PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[ColHut]

That looks pretty good to me. I am guessing it will be cheap too.

 

regards

[coachmann]

Thanks for posting. Resembles C+L hi-rail with its thick sleepers so a guaranteed match up with existing Peco Code 75 track and turnouts. I think pegs in chairs are a first though and it could almost be taken for 0 gauge Peco.

[The Bigbee Line]

Interestingly the web has the minimum of joining pieces to give maximum flexibility.  Not just flexibility by also the smoothness of any curve, looks nice.

[gismorail]

Now that looks like the business and the rail appears to be secure in the chairs, simple, functional with a good prototype appearance.  Good old Peco knew they would do the business.       

[Coryton]

Looks nice.

 

When will they be doing the concrete sleepered version?

[Jeff Smith]

You would have to ballast pretty heavily to hide the webs. I would stick the sleepers down then cut away the webs to give plenty of light under the rails after ballasting.....

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Hmmmm, those are the oddest chairs I've ever seen.  4/10 from me.

 

 

I know there are many variations on chairs, screws, bolts etc etc but I'm willing to bet there's no track that looks like the Peco.  

 

[87004]

Peco on Twitter - I can't wait to get a piece to try ( ie look at )

 

"Coming Soon: OO scale Bullhead Track. This pic is of the first sample off the machine."

 

https://t.co/3nbxF9YWyw

 

image.jpegimage.jpeg

Looks good enough to eat, wonder whether they've moulded it out of Chocolate? ;-)

[bertiedog]

Not like the real track? then just buy another make to suit. It looks OK as it is a general purpose track, and must be modified somewhat to take 00 wheel flanges.

Peco must be congratulated on the product, but the make or break will be the points availability,

Stephen

[James Harrison]

Well it looks well enough but when I compare it to the DCC Concepts track I've bought to try out, there's something I can't quite put my finger on that doesn't look right.  Maybe it is the proportions of the sleepers- to my eye they look too deep and too narrow-, the very obvious webbing or that the rail looks to be elevated quite some distance above chairs and sleepers.  Maybe it is a combination of all three.

 

So I'm not entirely convinced.  Still, if Peco can get a decent range of bullhead pointwork out quickly, I imagine it will prove quite popular. 

[Coryton]

Hmmmm, those are the oddest chairs I've ever seen.  4/10 from me.

 

I know there are many variations on chairs, screws, bolts etc etc but I'm willing to bet there's no track that looks like the Peco.  

 

At a guess, they know what chairs should look like but they also know what they can make that they can sell at a reasonable price and is as robust as their existing range.

[gr.king]

If ready to use (or almost ready to use) points are forthcoming, these being crucial in my view to final usefulness of this new track, then it think it will be a trifle unrealistic to make any serious complaint about chairs not being entirely prototypical. Something that doesn't look quite right when studied in a macro photograph can still look entirely acceptable from a normal viewing distance and will be, for many, miles better than the alternatives of blobs of solder, or the painstaking and time-consuming use of individual chairs.

Edited October 7, 2016 by gr.king

[bertiedog]

How on earth can the sleeper thickness look too deep? it is ballasted up to the top of the sleeper, or about ,3/.5 mm shy of the top, which will cover the webbing correctly if scale size ballast is used. the only possible issue would be cost of extra ballast, but this is very marginal unless the layout is vast.

 

The thickness of the sleepers with Peco is to ensure a match to existing track via convertor pieces or fish plates, there is no way they are going to adjust the thickness and no need.

Sleeper length might be an issue, but I expect that it will satisfy most modellers, and give compatibility.

The inside of the chairs are smaller than the DCC type, but DCC will not take as wide a variety of flanges sizes as Peco should, given we can't test this yet.

I have used the DCC Legacy track on test and it works, but the N/S rail is in my opinion better than stainless steel, it solders better, and is more easily machined for points etc.

Also the Peco track is to the standard 16.5 mm gauge, not adjusted or inclined.

I assume the track fish plates remain the same as current Peco, the DCC legacy seem to have an advantage in having bolt detail, but they use six bolt not four, a strange choice for a track claiming accuracy in the finer details.

I for one will be using the Peco Bullhead track as soon as it is available.

 

Stephen.

[James Harrison]

I plan on buying a length for 'a play' and conduct a fair test against the DCC track.  Fundamentally though, the first to get RTL bullhead points to market will be the winner.  Certainly given a choice between 'looks perfect but no points yet if at all' vs 'has issues but also a full range of turnouts', I know which range I'd go for. 

[Going2theDogs]

I also saw this promoted by my local retailer as 'coming soon'.

My current project has stalled in anticipation of this new Peco track.

Looks to good to me.

[hayfield]

How on earth can the sleeper thickness look too deep? it is ballasted up to the top of the sleeper, or about ,3/.5 mm shy of the top, which will cover the webbing correctly if scale size ballast is used. the only possible issue would be cost of extra ballast, but this is very marginal unless the layout is vast.

 

The thickness of the sleepers with Peco is to ensure a match to existing track via convertor pieces or fish plates, there is no way they are going to adjust the thickness and no need.

Sleeper length might be an issue, but I expect that it will satisfy most modellers, and give compatibility.

The inside of the chairs are smaller than the DCC type, but DCC will not take as wide a variety of flanges sizes as Peco should, given we can't test this yet.

I have used the DCC Legacy track on test and it works, but the N/S rail is in my opinion better than stainless steel, it solders better, and is more easily machined for points etc.

Also the Peco track is to the standard 16.5 mm gauge, not adjusted or inclined.

I assume the track fish plates remain the same as current Peco, the DCC legacy seem to have an advantage in having bolt detail, but they use six bolt not four, a strange choice for a track claiming accuracy in the finer details.

