Streamline Plus Concept

[Harlequin]

In their Spring Report, Peco said they would be seeking ideas about how to develop the Bullhead range and hinted at an even larger radius turnout than the current "Large" parts.

 

However, the Large turnout is already at the limit that is possible within the Streamline ruling geometry (2 inches between parallel tracks and 12 degrees deviation at the joints).

 

If they make a larger radius turnout with a new geometry then I think they would also need to make matching parts using the new geometry so that sensible formations can be created.

 

There are some other issues caused by the current Streamline geometry and so, it seems that a whole new range of compatible parts, based on a new geometry might be a good way to tackle all these issues. Here is my idea:

 

 

 

Example slips and turnouts:

 

 

The range would also include adaptors to make it easy to combine Streamline with Streamline+ parts.

The concept is described fully in this PDF file, which I have sent to Peco:

Streamline+ Concept 11.pdf

 

Disclaimer: I haven't done detailed designs for these parts. The simple turnouts and crossings should not be difficult but the radii of the slips and curved turnouts might need to be altered to make them work. This idea is about the overall concept.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Harlequin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I feel that something on these lines is a very obvious next step. The long established Marcway kit pointwork makes obvious both what is possible and might prove popular enough to be commercially viable in moulded base RTL track. I have a nominal 48" radius double slip from Marcway (essential for Hatfield East side yard) and to say it looks better than the sorry Peco Streamline item is a major understatement. Only 13"/330mm long, it is not huge, and I would hope would sell on looks alone...

 

I hope Peco move in this direction on the BH range, and as early as possible give consideration to an equivalent FB product.

[ColHut]

It seems a nice idea But to be honest I think it has no commercial prospect of success.

 

Given space constraints for most people,  I just cannot see them selling enough of these to cover design costs let alone tooling or manufacture.

 

(A standard length set track piece to convert  streamline spacing points at crossovers to to set track spacing might be a winner though.)

 

Perhaps if focussed on the existing 12 degree range there might be more likelihood?

 

good luck though

 

regards

[tomparryharry]

Try looking at a gauge of 18.83mm. or, 18.5, 18.75, or even 19mm. 

 

"Oooh, there's no commercial demand for that....."  And then , Sir Clive Sinclair invented the pocket calculator, and I put away my slide rule and ready reckoner....

 

Just a thought folks, just a thought.....

[Harlequin]

One of the key drivers of this idea is to produce larger radius turnouts and slips and that's not possible with the Streamline geometry. Remember that Peco themselves have hinted that they are thinking about larger radius turnouts. So this idea is inherently aimed at larger layouts.

 

Having said that, I find that I rarely need to use small radius Streamline turnouts, even in quite restricted layout designs, so I think that the proposed parts could find use on many small to medium sized layouts.

 

Furthermore, if you were building a larger layout, where you currently have to use standard Streamline parts, I think you would choose the smoother Streamline+ system if you had the choice and so they would take over some of the existing Streamline market share.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Harlequin

[Pete the Elaner]

It depends on where Peco feel their market will be.

What is their best selling streamline point? medium or long?

Do they feel that producing longer pointwork with 45mm track centres will tempt enough of those who currently build their own track?

 

45mm track centres are possible with a little cutting on FB track (& on a crossover, it also removes the last sleeper, so all are perpendicular to the running lines, as they should be). A friend has recently done this on a club layout.

[Harlequin]

Here's a plain vanilla BLT model track plan executed in Streamline+

 

 

• Baseboards 9ft by 2ft.
• 4 coach run round.
• Double slip used to trap goods yard.
• Deliberately simple and axis-aligned for clarity.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Harlequin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎23‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 13:19, ColHut said:

It seems a nice idea But to be honest I think it has no commercial prospect of success.

 

Given space constraints for most people,  I just cannot see them selling enough of these to cover design costs let alone tooling or manufacture...

I feel Peco have already tested this in a logical manner. The point they chose to lead with in their BH code 75 is the 'large' radius; which is the most space extravagant point in their existing geometry. My local retailer tells me they have flown out of the shop; and Peco are clearly satisfied that there is a market, because they are continuing development of this product range.

 

There was similar concern that the UK market wouldn't pony up for better RTR OO when the move to Chinese production took hold. Not much doubt that these concerns are history. Now it's RTL track's turn, it lags way behind what we can buy off the shelf  to run on it. (I wince every time Hornby show their 'latest and bestest', photographed on a  track system with its roots in 1950s HO. Lady and the tramp comes to mind.)

