PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[stewartingram]

 

Junctionmad, on 29 Sept 2017 - 21:02, said:

 

Really? 

 

WEB Final leg 2.jpg

 

Every point is a Peco large radius straight.

 

 

Think you left you Peco track rubber between the rails there..

 

Stewart

Edited September 30, 2017 by stewartingram

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Think you left you Peco track rubber between the rails there..

 

Stewart

- was also going to say the catch point isnt , but thought it was just splitting hairs, I guess the coupling magnets could be disguised as board crossings ? 

[coachmann]

- was also going to say the catch point isnt , but thought it was just splitting hairs, I guess the coupling magnets could be disguised as board crossing

The catchpoint is a pain and is left permanently closed nowadays after derailing too many locos...gulp!   In an ideal world it would have a soleniod attached and would work in tandem with the adjacent point, but ......

 

The magnets will form a foot crossing at the platform ends, but at the end of the day they are a necessity. I'm going to add a marker near the road bridge seeing as the magnet is out of sight below the platform.

[Budgie]

Surely it is the other way; generations of layout builders should hang their heads in shame for buying such products for years!

I assume you are trying to be funny, here. However, having bought the said products for decades, let alone years, I don't give a flying f*** about what other people think.

[LBRJ]

I assume you are trying to be funny, here. However, having bought the said products for decades, let alone years, I don't give a flying f*** about what other people think.

 

Is there really any need to tell us that ? It doesn't seem to add a lot to the thread now, does it?

 

On a much more positive note, I think at around the £30 mark, these should fly off the shelves! To me, some decent (not perfect!) BH points at a good price are pretty ideally suited to the  creation of the sort of quick cameo type of layouts I seem to becoming a lot more interested of late

[Mark Saunders]

I assume you are trying to be funny, here. However, having bought the said products for decades, let alone years, I don't give a flying f*** about what other people think.

No that is a serious point that lots of people have commented on how poor the Peco streamline is and have continued to purchase, in a similar way to Lima locomotives!

 

It is up to you what you buy not for me to decide on your behalf!

 

Mark Saunders

[Oldddudders]

No that is a serious point that lots of people have commented on how poor the Peco streamline is and have continued to purchase, in a similar way to Lima locomotives!

For those of us who enjoy running trains, the Peco products have for more than 50 years enabled us to purchase and lay track that meets OO running standards. Sleeper spacing and other details may be well off the prototype, but that doesn’t affect its relationship with the wheels. My feeling about the bullhead is that it takes that successful heritage and adds more prototypical accuracy, together with a welcome dose of backdating. Heads the market wins, tails Peco and many of us can’t lose.

[coachmann]

As Marc has already told us, he used a mixture of Triang series three and Super Four.  You folk missed a trick there. No wonder you guys are all hanging your heads in shame.  Peco streamline?  WoddarUlike... 

Edited October 1, 2017 by coachmann

[Gilbert]

No that is a serious point that lots of people have commented on how poor the Peco streamline is and have continued to purchase, in a similar way to Lima locomotives!

 

It is up to you what you buy not for me to decide on your behalf!

 

Mark Saunders

 

Please define "poor".

I have used a wide variety of their tracks and the build and running quality is excellent - just look at how Peco was swamped with orders for its Code 83 - which was a big step forward on what many US modellers already used.

[bertiedog]

Sorry but leaving aside the question of gauge, it's still only a passing resemblance to the real thing, with only the rail possibly being of correct section but I wouldn't hold my breath on that either given what they did in 0 gauge. However, I suppose it's better than what went before. 

Go on then, give us the exact details of a product that will be better, given it must match the existing geometry, gauge and rail section. The chairs must be universal, not one company, sleeper practice the same, use existing fishplates and take all Peco accessories.Remember your selling to the general public, so no personal preferences are allowed........It must suit most 00 locos and stock, and be reliable.

Stephen

[Pacific231G]

The catchpoint is a pain and is left permanently closed nowadays after derailing too many locos...gulp!   In an ideal world it would have a soleniod attached and would work in tandem with the adjacent point, but ......

