Jump to content
 

PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO


Free At Last
 Share

Recommended Posts

H0 is an daft idea, and thank goodness the pioneers had the sense to see it.

 

If you want to use an overscale wheel profile for RTR, you need to reduce the track gauge. Otherwise the wheels won't fit inside splashers, behind valve gear, inside axleboxes, behind bogie side frames.

 

All H0 models are over scale width in the running gear for this reason. For UK-outline steam locomotives the result is particularly noticeable, with steam locomotives way over scale width across the splashers.

 

Using exact-scale 16.5mm gauge in H0 with much overscale NMRA Code 110 wheels is an utterly bonkers idea, and it is the sort of thing you end up with if there is a self-appointed body of so-called experts such as the NMRA trying to force their ideas on everyone else. Thank goodness we don't have such a body in the UK, where anyone and everyone can innovate and progress the hobby, instead of being stuck in the 1950s, where much of the USA hobby still is.

 

Martin.

+1 , the NMRA is not all it's cracked up to be , and the fiasco that is DCC is a classic fubar. Equally the Nmra has in effect locked whole sections into outdated " standards "

 

Sure the whole of North America doesn't even have a proper railway , I mean there isn't decent signalling anywhere and seriously , why are all these university graduates driving locomotives, what's that all about. !!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Like wise 00 gauge track is a " representation " of the real thing , in this case 4'8"½ standard track.

 

This is where I and many others are very happy with Peco's new bullhead track - it brings us a much better representation of the real thing. We all know the "failings" (although I am loath to use that word) of the current flat-bottom products and also of the new bullhead products, but the bullhead track is a step-change in 00 modelling, available to the masses in this country. Whether they choose to use it or not is a personal choice.

 

Why is it that a few seem be hell-bent on trying to spoil that enjoyment through a constantly highlighting deficiencies that we all know, all accept, yet are happy to live with?

​Roy

Edited by Roy Langridge
Link to post
Share on other sites

As the sole member of tribe 2 in these parts, I can tell you that it is nothing to do with reassurance. Nor is about owning anything. It is about ease of constructing a model. If you want to build a scale model of something, you have to know two things -- the size of the prototype and the scale of the model. How on earth do you know how far apart to fix your rails if you don't know the gauge of the prototype? Whereas if you know that your prototype has a gauge of 4ft-1.5in, and you are modelling it at 4mm per foot, you can immediately work out that you need to place the rails 16.5mm apart.

 

You then notice that a great many others are doing the same, and can only conclude that modelling of 4ft-1.5in gauge railways is very popular in the UK.

 

Martin.

 

Martin , you posts are generally erudite and precise , on this peculiar foible , you are entirely incorrect ( and I suspect you know this and perversely maintain your peculiar perspective just for the fun of it )

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where I and many others are very happy with Peco's new bullhead track - it brings us a much better representation of the real thing. We all know the "failings" (although I am loath to use that word) of the current flat-bottom products and also of the new bullhead products, but the bullhead track is a step-change in 00 modelling available to the masses in this country. Whether they choose to use it or not is a personal choice.

 

Why is it that a few seem be hell-bent on trying to spoil that enjoyment through a constantly highlighting deficiencies that we all know, all accept, yet are happy to live with?

​Roy

Correct ,and a "representation" that many are happy to live with , despite its obvious " issues " , just like all model railwayers have to live with many " representions " of the real thing that have equally glaring issues , like scale figures that don't walk about , grass that never grows etc. Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

H0 is an daft idea, and thank goodness the pioneers had the sense to see it.

 

If you want to use an overscale wheel profile for RTR, you need to reduce the track gauge. Otherwise the wheels won't fit inside splashers, behind valve gear, inside axleboxes, behind bogie side frames.

 

All H0 models are over scale width in the running gear for this reason. For UK-outline steam locomotives the result is particularly noticeable, with steam locomotives way over scale width across the splashers.

 

Using exact-scale 16.5mm gauge in H0 with much overscale NMRA Code 110 wheels is an utterly bonkers idea, and it is the sort of thing you end up with if there is a self-appointed body of so-called experts such as the NMRA trying to force their ideas on everyone else. Thank goodness we don't have such a body in the UK, where anyone and everyone can innovate and progress the hobby, instead of being stuck in the 1950s, where much of the USA hobby still is.

