RMweb Gold Popular Post PaulRhB Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted January 27, 2020 A few interesting bits especially that they will be asking what next for the Bullhead range. https://mcusercontent.com/447cc01a867103118302481e1/files/3c31b010-9685-4c9d-83f4-974a2868c92a/Peco_Spring_Report_2020.pdf 6 4 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 Thanks for posting the link, good to see they are still progressing the OHLE gantries although they seem to now be brass, steel and plastic - which I assume explains the prolonged development process. Some other interesting bits and bobs as well. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2020 It's good to see that the N gauge wagons will have NEM coupling pockets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 1 hour ago, PaulRhB said: ... they will be asking what next for the Bullhead range. So we, the end customers, need to let our retailer know what we would purchase. My suggestion will be very simple, try a large point that abandons Streamline's fixed geometry; go for something like a B10, for a yet better product. Just as the model loco makers have dumped the old open frame motor and direct drive onto axle, it's time the dated 'fixed geometry' system saw the trash can, for a superior flexitrack system. 7 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2020 Please please pretty please may we have a diamond crossing with one route curved to match one of the standard curve radii? Ideally second / medium points radius because that would be the most common in use, I would suggest. How many of us have had to adjust track spacing or delve into the dark art of hand-built crossings in order to accurately replicate a very common piece of track? 4 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 27, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 I’d suggest emailing these requests to your usual supplier rather than wishlisting here and mentioning Peco asked in their spring report so they can forward them 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 The move to Code 70 is very interesting. Just as I have bought the last bits of Code 83 for my planned layout. I wonder what that is about?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusDe Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 The new streamline code100 small radius curved points look like setrack geometry curved points? If they are drop in replacements. the unifrog/live frog options would improve running on many layouts I suspect? Or do they give streamline track spacing rather than setrack? Angus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2020 23 minutes ago, Gwiwer said: Please please pretty please may we have a diamond crossing with one route curved to match one of the standard curve radii? Ideally second / medium points radius because that would be the most common in use, I would suggest. How many of us have had to adjust track spacing or delve into the dark art of hand-built crossings in order to accurately replicate a very common piece of track? You need a properly curved point to take advantage of a curved diamond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 27, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 27, 2020 33 minutes ago, Mike Storey said: The move to Code 70 is very interesting. Just as I have bought the last bits of Code 83 for my planned layout. I wonder what that is about?? For yard tracks and lighter lines, Shortlines and smaller / older steam lines to complement the mainline code 83. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted January 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 27, 2020 35 minutes ago, Mike Storey said: The move to Code 70 is very interesting. Just as I have bought the last bits of Code 83 for my planned layout. I wonder what that is about?? It’s not a move, it’s an additional range. Code 83 replicates ‘main line’ running rails, the code 70 will be suitable for shortline use and sidings, the geometry as I understand it will be identical across the 83/70 point range. 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndg910 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 No news on the 009 L&B goods brake. Has that been quietly dropped? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 28, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2020 3 hours ago, ndg910 said: No news on the 009 L&B goods brake. Has that been quietly dropped? No they missed it off the brochure reported as progressing as planned. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 14 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said: So we, the end customers, need to let our retailer know what we would purchase. My suggestion will be very simple, try a large point that abandons Streamline's fixed geometry; go for something like a B10, for a yet better product. Just as the model loco makers have dumped the old open frame motor and direct drive onto axle, it's time the dated 'fixed geometry' system saw the trash can, for a superior flexitrack system. The trouble is it all fits together, so anything different would not be entirely compatible. Real pointwork is largely bespoke. The existing bullhead points seem to be a little flexible, so maybe a longer, truly flexible point will allow bespoke configurations to be modelled & would be easy to produce. The OLE portals look good. Having tried building my pwn in the past, I have found it hard to make one which is robust without looking vastly over-scale. As for other products, the Tactile Platform Pavoirs may be a small item but potentially very useful. I have been trying to get accurate platforms for years & the existing Wills products may be accurate, but not for anything I see regularly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 20 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said: The trouble is it all fits together, so anything different would not be entirely compatible. Real pointwork is largely bespoke. The existing bullhead points seem to be a little flexible, so maybe a longer, truly flexible point will allow bespoke configurations to be modelled & would be easy to produce... True, and there's no way to fully bespoke from RTL points. But is 'full compatability' within a track range truly essential? Market the 'partly compatible' item as 'Advanced' or some other positive branding, with a clear explanation of the benefits and restrictions, and see how the customers take to it. We are coping with many other such 'partly compatible' situations in this hobby; most markedly couplers I would suggest. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lee Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) I do like the Bullhead medium points. If I was seriously thinking about a new layout or replacing the track of my existing one, it would make the choice of track type easier. Not sure whether a small point would be necessary, though. A small point would be useful for loco release to run around loops (no wagons or carriages would go through) and loco sheds, but at a pinch, the Code 75 flat-bottomed rail ones could be used, with a bit of weathering and "careless" ballasting to disguise them. Many people would like larger radius points, which would look really great on layouts that model main or secondary lines. What I would like is a simple way of switching polarity for Unifrog points for the purpose of frog and DC power routing. I know that Tortoise and Cobalt point motors do that, but I am a bit mean with money and also like to operate points by hand. A cheap, unobtrusive, hand-operated lever with built in microswitch to attach to Unifrog points would be of great interest to me. Edited January 29, 2020 by Richard Lee not telling. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 29, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Richard Lee said: Not sure whether a small point would be necessary, though. . . . . Many people would like larger radius points, I think small radius would be equally as popular, if not more so, for smaller layouts especially with the Pecketts, Barclays and Terriers etc. Breweries, Collieries, docks & factories all had examples of smaller radii trackwork and as micros are very popular with the space available to many I reckon would probably sell more than x-large radii. The larger radii are ok for club layouts and a minority of home layouts but increasingly people don’t have the space and if they do tend to custom build flowing switches and crossings. Peco is looking for the mass market and I suspect x-large would fall into the same sales number bracket as the EM commissions and require a sponsor. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lee Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, PaulRhB said: I think small radius would be equally as popular, if not more so, for smaller layouts especially with the Pecketts, Barclays and Terriers etc. Breweries, Collieries, docks & factories all had examples of smaller radii trackwork and as micros are very popular with the space available to many I reckon would probably sell more than x-large radii.....[snip] Forgot about that. There are some very nice industrial locos around, so industrial layouts are a reasonable bet now. Must admit that my junction to BLT 'L' shape would find more use for small than for extra-large points, although I want to keep minimum radius for anything except light engines to no less than 30", ideally 3'. Edited January 29, 2020 by Richard Lee grammar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted January 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 On 27/01/2020 at 20:15, Gwiwer said: Please please pretty please may we have a diamond crossing with one route curved to match one of the standard curve radii? r/h curve or l/h curve? I agree with you about the need for diamonds with a curved route for double junctions but it needs two, not one. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MPR Posted January 29, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 29, 2020 I’d like see a very tight radius OO set track curve, possibly implemented as inlaid track, somewhere between 6.5” and 9” radius to allow the truly space-starved to have a continuous run for their Barclays and Pecketts plus short wheelbase wagons. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, PaulRhB said: I think small radius would be equally as popular, if not more so, for smaller layouts especially with the Pecketts, Barclays and Terriers etc. Breweries, Collieries, docks & factories all had examples of smaller radii trackwork and as micros are very popular with the space available to many I reckon would probably sell more than x-large radii... 30 minutes ago, MPR said: I’d like see a very tight radius OO set track curve, possibly implemented as inlaid track, somewhere between 6.5” and 9” radius to allow the truly space-starved to have a continuous run for their Barclays and Pecketts plus short wheelbase wagons. There is a logic to this, in that we expect 'main line' locos and stock in reality limited to 5 or 6 chain minimum radius to operate on a minimum radius scaling just under two chains. So why not a similar reduction in model track radii for the small locos capable of negotiating curves down to about two and half chains*, and wagon stock good for one chain or thereabouts? Worth suggesting as there is now a good selection of very short wheelbase locos. *That's my recollection of the minimum plain track radius that UK 0-4-0T would negotiate, someone correct me if wrong. (And if it was produced how often would there be questions posted asking 'How do I get my pacific to go around the new 'inset track' curves?',) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted January 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 hour ago, MPR said: I’d like see a very tight radius OO set track curve, possibly implemented as inlaid track, somewhere between 6.5” and 9” radius to allow the truly space-starved to have a continuous run for their Barclays and Pecketts plus short wheelbase wagons. I'd very much agree about the desirability of inlaid track, either as an insert, or complete track sections. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 8 hours ago, MPR said: I’d like see a very tight radius OO set track curve, possibly implemented as inlaid track, somewhere between 6.5” and 9” radius to allow the truly space-starved to have a continuous run for their Barclays and Pecketts plus short wheelbase wagons. Tillig Luna tram track offers that, at a cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 29, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Butler Henderson said: Tillig Luna tram track offers that, at a cost. I tried the Luna range but to be honest the flat plastic is a bit useless unless you want tarmac and the points aren’t great for 4 wheel stock. I’m looking at replacing all the inserts with embossed foam sheet cut using the Luna parts as templates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, PaulRhB said: I tried the Luna range but to be honest the flat plastic is a bit useless unless you want tarmac . Presumably you got the bitumen/concrete ones rather than the paving stone ones. Note your comment re the points, they do seem to be relatively cheap in comparison to the plain track being around 45% more than a 316.5mm straight compared to normal setrack where the equivalents are around 350% more, or the plain track is very expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now