 

The magnets will form a foot crossing at the platform ends, but at the end of the day they are a necessity. I'm going to add a marker near the road bridge seeing as the magnet is out of sight below the platform.

OT

 

I've also concealed Kadee magnets with crossings.

Three of the five Kadee magnets are thinly disguised as a level crossing.

and I'm disguising the other two as a barrow crossing

 

I've done a bit more work on this since taking the photo but the platform ramp still needs a bit more blending into the rest of the platform edging

 

I'm also in two minds whether to try to shorten the magnets to match the crossing which is otherwise to prototype width, but that risks them not working as well and they are crucial to shunting the layout. the alternative is to use overlong crossing timbers to match the two magnets.

In an idea world I'd have used concealed magnets but they were very much a retrofit on this layout.

 

They and the code 100 track I used for this layout seem to look better in the flesh than on photos but I don't expect anyone else to believe that.

 

For my next layout I might well use Peco BH for the sidings at least especially if they come up with medium radius points. Apparently the sleeper spacing and dimensions just happen to be correct for the C.F.du Midi in 1:87  (though I think their rail was symmetrical so not strictly bullhead)  but I've not checked it against the Etat and the P.O. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Stephen Freeman]

Go on then, give us the exact details of a product that will be better, given it must match the existing geometry, gauge and rail section. The chairs must be universal, not one company, sleeper practice the same, use existing fishplates and take all Peco accessories.Remember your selling to the general public, so no personal preferences are allowed........It must suit most 00 locos and stock, and be reliable.

Stephen

Why must it use existing rail-joiners when in fact I believe Peco are doing new ones? Why must it match existing geometry, which is fundamentally flawed and bears little relation to the prototype? Rail section - I think they may have that right but I'll reserve judgement on that.

 

Are you really selling to the General Public? I think they'll carry on using code 100.

 

If it's aimed at the serious end then it will probably suit some but for me, no thanks.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Stephen Freeman

[bertiedog]

Frankly I am amazed that Pecos track still has detractors stating that Streamline is "Poor", in what way, given that you must dismiss personal preferences, unless serious. It's visual appearance in the various versions including bullhead is defined by the use of 16.5mm track, which was nothing to do with Peco.

Where standards exist, the US, the products meets or exceeds the expected qualities demanded by the customer.

The British have no standards apart from clubs and trade ones that have been and still are ignored by the customers.

So what do you expect to be on the ,Market when there is no agreement among the customers?

Come back and complain when there is a BRITISH MODEL RAILWAY ASSOCIATION, who have set standards in all aspects of the hobby and rigidly applied them for 60 years

[martin_wynne]

Go on then, give us the exact details of a product that will be better, given it must match the existing geometry, gauge and rail section. The chairs must be universal, not one company, sleeper practice the same, use existing fishplates and take all Peco accessories.Remember your selling to the general public, so no personal preferences are allowed........It must suit most 00 locos and stock, and be reliable.

 

The best product for that would be unquestionably flat-bottom track. Look back through all the track produced for the "general public" from Hornby-Dublo, Triang, to the present-day train-set tracks. All flat-bottom. And 60 years of Peco Streamline too.

 

Bullhead track is a specialist product for a niche section of modellers who are not the "general public". It is flimsy, difficult to lay straight and flat, difficult to make clip-fit rail joiners for, more expensive to manufacture pointwork for. Peco are having a go at it, but it was not essential to "match the existing geometry" or "suit most 00 locos and stock". That was their choice for marketing reasons, which pleases one section of the market while putting off another section. That other section is as entitled to say so as are those who welcome it.

 

Martin.

[bertiedog]

Why must it use existing rail-joiners when in fact I believe Peco are doing new ones? Why must it match existing geometry, which is fundamentally flawed and bears little relation to the prototype? Rail section - I think they may have that right but I'll reserve judgement on that.

 

Are you really selling to the General Public? I think they'll carry on using code 100.

 

If it's aimed at the serious end then it will probably suit some but for me, no thanks.

