Peco Bullhead Points: the reported facts

[Regularity]

This is a précis of Tim Rayner’s review in the November Railway Modeller.

It is not a review. I have not seen the product (yet) and I model in a combination of scale, gauge, era and prototype which will never be available unless I build it myself. As such, I have developed a strong interest in track - prototype as well as model. I did use Streamline when I was younger, and although the geometry is somewhat different to prototype practice, I remember a robust and well-designed and well-made product. Those are my “credentials”. I am also unbiased!

 

Peco has chosen to replicate exactly the dimensions and geometry of the existing large radius Code 100 and Code 75 Sueamline points, so the 12“ angle and 1524mm curve radius are constants. The nature of the chairs, plus code 75 rail, means that older models - e.g. Lima - may have difficulties.

 

These points, chiefly hand assembled in the Peco factory, capture a mixture at design details found across the railway companies’ practices:

Equalised timbering - standard practice on the GWR.

The rail matches the code 75 plain line.

The switch blades are not hinged in the middle.

The sleepering around the tiebar does not include the spigot holes to accept a PL-10 solenoid point motor directly clipped to the underside.

The tiebars too are devoid of the raised sprgots on the ends, having small holes in.

All metal Unifrog arrangement, the first 00 implementation, which enables the user to choose whether he or she installs the point in either live frog (electrofrog) or dead frog (insulfrog) mode: for the latter, you simply leave things be, otherwise the unifrog needs to be wired to a switch, or for DCC users, a frog juicer.

If it is left dead, there is a 24.5mm unpowered section. If you have a Hornby Peckett, with a wheelbase of 23mm, you will have a problem! Anything longer with many-wheeled pickup, or DCC using stay alive capacitors, will be fine.

The turnouts are not self-isolating. This is ideal for DCC users, but will require some wiring for everyone else.

 

Taken for what they are, a British outline 00 alternative for the existing “European” code 100 and code 75 ranges, these provide the discerning 00 Modeller with a great opportunity for better looking track with closer fidelity to the prototype, either for the next layout or - as the range expands - to replace existing track and points. Streamline has never been aimed at train sets on the carpet or dining room table, so it is not unreasonable to assume that purchasers are already prepared to use some intelligence, care and common sense.

 

On that basis, these points (and the plain track) represent a significant step forward for British outline 00, and I really hope that Peco’s investment in this development is repaid by modellers taken advantage of the range, encouraging expansion of the range.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Regularity

[Gilbert]

Thanks for that - I read the review and await the product with interest (and I've order 3 of each side for a small layout - just research obviously...)

[New Haven Neil]

Just getting the popcorn ready, and bagsy-ing the comfy seat.

 

Yes, a fair review it would appear.  I'm getting some to bump start me into beginning my new layout.  DILLIGAF that it's 16.5? No.

[Regularity]

It is what it is: a significant development for British outline 00 modellers who do not wish to build their own track, coming from a world-class British company.

 

I posted the précis because in the locked thread, there had been requests for factual information and not everyone reads the Railway Modeller.

 

Hopefully, no fights will break out this time.

[RFS]

Has there been any mention anywhere as to when the range might expand in the future, ie with slips and crossings?

[Mike Storey]

Yes, but handbuilt track is so much.........

 

Seriously, I have read the same review, which is informative about the final technicals, and its pros generically, with some advice about the cons, inasmuch as it will not isolate sidings. The article a page or two before it, on Uni-frogs, is also enlightening, if only for clarifying a number of things.

 

What struck me though is that the pics would appear to be only those already supplied by Peco for its advertising, which we can only presume to have been of engineering prototypes, given that it has been reported that production only started after publication press date for the November RM would have passed. I may be wrong, and it may be that the EP's are exactly what is being produced for retail.

 

I fully support the product and will inevitably buy many of them. But this does not appear to have been a review of the real thing, only a theoretical appraisal from an EP at best, or just a technical description handed across from the PR dept plus their advertising photos. I am not knocking the product at all, but it would have been nice to have seen their report on running a few typical locos or trains through it, together with their opinion of the efficacy of the main types of point motor working with a machined blade (as opposed to a hinged one) which I presume will behave differently to anything we have seen in this scale from Peco before (and not just a description of the adaptions necessary to the Peco point motor linkages, as is discussed), with pics.

 

So, with regard to the thread, I am not sure we have yet seen the "reported facts", just the statement of intent and associated likely issues arising, at the time the article was written. Hopefully, the two are absolutely identical.

[Pint of Adnams]

Has there been any mention anywhere as to when the range might expand in the future, ie with slips and crossings?