 

Martin.

Oh boy..all Americans, and the rest of the world,  are wrong on the use of HO, the arguments about splashers are true, or were true as modern models get around the problems that HO once had... so all Japanese brass is rubbish, Fulgarex is rubbish, Pannier is rubbish, all other fine scale German makers are rubbish then, as well as the popular main stream makers, who do still alter dimensions to suit, just as 00 does even more on track.

 

Repeating that NMRA wheels are over size in width is so cheeky from a country that reduces the gauge to suit models. The amount is slight and allows a 1949 Lindsay or Varney to run on exactly the same track as made today, same profile, same gauge , same back to back, total compatibility, totally satisfactory operation.

 

Try running a Trix on Peco code 83......or a Hornby, or a Tri-ang, or even a Meta "scale"standard from the 50's, they are not going to run on any modern track bar streamline ode 100.

 

The slight over width was very deliberate, it stops most drops in frogs on NMRA standard track, but barely compromises the appearance in the same way that 00 does with the god awful gauge chosen for 4mm.

 

It is all compromise, there is no one right way, but the compromises chosen by the NMRA are slight compared to the awful situation over here. The European situation is indeed more complex, but some of the finest commercial models ever made have been in HO scale, far more exact to the prototype than 00 can ever be. The track is the fatal flaw till P4 is used.

 

HO has fine scale as well, but because the gauge is the same, most older units lie Lindsay can run on the super scale track with suitable adjustments to the back to back, try doing that with a Trix from the 1950's., they did not even build to 4mm scale.

Stephen

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Only two tribes? in the UK there used to be estimated that over 20 different gauge, scale groups were at each others throat so to speak, and they disregarded the toy train users, who tend to get dismissed, unlike outside the UK.

 

There are few so forthright in their views than a proponent of a particular combination of scale and gauge, and it shocks US visitors and was the basis of hours of discussion with Lin Westcott and John Allen, when I meet them on a visit to the UK for the London NMRA convention. Mr Pritchard was there in the evening and joined in the talk about the hobby in general, and how difficult it was to design products for such an un0organised group of enthusiasts, yes we are enthusiastic, and unfortunately a lot are also unaware of the difficulties in making items for sale in the UK, where independence is somewhat treasured at the expense of setting standards that can be followed.

 

Go on, admit ypu play with trains, that fine models of any type interest you, have fun, and let others run things other ways as well. But at the core should be standards that stop makers from making incompatible items, and press for improvements at all times.

Peco have improved the track with the bullhead, it will sell widely, and maybe they will change the rest to better spacing etc over the years.

 

If pioneers had put their foot down 00 would never have happened at all, and we would all be following H0 to every bodies benefit, instead we still have carping remarks about scale  /gauge relationships nearly 90 years on from it's inception.

 

Now wonder new comers are still confused s as to what is going on. Try turning up at a Model club asking for membership with  set of three rail equipment, see the reactions in the UK, off-putting and very condescending to say the least, and risks putting the newcomer off for life.

 

It happens in the States as well, but far less than here. Look at the giant toy train at Xmas market in the States, it is still there despite people saying it is fading, locos and tracks around trees and Winter displays of models etc. It supports a lot of the hobby trade in the US, but the market is almost non existent in the UK, mainly because we still look down on toy trains, with the exception of Thomas.

 

It is not an insuperiority complex here, it is a superiority complex that drives UK modelling, a curious inability to see the joy of a hobby, by replacing the joy with an over earnest attitude about the modelling, perhaps typified by remarks about nice models but I would not buy it because it was not used on my line, group or company. There are none so partisan than railway enthusiasts, and it gets worse with track and gauge issues.

 

Re stating the obvious problems with 00 on here may not be lelpful, it opens old wounds too much, and does raise the hackles of some on here to say the least, live and let live is better in the hobby on this point, as unpicking 90 years of the mess is plainly impossible..

 

 At least Peco is having a darn good try with the track.........next should be deliveries on time from the rest of the trade......

Stephen.

I was disregarding all of the disputes outside 4mm scale, standard gauge, none of which have any bearing on my own modelling activities.

