PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Nick G]

Wish they would hurray up and release them, I only need one right hand bullhead point! 

[ThaneofFife]

I have some track bases and Peco point kits with the cast common crossings, squirrelled away for a retro layout idea I have, better not upload a photo of them so as not to upset the odd contributors to this thread who dislike anything not ready to plonk

 

Upload away.  You're overthinking what the "Plonkers" have probably never even batted an eyelid about.............if anything I think the point you're trying to convey is, 9 times out of 10, actually the wrong way around coming from somebody who has seen a fair share of posts from people ordering the world to "go and do some modelling".  Yes that old one.  Yawn.  Boring.

[Pint of Adnams]

I have some track bases and Peco point kits with the cast common crossings, squirrelled away for a retro layout idea I have, better not upload a photo of them so as not to upset the odd contributors to this thread who dislike anything not ready to plonk

Plonk? I'll drink anything

[fezza]

I'm in two minds about this. The obvious problem with 00 gauge track and true length 4mm scale sleepers is that it ends up looking 'narrow gauge'. It's a major reason why I am unhappy with my current 00 finescale track layout. If you narrow the gauge to 00 you really need to shorten the sleepers in proportion for it to work visually.

[Pete the Elaner]

I'm in two minds about this. The obvious problem with 00 gauge track and true length 4mm scale sleepers is that it ends up looking 'narrow gauge'. It's a major reason why I am unhappy with my current 00 finescale track layout. If you narrow the gauge to 00 you really need to shorten the sleepers in proportion for it to work visually.

I completely agree. I am sure this is why I always felt that SMP 00 track looked a little odd.

 

I have just measured some Peco bullhead sleepers. They are a scale 7'10" long. I have seen it mentioned several times that sleepers are 8'6", so it seems they have scaled down the sleeper length to compensate for the narrow gauge.

I also measured some Peco flatbottom track & some C&L bullhead while I had the ruler out.

Peco f/b is 7'6" but you can always space the sleepers out a little. Easy to do & makes a massive difference.

C&L is 8'0".

[martin_wynne]

I'm in two minds about this. The obvious problem with 00 gauge track and true length 4mm scale sleepers is that it ends up looking 'narrow gauge'. It's a major reason why I am unhappy with my current 00 finescale track layout. If you narrow the gauge to 00 you really need to shorten the sleepers in proportion for it to work visually.

 

The BRMSB standard for 00 gauge is that sleepers are 8ft long (32mm). It's been that way for over 60 years.

 

Such track looks fine, provided you accept that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track and not 4ft-8.5in gauge track. 00 gauge models are made to 4ft-1.5in gauge, so making the track the same gauge is the obvious thing to do.

 

We have been over all this a dozen times already in this topic and others. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2180482

 

Other gauges are available for those who don't want 00.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited August 24, 2017 by martin_wynne

[gr.king]

 I agree that this point is indeed exhaustively discussed way back, and on similar threads, but I don't know any OO modellers who really find it necessary to imagine that they are modelling a 4' 1.5" gauge prototype.

 

All depends on the kind of track one wishes to portray, but you can't make Peco's old-standard spindly sleepers look adequately fat by simply spacing them out, and you can't turn the rail and fixings from FB to BH. Very old sleepers were 9' length in some cases, so even with gauge allowance 7'10" is not good enough for those. If extra sleeper length offends the eye, you can cut a bit off if you must, but it would be very tricky to add any length on to suit personal taste.....

 

[martin_wynne]

 I don't know any OO modellers who really find it necessary to imagine that they are modelling a 4' 1.5" gauge prototype.

 

I do, and I can assure you that it makes everything fall into place. You can then design your track from prototype principles in the same way as EM and P4. There may have been a vanishingly small amount of 4ft-1.5in gauge prototype track, but that doesn't prevent it being modelled. And if running 4ft-1.5in gauge 00 models you don't really have much choice.

 

It is now over 100 years since the last 9ft sleepers were laid. Sleepers have a typical life of 20-30 years in running lines, so only modellers of historic railways are going to have any need of them. A few rotting 9ft sleepers may have remained in back sidings into the BR years, and are easily modelled.

 

Martin.

