Jump to content
 

PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO


Free At Last
 Share

Recommended Posts

PECO ANNOUNCES BULLHEAD TRACK FOR OO

 

Peco has used the 2016 Nürnberg Toy Fair as the platform to announce several new products that it plans to release over the course of the next 12 months.

The headline announcement is that the manufacturer is developing brand new Code 75 Streamline bullhead track for OO. (A CAD image is published here.) For full details of this and the other announcements, go to the Peco Publications website (see link below) and also look out for the March issue of Railway Modeller, on sale from 11 February.

 

http://www.pecopublications.co.uk/peco-anounces-2016-new-items-programme.html

Edited by Free At Last
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's brilliant. Shame I've laid two boxes worth on Stourhampton in the last year. But for the hobby, this is fantastic news. Let the 00 / EM / P4 standards debate froth begin.

 

Andy Y, you're gonna need a bigger server!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting development.  Note the comment re pointwork....:-)

 

attachicon.gifScreen Shot 2016-01-27 at 10.55.09.png

 

I would have thought pointwork was essential. You would not want to keep changing to code 75 flat bottom at every point with some converter fishplates.

 

In the past when Peco have brought out new flextrack, (mainline OO9, HOn3) points have followed.

 

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I would have thought pointwork was essential. You would not want to keep changing to code 75 flat bottom at every point with some converter fishplates.

Particularly when if anything I'm guessing flat bottomed track with bullhead pointwork was more prototypical. But as a toe-in-the-water exercise the plain track makes sense, hope it's a success.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Whoop whoooooooooop! I'll put my money where my mouth is and order 2 boxes to start off with!

Yes - that is clearly the sort of reaction they are looking for to encourage them to advance further and get underway with pointwork.  The only thing that I wonder about is what they have in mind for pointwork and if they will go for compatabilty with their existing geometry?

 

Fingers to be crossed and possibly a few questions to be asked of them - then perhaps time to deliver the sort of 'encouragement' you have in mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's brilliant. Shame I've laid two boxes worth on Stourhampton in the last year. But for the hobby, this is fantastic news. Let the 00 / EM / P4 standards debate froth begin.

 

Andy Y, you're gonna need a bigger server!!

If they produced it in P4, narrow gauge modellers could cut a slice out of the middle and stick it back together. Peco could mark cutting lines for EM, OO, OO-SF etc :jester:

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I would have thought pointwork was essential. 

 

Must be to 00-SF  / 4SF  / EM-2 standards though...

 

Bring it on!

 

Good news to those that don't have a lifetimes supply of  SMP / C&L flexi.

 

On a serious note, this is brilliant news, well done PECO! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought pointwork was essential. You would not want to keep changing to code 75 flat bottom at every point with some converter fishplates.

 

In the past when Peco have brought out new flextrack, (mainline OO9, HOn3) points have followed.

 

Brian

I strongly agree with wanting bullhead points.  However, you may well find that you don't need special, converter fishplates to join the bullhead flexi-track with flat bottomed rail points.  When I re-did my smaller layout with SMP flexi-track and Peco Code 75 points, I found that both Marcway and Peco insulated track joiners (fishplates) did the job. I had enough Marcway plain track joiners to do the bits that didn't need an insulated joiner, and so didn't use the packet of Peco ones that I bought.  I strongly suspect that they would have worked just as well, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to be said for Peco track as well as against it. I've had it laid for more years than I care to remember in the extreme temperatures of the roof space and it still functions well. I looked at track from different manufacturers some time ago and concluded that none was perfect and stuck with Peco because it was reliable, robust and reasonably priced. With Peco able to produce track with concrete and steel sleepering, I don't know why more realistic 00 track has been so long delayed. This stuff looks as if it will hit the bullseye.

 

Every now and again I muse over a ripping up and laying to a different plan and this sort of thing would bring that closer. It's not much use without points, though. If Peco does produce points, I hope hinges are avoided. In my view, they're a major shortcoming of the present range. I also hope that Peco would avoid the lump of plastic at the point of the V of the present electrofrog points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought pointwork was essential...

