PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Junctionmad]

The difference in attitude towards track and locos is easily explained - substantial numbers of the people who collect the latter regard the former purely as something to stand/run trains on. Well down the pecking order behind even coaches and wagons which are often ignored almost as badly as track. 

 

The OO scale/gauge anomaly throws up other issues and there is a perfectly valid argument that, if your track is to HO gauge, everything about it should be to HO scale.

 

If the gauge is to the 3.5mm scale dimensions and the sleepers are made and spaced to 4mm scale size, the proportions of the track will be wrong for both, drawing attention to the discrepancy rather than disguising it and creating a distinctly "narrow gauge" look.

 

My own preference is for biggish layouts with an emphasis on operation so I take more interest in the trains and what they are doing. My interest in track is biased towards performance rather than (within reason) appearance or detail considerations.

 

When well ballasted and weathered, Peco FB Streamline (the Code 75 version, at least) really doesn't look as bad as a lot of people make out.

 

When I look at smaller layouts where relatively little happens, the track becomes a much more noticeable part of the whole. Given the small amount of "infrastructure" involved, such layouts are natural territory for EM or P4 rather than OO.  

 

John

 

I think the successful existence of " proper " 00 trackwork , from C &L and SMP disapproves your argument.

 

You are correct in relation to well laid and weathered FB PECO 75 , But , especially for steam era , well laid and weathered BH to 00 proportions will " look even better ".

 

As for large layouts , any perusal of the larger P4 layouts will disprove your theory. Great looking track is just that.

 

It's a funny perspective , never mind the rolling stock , but people will spend countless hours detailing model buildings , yet make little effort to make the track look right.

 

To this end , RTL bull head WITH a range of suitable point work , will be an easy way to improve the look without too much effort and that's great

 

Dave

[hayfield]

The difference in attitude towards track and locos is easily explained - substantial numbers of the people who collect the latter regard the former purely as something to stand/run trains on. Well down the pecking order behind even coaches and wagons which are often ignored almost as badly as track. 

 

The OO scale/gauge anomaly throws up other issues and there is a perfectly valid argument that, if your track is to HO gauge, everything about it should be to HO scale.

 

If the gauge is to the 3.5mm scale dimensions and the sleepers are made and spaced to 4mm scale size, the proportions of the track will be wrong for both, drawing attention to the discrepancy rather than disguising it and creating a distinctly "narrow gauge" look.

 

My own preference is for biggish layouts with an emphasis on operation so I take more interest in the trains and what they are doing. My interest in track is biased towards performance rather than (within reason) appearance or detail considerations.

 

When well ballasted and weathered, Peco FB Streamline (the Code 75 version, at least) really doesn't look as bad as a lot of people make out.

 

When I look at smaller layouts where relatively little happens, the track becomes a much more noticeable part of the whole. Given the small amount of "infrastructure" involved, such layouts are natural territory for EM or P4 rather than OO.  

 

John  

 

 

John I totally agree with you that with small layouts, which normally viewers get closer to has to have a higher level of detail, chaired turnouts etc. Larger layouts tend (but not always) to be less detailed as you are taking in a larger viewing area, with trackwork this is where copperclad construction comes into its own with flowing trackwork to the scale the layout is built to. 

 

I do not mean to offend those who use H0 modular track systems, but if showing a layout to a scale/gauge my view is that all should be to that scale/gauge combination

 

OK locos may well be head and shoulders above coaches and rolling stock, BUT the best in coaches and wagons to 00 gauge are head and shoulders above track

[hayfield]

Ron Ron Ron

 

Sorry if I misunderstood the point you were trying to get across, but these pages are full of those making excuses for track of both the wrong scale/gauge combination and era.

 

Whilst I can accept that a representation of bullhead rail is better than fully blown flatbottom. The scale/gauge combination, along with sleeper spacing to match plus chairs is important for steam era 00 gauge stock, as 00 gauge flatbottom track is for modern era.

