RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2016 Isn't it a bit odd to only have three chairs supporting the check rails? Andy there is no sense in pointing out prototype inaccuracies in this topic, you will only get ridiculed as some sort of weird track nerd. Yes, there should be at least 4 and probably 5 chairs for the check rails. And the end flares should be much longer/gentler. Imagine if Hornby produced an 0-6-0 loco with only 4 wheels. The uproar on RMweb would be deafening. But as it's only track it doesn't count as a model. All Peco pointwork has ludicrously short check rails. I think it is a design feature to help with wheels which are a bit tight on back-to-back. However, this seems to be a handbuilt mock-up on a 3D printed base, so the final production may look very different. Peco do know about bullhead track, their 0 gauge turnouts are a quite decent representation (with 4-chair check rails). Martin. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2016 Yes, there should be at least 4 and probably 5 chairs for the check rails. And the end flares should be much longer/gentler.. However, this seems to be a handbuilt mock-up on a 3D printed base, so the final production may look very different. Peco do know about bullhead track, their 0 gauge turnouts are a quite decent representation (with 4-chair check rails). Martin. May I suggest you both politely point this out by email to Peco with a positive about the O gauge comparison. Avoid words like 'ludicrous' though as it just looks like a rant. They respond very positively to positive critique in my experience. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 The point blades in this EP and the one behind appear to be solid rail pivoted in rail joiners. I hope this is close to the final configuration. However, having used Micro Engineering On30 points with a similar arrangement it may not be robust enough to uphold the Peco reputation. There again, perhaps the market for this more representative track will be aware of this and accept the fragility for the sake of improved appearance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bri.s Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Is it a full assortment of points they'll be bringing out straight away ?or just one or two to start with Did the announcement say when they will be doing the curved points and slips ? Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) May I suggest you both politely point this out by email to Peco with a positive about the O gauge comparison. Avoid words like 'ludicrous' though as it just looks like a rant. They respond very positively to positive critique in my experience. Peco don't need to have it pointed out. They know what they are doing, they have been producing track for 60 years. If they decide to make a mass-market product rather than a scale model, it is by intent. And probably very sensible too, if they want to be around for another 60 years. My criticism was not of Peco, but of modellers who apply a different set of standards to track from that applied to other models (their free choice), but who complain bitterly if anyone points this out. Martin. Edited November 26, 2016 by martin_wynne 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) I don't think I'll be complaining. If I was to complain.....it would be about the lack of decent figures compared to say HO. Or appallingly modelled roads and road markings. (Comes of being a Traffic cop I guess). I have seen many an alleged scale model spoilt by the lack of both. Edited November 26, 2016 by BlackRat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 I don't think I'll be complaining. If I was to complain.....it would be about the lack of decent figures compared to say HO. Or appallingly modelled roads and road markings. (Comes of being a Traffic cop I guess). I have seen many an alleged scale model spoilt by the lack of both. Yes, it is I believe a fact of life that we all tend to concentrate on what interests us on layouts - this may be an argument for group layouts but then there is the 'designed by committee' drawback..... For example signalling doesn't mean much to me but is an essential part of safe and proper railway operation - perhaps that is one reason I'm modelling the Glyn Valley Tramway, multiple engines in steam and no signals! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted November 26, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 26, 2016 The track looked good and robust as well. Track apparently in production and will be shipped to dealers in a couple of weeks. Points Easter 2017ish but depends on how tooling turns out. Solenoids will clip underneath as currently. Prices will be higher than existing range due to complexity of tooling - not sure they have been fixed yet. . Looks very good! I commented that we had been waiting a long time for this and response was that it would not have been possible to make tooling previously. Here is the track as well: Keith 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgman Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) One of the stands I failed to visit, did anyone notice if the switch rails on the proposed turnouts are one piece from the isolation to the frog or as per their currently manufactured units which pivot ? ( I hope I've explained that correctly ! It's been a long day zzzzzzz) Edited November 26, 2016 by bgman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted November 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 27, 2016 Isn't it a bit odd to only have three chairs supporting the check rails? Yes, there should be at least 4 and probably 5 chairs for the check rails. And the end flares should be much longer/gentler. I think the problem is because this "large radius" point's radius is too small, and they would be better making B6 or C8 points (or both). Maybe this is what they plan to do after the range is started with this one which matches the existing code 75 flat-bottom points, so that everyone can be happy with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going2theDogs Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Hi all, I spoke to the guys on the Peco stand today at Warley who confirmed the new 00 gauge track work will be available before Christmas (hopefully in the next couple of weeks). With regards to the pointwork, the are looking to introduce the large radius (straight) points initially. No news on curved points or slips but I guess if the take up is good these will follow in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted November 27, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 27, 2016 One of the stands I failed to visit, did anyone notice if the switch rails on the proposed turnouts are one piece from the isolation to the frog or as per their currently manufactured units which pivot ? ( I hope I've explained that correctly ! It's been a long day zzzzzzz) The picture I posted (#1596) looks like a solid rail, however as has been pointed out it is only a prototype so what comes may be different. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Andy there is no sense in pointing out prototype inaccuracies in this topic, you will only get ridiculed as some sort of weird track nerd. Yes, there should be at least 4 and probably 5 chairs for the check rails. And the end flares should be much longer/gentler. Imagine if Hornby produced an 0-6-0 loco with only 4 wheels. The uproar on RMweb would be deafening. But as it's only track it doesn't count as a model. All Peco pointwork has ludicrously short check rails. I think it is a design feature to help with wheels which are a bit tight on back-to-back. However, this seems to be a handbuilt mock-up on a 3D printed base, so the final production may look very different. Peco do know about bullhead track, their 0 gauge turnouts are a quite decent representation (with 4-chair check rails). Martin. Hi Martin, My bad of course, but Clive dared me. A missing axle is an extreme example. It usually only takes the wrong number of spokes Andy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Here is the track as well: bullhead track.jpg Keith This really does look good. The overall proportions seem about right at an angle that many layouts are viewed from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dominion Posted November 27, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 27, 2016 Did they say anything about the geometry of this first turnout ? E.g. More like their current "large" or their code 83 or something else ? Thanks, Tom Hi all, I spoke to the guys on the Peco stand today at Warley who confirmed the new 00 gauge track work will be available before Christmas (hopefully in the next couple of weeks). With regards to the pointwork, the are looking to introduce the large radius (straight) points initially. No news on curved points or slips but I guess if the take up is good these will follow in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Did they say anything about the geometry of this first turnout ? E.g. More like their current "large" or their code 83 or something else ? Thanks, Tom I'm popping down there later, I'll attempt to get some dimensions. Frankly, and speaking entirely selfishly, this new product is the single most important 'unblocker' to starting my major project*, so ultimately it will be the defining geometry for what I'm up to over the next couple of years. * RTR carflats are on the Oxford stand as EP samples, so I understand , and I have my fleet of Heljan Claytons, so all needs catered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 That's because the sleepers are sooo far apart! Hat, coat etc. Or check rails too short !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 Slightly OT but Peco (track) related. Last year they promised a motorised tuntable (or modified kit). I noticed one on the stand, I even operated it, but was unable to see any attached labels or other info about it. Does anyone know? Stewart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted November 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 27, 2016 This is such a leap forward from the current stuff we have. I've seen a couple of the shots from Warley, I will purchase a few lengths plus some turnouts for St. Breward. Well done Peco! Regards, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 In defence of Peco and its subsidiaries, they have released quite a few new items recently and I guess the track is a bit of a rush job and may have delayed other projects a bit By the way regarding the code 100 flat bottom rail (for 0-16,5 project) is it still folded from a flat strip or drawn from a bar or rod now, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) By the way regarding the code 100 flat bottom rail (for 0-16,5 project) is it still folded from a flat strip or drawn from a bar or rod now, thanks A bit from some secondhand OO track I've just looked at must be drawn, as there is no visible join. I wasn't aware that it had ever been folded. Edited November 27, 2016 by BG John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren01 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) I hope they keep the blade and stock rail gap on the narrow side, code 75 point you can drive a bus between them. Will be getting a lot of thier meters track, as i will buildthe oints myself for my new layout. Edited November 27, 2016 by darren01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 A bit from some secondhand OO track I've just looked at must be drawn, as there is no visible join. I wasn't aware that it had ever been folded. Dunno about the plain rail. I've always assumed it was all drawn. However, having dismantled some old Peco turnouts (not having had prior experience of their 00/H0 offerings), I was surprised to find the point blades to be fairly crude folded thingies. It rather torpedoed my original intention of using them in 0 gauge industrial trackwork to avoid filing long tapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 I do so hope they try to keep the single blade and not go back to pivoting, if they can retain at least some of the robustness in testing. I love the look and angle v radius v length of Tillig points and bought four of them for a layout several years ago, but their fragility on the tie and the near impossibility of repair (by me, anyway) put me right off. Hence I have used Peco ever since and am trialling code 83 #8 to get the better angle (8 degs v 12 degs) without the unreliability of Tillig but need to disguise the North American look, but would gladly experiment with single blade Peco 75 for the sidings - life is a compromise, but the hinge joint spoils the look even more than the non-prototypical passage of bogie vehicles through the current 75 range, even the largest radius, because the angle is still too severe within the length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 I had a decent talk with the peco person about the point. Firstly it's very much an EP. He mentioned that there is a significant challenge designing it to be suitable for moulding. So I suspect the final article could be quite different. The one in the case looked 3D printed to me He confirmed geometry will be identical to existing code 75 FB. So presumably all the various " gaps " will be also indentical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts