Too much detail?

[Sprintex]

Surely the question is why people still use code 80?

The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve

I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful


Paul

[Roy L S]

Surely the question is why people still use code 80?

The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve

I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful


Paul

Hi Paul

In the context of this thread with due respect I do not think the question is elitist, I think it is quite relevant, albeit perhaps the question should be put to Peco (And other track manufacturers) rather than fellow modellers who if they chose to use settrack as you rightly point out is most likely because they have no choice.

Code 55 flexi has been around for years now, with a reasonable range of points, so given the quantum leap in the quality and fineness of models in recent years, why has Peco not by now introduced a new range of Code 55 Settrack that could be included in starter sets so that the new entrant to the scale has something finer to start with?

I suspect I can answer the question myself: -

1) Complacency - people still buy code 80 Settrack because there is nothing else - no competing product.

2) Cost and return on investment - if Settrack is still selling well why bother.

Hands up who would use Code 55 Settrack if it were available at a reasonably comparable cost... Me in my fiddle yard (Where I have needed to use 9 inch radius points) for one, not least because it is more robust than code 80.

Regards

Roy

[Sprintex]

Surely the question is why people still use code 80?

The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve

I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful


Paul

Hi Paul

In the context of this thread with due respect I do not think the question is elitist, I think it is quite relevant, albeit perhaps the question should be put to Peco (And other track manufacturers) rather than fellow modellers ...

If the question was "why do Peco (or other manufacturers) still make code 80?" then that is a fair point, but it wasn't, it was questioning why people still use it. We have to remember that not everyone has the patience, dexterity or confidence to lay code 55 flexi, especially first time out, so Code 80 Setrack or other similar systems (I'm assuming Kato and others are also code 80, not used them?) offer a simpler method of achieving a smooth-running layout and can be made to look just as realistic as code 55 with careful ballasting and weathering

Just to add a personal perspective I can understand why people wouldn't bother with code 55 as I feel exactly the same about the "build your own track" concept - too much hassle for me when an acceptable alternative is available, albeit not 100% scale-authentic Each to their own.


Paul

[Bealman]

I'm on phone at moment so am a one eyed one fingered typist... amazing that I can even do that, given me age.

As someone who is either stuck with code 80 or start again, I find the whole 55-80 thing tiresome.

Let's make our model railways be fun.

[red_death]

Surely the question is why people still use code 80?

The quick answer to that is not everyone is concerned with track realism, and not everyone wants to faff about cutting flexitrack and trying to bend to a smooth curve

I don't see that elitist criticism of others' standards in this way is either productive or helpful

There is nothing elitist in questioning why people still use a system that even Peco made largely unnecessary 25+ years ago! In a debate about whether there is too much detail on modern locos then track systems are relevant.

It is a shame that you have to make it so divisive. 

I think it is a shame that Peco never introduced fixed radius curves for code 55, but it is pretty easy to mix and match code 55 for visible areas and use set track for the curves.

You can make code 80 look better, but it won't look as good as similarly treated code 55 - how could it? The rail height is overscale - even some of the OO track (some code 75) is finer than code 80! But the real comparison is with something like Finetrax where it becomes very obvious that it is actually the sleeper spacing (and size to a lesser extent) which is the main failing of Peco track. There is nothing elitist about that, it is simply reality.  Whether it is important to you I agree is entirely subjective - we all have our own areas of interest.

This really comes to the nub of the question about detail, whether it is detail of track or stock etc, which is what people want out of their modelling.  There is no right or wrong answer and the answers will be very individual.  Everyone accepts different compromises, but at least be open and honest about it.

My point about N being in competition with other scales for money from the manufacturers and customers is relevant and turning a blind eye to the great progress that has been made in all scales does no one any favours.

Mike

[Bealman]

I'm on phone at moment so am a one eyed one fingered typist... amazing that I can even do that, given me age.

As someone who is either stuck with code 80 or start again, I find the whole 55-80 thing tiresome.

Let's make our model railways be fun.

I quote myself. The whole thing is tiresome and I think the OP was talking models, not TRACK.

[EtchedPixels]

There is a "lot" of detail in GT3 the moment you start looking at it carefully - especially all those grilles

[Kipper]

Well, this is all getting a bit out of hand. Some like well detailed (and expensive) models, some are happy with lesser detail. Some like code 80 track, some code 55, and others are happy with Kato track. Some will not like any UK outline, but buy european or US outline (as it is truer to scale - allegedly). We all have our reasons for doing what we do (like we all drive different cars), so let us all be happy in our own way.
I see that even the Flat Earth Society is getting a slagging off in the NGS magazine, as some of the "layout on a door" designs do not have inclines!!!!

[joe cassidy]

It seems That there are 3 schools of thought :

1) my layout is a back drop for my locos, so I'm happy with super detailled locos on set track

2) my layout is a scénique work of art and as long as everything looks OK at "normal viewing distance".   I'm happy

3) I'm a perfectionnist - I want super détailléd locos and code 40 track.

I think That We should accept That all 3 approaches are equallly valid on this forum

Best regards,


Joe

[MikeDunn]

questioning why people still use a system that even Peco made largely unnecessary 25+ years ago!

If it's unnecessary, it begs the question why they still make large quantities of it ...

Obviously, they feel it is necessary ... and so do the people buying it ... else it wouldn't sell very well & Peco would drop it as they're not going to make things to lose money on ...

[joe cassidy]

I'm looping forward to the forthcoming curved settrack points !

Best regards,


Joe