PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Pint of Adnams]

Well I think it's a significant improvement on the original 'fits together one way around only' Rovex track up to, for those of you recall it, the sleeper spacing on Tri-ang Series 3 track 

 

The additional siding my Father put on the baseboard in Wrenn fibre-based flexible track was not exactly accurate either, and considerably lower in height that the Rovex product.

 

Times, standards and expectations move on but, as I wrote earlier, compromise is still necessary given the scale/gauge aberration.

 

I shall be very happy with the new Peco product.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Pint of Adnams

[hayfield]

I do get the impression reading this that a lot of people on here think the average modeller is a bit of a twonk: someone who goes into a model shop and pulls a face like the missing link when the proprietor shows him the latest types of track! Who the heck is an average modeller though? I use Peco Streamline because it works, though I’ve known it is wrong (ie HO) since I was 14 years old! Still I’ve continued to use it (apart when I built some P4 track from C&L bits back in the 80s) and presumed that something better would come along. Hay-ho the years have really rolled past haven’t they and something better just hasn’t materialised, has it, maybe until now, or more realistically sometime in the next year. Still, I will delay the next layout slightly in the hope of being able to build it out of this stuff, bring it on I say, and about bloody time too!!!!

 

 

Prior to building my own track I naively thought Peco's track was a scale representation of the real thing. with a few little compromises to allow model trains to run through sharp radii and for robustness. There is nothing wrong in using Peco's products, they are well made, robust and affordable. Nor using any other make (Hornby etc) if that meets your own criteria

 

Demonstrating track building at shows (especially the local ones) clearly the vast majority of those interested in model trains know little about trackwork, and are quite surprised at the visual difference between Pecos 00/H0 trackwork and 4 mm scale 00 track.

 

As for Peco, its a great move forward for 00 gauge modellers, not many will be upset about this new range. Many I expect will welcome it with open arms and just use their older track in fiddle yards. Hopefully it will be a much needed welcome financial success for both Peco and the model shops

 

I would never class these folk as Twonks, neither would I class my fellow track making modellers in any derisory way. There are a few who haunt the hobby that I would put into this catagory, most I guess have never built much in their lives and take great pleasure in making a loud noise about nothing,

[BG John]

Taking 7" off the track gauge on the Baconbridge & Eggston line in the 1890s.

 

gauge_conversion.jpg

 

Which for some reason reminds me it's time for breakfast.

 

Martin.

While we're showing concern for the sensitivity of people to the way different points of view are expressed, please can we also stop making fun of one of the saddest weekends in railway history. And it wasn't on the B&E anyway, but where the SDR and CR met.

[The Stationmaster]

Taking 7" off the track gauge on the Baconbridge & Eggston line in the 1890s.

 

gauge_conversion.jpg

 

Which for some reason reminds me it's time for breakfast.

 

Martin.

 

I wonder if my great grandad is somewhere in that picture as I believe he played his part in that little job?

[coachmann]

I would never class these folk as Twonks, neither would I class my fellow track making modellers in any derisory way. There are a few who haunt the hobby that I would put into this category, most I guess have never built much in their lives and take great pleasure in making a loud noise about nothing,

Hattons 14XX and Oxford Dean Goods threads springs to mind.... 

[Clive Mortimore]

Prior to building my own track I naively thought Peco's track was a scale representation of the real thing. with a few little compromises to allow model trains to run through sharp radii and for robustness. There is nothing wrong in using Peco's products, they are well made, robust and affordable. Nor using any other make (Hornby etc) if that meets your own criteria

 

Demonstrating track building at shows (especially the local ones) clearly the vast majority of those interested in model trains know little about trackwork, and are quite surprised at the visual difference between Pecos 00/H0 trackwork and 4 mm scale 00 track.

 

As for Peco, its a great move forward for 00 gauge modellers, not many will be upset about this new range. Many I expect will welcome it with open arms and just use their older track in fiddle yards. Hopefully it will be a much needed welcome financial success for both Peco and the model shops

 

I would never class these folk as Twonks, neither would I class my fellow track making modellers in any derisory way. There are a few who haunt the hobby that I would put into this catagory, most I guess have never built much in their lives and take great pleasure in making a loud noise about nothing,

Well John, some of us realised it was wrong but because it works straight out the box we used it. That's right it works straight out the box and it is reliable, but is wrong. We know its wrong, we keep being told its wrong.

 

Good luck to all those who make their own track, they are lucky to have time, skill, patients etc. Some of us like to use our model railway time for some other aspects of railway modelling. 

 

Edit, built track, locomotives, coaches, DMUs, EMUs, freight stock, road vehicles, buildings (with interiors), and my own 1/76th scale figures. I recall putting a challenge out to those who build their own track to make some little people themselves, have you?

 

Second edit, all the above were scratch or conversions not kits, so original research of the subject was also done.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[hayfield]

Clive

 

As I have said many times before, I have no issues whatever track modellers use, does not bother me if someone builds to P/S4 standards or decides to use track from Hornby, each to their own.

 

No I have never made little people and have no desire to do so, on the other hand whilst I try and encourage those who want to build their own track. I would like to think I would never deride anyone who for what ever reason wishes not to build their own track or decides on a scale/gauge/standard which is right for them. 

 

I do find it annoying when part of what has been written is highlighted in what I believe is out of context manner, and for balance I have added the whole paragraph 

 

I would never class these folk as Twonks, neither would I class my fellow track making modellers in any derisory way. There are a few who haunt the hobby that I would put into this catagory, most I guess have never built much in their lives and take great pleasure in making a loud noise about nothing,

 

I do have the greatest respect for fellow modellers, especially those who wish to constructively help and/or inform others. Or those who just want to share their modelling activities with others. I don't think this sentence in its entirety is derisory to anyone wishing to use RTR (or hand made) track of any make/scale/standard. 

[Jeff Smith]

Whilst we are in a nostalgic moment regarding the 'discovery' of Peco Code 100 Streamline, I clearly remember buying a double slip and a couple of other bits of Peco track in a going-out-of-business sale. I was in my early thirties with a couple of young children and this was a considerable investment at the time. A modest dead-frog code 100 GWR branch terminus took shape over the next couple of years (early eighties). I had of course been reading RM so was vaguely aware of cast white metal chairs but was more interested at the time in kit-bashing and even replacing plastic rolling stock wheels with metal ones......

 

Around this time I went to a major model railway exhibition in London and remember looking at some beautiful 4mm loco models in glass cases, but what really stunned me was the superb chaired bullhead track they were standing on. They were at eye level so very evident. Suddenly I was disenchanted with my layout. I joined a club which was building an OO layout using Brook-Smith punched plywood sleepers with brass rivets and soldered on BH rail. The newly available C&L plastic chairs were cut in half and stuck on either side of the rail. Very laborious. This was the final awakening for me and I sold the old layout and moved to P4 with functional plastic chairs etc. It is interesting to speculate that in an alternative universe if Peco had introduced the new BH track 35 years ago my modelling avenue might have been somewhat different....

[hayfield]

Whilst we are in a nostalgic moment regarding the 'discovery' of Peco Code 100 Streamline, I clearly remember buying a double slip and a couple of other bits of Peco track in a going-out-of-business sale. I was in my early thirties with a couple of young children and this was a considerable investment at the time. A modest dead-frog code 100 GWR branch terminus took shape over the next couple of years (early eighties). I had of course been reading RM so was vaguely aware of cast white metal chairs but was more interested at the time in kit-bashing and even replacing plastic rolling stock wheels with metal ones......

 

Around this time I went to a major model railway exhibition in London and remember looking at some beautiful 4mm loco models in glass cases, but what really stunned me was the superb chaired bullhead track they were standing on. They were at eye level so very evident. Suddenly I was disenchanted with my layout. I joined a club which was building an OO layout using Brook-Smith punched plywood sleepers with brass rivets and soldered on BH rail. The newly available C&L plastic chairs were cut in half and stuck on either side of the rail. Very laborious. This was the final awakening for me and I sold the old layout and moved to P4 with functional plastic chairs etc. It is interesting to speculate that in an alternative universe if Peco had introduced the new BH track 35 years ago my modelling avenue might have been somewhat different....

 

 

Jeff

 

50 years ago Peco were selling code 100 bullhead rail !!

[Jeff Smith]

Jeff

 

50 years ago Peco were selling code 100 bullhead rail !!

Maybe, but they stopped before I got to it.......do you mean track or just rail?

[Ben Alder]

This illustration appeared in the latest Peco newsletter the other day - says it should be available early in the New Year.

 

[Colin_McLeod]

Very very nice.

[Pacific231G]

While we're showing concern for the sensitivity of people to the way different points of view are expressed, please can we also stop making fun of one of the saddest weekends in railway history. And it wasn't on the B&E anyway, but where the SDR and CR met.

But think of the alternative.  I just had a nightmare vision in which the Lawyers were funding their First Class seasons with fees from disputes between Network Rail and TOCs using different gauges on the same line.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Guest Midland Mole]

We should have the first boxes of the new flexi coming with our next PECO order at the shop. Really looking forward to it!

- Alex

[hayfield]

Maybe, but they stopped before I got to it.......do you mean track or just rail?

 

 

I think it was part of their Indvidulay range prior to Streamline taking over, I was given a batch of rails so I could build some points to match some existing trackwork

Edited December 11, 2016 by hayfield

[martin_wynne]

I think it was part of their Indvidulay range prior to Streamline taking over, I was given a batch of rails so I could build some points to match some existing trackwork

 

It was Code 95 bullhead rail. The fishplates remained available long after the rail was discontinued. Not sure where the H0 comes in:

 

 

 

Martin.

Edited December 11, 2016 by martin_wynne

[bertiedog]

This illustration appeared in the latest Peco newsletter the other day - says it should be available early in the New Year.

 

sl 114-crop.jpg

Nice Fishplate joiners,............... I see that in Devon, people can count up all right then?

[bertiedog]

The old code 95 simply never took off, people like RTL track. I suppose Mr Pritchard did it to help those who did not like the flatbottom streamline, and wanted wider sleeper spacing. He manufactured a lot of various code rail sections for other makers in the 70's, especially to the States.

[Pacific231G]

I think it was part of their Indvidulay range prior to Streamline taking over, I was given a batch of rails so I could build some points to match some existing trackwork

Individulay wasn't replaced by Streamline. I had though thought that Peco had discontinued it for 00 and H0 a few years ago but I'm looking at an advert for it in last month's Continental Modeller. The currrent offering is Code 82 FB with wood type and concrete sleepers, point timbering, "Pandrol type fixings", sliding fixings for switch rails, as well as code 80 conductor rail and chairs. It's actually quite hard to find it on Peco's website but at least nine products still exist in the range. The Individulay range used to also include items like preformed crossing Vs, wing rails and check rails but presumably the market for these became too small as those using it were more than likely to make up their own. 

What I can't determine is when bullhead rail was discontinued for 00 and H0 and when Pecoway, as assembled track and points on fibre bases, was withdrawn. It's likely to have stayed in theiir catalogue long after they stopped advertising it but that too continued well into the Streamline era. .

 

It was Code 95 bullhead rail. The fishplates remained available long after the rail was discontinued. Not sure where the H0 comes in:

 

peco_il21x.png peco_il21x_1.png

 

Martin.

Possibly for the overseas market- double champignon was for example very widely used in France even by some metre gauge lines- but more perhaps for the dedicated minority of modellers working in British H0. I can't see any reason why the joiners wouldn't also be relevant for EM or indeed any other scale where Code 95 would be appropriate. Edited December 11, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Quarryscapes]

My point was not that Peco forced anyone to buy anything. How could they?

 

But it's surely true that for many years they kept very quiet about the fact that Peco Streamline for 00 gauge did not represent any known railway track in the UK. A great many Railway Modeller readers must have grown up not realising that fact, and possibly still don't.

 

I have to concede that they have been surprisingly frank about it in the latest bullhead marketing, much more than I expected.

 

But they must be nervous about how it will be received by a large chunk of their customer base. Some people have spent significant sums of money over the years on the existing Streamline range, in the belief that it represents "proper" railway track and a step up from train-set track. Many of them are likely to be a bit confused seeing these two hanging side-by-side on pegs in the model shop:

 

peco_fb_v_bh.png

 

The difference is rather more than superficial, especially when you add in the effect of the chunky chairs.

 

I can imagine some model shop owners having to be a bit diplomatic in explaining the new track and why there is a lot of fuss about it. Many might not care much what their track looks like, but others are going to be comparing their layouts with books and photographs and maybe noticing for the first time how wrong the old track looks for a UK steam-era branch terminus.

 

On the other hand, if they rip it all up and buy the new to replace it, Peco might not mind at all.

 

Martin.

 

Any chance of a download of that templot template pwetty pwease?

[martin_wynne]

Any chance of a download of that templot template pwetty pwease?

 

Sure. Here you go:

 

peco_estimated_bullhead_timbering.box

 

Martin.

[Quarryscapes]

Sure. Here you go:

 

peco_estimated_bullhead_timbering.box

 

Martin.

 

Much appreciated, cheers! Gives me a rough working idea for a small bit of diorama making at least. 

[hayfield]

Sure. Here you go:

 

peco_estimated_bullhead_timbering.box

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin

 

Thanks for that, nice to see its a tad under a 1-6 crossing, in fact a shade over an A6 turnout.

 

Looks like Peco may have a winner on its hands as visually it's very appealing. Which is both good news for modellers and the trade 

 

I remember Len Newman (C&L and Exactoscale fame) telling me the A6 being a very pretty size and his favourite, I wouldn't go quite that far but in my opinion a great improvement visually

Edited December 12, 2016 by hayfield

[Pacific231G]

 

They must be nervous about how it will be received by a large chunk of their customer base. Some people have spent significant sums of money over the years on the existing Streamline range, in the belief that it represents "proper" railway track and a step up from train-set track. Many of them are likely to be a bit confused seeing these two hanging side-by-side on pegs in the model shop:

 

peco_fb_v_bh.png

 

The difference is rather more than superficial, especially when you add in the effect of the chunky chairs.

 

I can imagine some model shop owners having to be a bit diplomatic in explaining the new track and why there is a lot of fuss about it. Many might not care much what their track looks like, but others are going to be comparing their layouts with books and photographs and maybe noticing for the first time how wrong the old track looks for a UK steam-era branch terminus.

 

On the other hand, if they rip it all up and buy the new to replace it, Peco might not mind at all.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

Thanks for the comparative diagrams I've just been looking at the file in Templot.

 

I don't know that Peco needs to feel nervous. Has any company offering a finer scale product been criticised for its previous offering being less fine scale?  I looked at the reaction to the introduction of 83 Line in North America (I was thinking of using it for something else) and it didn't seem to lead to any criticism of the existing Streamline offering. Generally, Streamline was seen as a premium brand amongst RTL offerings and it was great that they were now offering a more specific scale development of it for American modellers. There was very little criticism of the bulky latching mechanism, the first thing that most advice to improve the appearance of Peco points goes for followed by the checkrails, and almost none of the switches being loose heeled.

 

Streamline does "represent" proper railway track, though not as closely as many would wish, and it is a giant leap up from the various setracks.  In any case some people will condemn anything OO as a toy not a model, (an absurd view IMHO).  

 

Something I have genuinely been wondering about is this. If the new points for BH or their equivalents from SMP etc. are roughly equivalent to an A6, this is a turnout that  I understand would only be found in very low speed sidings. So, if you use a scale model of that A6 to represent a far longer main line turnout does it look the part, albeit compressed, or are there are other differences that should be taken into account?  

Edited December 12, 2016 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

Has any company offering a finer scale product been criticised for its previous offering being less fine scale?  I looked at the reaction to the introduction of 83 Line in North America (I was thinking of using it for something else) and it didn't seem to lead to any criticism of the existing Streamline offering. 

 

Hi David,

 

I can't think of any other case where a company has improved its product by changing the scale.

 

The 83 Line product is the same 3.5mm/ft scale as the existing Streamline range, so simply appears as a premium alternative.

 

Offering a 4mm/ft model as an upgrade to a 3.5mm/ft model seems to be unique to the present situation. The logical conclusion would be that the designation for the existing Streamline range gets changed from 00/H0 to just plain H0. Let's wait and see.

 

regards,

 

Martin.