 

Now the modular format they have may be fine for some For me the geometry is also important which may be difficult for a rtr integrated track system.

 

I can accept others for what ever personal reasons chose to differ from my views.  

[HeeleyBridge]

When cameras and film were expensive and model railway magazines used helicopter views, trackwork was hardly ever seen. You only ever saw other peoples layouts at exhibitions and getting close wasn't easy.

 

With digital photography and almost everybody taking endless close up track level photographs of wonderfully detailed locomotives, rolling stock and buildings, poor trackwork started to stand out more. 

 

Anyone remember the P4 advert with the 8F? Can you tell Stork from butter?

[Jamiel]

The difference in attitude towards track and locos is easily explained - substantial numbers of the people who collect the latter regard the former purely as something to stand/run trains on. Well down the pecking order behind even coaches and wagons which are often ignored almost as badly as track. 

 

The OO scale/gauge anomaly throws up other issues and there is a perfectly valid argument that, if your track is to HO gauge, everything about it should be to HO scale.

 

If the gauge is to the 3.5mm scale dimensions and the sleepers are made and spaced to 4mm scale size, the proportions of the track will be wrong for both, drawing attention to the discrepancy rather than disguising it and creating a distinctly "narrow gauge" look.

 

My own preference is for biggish layouts with an emphasis on operation so I take more interest in the trains and what they are doing. My interest in track is biased towards performance rather than (within reason) appearance or detail considerations.

 

When well ballasted and weathered, Peco FB Streamline (the Code 75 version, at least) really doesn't look as bad as a lot of people make out.

 

When I look at smaller layouts where relatively little happens, the track becomes a much more noticeable part of the whole. Given the small amount of "infrastructure" involved, such layouts are natural territory for EM or P4 rather than OO.  

 

John  

I totally agree.

 

There is also the time consideration, the only option for those who wish to work with all/mostly RTR items is the Peco (or similar manufacturers track). Yes there are kits for correctly gauges points but they will take a lot of time and skill to master and make reliable. I would have loved to make kit points for my layout, but considering that it took me 2 1/2 months to detail my Hornby Crosti 9F, then with the amount of time I have available,there would be no way I could have a layout that I could run in any reasonable time frame. I would prefer to concentrate on buildings and rolling stock in the time I have for the hobby. Perhaps at some future point those buildings and stock will get transferred to a layout with a higher grade of track. I have to allocate the time I have to spend on my hobby sensibly, and in my case that does not allow for kit building points.

 

I greatly admire many of the P4, EM, etc. more accurately gauged layouts, there is an awful lot of skill that has gone into making many of them. I do not agree that these are always superior though, as there are some layouts and detailed models that have strived for accuracy, but has no feel for what they are recreating. OO gauge also has a slight advantage in that the slightly narrower bogies and trucks allow for tighter curves to be modelled (hidden if necessary) when modelling space is a major consideration.

 

However you achieve a greater level of accuracy, either scratch, kit built, or improvements in the quality of RTR items is to be applauded, but it is not the only consideration for many modellers.

 

Accuracy verses feel is a decision I face constantly in my work, film effects, and this discussion raged over a sequence for a film I worked on last year. For story purposes we needed to see a blue sky outside a window in a dining room, but if the shot had been done without visual effects (green screen beyond the windows) then the natural exposure of the camera would simply have burned the windows to white. That would have been accurate, but it would not have told the story that the film was telling. Had the film been a documentary on how to expose a camera, the choice would have been different. Different modellers make choices over their priority with their work, and some wish to create a feel of a place, and some wish to make a completely historical record in exact scale. Each choice is valid, and the methods to reproduce that will differ.

 

Jamie

[coachmann]

Track is everything, but not in the way some people talk about it. A visually fine layout in whatever scale and gauge is merely a diorama if performance is crap. Real trains glide along and I want my models to do the same, however, having tied myself into the convenience of Peco I have to accept their point geometry and watch my locos making sharp right and left hand turns. If Code 75 and 100 points were to the later Code 83 geometry I would be a happy man indeed, but they ain't. All of a sudden I fear the new bullhead points will be like Code 75 & 100. 

