PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Bomag]

Amazing, isn't it? I found the speculation on this thread quite amusing as well as totally unproductive, so I took the trouble of asking Peco three specific questions. Not for the benefit of RMWeb, but for the simple benefit of me... and how I would wish to use the track. How horribly selfish of me. Two questions I have the answer to, the third, well I'm none the wiser and will have to wait and see. My mistake? Mentioning anything at all on this thread. I do kinda resent the implication that I'm bragging about something. I published the content of a reply from Peco some time ago and received little but grief from certain RMWebbers. You all win, I'll delete the original post and let you go back to your pointless frothing. As Manuel was fond of saying... "I know nothing".

 

So what were the three questions and what were the answers? I have no problem with you asking questions relavent to you but since these may also be relavent to other then it may be helpful relaying what PECO said.

[martin_wynne]

Amazing, isn't it? I found the speculation on this thread quite amusing as well as totally unproductive, so I took the trouble of asking Peco three specific questions. Not for the benefit of RMWeb, but for the simple benefit of me... and how I would wish to use the track. How horribly selfish of me.

 

That's not selfish.

 

The selfish part is announcing here that you had done so.

 

Martin.

[81C]

I see the handbags are out on this thread just like other thread it becomes boring, it's way these sorts of thread really take away the enjoyment of coming on this site. RANT OVER. 

[Mod4]

Please can we refrain from potentially / perceived inflammatory / personally posts and keep this thread to civil discussions on the announcement itself. 

 

Many thanks, i won't even mention my diodes...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Not the diodes, please not the diodes.......

 

Regards,

Peter (suitably reprimanded)

[Junctionmad]

I dont think PECO will release anything as kits.  I suspect that they have already done the design for the point work and know they can insert mould the track.

 

I still dont quite understand the geometry issue.  whether you make a say crossover out of a 36" large radius PECO point or you make it from a B7 etc , hardly makes much of a difference , yes having variety of crossing angles can be useful , but its hardly a big issue for the majority of 00 modellers

 

dave 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Excellent idea Mike - hope Andy takes it up.

 

I must admit I don't like the "I know something you don't know" attitude of some. Thought one of the aims of RMweb (if it has any) is for modellers to freely share information.

 

I should perhaps make clear that I have not spoken to Peco (although perhaps I should). I just happen to know that several people have and, unusually, got quite detailed replies.

 

As to them sharing that info here, they may not be able to if told something in confidence.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......As to them sharing that info here, they may not be able to if told something in confidence.

 

In which case, there's no harm in saying that.

I'm sure 99.99% would accept that they were duty bound to maintain confidentiality.

 

 

.

 

 

.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have just added a post to my blog on new range of BH track and pointwork.

[martin_wynne]

I have just added a post to my blog on new range of BH track and pointwork.

 

Sigh. Sometimes I think it should be illegal to post to RMweb without at least one link.

 

Here we go: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1945/entry-17252-new-oo-track-and-pointwork/

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

I had to travel to Doncaster and back from King's Cross on business yesterday and was surprised just how much BH track there still was in various sidings etc. even those with OHE. Some of the yards had FB points with BH plain track. I've probably seen it before but hadn't paid it so much attention. 

OT but Doncaster (where I've never actually alighted before) seems remarkably well served with trains. With four to six an hour to London I didn't even need to consult the timetable. I did though omit to buy a bottle of Henderson's Relish and I've almost run out. 

[Pacific231G]

I once likened it to school playground behaviour, but someone took the hump and I received a notice from the headmaster.

Well we do still play with toy trains (even those that run on 18.87mm track) and there's an awful lot of Top Trumpery in the hobby.

[hayfield]

I have just added a post to my blog on new range of BH track and pointwork.

 

 

Joseph

 

Well done and I look forward to seeing them

[hayfield]

I dont think PECO will release anything as kits.  I suspect that they have already done the design for the point work and know they can insert mould the track.

 

I still dont quite understand the geometry issue.  whether you make a say crossover out of a 36" large radius PECO point or you make it from a B7 etc , hardly makes much of a difference , yes having variety of crossing angles can be useful , but its hardly a big issue for the majority of 00 modellers

 

dave 

 

Dave

 

The problem Peco (and others) have is being able to use a turnout either as a stand alone unit or part of a formation. For them its not the case that X number of folk want an A6 turnout, no problem making it but if two are put together to make a crossover the track centres will be too wide, likewise for a junction with a turnout and diamond crossing.

 

The good thing about the currant range is the crossing angles and size of the turnouts and crossings work perfectly within formations but do not look their best when used on their own.

 

For the track builder you splice the turnouts and crossings together (at the planning stage) for formations. The average user of Peco turnouts would not want to go and cut up new turnouts and crossings to fit

[Junctionmad]

Dave

 

The problem Peco (and others) have is being able to use a turnout either as a stand alone unit or part of a formation. For them its not the case that X number of folk want an A6 turnout, no problem making it but if two are put together to make a crossover the track centres will be too wide, likewise for a junction with a turnout and diamond crossing.

 

The good thing about the currant range is the crossing angles and size of the turnouts and crossings work perfectly within formations but do not look their best when used on their own.

 

For the track builder you splice the turnouts and crossings together (at the planning stage) for formations. The average user of Peco turnouts would not want to go and cut up new turnouts and crossings to fit

Yes I know john, thats why I dont understand some looking for REA turnouts.  I suspect its because they dont understand the issues maybe ??

