PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[martin_wynne]

My concern, and where I think Peco is erring, is to expect people to buy a lot of plain track with no points to go with them.

 

A great many modellers buy plain track and build pointwork.

 

If the end product matches the published CAD image, this track will have wider sleeper spacing than at least one of the existing products (SMP Scaleway), so users will gain extra choice.

 

Bullhead flexi-track is also promised from DCC Concepts (using stainless steel rail), so this means there will be 4 types of bullhead flexi-track to choose from (or 5 including Exactoscale FastTrack).

 

Martin.

[Spannerman]

Excellent news from Peco. One question, would bullhead track have been used in conjunction with third rail running?

(As in southern third rail not dublo three rail)

 

Nik

Edited January 27, 2016 by Spannerman

[Derekstuart]

I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, so apologies if I got that wrong. I trust that I was one of those demonstrating "defence of a product or manufacturer". Indeed, I am, but read counter-arguments and conceded that there was merit to the alternative. That is, I would have thought, one of the greatest points of this forum to learn alternative viewpoints.

 

Compared to other threads (the Dapol 73 being a good example) this thread is a paragon of virtue with a lot of mutual respect.

 

As for Peco, I would agree with your point- I think few people will buy just plain track to be punctuated with turnouts, hence my earlier comment. I fear though that the mention that they are so considering it might be enough to deter those who are already working in track supplies so we could end up with less than we have now.

Of course these threads usually polarise between those for whom nothing suits, who, perhaps, should best hold their peace, and those who become incredibly defensive of a product or manufacturer, and who also, therefore, miss the point (or who don't miss the points in this instance).

 

I like to be broadly positive about announcements.  I am pleased with this one.  It is, as I say, a step in the right direction. 

 

It is, I think, fair to note the context of this announcement, that Peco have been palming people off with HO track for decades, so "about time too" would seem a fair opening remark.  However late in the day, we should acknowledge that this is the right decision.  I think the market has been mature and discerning enough for such track for some years, but late is better than never.  It is naiveto say that Peco must wait to be sure the product is wanted.  Of course it is.  People only buy HO track because it is the only widely available and reasonably priced ready to lay range there is.  If Peco had offered OO track sooner, of course people would have bought it in preference to HO track.

 

My concern, and where I think Peco is erring, is to expect people to buy a lot ofplain track with no points to go with them.  Perhaps people will.  If so, "good" I say, because it will hasten the day when points are introduced.

 

I won't invest in this track unless and until there are ready-to-lay points to go with it.  Let us hope for one of 2 things, then, either Peco change their minds and start producing points anyway, or, significant numbers of people won't think like me and will build vast layouts with no points!

[RFS]

Spannerman, on 27 Jan 2016 - 19:16, said:Spannerman, on 27 Jan 2016 - 19:16, said:

Excellent news from Peco. One question, would bullhead track have been used in conjunction with third rail running?

(As in southern third rail not dublo three rail)

 

Nik

 

Certainly would. For example, see this picture of Waterloo with plenty of the bullhead rail in evidence.

 

http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/p408419154/h13162249#h13162249

 

Or you can mix-and-match if you want.

 

http://railphotoprints.zenfolio.com/p408419154/h5b6bcfee#h62c82ffe

Edited January 27, 2016 by RFS

[martin_wynne]

Excellent news from Peco. One question, would bullhead track have been used in conjunction with third rail running?

 

Hi Nik,

 

Sure. See Russ Elliott's masterful page: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/russelliott/3rd-4th.html

 

Martin.

[Ramblin Rich]

This is good news, but I've been holding off building for too many reasons alrready, now I have the excuse if waiting for the improved points! It will be interesting to see if sales of existing code 75 ranges dip due to people buying the new range.

Just a thought, assuming the new track maintains the same overall height as code 75 points, and there is a gap between track and sleeper due to the chairs, the sleepers will actually be slightly thinner (shallower) than existing code 75 flat bottom track.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

Great News !

 

I'll buy for my next 00 branch line when there's a matching point or two available. My last 00 railway used SMP track and plastic based point kits - nice looking but don't have that robustness of Peco track (which I admit I used in the hidden areas...)

 

I was enticed away in 2015  to N gauge for my current project, impressed by the quality of the recent Farish and Dapol  locos and FiNetrax track & point kits, but I still have quite a few 00 locos needing somewhere to run...