Yes, in the locked thread and in the November Railway Modeller review, but with the caveat of satisfactory sales volumes (and pleased customers?) for these initial introductions.

[Regularity]

What struck me though is that the pics would appear to be only those already supplied by Peco for its advertising, which we can only presume to have been of engineering prototypes, given that it has been reported that production only started after publication press date for the November RM would have passed. I may be wrong, and it may be that the EP's are exactly what is being produced for retail.

 

So, with regard to the thread, I am not sure we have yet seen the "reported facts", just the statement of intent and associated likely issues arising, at the time the article was written. Hopefully, the two are absolutely identical.

As I said, I have not posted a review. I also refrained from repeating anything which might be speculative (about the models or the prototype) or remarking on such comments: I have some reservations about the factual basis for some - no sources are quoted, for example - but what I have reported is factually correct as there is no way that the production run will be different from those features, as these are effectively the design parameters.

 

What we await is an independent review of the finished items purchased at random from a model shop, with proper testing under the conditions for which it is designed.

 

Other than seeing this as yet another step towards greater authenticity in the hobby, which I welcome, I have absolutely zero interest in the product, but have used that plus accumulated knowledge of permanent way as a way of providing some dispassionate independence.

[Jeff Smith]

I'm sure plenty of Christmas wish lists will include some.......

[Scottest]

When actively modelling, my choice of prototype was pre-grouping ex-LSW. Now as a lurker, my one activity is a 4-track working roundy with stock on permanent display. Turnouts there are none. 

 

So I follow this development with the greatest of passive interest, and wish Mr Peco well-deserved success.

[rob D2]

I model DE, but I've got to say this product will reignite my enthusiasm to build new layouts.

 

I got the RM online and they look really nice, the unifrog will suit me, as will the DCC friendly nature of the hard wired turnouts

[hayfield]

When actively modelling, my choice of prototype was pre-grouping ex-LSW. Now as a lurker, my one activity is a 4-track working roundy with stock on permanent display. Turnouts there are none. 

 

So I follow this development with the greatest of passive interest, and wish Mr Peco well-deserved success.

 

 

You could install a trailing crossover or two just for operational interest

[PMP]

Seriously, I have read the same review, 

What struck me though is that the pics would appear to be only those already supplied by Peco for its advertising, which we can only presume to have been of engineering prototypes, given that it has been reported that production only started after publication press date for the November RM would have passed. I may be wrong, and it may be that the EP's are exactly what is being produced for retail.

 

But this does not appear to have been a review of the real thing, only a theoretical appraisal from an EP at best, or just a technical description handed across from the PR dept plus their advertising photos. I am not knocking the product at all, but it would have been nice to have seen their report on running a few typical locos or trains through it, together with their opinion of the efficacy of the main types of point motor working with a machined blade (as opposed to a hinged one) which I presume will behave differently to anything we have seen in this scale from Peco before (and not just a description of the adaptions necessary to the Peco point motor linkages, as is discussed), with pics.

 

So, with regard to the thread, I am not sure we have yet seen the "reported facts", just the statement of intent and associated likely issues arising, at the time the article was written. Hopefully, the two are absolutely identical.

The above posting is a classic example of why the internet generates such huge amounts of garbage. It really is a case of garbage in, garbage out.

 

As for 'facts', most of the OP's first post 'facts' listed here are in the closed thread, some of them pretty much since day one. You can make your own call as to why some people have deliberately ignored them.

 

The review is in the review section of RM because it's a review of the product. If it's not a review it goes in the 'News' section where previous information on these products has been covered.

 

With a hope to stop the sort of illogical fantasy that the above quoted post entails, I have spoken to a senior manager at Peco, not the first time I've done it, as some readers may recall from the closed thread. That was this morning Friday 20th October 2017 at 11:47 BST, facts are so crucial here, and the call was with specific regard to the images used in the review.

 

So time to iron and pack away the tin foil hats, and ensure the tray is in the upright position for landing, here are a couple of facts.

 

The images of the Peco Bullhead points on pages 972 and 973 of the November 2017 Railway Modeller, are images of production items.

Those images will be replicated in further advertising to show the product as released on sale.

The points are currently in production in the UK.

 

The information source for the above three lines of information was Steve Flint, Editor, Railway Modeller.

 

Actually that's three facts, four if you include the source.....

[hayfield]

The above posting is a classic example of why the internet generates such huge amounts of garbage. It really is a case of garbage in, garbage out.

