The LNER Encyclopedia

This is very good news. Lack of points notwithstanding I intend to order at least a couple of boxes of the plain track.

My most immediate need and therefore my personal preference would be for large radius, but in due course I could also make good use of several medium ones too. Personal preferences aside, which would sell most rapidly and provide the incentive for Peco to offer more, if indeed they genuinely intend to offer any points at all?

I see there's no mention of possible cost for the Peco track but at the moment, Marcway are charging £43.00 for 10 yards of SMP track. 36" radius RH and LH point kits are £7.99.

Marcway points start at £25.50.

As per Dave and Atlantic 3279 I would say large but anything that gets the range up and running would be fine. One assumes a full selection will eventually follow.

There was an interesting mention of a possible link with Weinert Mein Gleis track over on the other side. I had a quick look at the Weinert website and they have some nice looking points with full length blades rather than the typical Peco approach. The rail profile looks like it is code 100. The Peco and Weinert stands were next door to each other at Nurnberg and there is a suspicion that Peco manufacture Weinert's track.

Correction send this morning, suggesting first the large and then the medium radii, but noting that the medium radii might be a more attractive sales proposition in the first instance. Mentioned the discussion here and the anticipation that the entire range of P&C products would eventually appear with the more accurate sleeper spacing. Also added a comment about longer rather than the pivoted point blades (switch rails) but noted that could be pushing our luck.

When last I spoke to a Peco representative, I pushed the idea that it was something dimensionally akin the current large radius point that should be the 'standard point' if they were ever to move to 'better OO track'; and that an opening offering of these LH and RH points was all they needed to test the market, along with matching plain track.

There's history here, which I am sure many are familiar with. It was already practically standardised in the 1960s with hand built copperclad OO track that the minimum radius of scenic running lines be 36", with points ideally offering an easier radius, especially for larger locos, and this offered a very convincing appearance. Try for a smaller point than an effective 36" radius curve, and the timbering starts to look a bit odd with the very small radius, in my opinion.

Positive response to my second e-mail with a comment that 'feedback is always good and appreciated', that it will also be forwarded and, in terms of longer unpivotted point blades, adding 'I don't think there is any harm in pushing your luck'.

What a pleasant exchange

Hatfield Shed wrote:When last I spoke to a Peco representative, I pushed the idea that it was something dimensionally akin the current large radius point that should be the 'standard point' if they were ever to move to 'better OO track'; and that an opening offering of these LH and RH points was all they needed to test the market, along with matching plain track.

There's history here, which I am sure many are familiar with. It was already practically standardised in the 1960s with hand built copperclad OO track that the minimum radius of scenic running lines be 36", with points ideally offering an easier radius, especially for larger locos, and this offered a very convincing appearance. Try for a smaller point than an effective 36" radius curve, and the timbering starts to look a bit odd with the very small radius, in my opinion.

Purely a personal opinion but I think the improved timbering looks odd even on medium (36in) radius points when viewed in isolation but when viewed as part of a run of track where everything matches it looks absolutely fine.

65447 wrote:Positive response to my second e-mail with a comment that 'feedback is always good and appreciated', that it will also be forwarded and, in terms of longer unpivotted point blades, adding 'I don't think there is any harm in pushing your luck'.

What a pleasant exchange

Sounds like good news.

teaky wrote: The rail profile looks like it is code 100. The Peco and Weinert stands were next door to each other at Nurnberg and there is a suspicion that Peco manufacture Weinert's track.

Peco and Weinert have an association which stretches back over many, many years - I believe that they are (or were) their main distributers in Germany. Here's a picture of the Weinert "mein Gleis" point - it's Code 75 (finescale).

It certainly looks good.

Peter

PGBerrie wrote:

teaky wrote: The rail profile looks like it is code 100. The Peco and Weinert stands were next door to each other at Nurnberg and there is a suspicion that Peco manufacture Weinert's track.

Peco and Weinert have an association which stretches back over many, many years - I believe that they are (or were) their main distributers in Germany. Here's a picture of the Weinert "mein Gleis" point - it's Code 75 (finescale).

weinert-mein-gleis-large.jpg

It certainly looks good.

Peter

Yeh, it looks good. It'll be interesting to see what Marcway's reaction is to all of this.

Here's a link to the catalogue

http://blaetterkatalog.weinert-modellbau.de/

Those very long turnouts must be handy if you have the entire basement of the Reichstag in which to house your layout, or if you only want a Futers plank. A satisfying circuit in an affordable property demands something much shorter.

I wouldn't expect Peco to move too far away from the sizes they currently offer. Assuming they eventually add a Y turnout then that should cater for many of the Futers planks whilst still allowing for reasonable curves.

Still, the Reichstag sized turnouts would look good. Hmmm, I wonder if I can talk my neighbour into accommodating a return loop?