PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Pacific231G]

I think that Peco have stated some changes from the prototype in the photo and the production one. Especially in the area of the common crossing

 

As for the Premium price, I understand the production cost will be dearer owing to the issues with bullhead rail, however there may also be due to either smaller unit sales and or because they can increase the price, plus lack of competition

That doesn't seem to have been Peco's strategy in the past and they have other track products which probably have smaller unit sales like the bi-bloc track and the H0n3  range.

From what they told me at Lille, the bullhead points do require a lot more hand assembly and that would push up the production costs considerably.

[bertiedog]

May I ask why the geometry of the long point in code 75, (and the bullhead version still to come), is considered to "swing locos sharp left and sharp right in a set track toy train manner"

I have the Code 83 no8 pair in front of me along side the long point in code 75 and both behave in exactly the same manner when set the same track centres apart in a cross over. Neither of them display "toy train manner" or cause any sway or other effect.

They have slightly different geometry, and to duplicate the centres the code 75 requires addition track added, or the code 83 has excess rail removed. but the results in the end are the same except for appearance.

I am fully aware of the differences between the US standard and Peco geometry, but where do you get the effects mentioned?

 

Stephen

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I suspect its because - and I may be wrong as the turnouts are in the shed and I am not - that on the US #8s the diverging route is a straight (sorry, tangent) from before the frog, whereas the UK points have the diverging route on a continual curve.  

 

This means, at the point (sorry) where the crossover tracks meet, on UK style Peco points it forms a compact S curve, on the US style Peco points the S curve is reduced by the insertion of a length of straight track...  around 4 or 5 inches worth I think.  This prevents the swinging back and forth.  It also means a crossover with #8s is just shy of two feet in length.

 

Well, that was a rubbish description.  A picture would do it better.  Maybe later.  Got an essay to finish today before I fly off to Munich.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[bertiedog]

The nearest comparison is with a no6 and the code 75 long, and apart from the curve geometry mentioned the tracks are near identical in operation. It partly depends on whether the points are treated as "set Track" or adjusted to fit the actual layout, It is difficult to compare as they are different standards, When two No six points are laid facing each other they produce the US standard distance apart, and the straight sections line up.

 

The Code 75 join without a straight section at nominally correct centres, but if you want a straight between the points, then the point can be cut short and a straight section added, especially if the track centres are slightly further apart.

 

The Code 83 geometry results in an effective smaller "radius" than the length of the point implies. For the degree of "turn" the US points will always be longer.

 

If Peco introduced the Bullhead with US type geometry it loses compatibility with existing items, and for the same degree of turn the point would be about 2 inches longer, dependant on the "radius".

 

It is all swings and roundabouts gain one advantage and another fades.  Don't forget points may be into just a curved siding, and the constant curve through the point works well there, the code 83 will, at the start of the curve contain a short straight section that you do not want.

 

After all if you want "scale" "correct Geometry bullhead it is already made by C&L, and compatible the with Peco track.

 

Stephen.

[martin_wynne]

They have slightly different geometry

 

Hi Stephen,

 

It is rather more than "slightly" different.

 

The long Peco geometry turnouts use curviform-pattern crossings (frogs). The turnout curve continues through and beyond the crossing (frog). This results in an instant reverse curve at the centre of a crossover, at a sharp angle of 12 degrees (1:4.7). This produces significant end-throw between bogie vehicles, and sway at speed.

 

#8 turnouts use generic-pattern crossings. The turnout curve stops at the crossing (frog), and beyond that the track is straight at an angle of 1:8. This is a much more gentle angle than on Peco geometry. The reverse curve is very significantly reduced -- the angle is flatter, and there is a straight section between the two  opposing curves.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

It is all swings and roundabouts gain one advantage and another fades. Don't forget points may be into just a curved siding, and the constant curve through the point works well there, the code 83 will, at the start of the curve contain a short straight section that you do not want..