Ian

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Might be quite a bit of this going on in a year or so.....

 

[4630]

. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by 4630

[ThaneofFife]

Somebody here (I cant recall the name but that probably saves any of their blushes) scorned heavily on the very suggestion that Peco might look at new track products - their thinking being it would be silly with people buying the new stuff and not buying anymore old stuff. 

 

Peco clearly don't see it quite like that.

[hayfield]

This is great news, looks good and seems to be to 00 not H0 gauge

 

Like golfers wanting the latest drivers there will be a band of modellers wanting to rip up their track and replace it with the latest product, good marketing I think and what a lot of modellers have been asking for. Let's see if they back up their claims with cash !!  If they do in numbers I guess turnouts will follow soon

[Clive Mortimore]

This is good news, but I've been holding off building for too many reasons alrready, now I have the excuse if waiting for the improved points! It will be interesting to see if sales of existing code 75 ranges dip due to people buying the new range.

Just a thought, assuming the new track maintains the same overall height as code 75 points, and there is a gap between track and sleeper due to the chairs, the sleepers will actually be slightly thinner (shallower) than existing code 75 flat bottom track.

Hi Rich

 

I am sure Peco will not worry too much if they sell a yard (or meter) of one type of track instead of a yard of another type......they have sold a yard of track, their competitors have not.

[Mallard60022]

If they change the sleeper spacing it won't fit their foam "ballast". 

 

Ed

Well the ballast does stretch a bit.......................................

P

[martin_wynne]

Might be quite a bit of this going on in a year or so.....

 

DSCN8275.JPG

 

But probably not quite like that.

 

Peco's "bullhead" rail for 0 gauge is actually a flat-bottom rail section with a narrow foot. This allows their conventional rail joiners to be used. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar approach with the new 00 gauge bullhead rail.

 

Martin.

[New Haven Neil]

Well, we'll be stocking it just as soon as we can!

[gr.king]

  People only buy HO track because it is the only widely available and reasonably priced ready to lay range there is.  If Peco had offered OO track sooner, of course people would have bought it in preference to HO track.

 

 

It isn't really true (if at all true) to suggest that the key difference between existing Peco and the new bullhead product is simply that the existing stuff is HO and the new version will be OO. The existing version is Continental proportions HO making the sleepers far too small and close for British practice. The new bullhead product appears to have dimensions that Peco have sensibly made somewhat ambiguous. It could almost equally well represent pre-group British bullhead with wide spacing of long sleepers as a 3.5mm scale interpretation, or a later type of British track at almost 4mm scale but with the gauge squeezed and the sleeper ends trimmed to match.

But probably not quite like that.

 

Peco's "bullhead" rail for 0 gauge is actually a flat-bottom rail section with a narrow foot. This allows their conventional rail joiners to be used. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar approach with the new 00 gauge bullhead rail.

 

Martin.

 

Not a bad idea to use a "cheat" rail section if it makes for a more useable / compatible product.

[Ian J.]

Now here's an irony - despite welcoming this and hoping that Peco do eventually do a range of turnouts to go with the flexitrack, unless I was doing a 'quick build' layout I don't think I'd use it these days.

 

If I ever manage to get to build a layout at some point in the future, I think I'd actually prefer to do an entirely handbuilt job using C&L parts, even on the plain track sections. I think the reason for me feeling this way is that since using Templot to produce track plans in the past, I've realised that I would be happier if the track had a more specifically prototypical look beyond just sleeper size and generic spacing. Things like the different spacing at the ends of 60ft sections; the v of the turnout; the look of switch blade; the individuality of any given turnout; these can only really be done in hand built form.

 

So I applaud Peco for this, and will keep them in mind for quicker, simpler projects, but not anything more substantial.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Ian J.

[gr.king]

A great many modellers buy plain track and build pointwork.

 

If the end product matches the published CAD image, this track will have wider sleeper spacing than at least one of the existing products (SMP Scaleway), so users will gain extra choice.

 

Bullhead flexi-track is also promised from DCC Concepts (using stainless steel rail), so this means there will be 4 types of bullhead flexi-track to choose from (or 5 including Exactoscale FastTrack).

 

Martin.

 

Even if the estimated dimensions are correct, the sleeper spacing will only be a gnat's more than SMP, depending on whether the thin webs below the latter's rails are sitting flat or are bowed. It looks close enough to me to be falling-in with the established SMP standard, including sleeper sizes as near as dammit, rather than providing a new alternative look.

