KalKat Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think that Peco investigating bullhead track that has a more UK look is a good thing. I have a friend who will be building a layout that will be OO. We investigated the price (C+l/SMP/Exactoscale) and they nearly fell over. Hopefully Peco can do their bullhead at a better price and will be easier to source as they already have many stockists. I find it very disappointing that we as a group must argue over stupidities rather than see what will be a positive thing for our hobby. If there is sufficient interest Peco will look to making points/turnouts to suit. As many people's layouts take months or years to come to fruition, surely waiting a little until these become available is acceptable as long as we know they are coming. What is needed from us is support for the idea, not dissent and gripes. Contact Peco, say yes please! Then we will have another option. Moan gripe and whinge on here and new track won't happen Emma 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 31, 2016 As for the Peco track affecting C&L and SMP's sales, perhaps, but difficult to say without knowing just how much they sell of OO gauge track. I would think it is their least selling items, and their core business is the EM and P4 buyers. I don't exactly recall when and where now, but at some point C&L (either Brian Lewis or Pete) stated (by percentage IIRC) how much track they sold. IIRC EM and 00 were pretty much evens, give or take, with P4 making up the last 5-10%. It was a while back, so my memory may have faded though. HTH Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2016 I am much less sure where your contributions fit in, for all their evident quality, but that may be a lack of understanding on my part or explanation on yours. It may be that you can make this clear to me. Happy, as ever, to be led by the hand to the bright sunny uplands of enlightenment. I was brought up to believe that knowledge is like a fine pocket watch; you only take it out and show it when someone asks the time. Well now I am asking you the time. I'm not clear what you are asking me? This topic had largely fizzled out after 29 pages, until someone revived it. Since when it has mainly been a repeat of what went before. The substantive discussion was at the start of the topic, so your best course is to re-read the first few pages. My contributions have in the main been to respond to posts which I felt contained misunderstandings. See for example: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2180482 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-2&do=findComment&comment=2180524 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/page-33&do=findComment&comment=2253564 I'm happy to leave my bat and ball for others to play with, and here they are again: ______________ As far as can be determined from Peco's published information, the new track will be 4ft-1.5in gauge track with sleepers 8ft long and 10 inches wide, at 2ft-4in centres, using a modified version of BS-95R bullhead rail, and modelled at 4mm/ft scale. 2ft-4in centres corresponds to 26 sleepers per 60ft rail, which spacing was used on curved track below 20 chains radius, and also elsewhere on soft ground: Some on here obviously find this information troubling. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Accurate model of fictitious track or compromised model of real track? Actually, it's both; the only difference lies between the ears of the beholder. Doesn't trouble me in the slightest. If it did, I wouldn't still be using 00 and I think I'd be safe in betting that Martin never has (or certainly hasn't for a very long time). John Edited March 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) An analysis of predicted dimensions based on published versions of drawings and photos, which may or may not have been published with preserved aspect ratio, and which may or may not represent the final intentions of Peco is rather unreliable anyway. Hence there is so far no proof whatsoever of Martin's "Case 2, narrow gauge" and I am in no way disappointed, especially as my analysis of the same unreliable sources of information supported "Case 1, HO" almost equally well. It doesn't matter how many times the "imagine it's a narrow gauge prototype" propaganda is repeated. I, and the vast majority I'm sure, will still consider that we are modelling four feet one (ooops, eight) and a half inches, but to a necessarily compromised scale. If that upsets those who like to consider themselves guardians of purity of engineering practice, I do hope they can live with it. Its only a model after all, not a precision research instrument. Edited March 31, 2016 by gr.king Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) I am not sure of the reason for, or benefit of, the insistence that Peco has announced the production of a 4mm scale model of a fictitious 4ft-1.5in gauge track, rather than of 4mm scale track to an inaccurate 16.5mm gauge, the latter being how, I suspect, many of us understand OO gauge track. At any rate, these are two ways of describing the same thing and I am not sure that the less conventional description really adds much, save that it will help preserve the peace of mind of any P4 modellers I encounter, because now I