 

So as I have said, track is everything and once 'operation' is sorted I can then and only then look at everything else that layouts require. I have detailed my reasons for adopting Peco Code 100 before, but briefly my DCC locos do not stall on it anywhere as often as they do on Code 75 Peco points and bullhead track. I eventually put it down to the wider Code 100 railhead and more surface contact with wheel treads. It is a proven product outdoors and as a shed replicates outdoor conditions it is the track for me. DCC can be infuriating, but as I wouldn't consider a layout without it's controlability and sound, I am being pragmatic. I used Code 100 back in 2006 before joining RMweb, so it is easy to see when influences started.  'Playing to the gallery' is no longer my bag. But if I had the space to build an in-house layout in a controlled environment, then of course I would use the new Peco bullhead track system.

Edited January 31, 2016 by coachmann

[t-b-g]

A couple of very interesting comments there.

 

I agree 100% about the new era of digital photography. It seems to me that some modellers are no longer content with what looks good to their eyes, they have to have something that looks good to a camera that can focus down to a few millimetres and will allow a sharp image to be blown up to many times life size.

 

On one of my layouts I took the trouble to search out correct P. Way drawings for the prototype I was building. I had sleepers specially produced because my prototype uses 14" wide sleepers through points. I handbuilt all the points to the correct pattern of sleepers, with the right sized sleepers and correct pattern chairs. And nobody has ever noticed. It is perhaps a good job that I do my modelling for my own satisfaction first, rather than to impress others!

 

So I would suggest that for most modellers, a "close enough" generic track, without the need for details like keys facing the correct direction, is probably enough.

 

Also, track work that is more accurate in terms of sleepers etc. will always be a let down if it is badly laid, painted and ballasted, with dodgy running as a result.

 

I would much rather have less accurate track, well laid, ballasted and painted and with good running.

 

Best of all is if we can have both together. Up to now that has required some input from the modeller in terms of building points.

 

Hopefully, if a range of good looking points (by which I mean of a radius suitable for model railways rather than train sets) then Peco might have made the sorts of layouts that could only be produced by handbuilding to be available to anybody.

 

The track will still need careful laying, painting and ballasting but the sorts of people who care enough to want to build good looking layouts won't be put off by that. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

C&L can of course , , for a few dollars more, satisfy that urge today  

And ditto SMP, which I have purchased and used, and very well it looks too. But neither of these businesses look likely to produce a range of plastic base RTP points of the proven robustness of Streamline and at a non-stratospheric price,,, 

[newbryford]

Marvelous! I was just lamenting the passing of bullhead track the other day, then discovered that Brighton platform 8 is still all bullhead!

 

Question, would this new track be ok for older models like Wrenn and 1970s Hornby? 

 

Peco have announced that the new BH track will match up to their existing Code 75 range, so if the older stock doesn't run on that, then it's not looking good.

 

Lima wheels with their "pizza-cutter" flanges aren't too keen on Peco Code 75 as they bounce through the shallow flangeways, but a quick spin in a power drill with a small file is the easy way to cure them! (It's a rough, but very cheap solution)

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited January 31, 2016 by newbryford

[martin_wynne]

And ditto SMP, which I have purchased and used, and very well it looks too. But neither of these businesses look likely to produce a range of plastic base RTP points of the proven robustness of Streamline and at a non-stratospheric price,,, 

 

On the other hand, DCC Concepts may well do so (and possibly before Peco).

 

Richard Johnson has all but said so:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27283&view=findpost&p=433634

 

Martin.

[RBAGE]

On the other hand, DCC Concepts may well do so (and possibly before Peco).

 

Richard Johnson has all but said so:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27283&view=findpost&p=433634

 

Martin.

I think we've already been there.