[fezza]

I wonder what would happen if a brave manufacturer were to bring out a range with 00 and em exchangeable wheelsets (in the same way G scale manufacturers offer 32 and 45mm wheelsets for rtr rolling stock)? It has to be the next logical step...

[AndyID]

I'm in two minds about this. The obvious problem with 00 gauge track and true length 4mm scale sleepers is that it ends up looking 'narrow gauge'. It's a major reason why I am unhappy with my current 00 finescale track layout. If you narrow the gauge to 00 you really need to shorten the sleepers in proportion for it to work visually.

 

You might find this of interest, or maybe not

[mightbe]

I wonder what would happen if a brave manufacturer were to bring out a range with 00 and em exchangeable wheelsets (in the same way G scale manufacturers offer 32 and 45mm wheelsets for rtr rolling stock)? It has to be the next logical step...

 

This has been done, but AFAIK this is the only example.

 

Quentin

[PMP]

Dapol beat SLW to it by producing the J94 for a very short while with replacement EM wheelsets. They didn't sell, the SLW approach is very different and based on the modeller being prepared to pay for a high quality model, with the option available and designed in from the start.

[Jeff Smith]

D/E bogie wheelsets are usually easy enough to change out - drop-in EM and P4 are available for many RTR locos and multiple units.  However those making RTR conversions loose out as they have to pay for the OO wheels as well as the replacement ones.  It would be nice if RTR manufacturers offered a buy-back scheme for OO wheelsets.......! 

[gr.king]

 

It is now over 100 years since the last 9ft sleepers were laid. Sleepers have a typical life of 20-30 years in running lines,

Martin.

 

Hence they are still highly relevant to modellers of the "classic steam ere" pre-WW2 grouping scene, on secondary lines and quiet branches. Surely the real point in any case is that Peco's choice of timber length for the new BH track is not "significantly too long for OO", especially if we're considering the pointwork (where the appropriateness of timber lengths is harder to judge by eye than in uniform plain track) and if there is dissent on this point the dissenters can trim the timbers fairly simply, a better manufacturing choice than making the timbers too short and leaving modellers with the problem of extending them if they prefer the longer appearance.

 

For the pre-war period, the correctly fatter sleepers, reasonably spaced, with properly scaled bullhead rail section and a (practical) representation of chairs (with allowance for wheel flanges) simply make the new BH product stand head and shoulders above the old flat-bottom variety, no matter how much the old product's sleepers are re-spaced

Edited August 24, 2017 by gr.king

[Pint of Adnams]

Hence they are still highly relevant to modellers of the "classic steam ere" pre-WW2 grouping scene, on secondary lines and quiet branches. Surely the real point in any case is that Peco's choice of timber length for the new BH track is not "significantly too long for OO", especially if we're considering the pointwork (where the appropriateness of timber lengths is harder to judge by eye than in uniform plain track) and if there is dissent on this point the dissenters can trim the timbers fairly simply, a better manufacturing choice than making the timbers too short and leaving modellers with the problem of extending them if they prefer the longer appearance.

 

For the pre-war period, the correctly fatter sleepers, reasonably spaced, with properly scaled bullhead rail section and a (practical) representation of chairs (with allowance for wheel flanges) simply make the new BH product stand head and shoulders above the old flat-bottom variety, no matter how much the old product's sleepers are re-spaced

Save that to reduce the amount of plastic the sleepers are hollowed out underneath and so the ends would need capping, unless buried in ash or whatever as was more the general mode of ballasting in an earlier period being modelled.

[Pint of Adnams]

I wonder what would happen if a brave manufacturer were to bring out a range with 00 and em exchangeable wheelsets (in the same way G scale manufacturers offer 32 and 45mm wheelsets for rtr rolling stock)? It has to be the next logical step...

And your post has exactly what to do with Peco OO Bullhead track???

[Pacific231G]

The BRMSB standard for 00 gauge is that sleepers are 8ft long (32mm). It's been that way for over 60 years.

Other gauges are available for those who don't want 00.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

I do find the BRMSB standard rather strange. I'm looking at the 1950 version and it gives a sleeper length of 32mm for OO so 8ft but it also gives the same length for H0 which is equivalent to 9ft and 36mm for EM which is also 9ft. That does suggest that Maskelyne and co. were a bit steeped in pre-grouping practice but also that they believed that for best appearance the length of sleepers should correspond to the gauge.

