Why don't they make ... ?

[RSR Engineer]

This kind of topic clearly doesn't belong in the reviews section but I'm at a loss as to where else to post it (unless, of course, I've simply failed to notice it already existing elsewhere). I would like to propose a section of the the forum devoted to our requests to the manufacturers for products we think are still missing from their ranges, and hope my idea earns the support of site admin.
Mod Note: New section opened and this is now the first post in that section.

As an opening salvo, I would suggest additional setrack components, namely a double (and perhaps single) slip crossing and a 3-way point. The existing Peco Streamline ones are at best difficult be integrate into a layout designed around setrack geometry. This applies to foreign products as well. To be blunt, I find these omissions inexcusable for the lack of space economy and flexibility they impose on modellers with restricted hobby space. I was always peeved at Meccano in the old days for the lack of versatility of the Hornby Dublo 3-rail track. Let's face it, Märklin already had double slips (and points in two radii) in their tinplate-based (M-Gleis) range in the 1950s and the 3-way point soon followed. Should the makers decide in favour (I almost wrote "decide to get their finger out"), they might let themselves be inspired by Roco, who include additional distance pieces with their 42451 double slip crossing.

There is also the matter of matching coaches. A quick search of the Hattons page for pre-grouping stock shows steam locos of the GCR, GNR, SECR and LNWR, but not a single pre-grouping coach and only a handful of wagons, most of them private-owner. OK, Bachmann have their SECR stock but at 80 quid a throw these are hardly drivers of turnover. Also, I must confess that being an H0 gauge modeller I am not really in the market for UK pre-group material (although a GNR express would have added a nice splash of colour) but I just wanted to start the ball rolling and see if such a topic has a chance of thriving.

Many thanks for your patience.

Cheers,
Artur

[Brian]

No soon asked than done.
A new forum area for your wish list of model railway items currently not manufactured.

[Mountain Goat]

Here is a question in regards to track. To manufacture just the main shortened body of a turnout or crossing, so from there one one can make ones track formation, so one can make more complicated station throats without the need to handbuild ones track.

[LC&DR]

I have thought for a long time that Set Track geometry should also include the following.

Scissors Crossover
Crossover Left Hand
Crossover Right Hand
Double Slip Left Hand
Double Slip Right Hand
Single Slip Left Hand
Single Slip Right Hand
Parallel Points (like a Wye point but coming together parallel at standard 67mm centres)
Three Way Points
Double Junction Second / Third Radius Left Hand
Double Junction Second / Third Radius Right Hand

Probably not all at once but added progressively.

Similarly a Scissors Crossing in Streamline code 100 would be useful.

[RSR Engineer]

Firstly, thank you, Brian, for acceding to my request.

And many thanks for your feedback, gentlemen.

If I understand correctly, MG, you mean producing the blades and frogs as separate modules to be set together to form any desired configuration of pointwork. The blade module, I if I can call it that, would be specific to turnout, diamond, slip or whatever and the frog module would be common to all. Personally, I think it's a brilliant concept. The idea was applied in (I think) the 1970s by Röwa and Ade but somehow didn't catch on, probably because it was quite pricey by the standards of the day. The East Germans also had a go. There's also Conrad-Hartel but this also seems a bit elusive (only a few bits and pieces on eBay Germany).

You may care to look at these (text all in German, unfortunately):
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4618 ... 556hc0.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6175 ... 557ca2.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/756/ ... 558xv7.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/7420 ... 559eg8.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/7641 ... 560bc6.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3189 ... 561xx4.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4668 ... te2yr4.jpg
http://www.modellbahnboerse.org/GE-2007/ade8.jpg

That's quite a range that LC&DR has listed but I can't disagree, except maybe with the crossovers. I wouldn't include any configuration that can be made up from already existing components. The double junctions (with one road of the diamond crossing properly curved to match the points): yes, definitely. I would wish the makers to give priority to slips and 3-ways, coz these are valuable space-savers.