There is a choice of joiners, one remains , one new,  So running Peco you would introduce new geometry, financed from profits, and leave old customers with points that will not fit, plus a double inventory of parts.

Don't worry about it, as a serious user, I assume you use P4 anyway? or do you accept 00 anyway?, in which case Peco caters for it very well indeed.

[Pacific231G]

The best product for that would be unquestionably flat-bottom track. Look back through all the track produced for the "general public" from Hornby-Dublo, Triang, to the present-day train-set tracks. All flat-bottom. And 60 years of Peco Streamline too.

 

Bullhead track is a specialist product for a niche section of modellers who are not the "general public". It is flimsy, difficult to lay straight and flat, difficult to make clip-fit rail joiners for, more expensive to manufacture pointwork for. Peco are having a go at it, but it was not essential to "match the existing geometry" or "suit most 00 locos and stock". That was their choice for marketing reasons, which pleases one section of the market while putting off another section. That other section is as entitled to say so as are those who welcome it.

 

Martin.

But it's Peco not us who are taking the financial risk and having to make a commercial judgement that balances all those factors.

 

They did adopt a different geometry for Code 83 turnouts but that follows an already well established NMRA standard and it seems less common when following N.American practice to need complex pointwork simply because everything was generally more spread out.

 

Apart from being necessarily based on far sharper curves I'm not entirely sure what's supposed to be wrong with Peco's existing geometry except when it comes to using their large radius turnouts, which curve after the frog, to form crossovers. The geometry of a Streamline medium radius point seems identical to that of an SMP 3ft radius point, a Pecoway 3ft radius point and even an "Acro" 3ft radius point kit that I happen to have. The Peco small radius point uses the same crossing as the medium but it's surely quite normal to have different length turnouts with the same crossing angle.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

But it's Peco not us who are taking the financial risk and having to make a commercial judgement that balances all those factors.

 

They did adopt a different geometry for Code 83 turnouts but that follows an already well established NMRA standard and it seems less common when following N.American practice to need complex pointwork simply because everything was generally more spread out.

 

Apart from being necessarily based on far sharper curves I'm not entirely sure what's supposed to be wrong with Peco's existing geometry except when it comes to using their large radius turnouts, which curve after the frog, to form crossovers. The geometry of a Streamline medium radius point seems identical to that of an SMP 3ft radius point, a Pecoway 3ft radius point and even an "Acro" 3ft radius point kit that I happen to have. The Peco small radius point uses the same crossing as the medium but it's surely quite normal to have different length turnouts with the same crossing angle.

 

All very true, but the factor missing from all that is the prototype. There are those modellers who regard track as every much a model of a prototype as say a locomotive, worthy of the same attention to correct details. And those who regard track as somewhere to run their trains, rather than a model of anything.

 

The Peco geometry doesn't match any UK prototype, and they are now a bit stuck because they can't go any longer than this first turnout and retain the 12-degree interchangeability.

 

DCC Concepts, equally subject to commercial considerations, have said that they will take the opposite approach and use prototype geometry, even suggesting that their first turnout will be a 4ft-1.5in gauge B-7 based on LMS practice. And that they will use finer flangeways and full-size chairs suitable only for modern RTR models and kit wheels.

 

Admittedly DCC Concepts have gone very quiet on this lately, no doubt waiting to see how Peco get on -- or possibly wishing that they hadn't chosen stainless steel for the rail.

 

In the meantime, handbuilders of track may still find this Peco product useful -- re-using the Peco switch in a flatter turnout:

 

 

Not a long way from a B-7.

 

Similarly by cutting more off the Peco turnout a 1:8 turnout could be built.

 

(Based on best available info and Peco downloadable templates).

 

Martin.

[bertiedog]

When I made some points for a club layout, i used correct geometry, with a straight section after the frog in a cross over, I had a lecture about it from a senior members that it wasted a further 5 inches or so..... another complained that it did not matter that the "waggle" of the coaches looked different if curved geometry was used..... Another said it made no difference.....another said curved points derailed everything, they did on his layout as he ran at Mallard speeds.... Another said they looked right, another said they looked wrong, and all of this on a model where as in all layouts everything else was a compromise due to it being a model... you just cannot win. The cross over, by the way was on a main line with four foot radius curves feeding it!