 It is, and I refuse to believe that Peco don't fully know that! One piece point blades and an all metal crossing, prototype crossing angle and curvature that's a near equivalent to their current large rad point, same robustness as their code 75 product, regular OO gauging and flangeways: that'll fly off the shelves.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fantastic news, especially for many (like me) who are between layouts and have not yet started to lay track. Let's hope that turnouts follows quickly so that I can concentrate on other areas of the railway (I've made enough turnouts for other layouts).

Will the trackwork be thin sleepers/timbers or as is more likely, thick, to match their existing product range?

Anyone who is already in the process of laying SMP or C&L will have to accommodate the step change. Not a huge issue but something to consider.

Anyone want to buy several boxes of SMP j type track and a load of C&L turnout components?

Bob 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

One piece point blades and an all metal crossing, prototype crossing angle and curvature that's a near equivalent to their current large rad point, same robustness as their code 75 product, regular OO gauging and flangeways: that'll fly off the shelves.

 

Agree, it would be nice to have A B & C type crossings with one-piece switch blades but I think it best that they stick to their current geometry for ease of production and appeal to the train set market / compatibility with existing products.

 

Top stuff, been waiting far too long for this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is undoubtedly excellent news, as far as it goes, and nothing to do with anything I've said or done in a recent fracas on this site, I'm certain :wink: . I can see that the plain track might be reasonably popular, if they get it just right, given the faltering at C & L, but not with those who don't fancy building their own points to match. I think it's a huge pity that they are going for plain track first rather than having an initial dabble in the form of some simple medium or long RH and LH points. We already have the plain track, if not from C & L, then from SMP/Marcway who do not deserve to have their business endangered. I have two boxes of SMP awaiting use, so I'm not going to be buying any Peco plain bullhead for the foreseeable future. What we actually need as a time saver and major incentive to use the stuff, and what I suspect we would be more likely to buy both for new layouts and to replace items on older ones, is the pointwork!

Edited by gr.king
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been predicted elsewhere, the argument over the most appropriate sleeper length/overhang, and other dimensions, has now been settled*not by committee but by one manufacturer making a unilateral decision and running with it. I suspect that the vast majority of 00 modellers will be content with whatever choice PECO have made.

 

 

* I know, the arguments will not end and some will be less than happy, but PECOs dominance in the RTR track sector has all but ended it as a discussion on the ideal RTR standard. I don't see the market supporting another entrant with a different, improved, RTR 00 track. And yes, pointwork is still open, we'll have to wait on that one.

 

Anyway, Good Luck to PECO with this, a step in the right direction.

Edited by Arthur
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is great news and the penny has just dropped.

 

Peco would not release turnouts first because (as I suspect) they will be thick timbered so would not easily match the existing track (SMP/C&L) which is generally thin sleeper (I know you can get thick sleeper track from C&L but thin seems to predominate). People with already laid "thin" trackwork would be disappointed and the take up might be slow.

 

On the other hand, produce thick sleeper flexitrack first at a relatively low investment and have it readily available for when turnout undoubtedly follow.

 

Thank you Peco.

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Peco would not release turnouts first because (as I suspect) they will be thick timbered so would not easily match the existing track (SMP/C&L) which is generally thin sleeper (I know you can get thick sleeper track from C&L but thin seems to predominate). People with already laid "thin" trackwork would be disappointed and the take up might be slow.

 

 

I think that this is a key point here (no pun intended).

 

If it is to match the existing Code 75 range, then a thicker sleeper is suggested, which seems to be what is illustrated on their website photo. That would make sense in terms of matching their existing pointwork range.

 

It is possible to match the thin sleepered plain track in both the C&L and SMP ranges with the existing thicker sleepered Peco point range (and a number of modellers have done it very effectively), but having done similar myself, it is nonetheless a bit of a faff.

 

If all you wanted was plain bullhead track, I personally wouldn't opt for the Peco bullhead track, as I prefer the thinner sleepered ranges, which make my preferred method of ballasting much easier.

 

However, I can see the advantages of the thicker sleepers, especially as not every bit of bullhead track was neatly ballasted right up to (or almost to) the tops of the sleepers.

 

However, the real win for Peco here would be a range of ready-to-lay bullhead points, as this would surely ensure that they then won the major portion of the plain bullhead track market as well. The combination of good looking plain bullhead track and a good range of pointwork is likely to be irresistible to many modellers, in my view.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...