[Mike Storey]

Really, you don't want to know.

 

A midnight knock on the door, airlifted to Beer and this;

 

image.jpeg

 

I knew Camp X-ray was there! Look! That's the old Seaton Tramway trackbed.....

[coachmann]

I dont think PECO will release anything as kits.  I suspect that they have already done the design for the point work and know they can insert mould the track.

 

I still dont quite understand the geometry issue.  whether you make a say crossover out of a 36" large radius PECO point or you make it from a B7 etc , hardly makes much of a difference , yes having variety of crossing angles can be useful , but its hardly a big issue for the majority of 00 modellers

 

dave 

Dave, you say you dont understand the geometry. I used Peco Code 83 large radius points to make a crossover on a previous layout (Greenfield Junction) and showed the difference between it and a Code 75 crossover on RMweb at the time (since deleted). I also laid a double junction using Code 83 medium radius points and the long diamond. The angle of the diverging line was far less acute than had bene with Code 75.

 

I liked the appearance of trains as they negotiated these points as it was quite similar to some handbuilt Marcway points I had in stock at the time. The track centres were the same as with Peco Code 75/100 as far as I can recall.

Edited February 4, 2016 by coachmann

[clecklewyke]

Junctionmad, on 03 Feb 2016 - 15:01, said:

indeed and I expect this is exactly what PECO will give them.  existing geometry in bullhead with matching timbering to their new  bull head rail

 

 

 

If they do that I for one will not buy any.

 

If they don't do that I for one will not buy any.

 

 

[Junctionmad]

Dave, you say you dont understand the geometry. I used Peco Code 83 large radius points to make a crossover on a previous layout (Greenfield Junction) and showed the difference between it and a Code 75 crossover on RMweb at the time (since deleted). I also laid a double junction using Code 83 medium radius points and the long diamond. The angle of the diverging line was far less acute than had bene with Code 75.

 

I liked the appearance of trains as they negotiated these points as it was quite similar to some handbuilt Marcway points I had in stock at the time. The track centres were the same as with Peco Code 75/100 as far as I can recall.

well, I understand what Hayfield was saying.  I mean as I construct my own ( copper clad in the past) you sort out the geometry by adjusting the inter crossover track to suit.  ( and by using transition curves etc ) But you cant do that really in PECO. or more correctly few of its buyers would want that .  if you use different crossing angles that you will have newbies making up strange geometries.  

 

but I except your word it looks better .  but  i dont see why the average PECO 00 user would want to stray from code 75 geometry 

 

I mean look at Grantham , is the geometry giving issues , i dont think so

Edited February 4, 2016 by Junctionmad

[jonny777]

I have just added a post to my blog on new range of BH track and pointwork.

 

 

All I can say is, if your ready made pointwork is in any way compatible with the new Peco b/h plain track, then I am up for lots of large radius straight and curved turnouts in the future (loft conversion pending).

[MikeTrice]

Last ones, completing my prediction for the Small, Medium, Large versions of Peco Code 75.

OO Code 75 v3.pdf

[Derekstuart]

Do you mind me asking what your problem is with REA designs? You have mentioned it previously.

 

Perhaps I am failing to understand the issues; certainly I cannot understand yours.

 

(genuinely interested and not provoking an argument)

Yes I know john, thats why I dont understand some looking for REA turnouts.  I suspect its because they dont understand the issues maybe ??

[Junctionmad]

Do you mind me asking what your problem is with REA designs? You have mentioned it previously.

 

Perhaps I am failing to understand the issues; certainly I cannot understand yours.

 

(genuinely interested and not provoking an argument)

It's not that I have anything " against " REA standardised turnout designs. It's that I can't really see the point of not using PECOs existing geometry. It should be pointed out , that in itself REA is not the same concept as the geometry of PECO. Peco would still have to standardiise REA based point work to ensure that its geometry worked out.

 

My own hand built stuff is REA , but the issues are somewhat different for RTL track work , I'd contend

 

Perhaps Martin Wynne might be best placed to comment here.

 

To some extent it's all irrelevant as presumably PECO. Have made up their mind.

[martin_wynne]

Perhaps Martin Wynne might be best placed to comment here.

 

I would if I knew what you want me to say?

 

The Peco geometry uses a curviform crossing (frog) on the large radius turnouts so that the exit angle is 12 degrees on all sizes. This allows them all to be interchangeable with each other, like toy set-track. The prototype doesn't use curviform crossings for crossovers, because of the excessive reverse curve and end-swing at the centre, as Coachmann has pointed out several times. Also of course the prototype wouldn't use an angle as sharp as 12 degrees for crossovers and slips, etc., except for industrial sidings. Peco do that to make the turnouts much shorter.

 

The REA (Railway Engineers Association) prototype bullhead designs were introduced in 1925. For the Code 83 range Peco have used the NMRA standard designs which are not strictly prototypical either, although more closely based on the AREA 1942 designs (American Railway Engineering Association). Those are not very prototypical for the UK, based on 11ft and 16ft-6in loose-heel switches with 6.1/4" offset.

 

Peco have already said that the new track will be "compatible with the existing Code 75 flat-bottom range" so it seems to have been decided anyway. There is no way an REA turnout could be so described, unless Peco have invented a new version of English.

 

Martin.

Edited February 6, 2016 by martin_wynne

[coachmann]

Thanks Martin for breathing some fresh air onto this thread.