Model railways are all compromised  in some way or another, even P4 on overall size.

Peco offer the best British made range of products in the world for modellers of all tastes that run railways that are practical designs, It all works out of the box.

Stephen

[bertiedog]

Also I think a major assumption is being made by the few who do follow it, that the track matters that much, I can assure you that whilst in the retail trade with railways, the track was barely if ever mentioned, apart from the already converted EM/ P4 /S4 users.

99% of customers wanted RTL track, any code, with a full range of point types, thats all. Some like finer codes, these have come all ready, but even flat bottom versa bull head rarely came up in the shop.

 

Dare we suggest that RM web does have a lot of far more enthusiastic scale followers than average, and it biases the postings about track........

In the US there is one set of standards....here the discussion brings forward about 10 to 15 ways of making, buying or producing track track......and that's just in 00...

The vital issue is when those points are in the shops....far more to the point, when will it be a full range.....

Stephen.

[martin_wynne]

I can assure you that whilst in the retail trade with railways, the track was barely if ever mentioned

 

But we are not interested in the retail trade, they can look after themselves. RMweb is about model making.

 

Way back in this topic, Coachmann referred to trainset-man and historical-man:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-116&do=findComment&comment=2851983

 

I see no reason why historical-man should be barred from discussing the merits or otherwise of this new Peco track.

 

Martin.

[bertiedog]

There a lot of difference between discussion on here and being dismissive about the subject, to each his own, and I was not in the toy trade, but modelling and model engineering, but never dismissive of those who buy trains to play with, Also being graced with the name modeller does not automatically mean the person suddenly gains knowledge and higher standards, there is a long learning curve. made worse in the UK by the minefield of what people think are standards, that have been concocted over the years from sources too numerous for the hobbies good.

Add in makers who make free abuse of the term Rp25, when they have never read the standards or understood them, and we have the mess that Peco has to deal with daily/ Code 83 must seem like a dream to them, standard, accepted, and makers who keep to the designs, no wonder they wanted to move into that market.

Edited October 1, 2017 by bertiedog

[PMP]

But we are  I'm not interested in the retail trade, they can look after themselves. RMweb is about model making.

 

Way back in this topic, Coachmann referred to trainset-man and historical-man:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-116&do=findComment&comment=2851983

 

I see no reason why historical-man should be barred from discussing the merits or otherwise of this new Peco track.

 

Martin.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

You might not be interested in the retail trade, but probably most people on this forum are. This is a retail product, being discussed in the retail, products and trade area, by (mostly) people who will buy it from retailers or are interested in doing so....

 

The product is being marketed to fit inside an existing product range by a manufacturer that produces products for retailers to sell to the public, and people have frequently been asking when it will be available and what price it will be. Those are sort of retail questions. 

 

If RMweb is 'about' model making, then there's huge sections of the twenty thousand plus membership including some of the most prolific posters on the forum, that have never shown any model making in any context.

 

Go figure... 

Edited October 1, 2017 by PMP

[martin_wynne]

Fixed it for you

 

Thanks.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Apologies. I failed to notice until now that this topic is in the Trade & Products Zone. That's not an area of RMweb where I often take part.

 

Perhaps we need a separate topic in the modelling zone to discuss the merits of these new turnouts for modelling.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

Apologies. I failed to notice until now that this topic is in the Trade & Products Zone. That's not an area of RMweb where I often take part.

 

Perhaps we need a separate topic in the modelling zone to discuss the merits of these new turnouts for modelling.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

I do find it strange that for someone who from day one of this thread was being critical of the product when it was announced let alone produced didn't see until 21 months later it was in the Trade and Products Zone.

 

As for pontificating about track makes one a railway modeller, then scratchbuilding locomotives, multiple units, rolling stock, buildings, road vehicles and people but because I use PECO track doesn't.  Then I am glad I am not a railway modeller.