 

For some reason they also gave the same sleeper width of 3.5mm for OO, EM and H0 even though in H0 scale (which a good number of modellers of British prototypes were still using then) that's obviously too fat for a standard 10" wide sleeper. They also had a finer check rail clearance of 1mm for H0 and fine scale EM (EMF) than the 1.25mm they specified for OO and EM - In any case the BRMSB gauge for EM (and EMF) was still 18.0 mm rather than 18.2mm.

 

Fortunately Peco aren't following the sixty year old BRMSB standards for their new track as those specify a rail height of 2.5mm for Bullhead which is code 100.

 

Just for fun I had a go at working out the appropriate sleeper length for the 4ft 1¹/₂  inch (1257mm) gauge that OO track is equivalent to as if it were a real gauge. .

 

Taking the ratio of sleeper length to gauge and Interpolating between the standard sleeper lengths of 2600 mm (8ft 6ins) used for 1435mm (SG) in Britain and Europe and the 2100mm used by ZAR for their 1067mm (3ft 6in) gauge railways, I reckon that sleepers for a real 4ft 1¹/₂  inch gauge railway would be between 2277 and 2476 mm. In 1:76.2 scale that would give sleeper lengths of between 30-32mm.  That puts the BRMSB length at the upper end of that range and the nominal 30mm of Peco's FB track at the lower end. If the new Peco bullhead track has sleepers much longer than 32mm then it may look a bit narrow gauge. 

 

Since OO can never be accurate to scale what surely matters is whether it looks right with and without rolling stock - at least from the side at a reasonable range of viewing angles. 

 

 

BTW Does anyone know the tolerances that sleeper dimensions were ordered to from the suppliers a) by the pre war railway companies and b) by B.R. ? Obviously they weren't sawn to a few thou but was the allowed variation a few tenths of an inch or a couple of inches? 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

BTW Does anyone know the tolerances that sleeper dimensions were ordered to from the suppliers a) by the pre war railway companies and b) by B.R. ? Obviously they weren't sawn to a few thou but was the allowed variation a few tenths of an inch or a couple of inches? 

 

I can't answer that question, but I do have some pre-group GNR drawings showing the sleeper length as 8ft-11in instead of 9ft. So presumably the "9ft" was the nominal length cut from yard stock as rising, with an allowance for the saw kerf and maybe rough chalk marks. I can't imagine the yard being too amused to be asked for 8ft-11in eaxactly, that would have been the minimum acceptable to the customer.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

The BRMSB standard for 00 gauge is that sleepers are 8ft long (32mm). It's been that way for over 60 years.

 

Such track looks fine, provided you accept that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track and not 4ft-8.5in gauge track. 00 gauge models are made to 4ft-1.5in gauge, so making the track the same gauge is the obvious thing to do.

 

We have been over all this a dozen times already in this topic and others. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2180482

 

Other gauges are available for those who don't want 00.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hello Martin,

 

00 is a compromise the vast majority of 1/76th scale modellers are prepared to live with, along with electric motors in our steam locos but we must have working valve gear, electrically live track, trains stopping at the station and no doors opening or closing, and cows in the fields that look like they were modelled on the concrete ones in Milton Keynes. So please stop telling us 00 modellers we model 4 ft 1 1/2 ins track. It is wrong, we know it is wrong, we don't care it is wrong. 

 

Thank you Peco for listening to us 00 modellers and for making track that visually is better than we have had in the past.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Andrew P]

Hello Martin,

 

00 is a compromise the vast majority of 1/76th scale modellers are prepared to live with, long with electric motors in our steam locos but we must have working valve gear, electrically live track, trains stopping at the station and no doors opening or closing, and cows in the fields that look like they were modelled on the concrete ones in Milton Keynes. So please stop telling us 00 modellers we model 4 ft 1 1/2 ins track. It is wrong, we know it is wrong, we don't care it is wrong. 

 

Thank you Peco for listening to us 00 modellers and for making track that visually is better than we have had in the past.

Well said that man. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Andrew P

[Signaller69]

Whilst on holiday in Somerset and Devon I visited Pecorama last Friday and asked in the shop about the points. They are expecting them quote "soon - we are told the end of August but call it mid September to be on the safe side".