 

As for 'facts', most of the OP's first post 'facts' listed here are in the closed thread, some of them pretty much since day one. You can make your own call as to why some people have deliberately ignored them.

 

The review is in the review section of RM because it's a review of the product. If it's not a review it goes in the 'News' section where previous information on these products has been covered.

 

With a hope to stop the sort of illogical fantasy that the above quoted post entails, I have spoken to a senior manager at Peco, not the first time I've done it, as some readers may recall from the closed thread. That was this morning Friday 20th October 2017 at 11:47 BST, facts are so crucial here, and the call was with specific regard to the images used in the review.

 

So time to iron and pack away the tin foil hats, and ensure the tray is in the upright position for landing, here are a couple of facts.

 

The images of the Peco Bullhead points on pages 972 and 973 of the November 2017 Railway Modeller, are images of production items.

Those images will be replicated in further advertising to show the product as released on sale.

The points are currently in production in the UK.

 

The information source for the above three lines of information was Steve Flint, Editor, Railway Modeller.

 

Actually that's three facts, four if you include the source.....

 

Is there not a saying

 

" Do not let the facts ruin a good story"

 

What are we going to do once they are released ?  

[PMP]

Is there not a saying

 

" Do not let the facts ruin a good story"

 

What are we going to do once they are released ?  

But this surely is a thread for reported facts, clue in the title, rather than stories. The story thread didn't end well, no happy ending as I recall.

 

I imagine some people will just talk about them, me? I'm going to use mine.

[hayfield]

But this surely is a thread for reported facts, clue in the title, rather than stories. The story thread didn't end well, no happy ending as I recall.

 

I imagine some people will just talk about them, me? I'm going to use mine.

 

The uni-frog is a great idea which seems to cover both camps of live and dead frogs, plus the switch rails being bonded to the stock rails electrically. Top marks for innovation which saves duplication  within the range. I am very interested in the turnouts, but for me the wrong gauge

[RANGERS]

Is there not a saying

 

What are we going to do once they are released ?

Well personally, I'm going to buy a handful and lay them on a plywood board. Then I'll join them together with some track and at my past rate of progress, by 2021 I might even be able run a train! Edited October 20, 2017 by RANGERS

[Regularity]

As I have said, I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in any of Peco’s products and am unlikely to use them: this is nothing to do with quality, just that they produce very little (other than maybe static grass) that I can use.

The facts were buried in the locked thread, but before that happened, some stated that they had not seen the review in RM.

I spent my own time pulling out the facts from the review, which as Paul said were in the other thread, for no reason other than to clarify the facts and put them into one place, at the start of the thread.

Whilst not in the same league as well-made, tailored to fit hand built track made by an experienced expert, these turnouts represent a significant step forward for 4mm scale railway modelling, and Peco deserve praise, encouragement and above all praise for this development.

 

When I made the OP, I dropped Andy a PM, saying that if he wanted to lock it before any arguments started, I didn’t mind. I can’t speak for him, but I am already wishing that he had.

 

To repeat: I didn’t say anything that hadn’t be said before, just brought it all clearly together and summarised what was a review of the product. I personally understand the decisions Peco made (e.g. crossing angle and unifrog) and wish to congratulate them on moving the hobby forward. If people want their track to be “more accurate” then there is nothing to stop them either building it themselves, or paying someone else to do it for them (which is just a posher form of buying RTR), other than simply giving it a try, or maybe buying fewer items of RTR rolling stock.

 

If people could stop waving their Rodgers about, and bringing their own agendas to the thread, I would much appreciate it.

 

I probably won’t bother to be helpful again.

[Bernard Lamb]

As I have said, I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in any of Peco’s products and am unlikely to use them: this is nothing to do with quality, just that they produce very little (other than maybe static grass) that I can use.

 

 

If people could stop waving their Rodgers about, and bringing their own agendas to the thread, I would much appreciate it.

 

I probably won’t bother to be helpful again.

A comment about having no interest as the opening remark in a rival thread to a closed one does leave you rather open to the comments that you don't like, as hinted at in the other two lines. 

My thought when I saw the padlock was thank god for that.

Then you prise open the door again.

That was a rather silly move given some of the folks on here. In fact some people would regard it as an open invitation to get out the big wooden spoon.

Back to facts . There seems to be track available again so I have a length coming on Monday.  

I will see how I like that before looking any further into the points. They could be of use in the odd situation.

Bernard

[Regularity]

It’s not a rival thread. It was a response to a request in a closed thread.

 

But otherwise, thanks for underlining my point. Now please take your unhelpful agenda somewhere else.

