New code 100 track system.

[The son of Triangman]

Isn't it about time Hornby replaced it's venerable track system? System 6 has been with us since 1970 although it is heavily modified today. How about a new track system with scale sleepering, but retaining code 100 rail, points with deeper flangeways so older stock from the 1970's, 80's and 90's can run over them, new curved points that are more reliable with shorter plastic frogs than the current ones? Instead of making new locos all the time how about updating this forgotten area of the range? Thoughts please?

[ellocoloco]

I would think a new track system would be a waste of money. Maybe some new track elements or improvements, but not a new system.

I would guess (fairly accurately) that most of Hornby's customers, and indeed, most UK outline modellers, are not aware of the OO/HO discrepancy and once they are aware they will probably be away from set track and onto flexible options. The current track works great as a basic system for Hornby and suits perfectly the International brands- Lima, Rivarossi and Joeuf. Lets not mention Electrotren as with the exception of the AVE models the track is once again narrow gauge. It is simple and fairly robust and does the job.

If correct UK sleeper spacing was to be used then you end up with something that looks like narrow gauge track. This gets even worse if scale length sleepers are used.

The problem isn't the System 6 track, its the scale of the (British) models that get run on it. That's what Hornby should do something about.....yum

[Stubaggieboy]

I agree with ellocoloco Hornby’s track is perfectly good train set track, any serious enthusiast would use the far superior Peco Streamline system.

[Chrissaf]

I would be quite happy if Hornby came to a deal with PECO to badge market a selection of the PECO range. PECO products in Hornby packaging.

Other companies 'badge market' other company products, why not Hornby. Takes away in-house product development costs.

[Tony57]

Hi SOT

Hope you are in good health

My answer to all your 4 topics is yes but will the finance guys agree to it

Why keep making the old Radius 1 curves when all new locos only run on 2nd radius curves as a minimum?

So Rad 2 should be Rad 1, Rad 3 becomes Rad 2, Rad 4 becomes Rad 3 and a New Rad 4 would be required.

The points need sorting out the standard, express, curved, and Y point all seam to have a manufacturing issues, extra types like slip points would be useful.

[The son of Triangman]

Hi Tony, I'm ok- ish. Just sold 9 of my latest product the last two days. It's slow hard work. I agree about 1st radius, it's had it's day and is something that is past its sell by date. The R.8000 series points do indeed need sorting out, there needs to be backward compatibility with deeper flangeways like the old R.600 series points had, shorter plastic frogs on curved points as well etc. A double and single slip were proposed in around 1980/81 and they made it into some catalouge price lists, but never appeared in the shops, would be nice to get them made by Hornby.

[The Doc]

Hornby do their level best to put you off 1st radius curves, by stating minimum radius on boxes that are simply not accurate, and yet plenty of their current models still run perfectly well on 1st radius. Of my own fleet, there's the J15, J50, D16, D49, several Bo-Bo diesels, Class 08, J94, all 0-4-0s including the latest Peckett and Sentinel. I even got my A3 Minoru and Stanier 8F around 1st radius albeit at slow speed and with a feedback controller to prevent them slowing down. I certainly wouldn't recommend it for big locos such as those last two, but if you haven't got much space, 1st radius is much better than nothing.

[96RAF]

NMRA has the RP25 standard for wheels, so maybe a similar standard exists or should exist for rails. Obviously how the rails were presented - scale sleepers of all types or simple robust practical use ties - would be down to the manufacturer but at least all brands would be compatible, as is twixt Peco, Hornby and Bachmann code 100 series.