Once again, my own personal opinion, but Peco setrack is only good for off scene fiddle yards.

Quote from: Chris Morris on December 09, 2022, 08:11:23 AM
I have huge respect for Peco and believe they have been brilliant servants to our hobby over the years but that set track point with it's compatibility problems should have been replaced with a bigger one many years ago.

It's not Peco's fault that British N manufacturers have decided they can't make their larger locos able to negotiate 9" radius.  The quality Continental brands have always managed it, indeed they can go down to 8" because that is the minimum radius people have on their existing layouts using Fleischmann, Minitrix, Arnold etc. track systems.   

I have absolutely no problems running my stuff over Setrack points.  I agree they don't look good for scenic trackwork and I only use them in fiddleyards.

Quote from: Bealman on December 09, 2022, 08:19:04 AM
Once again, my own personal opinion, but Peco setrack is only good for off scene fiddle yards.

Still no use if your lovely loco derails each time it enters/leaves the fiddle yard or your swish little pannier tank has to do so at 200mph so it doesn't stall on the point.
Yeah - I know some don't have that problem but there's a helluva lot who do.

Quote from: Chris Morris on December 09, 2022, 08:11:23 AM

I would agree. The basic set track point should be at least R2 so it is compatible with larger locos. R1 track packs should have a clear warning panel stating they are not suitable for all locos. The Peco set track point was almost certainly brought to the market place many years ago, probably in the days of GF from Poole. Things have moved on but the Peco set track point hasn't. The set track curved point which is more modern is also an issue for some larger steam outline locos. I have huge respect for Peco and believe they have been brilliant servants to our hobby over the years but that set track point with it's compatibility problems should have been replaced with a bigger one many years ago.

This is where I take issue with UK modellers in all scales.   UK Setrack Radius 1 corresponds to Continental Radius 2.

Yet I can propel a double-deck push-pull train round a Continental radius 1 (hidden) curve on a 1 in 25 bank - less steep than the prototype Hollentalbahn which is 1 in 17.8  and do so repeatedly for two days with Bregenbach in Schwarzwald at shows.  These coaches are close coupled so on the straight there isn't a gap between them- closer coupling than ANY UK outline stock I have.

The fact that British N can't do small radii is a function of us accepting inadequate design by the manufacturers.  My BR44 2-10-0 can cope with Continental Radius 1, as can my BR01 4-6-2 and my BR23 2-6-2, the latter having no visible gap between loco and tender exactly as the prototype.  So why do my BRITISH locos require Continental Radius 3 or larger?

Les
now in the process of getting completely out of UK N after selling Croft Spa.

We seem to have gone a lot off topic! In terms of my initial posting, I think I was about right with my ratio of gauges.

Dave

Well some numbers have been thrown around by similarly uneducated people, but if that's the takeaway then great!

It's going to depend on how you measure it - units sold in each scale, money spent, unique purchasers etc.

In units sold then N will of course outstrip O. But it wouldn't entirely surprise me if the number of unique buyers was similar. I have two O gauge locos,  a couple of wagons (which I made, so not sure they count) and 3 yards of track. Does that make me an O gauge and an N gauge modeller? I've ordered an Accurascale 92, but I have no track whatsoever, it's for display only. Do I count as a OO gauge modeller?

Is it purely how people self-identify?

Your numbers seem reasonable as vague approximations of course, but it's hard to get much beyond that level of accuracy.

While Continental N gauge locos can go round sharp radius curves, the set-track points are larger radius than Peco Setrack — Fleischmann points are 430mm for example.

I find set-track points a significant issue in British N. I have to use set-track since I can't manage to fit rail joiners on to track (with the exception of Kato): if I hold them tight enough I can't see where they are. I often wonder how people do this — I've seen innumerable videos about track laying, they all show how to hammer in track pins but NEVER show rail joiners being fitted. Perhaps everybody has difficulty, and don't like to advertise the fact...