[Southernman46]

Marvelous! I was just lamenting the passing of bullhead track the other day, then discovered that Brighton platform 8 is still all bullhead!

There's lots of it still out there .......................

 

A mere 15 years ago, there was still 5 chains of BH in the Down Main at Vauxhall (carrying some 15+ million tonnes a year) - only removed by the renewal of the Xovers

[Dunsignalling]

I think the successful existence of " proper " 00 trackwork , from C &L and SMP disapproves your argument.

 

You are correct in relation to well laid and weathered FB PECO 75 , But , especially for steam era , well laid and weathered BH to 00 proportions will " look even better ".

 

As for large layouts , any perusal of the larger P4 layouts will disprove your theory. Great looking track is just that.

 

It's a funny perspective , never mind the rolling stock , but people will spend countless hours detailing model buildings , yet make little effort to make the track look right.

 

To this end , RTL bull head WITH a range of suitable point work , will be an easy way to improve the look without too much effort and that's great

 

Dave

The reason for the success of C&L, SMP etc, is because it looks better than the alternative, not because it is dead right (which is not achievable in OO).

 

I don't dispute for one moment that BH Streamline will probably do likewise as well as reaching users who may never have heard of the more specialist suppliers. I will almost certainly use it myself. 

 

The excellent track on larger P4 layouts tends to reinforce rather than disprove my 'theory' - on any large layout, the track is (relatively) ignored because there is so much else to draw the eye - P4 is, perhaps, for the average spectator, something of a waste of effort in such circumstances. Unless track-work is of especial interest to an onlooker, it comes fairly low in the order of things he will notice on a layout featuring quality stock, well-executed buildings/scenery and competent operation. 

 

On the other hand, small "shunting planks" and the like often need something a bit special in the P.Way Dept. because [a] there may not be too much else to look at and the viewer is usually closer to it.

 

The other variables which come into play are height of baseboards (track, good or bad, is far less prominent on high ones) and viewing angle; if the only way the layout can be observed is across the tracks, (e.g. in most 'proscenium arch' set ups) neither the quality or the gauge of it is generally obvious unless one is really trying to see it.

 

Model railways are a form of theatre; an exhibition layout is the set upon which the actors (trains) make their entrances and exits and (hopefully) tell a story. As with normal drama, it has more to do with an illusion of reality than reality itself. Part of that is presenting it in such a way as to emphasize the best aspects and draw the observer's attention away from whatever editing of reality has been used to create the illusion.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

Peco have announced that the new BH track will match up to their existing Code 75 range, so if the older stock doesn't run on that, then it's not looking good.

 

Lima wheels with their "pizza-cutter" flanges aren't too keen on Peco Code 75 as they bounce through the shallow flangeways, but a quick spin in a power drill with a small file is the easy way to cure them! (It's a rough, but very cheap solution)

 

Cheers,

Mick

I must admit that what little Lima stock I own (mostly NPCCS vehicles) has been re-wheeled (usually re-bogied, too) so this isn't an issue for me. My GWR railcar runs Ultrascales, my remaining diesels (two) have new Hornby Railroad mechanisms and my Bubble car has its name down for a Black Beetle.

 

However, I think that owners of vintage model trains of all kinds who want to keep them in original condition accept the need to use the equally "vintage" track (Code 100) that was designed to work with them. There is no suggestion that this will cease to be available in the foreseeable future.

 

Peco's target market for new products is the current market, always has been. Their new BH track system will, quite correctly, be designed to produce good running quality with the models of today. Attempting to make it "universal" would only compromise that.

 

Regards

 

John     

Edited January 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Junctionmad]

 

 

The excellent track on larger P4 layouts tends to reinforce rather than disprove my 'theory' - on any large layout, the track is (relatively) ignored because there is so much else to draw the eye - P4 is, perhaps, for the average spectator, something of a waste of effort in such circumstances. Unless track-work is of especial interest to an onlooker, it comes fairly low in the order of things he will notice on a layout featuring quality stock, well-executed buildings/scenery and competent operation. 