can tell them that my model is of a prototype that adopted 4ft-1.5in gauge. What gauge is 4mm scale EM track a model of, I wonder? Actually, on second thoughts, I don't. I don't know whether the sleepers, chairs and FB rails used on Peco's current Code 75 range are to 1/76 scale or 1/87 scale, and I don't much care because the size and spacing of the sleepers do not assist with the necessary illusion that this is 4mm scale track, so it looks functionally HO to me. In contrast to C&L and SMP (and Peco's announced OO Bullhead) track, I find it convenient to refer to Peco's current range as HO track, because that description conveys the essential difference that concerns me. Also, I just can't be bothered to qualify everything to the nth degree all the time. Where I think you score, Martin, is in providing measurements, dimensions, spacing etc for the announced Peco track. This may help some people assess whether they are likely to find the track suitable. If we had similar information to hand in relation to C&L and SMP track, it may even be possible to assess whether the Peco track is likely to be compatible with other ranges. Presumably this would be of significance as other ranges will needed to supply the pointwork! Edited March 31, 2016 by Edwardian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lochlongside Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think that Peco investigating bullhead track that has a more UK look is a good thing. I have a friend who will be building a layout that will be OO. We investigated the price (C+l/SMP/Exactoscale) and they nearly fell over. Hopefully Peco can do their bullhead at a better price and will be easier to source as they already have many stockists. I find it very disappointing that we as a group must argue over stupidities rather than see what will be a positive thing for our hobby. If there is sufficient interest Peco will look to making points/turnouts to suit. As many people's layouts take months or years to come to fruition, surely waiting a little until these become available is acceptable as long as we know they are coming. What is needed from us is support for the idea, not dissent and gripes. Contact Peco, say yes please! Then we will have another option. Moan gripe and whinge on here and new track won't happen Emma Couldn’t agree more KalKat (I will email Peco today ) but with one exception – the wait. As a railway muddler with aspirations and having bought a trial sample of Peco test code 75 plus one curved turnout I too then turned to something that "looked" better - C&L, as unlike SMP they do attend shows, but was concerned (understatement) at box price relative to equivalent Peco from Hattons inc p&p. However was then lucky enough to get a C&L pack during their last sale. That was problem one solved and at not too much of a premium, but the current cost of C&L turnouts is something else – Most of us actually need turnouts as we build, even if we (well I) take a lifetime to build so I have now been forced (!) to make them using Templot plus ply sleepers etc etc. It would have been marvellous if Peco had at least announced that they were going to do say a Large Radius RH and LH turnout at the same time as the plain track. That would have shown that it is worth waiting. However as after 39 pages, the discussion on plain track can get a bit repetitive can I in a spirit of mischief toss another brick into the pond and ask for the debate to broaden. What standard of (large) turnout should Peco provide 1:7, 1:8 or 5 foot radius and what standard should it be built to - OO-SF or standard (?) OO, and the curved turnouts?, and the track spacing for crossovers? (bearing in mind some lucky people now own Mark3 coaches or APT-E and will be running them round said curves??).We should be able to reach pp120+ in no time (and drive Peco to distraction at the same time) 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KalKat Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Ooooo ..... you're a 'bad' man Lochlonside ................ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2016 At any rate, these are two ways of describing the same thing and I am not sure that the less conventional description really adds much It may not add much for the end user, but it is significant for the designer. And the poor forgotten toolmaker. How wide is an 00 gauge bullhead chair? How long is the switch rail for an 00 gauge B-size switch? If you are modelling a known prototype at a known scale, it's easy. If you are modelling some in-betweeny compromise, all you can do is stare out of the window and hope for inspiration. If we had similar information to hand in relation to C&L and SMP track, it may even be possible to assess whether the Peco track is likely to be compatible with other ranges. It has all been posted on RMweb many times and endlessly discussed. Not again now, surely? And not by me. I'm off to stare out of the window. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidH Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I, and the vast majority I'm sure, will still consider that we are modelling four feet one and a half inches, but to a necessarily compromised scale. One and a half? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think we all know that now. We understand what you mean. Or in modern parlance "we get it." An analysis of predicted dimension based on published versions of drawings and photos, which may or may not have been published with preserved aspect ratio, and which may or may not represent the final intentions of Peco is rather unreliable anyway. Hence there is so far no proof whatsoever of Martin's "Case 2, narrow gauge" and I am in no way disappointed, especially as my analysis of the same unreliable sources of information supported "Case 1, HO" almost equally well. It doesn't matter how many times the "imagine it's a narrow gauge prototype" propaganda is repeated. I, and the vast majority I'm sure, will still consider that we are modelling four feet one and a half inches, but to a necessarily compromised scale. If that upsets those who like to consider themselves guardians of purity of engineering practice, I do hope they can live with it. Its only a model after all, not a precision research instrument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2016 If we had similar information to hand in relation to C&L and SMP track, it may even be possible to assess whether the Peco track is likely to be compatible with other ranges. Presumably this would be of significance as other ranges will needed to supply the pointwork! p.s. Bear in mind that soon these may not be the only alternatives. DCC Concepts have said that their 00 bullhead flexi-track will be "ready soon", and we have been led to believe that matching ready-to-use pointwork is in the pipeline. This is likely to be based on prototype geometry rather than Peco geometry. I know Richard Johnson has been amassing prototype data to that end. And Joseph Pestell of this parish is working on his projected range of 00 bullhead pointwork. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 p.s. Bear in mind that soon these may not be the only alternatives. DCC Concepts have said that their 00 bullhead flexi-track will be "ready soon", and we have been led to believe that matching ready-to-use pointwork is in the pipeline. This is likely to be based on prototype geometry rather than Peco geometry. I know Richard Johnson has been amassing prototype data to that end. And Joseph Pestell of this parish is working on his projected range of 00 bullhead pointwork. Martin. I have been aware of Mr Pestell's project, which has my full support. I was not aware of the DCC concepts plans. Useful, thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 It's the couplers that bother me in OO gauge. Nothing looks right to me except three link couplers. Can somebody invent working three links couplers without buffer lock please If you reduce the track gauge to something like 16.2mm it will help a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) If you reduce the track gauge to something like 16.2mm it will help a lot. Or increase the back-to-backs to 14.7 - 14.8mm. Edited March 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropTheTap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The dimension of the outside edges of the wheels is a very important dimension, particularly on a model steam locomotive with outside motion. 00 was aimed at the train-set market, and that is why 00 became so prevalent. Train-sets require wide wheel treads and deep flanges to allow the equipment to run on small radius curves and over irregular surfaces, and I seem to remember that products from Hornby and Tri-Ang were very effective at meeting that requirement. If 00 had adopted a wider gauge it would still have required over-scale treads and flanges and the wheel faces, running gear, splashers etc would have moved outwards. You can observe this effect on RTR H0 steam locomotives. Personally, I think 00 steam outline locomotives look much better. My objection is that I keep reading posts that decry 00 as being somehow inferior. Perhaps the requirements of 60 years ago are no longer applicable, but that's no reason to say that there was anything wrong with 00 when it was originally promoted by Hornby and Tri-Ang. Like I said, I wasn't quite sure which dimension you were getting at and truthfully, I'm still not 100%. Either way I'll absolutely accept your point about running quality and wheel/ tread thicknesses when OO was first promoted. I don't think OO is in any way inferior at all, it's just not accurate in terms of the prototype gauge. However it makes a model steam train look is a (happy, in this case) side effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropTheTap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 If you reduce the track gauge to something like 16.2mm it will help a lot. What, really?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 An analysis of predicted dimension based on published versions of drawings and photos, which may or may not have been published with preserved aspect ratio, and which may or may not represent the final intentions of Peco is rather unreliable anyway. Hence there is so far no proof whatsoever of Martin's "Case 2, narrow gauge" and I am in no way disappointed, especially as my analysis of the same unreliable sources of information supported "Case 1, HO" almost equally well. It doesn't matter how many times the "imagine it's a narrow gauge prototype" propaganda is repeated. I, and the vast majority I'm sure, will still consider that we are modelling four feet one and a half inches, but to a necessarily compromised scale. If that upsets those who like to consider themselves guardians of purity of engineering practice, I do hope they can live with it. Its only a model after all, not a precision research instrument. Oh dear. It ain't propaganda, and it's not a "necessarily compromised scale". Scales work in three dimensions. If the track was built to a different scale, it would look like a 1:87 scale model of UK bullhead track. It doesn't (and I can show you what that looks like if you would like to see it.) Presumably PECO intends it to be (mainly) used in conjunction with UK 00 equipment from the likes of Hornby, Bachmann and many other suppliers which is built to a scale of 1:76.2. That equipment is designed to operate on 16.5 mm gauge track. I sorry that you find it so offensive that 16.5 x 76.2 = 1,257.3 but there isn't anything any of us can do about that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 What, really?? Actually, yes. There is a lot of side clearance between 00 wheel flanges and 00 gauge track, and that allows short wheel-base wagons to "crab" when they are being propelled. That is one of the causes of buffer-lock. Reducing the gauge minimizes that particular effect, but there are other factors involved. As Dunsignalling points out, an alternative is to increase the back-to-back dimension. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropTheTap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Yeah but no but that's not true is it? I think that what Andy was saying is that the distance between the outer face of the wheels and the rest of the loco IS important-filling the splashers and looking from anywhere but side-on. If the wheels etc were dead-on for 16,5 mm gauge, but to P4 standards then the loco may look more unrealistic. Ed Yes, it kind of is. What keeps a model (and prototype locomotive) on the track is the back to back measurement of the wheels, flange to flange. Certainly, wheels have to be a certain thickness in order to maximize ride on the gauge corner, but the outside to outside dimension is an irrelevance. As I said a minute ago (and if I could figure out how to multi quote, I would have done it!), how OO gauge makes a steam locomotive look in terms of realism is a happy (in this case) side effect, and one which I hadn't considered. Yet I've seen some *very* realistic looking kettles in P4... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropTheTap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Actually, yes. There is a lot of side clearance between 00 wheel flanges and 00 gauge track, and that allows short wheel-base wagons to "crab" when they are being propelled. That is one of the causes of buffer-lock. Reducing the gauge minimizes that particular effect, but there are other factors involved. As Dunsignalling points out, an alternative is to increase the back-to-back dimension. I'm struggling to grasp the concept of taking something that's prototypically inaccurate and making it worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 it's not a "necessarily compromised scale". Good news for all OO users. Better than I'd hoped, in fact. Not sure which of the 3 dimensions that works in, but still, sounds cheery! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 31, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2016 I'm struggling to grasp the concept of taking something that's prototypically inaccurate and making it worse. I can see that you would be if you were to narrow the gauge but you are moving closer to scale if you increase the b-t-b. Either action has the effect of reducing the slack that is inherent in the interface between r-t-r 00 wheels and track. The result is that wagons don't crab (so much) as they travel along the track so their angle relative to each other stays more consistent and buffer locking is less likely. Suitable b-t-b gauges used to be obtainable from the Double O Gauge Association but I'm no longer a member so can't confirm if that is still the case. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I'm struggling to grasp the concept of taking something that's prototypically inaccurate and making it worse. I'm obviously wasting my time. "Worse" implies there was something inherently wrong with it in the first place. As it's obvious you will never really be satisfied with 00 I suggest you toss everything you have in the bin, and start over in P4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropTheTap Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I'm obviously wasting my time. "Worse" implies there was something inherently wrong with it in the first place. As it's obvious you will never really be satisfied with 00 I suggest you toss everything you have in the bin, and start over in P4 "Worse" in this case means more inaccurate. You are narrowing a gauge that is already too narrow by prototype standards. And I will state once again: I have no problem with OO gauge. I model in OO gauge and am very happy with it. However I also accept the fact that it is not prototypically accurate. Whether you consider this as "wrong" is up to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts