PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[bgman]

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

That be fer they 'Mericans coz um carn't count or spell proper like we do !

 

Yers

 

Nine Finger Jake

[bertiedog]

Life is too short to bother with correcting the old 00/H0 Labelling/ Branding of the Peco products, which frankly does not confuse most people, or miss lead them, or find themselves forced, in some conspiratorial way to use H0 track for 00, it is the modellers themselves that forced the decisions by Mr Pritchard to design his products in the way he did.

 

Each improvement step was a logical development, just because it was not change in one go to suit you, it did not mean that Mr Pritchard did not care, and did not know, about all the issues with British Modellers, who were completely lumbered with a railway track designed for toy use in the Thirties. If you want to comment, do not forget that Mr Hambling, Henry Greenly, Stewart Reidpath, and dozens of others were responsible for 00, not PECO.

 

It was far too entrenched by the 1960's to alter, and already had a good running system for the 16.5 gauge with the US based NMRA standards, Please note "running standard for 16.5" , is not support for HO. The RP-25 standards and associated specifications result, if adhered to, offer a near perfect running quality for 16.5mm gauge, and they have done for 50 years or more.

 

Mr Pritchard tried to get UK modellers and the makers to adopt the standards, but everybody in the UK resisted, from parochial support against it as it was a US standard, though to complete miss understanding of how 16.5 gauge came about. META and the MRC did not help with the almost moribund 00 standards then used, plus some buyers wanted to run Tri-ang, Dublo, Trix, and so called scale on the same points and track. it was total confusion, and pragmatic design for Peco won the day with the streamline offerings.

 

If it is not perfect for you then buy another make that suits you, why should PECO cater just to one part of the market. For goodness sake, they make tracks for all gauges in common use, the best made in the world, and all British made in Devon, and have hard earnt a reputation for quality that most companies would die for.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

Also the comment that the Code 83 track for HO is just a "premium product" is dismissing the fact that it was designed very carefully to conform nicely with all the relevant NMRA specifications for HO, and has US style geometry and crossing V sizes to the standards for the pointwork. The track sleeper spacing and length is designed to meet US NMRA standards for a track designed to market in the US, and basically has no use in 00 modelling, unless you as a user decide otherwise.

 

Stlll no release date for the Bullhead track so far, except "next week perhaps" at the moment. From the initial enquiries I have heard about from Trade sources, it is going to be a run away success for PECO.

 

In no way am I supporting the company in general, nobody is perfect, I have gripes about minor points with some of the products, but understand where Peco come from and appear to be going, which is a steady improvement from a British company that leads the field in Model Railways.

 

Stephen

[Ramblin Rich]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (or implied) is the flangeways on the new Peco product. Given that DCC have slightly narrowed the gauge to give finer flangeways, I wonder if Peco will be making any changes? The current Streamline flatbottom product has infill between the 'vee' and wingrails, but the 'openness' of bullhead construction is one aspect which I'd hope they can capture. The images from Warley are a bit too dark to see. It will be interesting to see how / if they can manage....

Edited December 12, 2016 by Ramblin Rich

[martin_wynne]

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?  

 

Hi David,

 

Well that depends of course on your definition of "look the part". It will clearly look better than a set-track turnout. But generally the difficulty with the "A" switch for running lines is the sharp 1:24 switch deflection. Something which is very noticeable to track enthusiasts but maybe not to others. One consequence of that is that the cut-out needed in platform edges to clear run-round crossovers, etc., will be much deeper than might otherwise be the case. Another consequence is that curving a turnout with an "A" switch produces very sharp radius through the switch.

 

In fact the Peco Large Radius turnouts have a much gentler switch deflection than an "A" switch, so I'm not sure this assumed equivalence to A-6 is entirely valid:

 

The main objection to the Peco large radius turnout for geometrical realism is not the switch, but the 12-degree (1:4.7) exit angle and curviform crossing. Which puts an instant reverse curve at the centre of crossovers:

 

With the switch toes aligned, an A-6 is actually shorter than the Peco large radius turnout.

 

Generally I would say use an A-6 in running lines if, and only if, you simply don't have space for anything else. Otherwise use at least a B-6 instead, and keep the "A" switches in yards and sidings. It's interesting that DCC Concepts say they have chosen a "B" switch for their first turnout.

 

This old page of mine may be of interest in this regard: http://templot.com/martweb/rea_a_or_b.htm

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

If it is not perfect for you then buy another make that suits you, why should PECO cater just to one part of the market. For goodness sake, they make tracks for all gauges in common use, the best made in the world, and all British made in Devon, and have hard earnt a reputation for quality that most companies would die for.

 

Hi Stephen,

 

No-one is questioning any of that. If you want a ready-to-plonk reliable consumer product, from a British company with an enviable reputation and a long tradition of quality manufacture, Peco is the one to go for.

 

But this is not a toy shop. It's RMweb, where we are discussing modelling of the prototype railway track. In that regard until now there has been nothing in the Peco product range which comes anywhere near in 4mm/ft scale.

 

They are at long last remedying that, and everyone here is welcoming it.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Also the comment that the Code 83 track for HO is just a "premium product" is dismissing the fact that it was designed very carefully to conform nicely with all the relevant NMRA specifications for HO, and has US style geometry and crossing V sizes to the standards for the pointwork. The track sleeper spacing and length is designed to meet US NMRA standards for a track designed to market in the US, and basically has no use in 00 modelling, unless you as a user decide otherwise.

Stephen

Hi Stephen

I think you misundestood the comment. It was made on one of the American forums and "premium product" means that though it was more expensive than some of its US competitors the extra was worth paying. Streamline was already popular and they seemed pleased that a version of it based on American trackwork had now been introduced. By the way, don't bet that the new bullhed track won't be used for H0. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

Well that depends of course on your definition of "look the part". It will clearly look better than a set-track turnout. But generally the difficulty with the "A" switch for running lines is the sharp 1:24 switch deflection. Something which is very noticeable to track enthusiasts but maybe not to others. One consequence of that is that the cut-out needed in platform edges to clear run-round crossovers, etc., will be much deeper than might otherwise be the case. Another consequence is that curving a turnout with an "A" switch produces very sharp radius through the switch.

 

In fact the Peco Large Radius turnouts have a much gentler switch deflection than an "A" switch, so I'm not sure this assumed equivalence to A-6 is entirely valid:

 

peco_v_a6_2.png

The main objection to the Peco large radius turnout for geometrical realism is not the switch, but the 12-degree (1:4.7) exit angle and curviform crossing. Which puts an instant reverse curve at the centre of crossovers:

 

peco_v_a6_1.png

With the switch toes aligned, an A-6 is actually shorter than the Peco large radius turnout.

 

Generally I would say use an A-6 in running lines if, and only if, you simply don't have space for anything else. Otherwise use at least a B-6 instead, and keep the "A" switches in yards and sidings. It's interesting that DCC Concepts say they have chosen a "B" switch for their first turnout.

 

This old page of mine may be of interest in this regard: http://templot.com/martweb/rea_a_or_b.htm

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks for that Martin, it's interesting. I'd rather assumed that for a prototype turnout with a crossing angle as tight as 1/6th you'd always need the sharper deflection at the switch.

I agree about the 12⁰ final divergence angle. It seems to be a peculiarity of their long turnout and, though I know why it was adopted by Peco, it does lessen the advantages in terms of avoiding buffer locking etc of using them in crossovers . Their short and medium turnouts have the same crossing as each other but different leads and, so far as I can tell, the medium turnout has virtually identical geometry to other nominally three foot radius turnouts I've compared it with.

 

I did wonder about where on the prototype a crossing as tight as a no. 6 would actually be used.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Quarryscapes]

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

 

 

You know you're into the hobby too deep when you have a favourite size of turnout!

[Junctionmad]

Thanks for that Martin, it's interesting. I'd rather assumed that for a prototype turnout with a crossing angle as tight as 1/6th you'd always need the sharper deflection at the switch.

I agree about the 12⁰ final divergence angle. It seems to be a peculiarity of their long turnout and, though I know why it was adopted by Peco, it does lessen the advantages in terms of avoiding buffer locking etc of using them in crossovers . Their short and medium turnouts have the same crossing as each other but different switches and, so far as I can tell, the medium turnout has virtually identical geometry to other nominally three foot radius turnouts I've compared it with.

 

I did wonder about where on the prototype a crossing as tight as a no. 6 would actually be used.

My understanding is all Peco points irrespective of radius have a 12 degree exit angle ( isn't it 12.5 by the way ? ) and its fundementsl to " peco " geometry allowing crossings to be made of different and mixed radius points but retain identical parallel track centres. Edited December 13, 2016 by Junctionmad

[coachmann]

Frog angle differs on Peco Code 83. The largest radius point will not mix with the rest of the range (the frog angle is shallower). A pair of them forming a crossover give a lovely smooth crossing.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Larry is quite correct, the code 83 US range correctly follows American practice and has angles that diverge as 1 in 4, 1 in 6, 1 in 8 etc referred to as #4, #6 and #8.  You cannot mix a #6 and a #8 and maintain parallel tracks.  They also correctly model the diverging route as straight from just short of the frog and beyond, which means that they don't form a nasty reverse curve through a cross over.

 

Contemporary UP practice specifies a minimum of #8 for slow speed industry spurs.  Mainline speed restricted turnouts will be #10 and above.

 

They still have some compromises, but the fact that they correctly follow prototype geometry (of US track) makes them far nicer to operate with and watch trains pass over than the UK OO/HO points.

 

 

I traded sleeper spacing for better geometry and smoother operation.  I also had it in stock after the dismantling of my US switcher layout....

Edited December 13, 2016 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Pacific231G]

My understanding is all Peco points irrespective of radius have a 12 degree exit angle ( isn't it 12.5 by the way ? ) and its fundementsl to " peco " geometry allowing crossings to be make of different and mixed radius points but retain identical parallel track centres.

Sorry. I wasn't being entirely clear. Yes that is the case and it is 12^o (according to Peco, Templot and my own protractor) but the long points have a shallower but curved frog and are then curved beyond the frog to get to that same angle. That's not necessarily unprototypical but would never be found on a crossover. While using the same final exit angle makes it easier to put together quite complex track formations it makes it hard to get the flowing bespoke pointwork that was very characteristic of steam era railways in Britain. Elsewhere, there seems to have been more use of standard pre -assembled switches and crossings *.

 

I have a copy of the 1940 British Military Railway Engineering manual. Apart from using derailers rather than catch points, it follows standard British railway practice of the time for everything from track construction to interlocking and signalling but the military had standardised on just three turnouts, No. 6, No. 8, and No. 12, using a standard switch and lead for each. Given that most of us consider a No 6 to be rather generous its notes are interesting "The No. 6 will only be used in very congested areas such as docks and where small shunting engines usually operate; the No. 8 is the standard for general yard and station work; the No. 12 will be used only in places where high speeds are expected" I also liked "The laying of diamond crossings, slip roads, scissors crossings or similar complicated track layouts should be avoided wherever possible. These layouts require special fittings, are difficult to lay accurately and to maintain" 

 

It does seem  that the Royal Engineers also had a favourite size of turnout, clearly not because it was a "very pretty size" though in engineering what is good often looks good. 

 

As well as minimising the need for onsite cutting of rail, standardisation made it far easier to maintain adequate stocks for use where they were needed, often in a hurry. It strikes me that the needs of a military quartermaster may have had quite a lot in common with those of a model shop owner.

 

 

*Though they obviously inherited far more including a great deal of bullhead from the old companied, SNCF standardised on just five crossings (nos. 7,9,12,20 & 30 plus a no. 6 used only for symmetrical split lead  points in marshalling yards) and three standard switches (with deviation angles of 0^o18' , 0⁰25'  and 1⁰ )   

Edited December 13, 2016 by Pacific231G

[arran]

HI All

 

I lose the will to live reading this thread now, it you model P4 or EM get on with it, Personally i want some of the Pointwork and track for the next club layout.

 

Regards Arran 

[bertiedog]

HI All

 

I lose the will to live reading this thread now, it you model P4 or EM get on with it, Personally i want some of the Pointwork and track for the next club layout.

 

Regards Arran 

Don't worry, the cure is at hand, with the first delivery and all the angles, formations, and chairs of multi colours will fade from the mind as you lay track with ease that is a model, not a miniature prototype copy............

 

Stephen

[Junctionmad]

Don't worry, the cure is at hand, with the first delivery and all the angles, formations, and chairs of multi colours will fade from the mind as you lay track with ease that is a model, not a miniature prototype copy............

 

Stephen

I still fail to see how it will take off , without rtr points. Do peco beleive people will mix the new bullhead with existing code 75 flatbottom streamline , or do they expect to attract the 00 track builder , who is already well served at similar prices per yard/metre. In my view mixing the points will produce a track that's looks less realistic then just sticking with the existing range. I build my own pointwork , but at £5 a lemgth , I have several other choices of plain track.

 

I suspect few existing peco streamline users build pointwork.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Junctionmad

[bertiedog]

I did say "lay track", the points are still a serious issue to be solved by pressure on Peco to deliver by the customers! As the design I am building involves three three way points, I will have to use the Flatbottom type as the chance of three way with Bullhead coming before the Second Coming is pretty much Zero. The Micro Brewery layout on the other hand has to have custom points tighter than any Peco offering, so using C&L and Exacto parts to match the Peco track.

 

Buy some track, and then on paper, not Email, contact Peco saying the shop did not have the matching points, and can they say how long this will take, a few days or weeks?... as you cannot buy more track till the points are sorted out.

 

Stephen

[Pacific231G]

HI All

 

I lose the will to live reading this thread now, it you model P4 or EM get on with it, Personally i want some of the Pointwork and track for the next club layout.

 

Regards Arran 

It must be awful when someone forces you to read a thread

Following this and previous threads and then trying to separate truth from opinion from other sources has actually taught me a great deal about both trackwork (real and model) and the history of our hobby. Shame I don't have room for anything longer than medium radius points so I'll be waiting even longer for bullhead in that size and will just have to pretend they are no. 8s and avoid parallel crossovers.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Pacific231G

[bertiedog]

It will be a grand chance to try point making, it is far easier than you think, do not calculate to death the outline work, just trace the formation on tracing paper from a design made with a sharpie on the board, one track into two, marking the outer rails and simply filling in the V etc by measuring with a ruler and home made gauges. A point in a short evening is quite possible with soldered construction, but with C&L and Exacto a full evening as the solvent has to go off under the chairs.

 

No tools a home mechanic would not have, a fine needle file or two, a soldering iron, solvent and bits of emery paper, and a junior hacksaw or if your sophisticated, a fine back micro saw... and if possible a vernier caliper to make the gauges, but a decent foot steel ruler will do.

 

The gauges do not have to be turned, use plywood and file grooves in it! or drive tacks into the edge as pins to act as gauges.

 

The total cost will be a fraction of the cost of RTL points, fully chaired, fully insulated, suits DCC or DC, or clockwork.......

 

 I'll do a post on simple bullhead points to show how easy it is, I can just about follow my own advice due to arthritis. I am also building O scale with Peco chairs, and that is so easy and cheap, with great looking results.

[bertiedog]

Gauges are easy, make in scrap plywood or solid or brass if you want, or even Plasticard or Bristol board.

Just needs the gauge and check rails, which can be flat piece of wood the thickness of the flangeway.

For plain points then curve the track through the V, but if you want accuracy then use fixed angles, but why worry, your not BR laying real track, it's a model, and running is far more important than exact scale, leave that to P4/S4 users or fine scale OO users. If you want crossovers that maintain centres then simply use templates or drawings known to work. Always make crossovers as big as your layout can take

It gives an idea of the gauges with cut outs or pins to do the holding of the rail section.

I will post separately on simple points as there will be a need till Peco deliver.

Stephen

[Jeff Smith]

The IL-116 track gauge from Peco cannot be too expensive - you will have to use the Search feature on the Peco page to find it.

 

If you are in a hurry to lay something chaired with your new Peco BH track you can always build a 36" plastic based SMP point kit for about £9. You will have to pack it up as they have thin sleepers but will look a lot better than Peco FB HO. The base comes in two parts with chairs moulded onto the sleepers, you just have to thread the rail through, no gauging!

[Pacific231G]

I noticed that the Pecoway point has check rails over only three sleepers although the ends do overlap the adjacent sleepers...

 

The 5% UK sales statistic mentioned in an earlier post was presumably track only as much of Peco's other ranges are very much UK railway orientated. Some of the other 95%, although bought abroad, will be used for 00 layouts and some of the new BH will be used for HO (French). Nevertheless, Peco must be expecting the BH sales to cut into the existing FB Streamline sales.

I'm not sure where that 5% figure comes from. According to the Director's Report in the latest published accounts of the Pritchard Patent Product Company Ltd. for 2015,  28.75% of its turnover related to exports (up from 25.06% in 2012). Peco Publications & Publcity Ltd. who also run Pecorama are a separate subsidiary of the Pritchard Patent Product Company (2001) Ltd. which is the holding company. Ratio is listed as dormant so its business has presumably been absorbed into PPPCo Ltd.

I believe that Peco do make track for other companies so the exports won't just be their own consumer range but it does seem that the home market is their main market though I'd guess it's the exports that make it profitable as their largest fixed assets are dies and moulds, about 40% of the total and double the value of plant and machinery and of  freehold buildings and land.

The number of people they employ has also risen slowly but steadily.

(This information is all avaialable from Companies House) 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Coryton]

I wasn't suggesting the economics was a mystery, I understand that entirely.

 

 

Well I don't claim to be an expert on the economics of selling model track.

 

But is the worldwide market for Peco HO and HOm really larger than the (largely UK) market for 00?

[Coryton]

I agree that bullhead track has a particular "look" of its own that is very evocative and it's great that there will at last be a bullhead RTL track available but, at the time Peco introduced Streamline, BR was already committed to replacing all bullhead with FB.

 

They didn't manage it....

[Bernard Lamb]

Well I don't claim to be an expert on the economics of selling model track.

 

But is the worldwide market for Peco HO and HOm really larger than the (largely UK) market for 00?

The worldwide market must be many times the size of the UK market.

The unanswered question is how much of that market they are supplying.

As Ian Rice writes in his book on track making, Peco code 75 FB is a damn fine H0 track.

Peco presumably feel the same way as they are keeping the geometry for BH with all it's compromises rather than changing to nearer to scale dimensions.

For all it's compromises it does the job for the vast majority of people.

Bernard