 

Nowadays. 3-rail is very much outside the mainstream and has become an increasingly specialist niche ever since it stopped being produced for the mass market over six decades ago. OK there are a few revivalists, but only clubs with existing active 3-rail users are likely to welcome it in 2017. The main battle in most clubs is over space and each scale/gauge has to compete for its own share. I'm all in favour of "whatever floats your boat" but do check the size of the pond before attempting to launch. Potentially introducing an extra division of OO may not endear you to anyone!  

 

As for old wounds, the whole point of OO (2-rail) is that it has become the "industry standard" for 4mm scale UK models. The arguments and decisions of the 1920s were over, commercially speaking, as soon as Hornby Dublo came into being and 3-rail was done for on the same basis when they abandoned it. We are where we are. Anyone is entitled to work to whatever scale and standard they choose but traders, large and small, can only serve those scales and standards they consider will earn them a living. 

 

As for partisanship, if one wants to create a coherent model railway (as opposed to train set or a scenic test track) it is necessary to bring together items that would have been seen together in reality in the sort of setting modelled, both geographically and chronologically. If one is modelling (for instance) a 1950s Southern Region branch line set in Dorset or Hampshire, stock diversity (or a lack thereof) on the model should reflect the prototype reality.

 

Having suffered decades of neglect from the r-t-r trade, we SR/ex-LSWR fans have, this century, been provided with a relative cornucopia of legitimate locos and stock, allowing us to stop making excuses for dodgy interlopers.

 

That's not to say I never buy or run anything that's "wide-of-scheme"; some are just too tempting. However, given limited finances and space, the "proper" stuff gets priority for both. Those out-of-area and out-of-era items that I can't resist get used on "fun-runs" and visits to layouts where they are appropriate. 

 

I made my own modelling choices when I returned to the hobby a quarter of a century ago and they affect no-one but me. I'm not offended, distressed or even especially interested by others choosing differently, though I occasionally detect a certain amount of wishful thinking in some. However, much of what I once considered wishful thinking on my own part has come to pass, so who is to say theirs won't in the fullness of time? I don't consider that the way I plough my personal furrow has any bearing one anyone other than those who provide the products for me to spend my money on. If it bothers others, I suggest it's not me who has a problem.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

H0 is an daft idea, and thank goodness the pioneers had the sense to see it.

 

If you want to use an overscale wheel profile for RTR, you need to reduce the track gauge. Otherwise the wheels won't fit inside splashers, behind valve gear, inside axleboxes, behind bogie side frames.

 

All H0 models are over scale width in the running gear for this reason. For UK-outline steam locomotives the result is particularly noticeable, with steam locomotives way over scale width across the splashers.

 

Using exact-scale 16.5mm gauge in H0 with much overscale NMRA Code 110 wheels is an utterly bonkers idea, and it is the sort of thing you end up with if there is a self-appointed body of so-called experts such as the NMRA trying to force their ideas on everyone else. Thank goodness we don't have such a body in the UK, where anyone and everyone can innovate and progress the hobby, instead of being stuck in the 1950s, where much of the USA hobby still is.

 

Martin.

I don't always (often? :scratchhead:)  agree with you Martin, but you are spot on with this post.

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

allows a 1949 Lindsay or Varney to run on exactly the same track as made today, same profile, same gauge , same back to back

 

My point exactly. 68 years without any innovation or progress, because the NMRA says so.

 

If you like collecting 1949 models, the obvious thing would be to collect some 1949 track to go with them.

 

Martin.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

Sure the whole of North America doesn't even have a proper railway , I mean there isn't decent signalling anywhere and seriously , why are all these university graduates driving locomotives, what's that all about. !!

 

 

Hmmmm.  That sounds like a pretty sweeping statement if ever there was one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

With this new track by Peco, we are really lucky that Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol, Oxford rail etc make their toy trains to fit this scale 4 ft 1 1/2 ins track. We would be in a hell of a sate if they didn't.

 

I do wish Peco would have made their points to EM-2, cos i have been told that is bestest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

we are really lucky that Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol, Oxford rail etc make their toy trains to fit this scale 4 ft 1 1/2 ins track.

 

Progress!

 

Every time in the past that I have pointed out that all 00 rolling stock models are made to a gauge of 4ft-1.5in, the idea has been laughed out of court. We are slowly getting there! Peco got there first, making some very nice 4ft-1.5in gauge track for them to run on.

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy..all Americans, and the rest of the world, are wrong on the use of HO, the arguments about splashers are true, or were true as modern models get around the problems that HO once had... so all Japanese brass is rubbish, Fulgarex is rubbish, Pannier is rubbish, all other fine scale German makers are rubbish then, as well as the popular main stream makers, who do still alter dimensions to suit, just as 00 does even more on track.

 

Repeating that NMRA wheels are over size in width is so cheeky from a country that reduces the gauge to suit models. The amount is slight and allows a 1949 Lindsay or Varney to run on exactly the same track as made today, same profile, same gauge , same back to back, total compatibility, totally satisfactory operation.

 

Try running a Trix on Peco code 83......or a Hornby, or a Tri-ang, or even a Meta "scale"standard from the 50's, they are not going to run on any modern track bar streamline ode 100.

 

The slight over width was very deliberate, it stops most drops in frogs on NMRA standard track, but barely compromises the appearance in the same way that 00 does with the god awful gauge chosen for 4mm.

 

It is all compromise, there is no one right way, but the compromises chosen by the NMRA are slight compared to the awful situation over here. The European situation is indeed more complex, but some of the finest commercial models ever made have been in HO scale, far more exact to the prototype than 00 can ever be. The track is the fatal flaw till P4 is used.

 

HO has fine scale as well, but because the gauge is the same, most older units lie Lindsay can run on the super scale track with suitable adjustments to the back to back, try doing that with a Trix from the 1950's., they did not even build to 4mm scale.

Stephen

Stephen , in the context of the time and the typical wheel standards in use, HO was not suitable for the production of UK outline models without requiring a change to significantly finer scale wheels at that time.

 

Given there was no other track being produced commercially at the time , the decision was between out of scale models or out of scale track. A call was made. It's history. No standards body would have helped as it would be entirely possible such a standards body would have agreed.

 

Code 100 00 today will largely run anything in living memory and laid well results in extremely reliable running

 

Finer scales obviously require changes in basic wheel dimensions , again there is no system that can run everything and still look correct

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress!

 

Every time in the past that I have pointed out that all 00 rolling stock models are made to a gauge of 4ft-1.5in, the idea has been laughed out of court. We are slowly getting there! Peco got there first, making some very nice 4ft-1.5in gauge track for them to run on.

 

Martin.

Nope, agains Bachman etc , make there 4mm models to a gauge of 16.5mm primarily became there happens to be track also made to 16.5mm gauge

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

[quote name="Clive Mortimore"

 

I do wish Peco would have made their points to EM-2, cos i have been told that is bestest.

 

It is the bestest track guage for the bestest running of OO locos

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

What a lot of waffle

When are the points coming ? That is all.

Patience. Peco are so enjoying this thread that they have put the points on hold until the frothing and foaming at the mouth have died down. I do not recommend holding your breath.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Progress!

 

Every time in the past that I have pointed out that all 00 rolling stock models are made to a gauge of 4ft-1.5in, the idea has been laughed out of court. We are slowly getting there! Peco got there first, making some very nice 4ft-1.5in gauge track for them to run on.

 

Martin.

Quite right too.

 

No model manufacturer has ever made a model to 4ft-1.5in gauge. Plenty have made OO models and track to 16.5mm gauge, but never as you claim, 4ft-1.5in gauge. Can you imagine how the 'box openers' would struggle with that. You'd need an airship hanger just for a shunting plank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition the prototype must exist , otherwise the term is wrong , the prototype for 00 track is standard gauge . No more then the prototype for 18mm EM is equally standard gauge , even though it's also incorrect

 

Like wise there is no direct prototype for tension lock couplings , x04 motors , buffers that don't spring , platform figures that dont walk or signal boxes whose levers never move. The prototypes for these, are the " real thing " and the model is an attempt at a " representation " of that " real thing ". Note clearly the term " representation "

 

Like wise 00 gauge track is a " representation " of the real thing , in this case 4'8"½ standard track.

Your analogy is simply incorrect

 

I agree with you 100% that railway modelling is an attempt to "represent" the real thing. That is true, irrespective of whether we choose to use 00 models as they come out of the box or whether we convert them to P4 and run them on hand built track.  It will always be a "representation".   The vast majority of us, for various reasons, retain the nominally 14.5 mm back to back dimension and run the models on track that has the rails set 16.5 mm apart.  Some don't, but that doesn't make them superior modellers - they just make different choices to make what appears to them (and many others), a more accurate "representation" of the real thing.  The question for those who remain with 00 is then, if you are stuck with a model that needs to run on rails that are 16.5 mm apart, how best do you design a track range to "represent" real track.  That question is really only applicable to the designers at Peco since the consumer just buys what is available, but it's worth asking how you would do it.

 

The point that Martin has tried to make repeatedly (perhaps too often now) is not intended to highlight the flaws of 00 (which most RMWeb members probably already know - but many in the wider world won't have a clue about) but to define how this particular range differs from it's predecessors.  The existing Code 75/100 streamline range is based on making a reasonable "representation" of track with a gauge of 4' 8 1/2".  That is, the 16.5 mm gauge is roughly one 87th of the prototype dimension, so therefore you need to scale everything else by the same amount including sleeper length, width and spacing to keep everything in proportion.  This is what the mass market has accepted for decades - a 1:87 scale "representation" of 4' 8 1/2" track - which has a track gauge of 16.5 mm.

 

However, the approach being taken by Peco for the new bullhead range differs from the existing Streamline range in that it is no longer a 1:87 scale model of 4' 8 1/2" track.  Instead, the sleepers are spaced further apart and of scale width at 1:76.  That scale needs to be 1:76 since that is the scale for the 00 locomotives and rolling stock that are to run on this track.  Therefore, when viewed from the side, the track will be to the same scale as whatever sits on it, which is what many people, myself included, want.  However, if the width and spacing of the sleepers is 1:76, then we either have to state that the product scales at 1:76 in the longitudinal direction and 1:87 in the transverse direction, or we accept that if the scale in the transverse direction is also 1:76 - ie we have proper 1:76 scale track, then Peco have made a model of track with a gauge of 4' 1 1/2".  The fact that the standard gauge that almost everyone tries to "represent" is 4' 8 1/2" and that 4' 1 1/2" gauge track may not exist is immaterial.

 

At the end of the day, if you simply want 'better looking 00 track", why does it matter if that is achieved by making a 1:76 scale model of 4' 1 1/2" gauge track?  Surely, you just go out and buy some from Peco as soon as it is available and get on with making your next "representation" better, both to you and everyone else who is reading this thread.

 

Like many I hope that this proves a successful venture for Peco.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Progress!

 

Every time in the past that I have pointed out that all 00 rolling stock models are made to a gauge of 4ft-1.5in, the idea has been laughed out of court. We are slowly getting there! Peco got there first, making some very nice 4ft-1.5in gauge track for them to run on.

 

Martin.

Not really, I think I said several hundreds of post ago, we as 00 modellers know it is wrong, but we don't care. We ended up with this ludicrous situation many years before I was born but we are happy with it. So please stop telling us that we are not modelling a real scale sized track........we know that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point exactly. 68 years without any innovation or progress, because the NMRA says so.

 

If you like collecting 1949 models, the obvious thing would be to collect some 1949 track to go with them.

 

Martin.

Have you seen the1949 Lindsay EMD 1500, ALL lost wax brass castings, the lot, including the body and bonnet, to museum standards of accuracy, and the performance cannot be beaten, with a seven pole skew slot ringfield motor with fully floating compensation. The so called wider wheels are fitted, but Lindsay allowed for dead scale in the design of the bogies. it is silent and powerful, and about the best US model ever produced in HO. No current models come near the quality, and it runs on modern code 83 track to perfection.It was party this standard that inspired the standards the NMRA aimed for.

 

Unfortunately Lindsay, who had worked with Pittman during the war as a motor designer as well, died far too young and never saw his range expanded as he intended. He also designed the "super" Varney range, but this was withdrawn by Varney due to the high cost of production, and Lindsay's death leaving them without a designer to develop anything.

 

The 1949 track required is the Peco code 83, the same product in code and with scale sleepers and scale spikes was made by both Lindsay and Kemtron. The Peco is the modern version, and impossible to tell at normal viewing from the 1949 track.

Edited by bertiedog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...