[Paul W]

:Well.......there's a turn up for the books......
 
Having planned my next layout and wanting to utilise better looking RTL (ready to lay) track, I embarked on a week long fact finding mission to see what was necessary to attain similar results to many of the excellent layouts which have featured in these pages which have departed from the use of Peco code 100/75 offerings in OO 4mm.
 
Having spoken to several members....you will know who you are.......and getting a great deal of encouragement to give a bit of point kit building a go I formated a list of requirements from a supplier, but held back from placing an order as I wanted to ensure that all of what I thought I needed was correct.
 
I am glad that I waited as I then chanced across a particular thread concerning "16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork" which seemed to suggest that RTL point work could be produced by an individual or by a commercial company if there was enough interest generated.
 
Not only was a great deal of interest generated, but so was a lot of very hot air and also a lot of bad tempered posts, from the usual brigade, again.....you know who you are... .....which probably led that particular thread being locked out.
 
I was set to wait a while longer to see if anything would come from that particular thread as it did seem promising, and now we have had this announcement from Peco which is very welcome indeed. Having built many layouts with Peco code 100/75 previously I wanted to get away from the "train set" look and aspired to something better looking.
 
Now it would seem that I should be prudent and wait a while longer and see if what Peco is intending to produce will save me a lot of time, and perhaps some money, against going down the kit building road and yet still achieve the finished look that I would be more happy with.
 
I congratulate Peco, as have many others already, and hope that point work is also hot on the heals of the better looking track. I am more than willing to put my layout building on hold....just in case they produce something that is far better looking than what is produced now.
 
A BIG thumbs up from me...... :imsohappy: :imsohappy:

[martin_wynne]

It could almost equally well represent pre-group British bullhead with wide spacing of long sleepers as a 3.5mm scale interpretation, or a later type of British track at almost 4mm scale but with the gauge squeezed and the sleeper ends trimmed to match.

 

Thanks for posting your personal interpretation of Peco's track dimensions.

 

Others here wouldn't dream of doing that, for fear of your opprobrium.

 

Martin.

[locoholic]

I shall be buying the Peco bullhead track. It proves that my constant procrastination before starting my layout was the right thing to do, and of course I now have to prevaricate even longer while Peco come up with the goods!

[t-b-g]

In my comments on the previous thread, which is the one that got a bit silly and ended up locked, I had put forward the idea that to look good, any new track should be made with sleeper lengths and spacings adjusted to keep the proportions of the track looking good and that is just what has happened. To my eyes, the appearance is really good.

 

I can't see that it it is really much of an improvement on C & L flexible track (although it looks slightly better to me that SMP).

 

Having track that is competing with products like C & L and SMP is a step in the right direction but it isn't really a game changer as it stands. If it beats the others on price I will use the Peco product but if the others are cheaper then I will stick with them. 

 

When matching points come out (or if they come out) then that is when it becomes a major factor in improving the world of OO.

 

Products like these don't appear overnight and I am sure that development work has been going on for some time, with the timing of the announcement perhaps designed to take the wind out of the sales of a potential rival, just as various noises about RTR track were coming from elsewhere.

 

I hope this thread doesn't get spoiled by the same petty point scoring that marred the previous one.

[sp1]

Completely off topic, but unless I have missed it, no one has mentioned the turntable motor....,

[57xx]

Give it a rest, for crying out loud!

Why does every single thread even remotely connected with "trackwork" bring out the worst in folk. Live and let live and get  a grip.

 

I think you need to make the first line an even bigger font, it doesn't seem to have had an effect, they're still at it. 

[Derekstuart]

I have completely changed my mind on this (thanks to the wise sage for his comments). I think this is good for ALL the hobby, including C&L and SMP.

 

Once people start buying more realistic looking track from Peco (the primary route into the hobby for most people), the vast majority of them will stay with Peco- thus Peco and their customers will be happy.

 

Undoubtedly a small percentage, realising that they have a slightly less inaccurate product will seek out opportunities to produce much more accurate track and the niche suppliers will get their sales and both them and their customers will be happy.

 

Nevertheless, I doubt such benign thinking is behind this move and I suspect Mr GR King is probably quite right. I would still not hold my breath for turnouts though...