 

Current RM advert for Peco Bullhead track also now lists SL-U1188 (RH Large Radius Unifrog) and SL-U1189 (LH Large Radius Unifrog) "due out soon".

 

So not long to wait now hopefully.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Signaller69

[Dunsignalling]

Hi Martin

I do find the BRMSB standard rather strange. I'm looking at the 1950 version and it gives a sleeper length of 32mm for OO so 8ft but it also gives the same length for H0 which is equivalent to 9ft and 36mm for EM which is also 9ft. That does suggest that Maskelyne and co. were a bit steeped in pre-grouping practice but also that they believed that for best appearance the length of sleepers should correspond to the gauge.

 

For some reason they also gave the same sleeper width of 3.5mm for OO, EM and H0 even though in H0 scale (which a good number of modellers of British prototypes were still using then) that's obviously too fat for a standard 10" wide sleeper. They also had a finer check rail clearance of 1mm for H0 and fine scale EM (EMF) than the 1.25mm they specified for OO and EM - In any case the BRMSB gauge for EM (and EMF) was still 18.0 mm rather than 18.2mm.

 

Fortunately Peco aren't following the sixty year old BRMSB standards for their new track as those specify a rail height of 2.5mm for Bullhead which is code 100.

 

 

Since OO can never be accurate to scale what surely matters is whether it looks right with and without rolling stock - at least from the side at a reasonable range of viewing angles. 

 

 

 

Surely, the only way for 16.5mm gauge track to "look right" is if everything else is made to the same scale as the gauge, i.e. HO track and HO spacing between tracks.

 

That will obviously look great with no trains about but wrong with OO stock standing on it. Therefore, the BRMSB and all who follow play about with the dimensions to disguise the discrepancies as best they can.

 

Calling it four-foot-one-and-a-half doesn't change any of that that one jot, its just a clever way of avoiding the dreaded OO/HO labelling of yore. For me, there is no moral high ground to be claimed through modelling track of a conjectural gauge "accurately" over modelling that of a prototypical one inaccurately.

 

There are three alternative ways for us to deal with this:

 

1. Change to P4 (or EM if you are less of a plus-or-minus-nowt kind of guy).

 

2. Give up 4mm scale altogether and model in HO/P87, or N/2FS or O/S7 instead. Oh, look, we've just swapped one set of anomalies and arguments for new ones.............. 

 

3. Learn to live with it, knowing that the mechanical slack inherent in OO is what makes it possible to fit operationally satisfying layouts into the sort of restricted spaces most of us are saddled with.

 

John

Edited August 26, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[bgman]

Getting close to 3000 posts...... Blimey !

 

Forrest Gump ( Run Peco Run )

[martin_wynne]

Calling it four-foot-one-and-a-half doesn't change any of that that one jot

 

Of course it doesn't. But what it does do is to provide a means to work out all the other dimensions.

 

If you just say the track should be rescaled in some way to match the reduced gauge, what are going to do about all the components? Do you use smaller rail than code 75 bullhead? Do you use smaller chairs than the 4mm/ft ones made for EM and P4? Smaller ballast? Shorter fishplates?

 

By sticking to 4mm/ft scale for all the components, and using them to model 4ft-1.5in track, you have a consistent model which looks right to a track engineer.

 

It is not a law of the land that a model railway has to be scaled from the real thing. If you want to model track that doesn't exist you can. But it looks daft if it clearly wouldn't work in reality -- if the track would collapse under the weight of traffic running over it. Which is what happens if you run 4mm/ft models over 3.5mm/ft track.

 

And for all those modelling a fictional branch line -- how do you know it was 4ft-8.5in gauge?

 

Martin.

[coachmann]

I doubt if many armchair pundits managed to get their letters published in the model railway press, and for good reason. Railway modellers are do-ers and want to read about creating and doing things, not endless theory by people (who barely ever post any modelling on RMweb). Those of us who do build working layouts are managing to make a decent job of recreating British full size railways in miniature, 00 gauge track or not, and Peco, SMP and C+L have greatly assisted in making our track look far more realistic. The rest has been up to us.  This is not aimed at any single individual, it is merely a wake up call to those who have forgotten how corrosive armchair modelling can be compared with hands-on modelling be-it out of a box or whatever.

Edited August 26, 2017 by coachmann