcher bar assembly that allows the switch toes to pivot would also help; soldering switchblades up solid to a bit of PCB is asking for trouble later on. The only other things needed would be some photo-copied templates, ?strips of PCB for sleepers and crossing timbers (it’s the width that matters - the trackbuilder can cut it to length as needed as needed), and a roller gauge for each rail size, setting out both track- and check gauge. (Using a roller gauge designed for another rail profile is a no-no, says he from bitter experience!) This would require little in the way of tooling or up-front investment, and should therefore be do-able for a cottage industry supplier. Moreover, the same components could also be used for 16.5mm gauge, thus widening the potential market to include those modellers seeking a more realstic alternative to the Peco track. (I’m not knocking Peco, who have done a grand job in making 7mm narrow gauge accessible, but their track is a bit “samey”.)? Some of the above, e.g gauges, ?is already available on the Light Railway Stores site. Add the missing such as the crossings and switch rails, and O14 track and turnouts would be within reach of anyone who can pick up a soldering iron. ?
? My compromise with O14.
I use Sn3 Fast Track turnout jigs. Expensive, yes, but I have a key to the
back door which helps...
Shinohara Sn3 flextrack for unseen areas. Very hard to find now but I
think I read in a Scalelink bulletin that someone has bought the tooling?
Cheers,
CP
Mark,
I agree with what you are saying.? I've some S scale track components sat
next to me right now which I bought to try and make up a reasonable
representation of the Penrhyn Bullhead rail I grew up knowing on the
Ffestiniog.
I'm not talking about tooling up every track variant, just a generic left
and right hand point with flexi track.? I'm not thinking existing O14
modellers are the target audience.? What I'm proposing is getting the
starting position for the mass market closer to scale.? Which I believe
would have knock on benefits for
Anyway, these discussions are proving my point.? There is no group to
drive this project forward, even though I'm sure if it were to come to
market it would be a run-away success.? Just think how popular an oval of
track with an O14 quarry Hunslet would be!
Thanks,
Rich
Sent from Outlook<>
________________________________
From:?[email protected]?<[email protected]> on behalf of Mark via?
<mark_noble@...>
Sent: 01 October 2021 13:52
To:?[email protected]?<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [o14] O14 mainstream - was: Lionheart 7mm rtr L&B Locos
announced
Kevin,
I agree. I知 a self confessed rivet counter and model in 014 as I like to
get as close to the prototype as possible. This includes the track, which,
of course I知 having to build myself, in my case using Karlgarin code 100
rail to represent modern day WHR / FFR. The issue anyone like Lionheart
has making the investment in manufacturing RTR track representing 2 foot
gauge is which standard to choose as it varies so much. Considerations are
not only rail weight, but fixings to the sleepers, the shape of the
sleeper, the size and material of the sleepers themselves along with the
distance between sleepers. Even the L&B had track ranging from simple
spikes, to clips and bolts, clips and bolts with bearing plates when the
SR re laid the main line and even used reinforced concrete sleepers. The
014 modeller is likely to want these details right and resort to scratch
building making the return on investment for a manufacturer very risky as
volumes are likely to be low. If you池e happy to live with the compromise
of 16.5mm gauge track you are likely going to be satisfied with Peco痴
offering.
Regards,
Mark.
?
|
