Why don't they make ... ?

A place where you can describe your model railway wished for items that are not currently available.
Post Reply
User avatar
RSR Engineer
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:18 pm
Location: Freistaat Bayern
Contact:

Why don't they make ... ?

#1

Post by RSR Engineer » Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:41 pm

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

User avatar
Brian
Site Admin
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:49 pm
Location: SE Kent
Contact:

Re: Why don't they make ... ?

#2

Post by Brian » Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:24 pm

No soon asked than done. :o
A new forum area for your wish list of model railway items currently not manufactured.
Image << Click the Icon to go to my website

Mountain Goat
Posts: 753
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Why don't they make ... ?

#3

Post by Mountain Goat » Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:09 pm

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.
Enjoying freelance modelling in 7mm narrow gauge Feel free to ask questions relating to the Mountain Goats Waggon & Carriage Works thread.

User avatar
LC&DR
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:37 pm
Location: York
Contact:

Re: Why don't they make ... ?

#4

Post by LC&DR » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:21 pm

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.
LC&DR says South for Sunshine

User avatar
RSR Engineer
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:18 pm
Location: Freistaat Bayern
Contact:

Re: Why don't they make ... ?

#5

Post by RSR Engineer » Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:04 am

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest