PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[hayfield]

I don't buy the cost argument on tooling costs, as the tools only last a certain time and Peco has in house facilities, production cost however if the process needs additional work may push the price up

 

They will sell thousands of yards of track and turnouts, like golf there is a certain type of modeller who must have the latest models. Peco will have a field day selling them, and it is a marketing managers dream

 

They are a sleeping giant, I guess as someone has said previously in this thread, the put up if not encourage the smaller manufacturers, but when their core business is threatened they spring into action

 

The little I have seen of the prototype is encouraging, just needs the check rails altering

[No Decorum]

... being able to mass produce it may mean losing the single blade and returning to a pivot.

I hope not. Getting rid of the pivot would be a major step forward. To my mind, it is much more obvious than matters of proportion.

[Mad Carew Too]

Great news.  To have some Peco engineered track that will look the part and complement the high quality steam outline releases of Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan and DJM.  Good news indeed.

[Edwardian]

It's all a question of the degree of compromise.

 

For instance:

 

• If I want to do my layout of a life time really properly, I'd could not even use C&L or SMP flexi-track, because I'd need to hand-build C&L track using 2-bolt chairs to represent the Great Western.

 

• If I want to do it really properly, I'd do ditto in EM.

 

• If I wanted to do it really, really properly, ditto in P4.

 

For most of us, most of the time, however, a fairly generic 16.5mm gauge ready-to-lay track system with BH track chaired on wooden sleepering to a better proportioned length and spacing would do the job.  Peco will put a big fat tick in that box to the benefit of us all. 

[bertiedog]

£41 for an O gauge point......we'll need a defibrulator on this topic soon.

it was not serious, just max and min!! I expect they will be competitive pricing, as they usually are.

[chris p bacon]

it was not serious, just max and min!! I expect they will be competitive pricing, as they usually are.

I'm sure it won't be too much more but I do get the impression that some want it to be the same price as the existing which I can't see it being.

 

I used Exacto which worked out at about £6.50 a metre (bulk buying) which was more than twice the cost of Peco (if I accepted it), one person who has visited and seen it said he wouldn't pay the extra as he thought it was "too expensive" and yet for his layout the extra cost would have added no more than £25 to the overall spend, and yet every time he visits he says he prefers the prototypical look.  If Peco price near a fiver for a length I wonder how many will still buy the existing range as it's cheaper.

[RBAGE]

Did anyone at Warley ask at the Peco stand about the timing of track and points availability?

 

When in 2017?

[chris p bacon]

Did anyone at Warley ask at the Peco stand about the timing of track and points availability?

 

When in 2017?

See the relevant posts what with Peco were prepared to say

 

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.  

 

 

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.

[martin_wynne]

When in 2017?

 

The 2018 part of 2017.

 

Reading between the lines, they don't yet know how they are going to do the tooling. This was just a mock-up.

 

Bullhead is an order of magnitude more difficult than flat-bottom for any sort of automated mass-production. Without that, prices are going to be similar to 0 Gauge.

 

Martin.

[lapford34102]

 

The little I have seen of the prototype is encouraging, just needs the check rails altering

 

Agree, if they are going to do this they might as well do it thoroughly. Even Farish's Formoway from the 60's got this right.

 

Stu

[Jeff Smith]

But as I understand it from the DCC Concepts statements in that thread the P&C versions will be based on a particular pre-Grouping company's style - which was not necessarily the same for other companies. Even when the REA standards were agreed, the GWR still determined to differ from the other 3 Grouped companies. As in life and especially in modelling in this scale, it is all about compromises - but now there will be much less need to compromise for permanent way.

The choices will therefore be simple - a better looking but generic point with existing geometry, itself a considerable step up in appearance. Or a probably better looking, possibly more expensive, point which, if you have the knowledge to identify it as specific to a particular railway, you might reject for that reason.....!

 

Surely anyone wanting or rejecting track specific to a given railway will be building from components in P4.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jeff Smith

[faa77]

Could somebody summarise what DCC Concepts have announced they will offer and how does it compare with the existing C&L, SMP and this Peco announcement?

[Jeff Smith]

Try this link http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110254-dcc-concepts-oo-gauge-bullhead-turnouts/

[martin_wynne]

Could somebody summarise what DCC Concepts have announced they will offer and how does it compare with the existing C&L, SMP and this Peco announcement?

 

Their flexi-track is actually available for a few months now. Peco isn't yet. Scaleway and C&L have been available for years.

 

Their sleepers are thin, similar to Scaleway. Peco and Exactoscale are thick.

 

Their rail is stainless steel. All the others are nickel-silver.

 

Their rail is inclined. Peco is very likely to be vertical. The others are inclined.

 

DCC Concepts have announced pointwork will have "narrow flangeways" and be based on prototype designs. The first one has been described as a B-7 turnout to Midland practice. What that means is a bit of a mystery -- the Midland Railway didn't have any B-7 turnouts (the REA designs were introduced in 1925 after the grouping). By then it was LMS, who used the standard REA designs (same as LNER, SR). Peco have said their pointwork will be based on their existing non-prototypical Code 75 FB geometry. The others don't make RTL pointwork, other than expensive hand-assembly.

 

DCC Concepts have reported that the tooling for the pointwork is well under way. But it has coincided with their move to the UK, so it's only fair to give them some leeway. Peco have said their tooling will be "difficult".

 

My guess (100% guess!) -- DCC Concepts will be first, but will be expensive, and will need an element of final user assembly (semi-kit).

 

Martin.

Edited November 29, 2016 by martin_wynne

[steve45]

Talking to the Peco chap on the stand he confirmed that the new track materials, assembly, tooling etc is being totally sourced in the UK, this gets my vote.

[faa77]

Their flexi-track is actually available for a few months now. Peco isn't yet. Scaleway and C&L have been available for years.

 

Their sleepers are thin, similar to Scaleway. Peco and Exactoscale are thick.

 

Their rail is stainless steel. All the others are nickel-silver.

 

Their rail is inclined. Peco is very likely to be vertical. The others are inclined.

 

DCC Concepts have announced pointwork will have "narrow flangeways" and be based on prototype designs. The first one has been described as a B-7 turnout to Midland practice. What that means is a bit of a mystery -- the Midland Railway didn't have any B-7 turnouts (the REA designs were introduced in 1925 after the grouping). By then it was LMS, who used the standard REA designs (same as LNER, SR). Peco have said their pointwork will be based on their existing non-prototypical Code 75 FB geometry. The others don't make RTL pointwork, other than expensive hand-assembly.

 

DCC Concepts have reported that the tooling for the pointwork is well under way. But it has coincided with their move to the UK, so it's only fair to give them some leeway. Peco have said their tooling will be "difficult".

 

My guess (100% guess!) -- DCC Concepts will be first, but will be expensive, and will need an element of final user assembly (semi-kit).

 

Martin.

 

Sounds good. Nice to know if I mess-up building my own points there's another solution!

Edited November 29, 2016 by faa77

[Mike Storey]

One issue I have learned from discussion on another forum is that the stainless steel used by DCC is a little suspect in use - surface pitting and rusting have been reported, but it is not clear whether this is from previous products (by others presumably) or those of DCC. May be worth investigating before committing.

[peterfgf]

One issue I have learned from discussion on another forum is that the stainless steel used by DCC is a little suspect in use - surface pitting and rusting have been reported, but it is not clear whether this is from previous products (by others presumably) or those of DCC. May be worth investigating before committing.

The pitting problem is discussed here on RMWeb under "Stainless steel track problems" started by Darren01 on 18th November 2016.

Peterfgf

[Kiwi]

The pitting problem is discussed here on RMWeb under "Stainless steel track problems" started by Darren01 on 18th November 2016.

Peterfgf

The problem there is that Darren01 has never explained what track he's actually talking about. So the entire thread is a bit meaningless.

[martin_wynne]

The pitting problem is discussed here on RMWeb under "Stainless steel track problems" started by Darren01 on 18th November 2016.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116954-stainless-steel-track-problems/

 

Interesting.

 

I had a bet with myself earlier in this topic (or maybe some other topic) that DCC Concepts would end up introducing a nickel-silver option. Mainly I think because of the difficulty of machining the stainless rail for the pointwork.

 

Martin.

[gismorail]

I inspected both DCC and Peco track samples at Warley as I'm sure many others have also done. My personal view is that the Peco track is the one that i will go for the simple reason that it looked and felt a great deal stronger as well is being Nickel silver which I know works well. The Peco point sample looked good and if this is going to be the look and standard it will do for me.

[coachmann]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/116954-stainless-steel-track-problems/

 

Interesting.

 

I had a bet with myself earlier in this topic (or maybe some other topic) that DCC Concepts would end up introducing a nickel-silver option. Mainly I think because of the difficulty of machining the stainless rail for the pointwork.

 

Martin.

I had similar feelings after problems with cutting the rail and twisting it accidently. It occurred too often for my liking. Plus there is the soldering problem. A unique selling point is okay if it improves on something else. In my view, stainless steel was a regular pain in the butt and the whole length of track was like a limp piece of rope. That said, i have three unopened boxes of the stuff if someone cares to make me an offer.

Edited November 30, 2016 by coachmann

[gr.king]

The criticism of the three-chair-only check rails in the Peco point sample shown at the NEC is an interesting one. Whilst I realize that perspective in photographs can induce all sorts of illusions, and I also realize that the spacing of the timbers in the vicinity of the crossing is related to the chosen crossing angle and the chosen width of flangeways, does one of the images below tend to suggest that rather than the length of the check rails it is a shortage of timbers in that area that is the snag?

 

[Mike Storey]

The criticism of the three-chair-only check rails in the Peco point sample shown at the NEC is an interesting one. Whilst I realize that perspective in photographs can induce all sorts of illusions, and I also realize that the spacing of the timbers in the vicinity of the crossing is related to the chosen crossing angle and the chosen width of flangeways, does one of the images below tend to suggest that rather than the length of the check rails it is a shortage of timbers in that area that is the snag?

 

2016 Peco NEC 1.JPG2016 Peco NEC 3.JPG

 

That's interesting. In the top photo the sleeper spacings look fine, but in the lower photo, around the crossing and through the check rails, they look too far apart. Is that due to some bizarre photographic distortion or is that what it looked like with the human (and Andy's) eye??

[RBAGE]

That's interesting. In the top photo the sleeper spacings look fine, but in the lower photo, around the crossing and through the check rails, they look too far apart. Is that due to some bizarre photographic distortion or is that what it looked like with the human (and Andy's) eye??

I'm sure that Martin will confirm but I'm sure there should be more than 3 timbers supporting the check rail. Probably more like 5.

 

That would support your conclusion that the timber spacing is far too widely spaced.

 

Hope we don't go from narrow spacing to wide spacing.