PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[New Haven Neil]

Did they qualify their choice? One would suppose they risk damaging their own track brand by stating this, however it only really competes with Set Track not Streamline and presumably is designed to be included with train sets etc.

 

Hornby Magazine is nothing to do with Hornby - they 'rent' the name.

[Jeff Smith]

Hornby Magazine is nothing to do with Hornby - they 'rent' the name.

By renting the name they automatically associate themselves with Hornby. And presumably there are clauses in the rental agreement related to reviews of Hornby products - or maybe not.......

[steve45]

Hornby Magazine is nothing to do with Hornby - they 'rent' the name.

 

Unlike the Railway Modeller and Peco!

[No Decorum]

Hornby Magazine is nothing to do with Hornby - they 'rent' the name.

All the same, I detect a certain “coziness”, especially recently. Some time ago, I read a review in the magazine and decided it wasn’t very useful. I stick with Model Rail, mostly for the reviews but there’s good hands-on stuff too.

[lochlongside]

Some fun above at Hornby Magazine's expense !! but in the interests of fairness/truth (what's that got to do with it  !!) they actually had 2 recommendations in their track review.

 

For FB track - yes agreed Peco HO Code 100 & 75 for a number of reasons - incl robustness, range, price etc

But their bullhead recommendation was actually the new Peco Code 75 BH.

 

Buried in the detail of the comparisons was some of that useful info that you might not otherwise find - like the variations in height of the different makes of nominally similar track, flexibility, and the impact on joining the different makes together as well as the normal price comparisons you might expect in such an article.

Finally at the risk of being serious or classed as closet HM fanatic   (I am actually only a P4 and 00 modeller) it is no more a box shifters magazine than some of the others; the DCC installation articles are generally more frequent, and way ahead of the other 3 popular magazines in ambition, and some of the painting and weathering articles are also v good. Just thought I would restore some balance before it gets OTT - I buy all 4 popular mags and each serves a (slightly) different market.

.

['CHARD]

 

Finally at the risk of being serious or classed as closet HM fanatic   - I buy all 4 popular mags and each serves a (slightly) different market.

.

 

Metal Hammer, Classic Rock, Kerrang! and which is the fourth one?

[lochlongside]

Metal Hammer, Classic Rock, Kerrang! and which is the fourth one?

oh dear  - walked into that didn't I - If I answer knowledgeably my children would laugh in my face and accuse me of internet plagiarism - it wasnt even known as such in my day (Deep Purple/Black Sabbath/LedZ etc) now I guess I'm just an old fogie!!

[Ben Alder]

Last months Peco News says that the rail joiners are now available and has the attached report on the point work.

[mightbe]

(Taking the image to be representative of the final product)

 

Well, it seems that Peco has decided to leave the egregious error mentioned earlier--there are only 3 timbers under the check rails. Had they scaled-down their 0-gauge turnouts there would've been 4, which is at least a prototypically accurate number for some modellers. Crossovers will look rather peculiar, though I'm somewhat pleased to see the bent timber arrangement is gone. 

 

It's clear that both newcomers to 00-bullhead have made regrettable decisions, between stainless steel rail and now this.

 

Quentin

[Richard Lee]

In a way, that might be advantageous.  In my opinion, the OO bullhead track is a major improvement upon the HO track.  On the other hand, there is still an incentive for the discerning to consider making their own, for example using from kits from C&L.

[PaulRhB]

they feel they have not got the time to attend.... as the London Show is a major one, a risky move for a larger maker.

Not really that risky when their product is on a lot of the stands at the show, Hornby and Bachmann don't do all the big shows either Peco sponsor plenty of other big shows and have a stand. The MRC have partnered with BRM for this one that's all.

Did anyone who's noticed it actually email Peco about their reasons for the three sleeper choice? They usually respond fairly quickly as seen above.

I have to admit to not counting the sleepers at work, bit like counting sheep , and as others have said they look ok and if it bothers you then you will probably choose C&L anyway to get the exact right chairs etc too.

[No Decorum]

Are those points, like me, unhinged?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Are those points, like me, unhinged?

I couldn't possibly comment!

 

Photo does indeed show proper blades. If we can just persuade them at Beer to add that extra sleeper under the crossing, it will be a pretty decent product which will be well supported (although I would still much prefer prototype geometry)

[Signaller69]

Last months Peco News says that the rail joiners are now available and has the attached report on the point work.

peco news-crop.jpg

Having always happily used Peco products I had been looking forward to seeing the new Points but I am rather put off by the sleepering in that image (if it is indicative of the production run), looks as if Peco want to use one base for both left and right points possibly?

 

I can live with the 3 chair check rails which do/did exist on the prototype but not so happy about the angled sleepers, particularly on a "main line" point as it just looks odd, even if it did happen in places.

[lochlongside]

Having always happily used Peco products I had been looking forward to seeing the new Points but I am rather put off by the sleepering in that image (if it is indicative of the production run), looks as if Peco want to use one base for both left and right points possibly?

 

I can live with the 3 chair check rails which do/did exist on the prototype but not so happy about the angled sleepers, particularly on a "main line" point as it just looks odd, even if it did happen in places.

I am inclined to agree. I have just placed a ruler across the end of a Large Rad point and I assume it is their way of making the point directly compatible with existing points geometry and within the same footprint - after all if they kept the sleepers straight throught the main line of the point it wouldn't be a simple like for like replacement, as the rail ends would not line up as they do now.

Assuming there will be a track upgrade going on at the same time, I am not sure how many potential buyers of these points will leave a crossover half and half which on my first thought is probably the only place where it is really critical . With the original/current points you can at least remove the angled sleeper if it offends, with this design straightening the ends up is going to be a bit more challenging !!.

[PatB]

I thought we'd been round the equalised timbering houses a couple of times already and concluded that it's actually perfectly prototypiical, at least in a goodly number of cases.

[hayfield]

Before adding my own observations (as the photo seems not to enlarge too well) I think Martin suggested the smaller check rails were to allow locos through the crossing easier, which otherwise might stick going through longer ones

 

As for the off set final timber/sleeper, I guess ir would be very easy to replace the last Timber which is split in two for one long straight one by using C&L plastic (thick) timbers and chairs as the C&L chairs are designed for code 75 bullhead rail

[coachmann]

Now't stranger than happy Peco HO Streamline users that are put off  00 bullhead points because of an angles sleeper and 3-chair check rails. 

[mightbe]

Now't stranger than happy Peco HO Streamline users that are put off  00 bullhead points because of an angles sleeper and 3-chair check rails. 

 

I model in P4. And yes, I think Peco should minimize the compromises which they clearly didn't do if that photo is to be believed. The check rails look ghastly.

 

On the other hand, equalized timbering is very common in every instance but a crossover--but with the point being so tiny I can see why people would be reluctant to accept it in a mainline setting.

 

Quentin

Edited April 5, 2017 by mightbe

[davefromacrossthepond]

The Peco announcement said that the "tool-making for which is about to start."  Does that mean that PECO is still perhaps finalizing the actual design?

[DropTheTap]

I model in P4. And yes, I think Peco should minimize the compromises which they clearly didn't do if that photo is to be believed. The check rails look ghastly.

 

 

 

If you're looking at the 'photo in post 2361, your eyesight is a stretch better than mine...

[PaulRhB]

Lots of comments about the issues but have you copied your post as an email to Peco?

 

If you don't offer the info to be considered then don't moan if they carry on with this design.

No one has owned up to sharing their expertise with Peco so far.

[AndyID]

Lots of comments about the issues but have you copied your post as an email to Peco?

 

If you don't offer the info to be considered then don't moan if they carry on with this design.

No one has owned up to sharing their expertise with Peco so far.

 

It's impossible to know for sure, but I'm reasonably confident someone at Peco takes a peek at this thread now and again.

[Buhar]

I spoke to Peco at Glasgow and they are aware of the check rail length being an issue. I don't know whether that means they will adjust it.

[Limpley Stoker]

I've noticed how easy it is to clip the rail back into the chairs if they get displaced when handling the track- much easier than threading them on! I suspect this makes manufacturing easier.