 

well lets agree to disagree, If you look at large P4 layouts like Adavoyle etc , You see the whole panorama and its just " looks " right, The track flows and sweeps like the real thing, the details, while individually are not noticeable from any distance, nevertheless, add to whole look of the layout.  Detail is always beneficial 

 

Dave 

Edited January 31, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Peter Kazmierczak]

For me, it's the whole picture which makes an effective model railway. Everything is of a similiar standard - nothing stands out like a sore thumb. You should be able to tell the location without any rolling stock on it.

 

A sense of place, that elusive railway atmosphere, operation in a railway-like manner; those are the sorts of thing that make a model railway realistic.

 

Some layouts have truly excellent trackwork, yet they leave me cold because they look just too perfect - track not weathered, the goods yard looks as well-kempt as the mainline.

[martin_wynne]

Model railways are a form of theatre

 

That is simply a personal opinion, although I often see it asserted as a fact.

 

For me, and I suspect for quite a few modellers, a model railway is a form of engineering. A miniature transport system to be operated and enjoyed as exactly that, not an attempt to create an illusion of something else. That's why for me the 00 track gauge is 4ft-1.5in, and not a pretence to be something else.

 

Here is a picture which reminds me of many happy evenings enjoying this hobby, but as a form of "theatre" it fails utterly. No-one there at the time ever thought it should or could be such a thing. See the clutter around the room, my red storage box at the back? And the bit of perspex to protect the signal from bumps?

 

 

Martin.

[Dunsignalling]

That is simply a personal opinion, although I often see it asserted as a fact.

 

For me, and I suspect for quite a few modellers, a model railway is a form of engineering. A miniature transport system to be operated and enjoyed as exactly that, not an attempt to create an illusion of something else. That's why for me the 00 track gauge is 4ft-1.5in, and not a pretence to be something else.

 

Here is a picture which reminds me of many happy evenings enjoying this hobby, but as a form of "theatre" it fails utterly. No-one there at the time ever thought it should or could be such a thing. See the clutter around the room, my red storage box at the back? And the bit of perspex to protect the signal from bumps?

 

 

Martin.

Engineering and methodical operation are all part of the whole and , in your case, may be enough (Adavoyle is one of my all-time favourites on that basis).

 

Adding a backscene to hide all the clutter would create a more complete illusion of reality (which you may or may not consider to be "theatrical") and also protect the signal in a less obtrusive way. That's just not practical if (as it appears) you need/wish to view/access the layout from both sides, and every layout is designed around the priorities of its builders/users.  

 

I too consider my interests to be primarily constructional/operational (though to nothing like the standard you achieve) but am keen to embrace more aspects of the hobby so long as they don't get in the way.

 

A layout of the size and scope of Adavoyle speaks for itself but many of us have no alternative to 4' 1 1/2" gauge if we are to model an operationally satisfying slice of railway in the space we have available.

 

 However, in the case of smaller exhibition layouts built with proscenium arches, what other purpose is there but to draw the eye towards certain features, away from others and create the conditions for a "performance"? 

 

Regards

 

John

Edited January 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[hayfield]

well lets agree to disagree, If you look at large P4 layouts like Adavoyle etc , You see the whole panorama and its just " looks " right, The track flows and sweeps like the real thing, the details, while individually are not noticeable from any distance, nevertheless, add to whole look of the layout.  Detail is always beneficial 

 

Dave 

 

 

Not just in P4, Pendon & Liverpool Lime street both to EM gauge and have highly detailed trackwork.

 

Equally on the other hand I have seen large layouts (including some 00 gauge) with copperclad turnouts where the track laying has been of the highest standards, not as detailed as chaired track but very well executed

 

When it comes down to it, a well built layout is a well built layout, what both styles have in common is flowing trackwork, something that the modular style of RTR trackwork available to date fails to achieve. Lets hope if Peco introduce 00 gauge turnouts and crossings they will use the same considerations they have used with the new flexitrack

[Junctionmad]

Not just in P4, Pendon & Liverpool Lime street both to EM gauge and have highly detailed trackwork.