I hope we've started something.

Cheers,
Artur

[RSR Engineer]

Considering that we are now at the end of September, with just four months to go till the Nürnberg fair, it it surely would not go amiss to make what the Germans call "nails with heads on". While it's possible that the makers are busy developing their new setrack double slips, I don't think we should be holding our breath.

To this end, I have drafted a letter to be sent to Peco, Bachmann and Hornby with the following text:

Re: Double slip crossing for setrack in 00 gauge

Dear <NAME>,

since the introduction of the setrack concept, a most welcome integrated range of trackwork with consistent geometry has been available to railway modellers. There is, however, one pointwork component which is highly conspicuous by its absence. I refer to the double slip crossing. Designing a layout without this item forces the modeller to use ordinary points and crossings and thus waste considerable amounts of space, a resource which is in short supply at the best of times. For this reason I am asking you and other manufacturers of the setrack concept to consider adding the double slip crossing to your range. It is clear that there will be development costs and nobody is expecting such an item for tuppence-ha'penny, but there is equally clearly an obvious gap in the available range of setrack components and I am confident that the outlay would be justified.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Artur

[RSR Engineer]

An email with the proposed text has been sent to the contact sites of three makers, namely Bachmann, Hornby and Peco. Not receiving any contradiction (or any feedback for that matter), I left the text unchanged. Now I just have to wait and see.

Cheers,
Artur

[Mountain Goat]

I think a double slip in settrack geometry form is an excellent idea, as is a 3 way point.


Another idealist idea is to have a slightly expanded range of pointwork in both 009/H0e and 0-16.5/0e/0n30 forms. Sectional track to tight radii forms will be appreciated by beginners.

Another nice addition to all the track ranges is to design an easy to fit checkrail system which is designed to fit sectional track ranges so one can model the sharp curves and make them look real.

[RSR Engineer]

Firstly, MG, thank you for your idea of separate checkrails (which I like a lot) and your call for an expanded narrow-gauge range. Narrow gauge has been treated like a poor relation for long enough.

Secondly, here's how the three makers responded to my suggestion of a double slip in the setrack range (I held back on the 3-way point for now):

Hornby:
"If your email was regarding Airfix or Corgi spares please allow up to 28 days. For all other enquiries we endeavour to reply within five working days. Please do not reply as this email was generated from an un-deliverable account."

This is only a promise of a reply still to follow, so we'll have to wait and see what finally emerges.

Peco:
"Thank you for your email. In our Streamline Code 100 range we have a double slip SL-90 that is insulfrog. There is no such item in the Setrack range – which is intended only as a basic track range. If, however, you are referring to a ” scissors” crossing (as in N – SLE383F), such an item would be prohibitively both too large and expensive to produce. Your remarks have, nevertheless been passed to our Sales Department."

They don't sem to have read my message very attentively. I made no mention of a scissors crossing, nor of the Streamline range. "Only a basic track range" hits the nail a bit too hard on the head, IMHO. That's just what I'm complaining about. Passing my remarks to the sales department sounds a bit like trying to penetrate an imperial burocracy. So this is also still a case of wait-and-see.

Bachmann:
"Thank you for taking the time to contact us and I shall be happy to pass your suggestion onto our Research & Development team for future consideration."

Another wait-and-see.

Maybe I should have been a bit more fist-on-the-desk but even then, without the pressure of competition to make them get their fingers out, I wouldn't be optimistic. We'll most likely be told that "after balancing costs and expected turnover, etc etc" they have "unfortunately" come to the conclusion ... But let's give them a chance to get it right and we can perhaps think again.

Cheers,
Artur

[PeterBalcombe]

A small turntable / turntable kit for OO

The currently available items / kits are all for large turntables which look out of place and take up far too much space on many of our layouts. Please we don’t all want to turn the Flying Scotsman complete with two tenders! A 60 foot (24mm) table would be more than adequate for many of our purposes.