 

On ‎23‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 13:19, ColHut said:

...A standard length set track piece to convert  streamline spacing points at crossovers to to set track spacing might be a winner though...

Now that I doubt.  It's actually a minimum of 4 pieces of track required for an 'inserted'  pair of Streamline points arranged as a crossover to fully integrate with set track geometry, as I don't believe any Streamline point matches standard set track lengths, (and it would be a different set of pieces for each radius, and don't you dare try mixing radii on a crossover!). The purchase of a length of flexi and a pack of railjoiners is always going to be way cheaper.

[frobisher]

On 28/03/2020 at 13:44, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Now that I doubt.  It's actually a minimum of 4 pieces of track required for an 'inserted'  pair of Streamline points arranged as a crossover to fully integrate with set track geometry, as I don't believe any Streamline point matches standard set track lengths, (and it would be a different set of pieces for each radius, and don't you dare try mixing radii on a crossover!). The purchase of a length of flexi and a pack of railjoiners is always going to be way cheaper.

 

Actually, I don't think that's what he means.  He just means the spacer between the two points.  It would be a fiddly bit of kit though... 

[Philou]

I read @ColHut post as meaning a short length of track to increase the parallel width from 50mm (non-set track) to 60mm (set track). For example I use 45mm between centres for 'standard' mainline 'six-foot' but when it comes to creating the 'ten-foot' I have to insert a length of plain track of 45mm between points.

 

I would welcome much larger radius points even though they may not match the existing Streamline geometry - a bit of modelling may be required without having to go the whole hog of building your own.

 

This is currently what I do to achieve 45mm track centres:

 

 

and this is what it looks like all set up and ballasted (another similar pair):

 

 

Now if we could achieve that without cannibalising pointwork, I'm all for it.

 

If anyone is interested, they are medium radiused points and when set up there is no problem of rolling stock running through, nor is there any side swiping from long stock with overhang (think Class 800 coaches) joining the mainline.

 

@Harlequin Phil, keep at it with your idea - look what happened when someone was about to launch their own bullhead stuff and mysteriously look what appeared on the market . (The thread is on here somewhere).

 

Cheers and take care out there,

 

Philip

[Pete the Elaner]

14 minutes ago, Philou said:

 

 

 

 

& how much better does that look, especially when running trains along both tracks?

 

14 minutes ago, Philou said:

 

I would welcome much larger radius points even though they may not match the existing Streamline geometry - a bit of modelling may be required without having to go the whole hog of building your own.

 

 

That's the problem. could they still be sold as ready to run? Peco could be inundated with returns from dissatisfied customers.

[Philou]

@Pete the Elaner The stock on the track does look better (but I would say that wouldn't I?). Here is a shot (not very good one I'm afraid) showing the now closed gap between the stock:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

I meant to elaborate that if there was a range of pointwork in the new geometry such as that that Harlequin has shown on his diagram, then provided you choose the trackwork carefully, then there shouldn't be a need to send anything back to Peco. As an example, I need an outside single slip which is available commercially via Tillig. The geometry regarding the crossing angle is not the same as Peco, but fit it will . It happens to suit me that the geometry is different in any case.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Philou
Elaboration

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 hours ago, frobisher said:

Actually, I don't think that's what he means.  He just means the spacer between the two points.  It would be a fiddly bit of kit though... 

The spacer required to bump out to 67mm centres looks simple. But it only works if the rest of the set track geometry is of no concern, and I really doubt that would be the case for the majority of potential customers.

[ColHut]

Off Topic really I suppose, but by way of explanation...

 

Ymmv    I like to mix the set track and streamline, mainly because I end up including the tight curves 2 and 3 radius around the room corners which require set track spacing to avoid 'impacts', the adjacent tracks end  up for ease on the same spacing, but I like to use streamline slips and points and othe fancy point types.  

 

This enables  me to get a level of operational activity I just could not get on a setup with more realistic curves, points, and associated track spacing.  

 

You certainly cannot join a set track point to SL point easily, (you need a short fiddly curved bit)  but a short straight between two SL points is easier.  At those short lengths, I prefer the set track type construction to cut-up flex, as they are more rigid, and have special sleepers at the ends to accomodate the fish plates.  Of course you pay a premium in extra length too for the overall assembly.

 

regards

 

To the main topic, I am just not sure that the money stacks up.  I reckon they would sell more set track slips and three way points if they could or did actually make them.  Another competing geometry would mske some people very happy, and good luck to them, but I wonder what price they would have to bear just for Peco to break even?