 

Equally on the other hand I have seen large layouts (including some 00 gauge) with copperclad turnouts where the track laying has been of the highest standards, not as detailed as chaired track but very well executed

 

When it comes down to it, a well built layout is a well built layout, what both styles have in common is flowing trackwork, something that the modular style of RTR trackwork available to date fails to achieve. Lets hope if Peco introduce 00 gauge turnouts and crossings they will use the same considerations they have used with the new flexitrack

I entirely agree John, I only  picked  a P4 layout cause it jumped into my mind 

[Derekstuart]

Mr Hayfield

 

You didn't rant about anything. Please don't apologise for having your own viewpoint. A viewpoint that seemed well balanced and sensible, if I may say so.

[Derekstuart]

Perhaps you should have a look at P4newstreet.com

 

Separately, a wise man who frequents these discussions once wrote that "one of the problems with railway photos is that when they are taking photos of the track they wait until a locomotive is in the way." I cannot disagree and at the last exhibition I was at I got quite irritated by them keep running trains over the top of the track that I was looking at.

 

Perhaps the only reason that so many people don't take more interest in track is because they don't realise how un-realistic most RTL stuff is.

 

The excellent track on larger P4 layouts tends to reinforce rather than disprove my 'theory' - on any large layout, the track is (relatively) ignored because there is so much else to draw the eye - P4 is, perhaps, for the average spectator, something of a waste of effort in such circumstances. Unless track-work is of especial interest to an onlooker, it comes fairly low in the order of things he will notice on a layout featuring quality stock, well-executed buildings/scenery and competent operation. 

 

On the other hand, small "shunting planks" and the like often need something a bit special in the P.Way Dept. because [a] there may not be too much else to look at and the viewer is usually closer to it.

 

[Junctionmad]

 

I dare anyone to admit that good track work isn't important in the overall model.

 

Yes, a few, can model to this level of realism.  but I suggest that everyone would like to " aspire" to it.  

 

Better  track is always  better, even if we compromise in what we model because , lets face it most us have to.

 

But the point still stands. Trackwork is as much part of railway modelling as a finely detailed loco is 

 

 

 and Martin, This is finely engineered theatre !!

 

dave

Edited January 31, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Dunsignalling]

Dave

 

I didn't, and wouldn't, suggest that really good track isn't effective, or desirable for all sorts of reasons.

 

What it isn't (unjustly) is terribly high in the order of things the average punter notices at an exhibition.

 

Equally, if not more unjustly, many (like me) who do notice it, often take it for granted within the overall context of a quality layout.

 

There is a gap between aspiration and achievement into which those who lack the ability/confidence/time/inclination to build their own, (and) can't afford to pay someone else to do so, or are just unaware of the alternatives, fall.

 

The new track (and inevitably, points) on the way from Peco will never fill that gap for the trackwork aficionado but should narrow it significantly for a lot of other people.

 

Ultimately, the reasons so many used, and continue to use, FB Streamline are simple; it works reliably, it's readily available, not 'scary' and the time it saves often makes the difference between having trains running on a layout and remaining in their boxes or a display cabinet.

 

The original Streamline succeeded commercially because it made the "average" layout look "better". If the new BH variety can repeat the trick; that will be no small achievement.

 

Regards

 

John

Edited February 1, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[coachmann]

We go lineside to watch trains, not gaze at the track. Same with railway modelling. The people who do look at track are usually P4 modellers who see nothing else! Beautifully detailed trackwork with every conceivable detail from point rodding to electrical trunking and everything in between. And when a train comes along it's a  cut & shut DMU with lozenge glazing or a re-wheeled RTR loco with RTR coaches passing RTR wagons. Each to his own..... 

Edited February 1, 2016 by coachmann