Fleischmann points are OK for Continental stock (although not as reliable as they should be) but some British stock takes exception to them, and most jolts on going through them. Kato #4 points can cause derailments with some stock, while the #6 points simply take up too much room, they're longer than most OO set-track points at 186mm long.

I don't know why radius 2 of Peco Setrack is chosen anyway. Perhaps the manufacturers think set-track points are radius 2, as they are in OO!

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the range to be revised though — it took 25 years from it's introduction for there to BE a radius 2...

Peco probably have the best data for market share of the various scales in terms of sales of track.

However, as mentioned earlier sales of rolling stock are unlikely to be directly proportional to track sales, so Peco's data for market share of N based on track sales is likely to be less than the total market share for N.

I would like to know what share N gauge represents for Metcalfe Models building kits ?

I would guess that N gauge's market share for kits is greater than for RTR.

Even with track how are you measuring? Same metrics still apply. I doubt many people buy O gauge track in 25 yard boxes, given it lends itself to shunting and depot layouts, but I suspect lots of people buy multiple boxes for N. 

Quote from: D9020 Nimbus on December 09, 2022, 03:55:19 PM
... I can't manage to fit rail joiners on to track (with the exception of Kato): if I hold them tight enough I can't see where they are. I often wonder how people do this..

Wandering off topic here of course, but personally I just hold the rail joiner in the end of snipe-nose pliers and slide it on. Easy and works first time every time.

Whatever numbers we come up with are about to be thrown into turmoil with the advent of TT:120, which as stated above is Hornby.

The numbers joining the TT:120 club have exceeded expectations to the extent that the group producing the welcome packs has been totally snowed under.  An awful lot of sets have been ordered.  How many of those are for novelty only is impossible to judge just yet.  We might know a lot more in two years time.

On a personal note, I started in TT (Triang TT3) in 1963 and only really moved on when it became impossible to get hold of as a twenty-some year old modeller in the mid-seventies.  My next layout will be TT, using Peco track.  Whether it will be British or German outline depends on what comes available suitable for my ideas.  I only need half a dozen locos whichever way I jump.  The reason for the move is that my arthritis isn't improving.  I don't have room for a roundy-roundy in OO and my shunting plank NO PLACE hasn't any play value at home.

That of course means following the sale of Croft Spa I have enough surplus UK outline N-gauge stock to more than fund the layout and a 2-week cruise.....

Les

Will you be selling your surplus n gauge stuff on the N'porium ?

 I got into N gauge because of my Dad and Grandad, it's what they had. Why they had N gauge I have no idea, but I guess space was a big factor. The same applies for me now, OO gauge ok a layout of my size would be a bit cramped and relatively boring to operate (12ftx2ft6)  compared to what I've got now.
Most people I know that have anything to do with model railways (which isn't many) have OO, mainly all have kids and because of Hornby. Only one person I know had N gauge but he donated a lot of his spare track to me!

Quote from: Southerngooner on December 08, 2022, 04:48:48 PM
With regard to Chris's comment about getting N gauge layouts into magazines, Steve Flint from RM was virtually begging for more to be sent in when he did an interview (was it for last years Virtual Show?). I think the problem is that there are less N gauge layouts around, and therefore less good ones (or ones that their owners feel are good enough) to go into magazines compared to OO.

Dave

Personally I'd never of thought of approaching a magazine, always thought it'd be a case of they'd approach whoever they want in their magazine...I wouldn't say no if I was contacted because then I'd think well maybe my layout is good enough!

No, contact the magazines. Give a resume or even completed article, preferably with photos. There are usually contact addresses or email addresses for articles in the magazine.

If they are interested or not, they will let you know, and be prepared to re-write the piece.

Editors can't get around to every exhibition to see what's on the circuit, and they certainly can't see 'stay at home' layouts.

This also applies to articles on stock, scenery, electrics or other area of modelling.

It may be some months before an accepted article actually gets into print, and most magazines won't accept an article which has appeared in similar form in another trade magazine.

Martyn

If you don't send stuff about your layout to a magazine, how are they going to know about it?