 

regards

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

9 hours ago, ColHut said:

...I like to mix the set track and streamline, mainly because I end up including the tight curves 2 and 3 radius around the room corners which require set track spacing to avoid 'impacts', the adjacent tracks end  up for ease on the same spacing, but I like to use streamline slips and points and othe fancy point types.  

 

This enables  me to get a level of operational activity I just could not get on a setup with more realistic curves, points, and associated track spacing.  

 

... I reckon they would sell more set track slips and three way points if they could or did actually make them...

All of the above is frankly an indictment of the very limited UK set track. Check out HO set track systems. My continental cousins all set track layouts had items like double slips and far greater choice of curve radii in 1960! A better system solution is out there if you want it.

[David Stannard]

I would much prefer PECO to focus on small and medium radius points for their Bullhead range, very few people have the large areas of space required to build layouts with large radius points, it might be fine for those doing a terminus or box type run through layout with fiddle yards attached, however there are many people who would like to do a continuous circuit where more compact points would needed. The assumption that the market seems to be more tilted towards large radius points is somewhat skewed, yes there might have been ample sales of the large radius points but that is because they are the only ones available. To get a true measure of the market they would have to have had medium radius points available at the same time, I would bet that they would have outdone the sales of the large radius points at least two to one if not more. I am patiently waiting for more of the range to be released as I really want to build a layout using it, I purchased a length of flexi track when it first came out to see what it was like and made the decision then that I wanted to use it for any future OO Scale layout as it looks so much better than the older streamline track.

Edited April 2, 2020 by David Stannard

[LBRJ]

Don't get me wrong here, i love Peco track  - it is robust, works every time and there is a lot of choice.... (and as a company they have done more for our hobby than anyone else in the last lots of years IMO)

But their idea of "large"  isn't really all that large - one of their OO large radius points is more or less a B6  - thats quite small and tight in reality.

[Joseph_Pestell]

A B6 with a 45mm centre-to-centre is much the same length as a Peco "large" radius point. But the frog angle is much less (9.5 degrees) and that gives a much better appearance as trains traverse a crossover.

I understand the wish for a "medium" radius to save space but a "small" '2ft radius with that sleepering is going to look awful.

[ColHut]

13 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

All of the above is frankly an indictment of the very limited UK set track. Check out HO set track systems. My continental cousins all set track layouts had items like double slips and far greater choice of curve radii in 1960! A better system solution is out there if you want it.

 

 

To be honest, I was tempted, but started ' in the mddle' as it were.

 

regards

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, David Stannard said:

...The assumption that the market seems to be more tilted towards large radius points is somewhat skewed, yes there might have been ample sales of the large radius points but that is because they are the only ones available. To get a true measure of the market they would have to have had medium radius points available at the same time, I would bet that they would have outdone the sales of the large radius points at least two to one if not more...

Consider this as a research probe though. It will cost pretty much the same to tool up any point: going for the most space hungry in their current range gave Peco  information about whether the demand is sufficient to 'think larger yet'. And I feel they have the answer.

[Night Train]

I think you need to have the slips and points with the same radius. Also, Y points need to be the same radius on each side, so all are compatible with each other and no adaptor tracks are needed.

[Guest WM183]

A three way bullhead point would be very useful! 

[Dungrange]

Whilst I can see a market for a larger radius point, I can't see Peco jumping to a whole new system as suggested, when they look to be expanding the current bullhead range.  As such, I think it would be more likely that they would stick with the same 2" (50.8 mm) track centres and just change the crossing angle.  This would make any 'extra large' turnout incompatible with the current small, medium and large points when making more complex formations, but would allow a crossover formed from two extra large turnouts to still fit with the rest of the range.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, Dungrange said:

...As such, I think it would be more likely that they would stick with the same 2" (50.8 mm) track centres and just change the crossing angle...

Does seem probable. You never know, if this does transpire they might just add a cutting guide moulded on the underside of the sleepers for those wanting to cut them down for 44mm centres.

[Harlequin]

Shallower angles with 51mm track centres means longer parts. Reducing the track centres, keeps the lengths under control and, of course, is more prototypically correct and sits better with the Bullhead drive towards authentic looking UK format trackwork.

It's much easier to add a straight section (or a curved section) to achieve 51mm spacing than it is to cut parts down to achieve 45mm.

Cutting marks for use with the suggested 9:12 adaptors are described in the PDF above.

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Harlequin