[Mike Storey]

The above posting is a classic example of why the internet generates such huge amounts of garbage. It really is a case of garbage in, garbage out.

 

As for 'facts', most of the OP's first post 'facts' listed here are in the closed thread, some of them pretty much since day one. You can make your own call as to why some people have deliberately ignored them.

 

The review is in the review section of RM because it's a review of the product. If it's not a review it goes in the 'News' section where previous information on these products has been covered.

 

With a hope to stop the sort of illogical fantasy that the above quoted post entails, I have spoken to a senior manager at Peco, not the first time I've done it, as some readers may recall from the closed thread. That was this morning Friday 20th October 2017 at 11:47 BST, facts are so crucial here, and the call was with specific regard to the images used in the review.

 

So time to iron and pack away the tin foil hats, and ensure the tray is in the upright position for landing, here are a couple of facts.

 

The images of the Peco Bullhead points on pages 972 and 973 of the November 2017 Railway Modeller, are images of production items.

Those images will be replicated in further advertising to show the product as released on sale.

The points are currently in production in the UK.

 

The information source for the above three lines of information was Steve Flint, Editor, Railway Modeller.

 

Actually that's three facts, four if you include the source.....

 

Many thanks for your highly offensive, and extremely defensive garbage.

 

FACT 1. Peco advertise a 6 week deadline for submissions.

 

FACT 2. The publication date for the Nov issue was officially 19 October (although some reports elsewhere suggest it was out before that.)

 

FACT 3. Within the "facts" you attempt to use from the locked thread, was included an assertion that production had not yet started until late in September.

 

ERGO - even assuming Peco give their internal departments some latitude on copy deadline, it was reasonable to question whether the review was being undertaken on EP samples before full production was in progress.

 

You clearly have contacts not available to us mere mortals, and I have no reason to doubt what you have, apparently, been told, other than the timeline above.

 

So either the "reported fact" about start of production, was not a fact, in which case they would have ample time to do their Peckett test with point straight off the production line, or the press deadline made available to this article was somewhat heroic.

 

I most certainly stated this was not about the product, or the suitability of same, and was quite prepared to be corrected about the review (stated twice in case you have decided to ignore that too). But being corrected in the way that you have, is most definitely not in the spirit of the way this forum is normally conducted.

 

My main point, as you have most definitely ignored it, is that the outstanding issues (for some of us anyway), being the behaviour of the un-hinged point blades to the usual point motor suspects and to a variety of large locos and trains running through it (quite a few of us having been victim to the preciousness of Tillig point blades in the past), are not discussed. I presume Peco will have tested their product with their standard solenoid for robustness and have tried a variety of train and loco formations through it to check out the ensuing flex (that could all too frequently cause distortion and derailment on Tillig versions), but I guess, with your permission of course, that we will have to find out how much better it withstands such matters, compared to the similar Tillig version, after we have bought one or three. I would hate to learn the hard way, as I did with Tillig, that there was further advice that would have been useful, before I broke two.

 

Naturally, we would not want any "facts" to get in the way of your opinion that we should not be able to question the lack of some of them.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Mike Storey

[31A]

For what it's worth, and without wanting to join in any affray on either side, I saw two of the finished points, packaged for sale, in my local model shop earlier today and can confirm that they were the same as those depicted in the November RM.

[Roy Langridge]

Enough bickering please, these are imminent and I (and many others I would assume) wish to come here for news.

 

Roy

[PMP]

(snip)

FACT 3. Within the "facts" you attempt to use from the locked thread, was included an assertion that production had not yet started until late in September.

 

(snip)

 

So either the "reported fact" about start of production, was not a fact, in which case they would have ample time to do their Peckett test with point straight off the production line, or the press deadline made available to this article was somewhat heroic.

 

Naturally, we would not want any "facts" to get in the way of your opinion that we should not be able to question the lack of some of them.

 

Would you be kind enough to provide the links or post number for the above please.

[Captain Kernow]

I deliberately kept away from the other thread, as I had more than enough rhubarb to post on other threads.

 

I did see a photo taken at a show of what was probably a pre-production point, where the check rail only spanned 3 sleepers. To my mind, that didn't look right. I now understand that this may be improved now on the production versions (haven't seen the photos of those).

 

My curiosity will now probably lead me to get one and have a good look at it, and hopefully find some cameo or 'shut-your-cakehole-box' challenge entry to use it on.

 

I also think that PMP should be applauded for seeking definite information 'from the horses mouth' to help remove any ambiguity. Some of us have formed friendships and contacts with folk within the model railway industry in the course of pursuing our hobby - so what?