I for one will be using the Peco Bullhead track as soon as it is available.

 

Stephen.

 

 

Given what is available from Peco at the moment this is a great step forward for the average 00 gauge modeller who for what ever reason  will only buy Peco track. Lets face it I doubt if the mainstream will ever build a track system with 2 or 4 bolt chairs.

 

To me after all the replies from the ready to lay modellers (nothing wrong with this) who have been defending the currant range and style of Peco trackwork (3.5 mm scale and no chairs), or just do not care about it. Its a pleasant change for modellers wanting something better to go under their rolling stock. I would have bet that Peco would have always gone (what I would call)  mainstream with the design. using their well tested track base design and chairs that will work with the widest choice of wheels, their market is the mass market and should be designed strong enough to be taken up and re-used

 

Those wanting something either closer to scale or specific to an era or region will have to go another route, which may involve building the track yourself

 

I would like to think a range of turnouts will follow along with concrete track, perhaps with the cost like with rolling stock increasing as the choice gets wider and lower projected sale volumes

[hayfield]

I plan on buying a length for 'a play' and conduct a fair test against the DCC track.  Fundamentally though, the first to get RTL bullhead points to market will be the winner.  Certainly given a choice between 'looks perfect but no points yet if at all' vs 'has issues but also a full range of turnouts', I know which range I'd go for. 

 

James

 

In the long term the winner will be the company who can get the sales coverage at the right price !!

[bertiedog]

It may have reached pre-production, but nobody is offering pre-orders or notifications of stock and prices as yet. I hope it's only weeks away rather than months.......

Stephen

[martin_wynne]

Hmmmm, those are the oddest chairs I've ever seen.  4/10 from me. 

 

A problem with all model bullhead track is that for manufacturing reasons the web thickness of bullhead rail is significantly overscale.

 

This means that it is not possible for the inner chair jaw to snug up into the web in the prototype fashion. With the result that it is very likely to catch on model wheel flanges (and does do so on some existing makes of bullhead track).

 

If a scale sized inner jaw is simply reduced in height to clear the flanges it becomes very flimsy and unable to hold the rail firmly. The only way to get more material into the inner jaw is to depart from scale appearance.

 

It's not possible to judge how successful Peco have been in this regard without seeing it painted and ballasted.

 

Martin.

[gr.king]

The new image of the actual track from Peco does not suggest to me quite the same "narrow footed flat bottom rail" cheat that was implied by the earlier computer generated cross-section artwork, although the nature of the new image makes it difficult to judge. How are others seeing this feature?

[coachmann]

Let's fact it, this will become the UK's standard track where Flat-bottom track is not required.

[Derekstuart]

Martin,

 

As you know better than most, C&L/E have managed to make moulded chairs that look about right and indeed their flexi bases are a lot more realistic than Peco.

 

Is the difference just that this Peco track is designed to run code 100 wheels, even if the rail is nominally code 75?

 

BTW for an experiment- I have just re gauged a redundant 1980s Hornby axle from my newly S4'd Pacer and ran it down a P4 ply and functional chair length of track and it didn't hit the inner jaw of the chair once. Perhaps there's another reason to do with manufacturing that CLE can mould these chairs to this accuracy and Peco cannot. Odd.

 

 

EDIT: The above was just an observation on my part, not Peco bashing. Clearly this track is aimed at some but not all sectors of the hobby.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Derekstuart

[Wheatley]

Perhaps there's another reason to do with manufacturing that CLE can mould these chairs to this accuracy and Peco cannot.

Peco is moulded with the rail in situ, C&L is rail threaded on to separate track bases so grips the rail a little tighter because the chair itself is in tension. That's also the reason the C&L sleepers eventually lift in the middle if you don't glue every single one down, whereas Streamline will stay flat with just the odd pin in it*. If you intend to sell it in the quantities Peco do then hand finishing is prohibitively expensive, length for length C&L is 45% dearer than Streamline.

 

*(Yes I'm aware that's not recommended practice with flexi but it does stay flat.)

[martin_wynne]

Martin, As you know better than most, C&L/E have managed to make moulded chairs that look about right and indeed their flexi bases are a lot more realistic than Peco. Is the difference just that this Peco track is designed to run code 100 wheels, even if the rail is nominally code 75?

 

BTW for an experiment- I have just re gauged a redundant 1980s Hornby axle from my newly S4'd Pacer and ran it down a P4 ply and functional chair length of track and it didn't hit the inner jaw of the chair once. Perhaps there's another reason to do with manufacturing that CLE can mould these chairs to this accuracy and Peco cannot. Odd.

 

Hi Derek,

 

I can't speak for C&L or Peco.

 

The C&L and Exactoscale tooling was made by Len Newman, a skilled toolmaker. It was intended for low-volume production, and the track is assembled by hand at C&L.

 

It is however known that some wheel flanges (Lima?) catch on the C&L chairs.

 

The Peco track is presumably designed for much higher volumes, and will be assembled by machine (or robots?). Also the rail section is different, and Peco will want to allow for all likely wheel flanges.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Peco is moulded with the rail in situ,

 

That's true for pointwork, but I very much doubt that it is done that way for flexi-track. It would require a massive moulding machine to do a yard length in one go, and if done in sections, some incredibly complex tooling. Also as the polymer shrinks on cooling it would grip the rail, and I very much doubt it would remain easily flexible.

 

Also, for insert moulding, Peco use a special flat-bottom rail section which has no web (simple inverted T-section). That's not feasible for bullhead -- which is probably the greatest challenge facing them in making the bullhead pointwork at their usual prices.

 

I'm still expecting the bullhead pointwork to use the existing insert-moulded flat-bottom metalwork for the inner rails, with bullhead for the stock rails only. Egg on face awaits.

 

Martin.