 

Hi Stephen,

 

Indeed. The new bullhead turnouts will look better, but with a limited range of sizes (maybe only a single size?) there is no way they can be used by themselves to create a prototypical track layout. Even with the existing massive range of Peco pointwork, it is still not possible after all these years to create a proper curved crossover between concentric double-track -- an extremely common prototype formation.

 

All of which is why modellers turn to building their own track. I realise that I'm not allowed to mention that in this topic. But it does mean that you could have bullhead pointwork now -- it's not compulsory to wait for Peco.

 

Martin.

[bertiedog]

As said by Martin and said by me, there is a difference, but it does not matter that much, unless you determined to use less than scale length points and then drive at speed through the points as if it on the main line to Scotland!

 

The slight reverse curve suits most users to save space, and given speed reductions over such track is acceptable. Most modellers are pretty desperate to save space and curved geometry works well to save space. Again if it is a small layout, why are such huge points being considered.

It s covered by other makers, let Peco stick to the mass market and get on with supplying the bullhead track and points, without a huge change to US style model track, however nearer the real thing it is..This is after all 00 not P4.

 

Stephen

[bertiedog]

Ma be it does hinge on whether you are "duplicating " the real thing, or building an 00 model, with under gauge, under minimum radius track. With Peco they are catering for the mass market, on layouts that can start at 6x4, try putting no8 or larger points on that..... it's part of modelling to adopt compromises, and still get the model to look correct and run well, The fact that coaches through a Peco crossover adopt a slightly odd passage is just one of the compromises you might accept, you don't have to, nobody is forcing you to use Peco.

I feel as though I am an advocate for Peco, but the conversation here is not one sided, I am sure that a lot, perhaps most, are quite happy with curved geometry points.

[martin_wynne]

let Peco stick to the mass market

 

Which is of course what they have done for years. And their reason for sticking with the H0-sized flat-bottom range.

 

But with this new bullhead track they are raising expectations of something more prototypical. It is only to be expected that modellers will notice and point out that it isn't really that.

 

However DCC Concepts claim to be introducing bullhead pointwork more closely matching prototype geometry (although I suspect in a very limited range of sizes), so modellers will have a choice.

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

Of course another possible reason is to allow someone to change out their code 75 points for the BH ones.....

[bertiedog]

Well at the moment I am using code 75 flatbottom points and bullhead mixed because they are available. I was wondering about adding C&L chairs on to the flatbottom points as mentioned earlier, but it is a lot of work. fortunately It's a light railway scene and some track is near buried.

The code 75 points have the joiners fitted to the points, by filing way the foot till it fits, Gives a nice joint as the joiners are the right size overall.

Stephen

[Mike Storey]

I carried out the same tests mentioned above, between large rad Peco 75 and code 8 Peco 83. This used Bachman 4CEPs and Hornby 4VEPs. The difference in appearance as the units crossed the two types of crossover, was very noticeable to me, at slowish speed (the crossover being modelled has a prototype 45mph restriction). The trains passed through the code 83 formation in far more prototypical manner. I have thus invested in code 83 for the scenic parts of my "main line" (branch line really), despite the sleeper spacings which will all be disguised. But all my sidings will use the Peco 75 BH, as it will give the clear visual difference that was so noticeable on the prototype, something not really possible with Peco code 75 FB.

 

It is a personal choice for sure.

 

On unit costs, someone suggested that low volumes for Bi-Bloc and H0e Peco track has not resulted in higher retail costs. But it assumes low volumes - both types of track have sold extraordinarily well here in France, witnessed by its use in exhibition layouts and magazine "how to" articles. Peco have really, really nailed the market here (helped by their close association with LR), even with ordinary code 75 and 100 FB. Indeed, it is possible to make the same assumptions about code 83 track, for which there is much greater competition, especially in the USA. I think the cost is more to do with the greater element of hand assembly for BH track, as others have suggested.

[phil-b259]

Which is of course what they have done for years. And their reason for sticking with the H0-sized flat-bottom range.

 

But with this new bullhead track they are raising expectations of something more prototypical. It is only to be expected that modellers will notice and point out that it isn't really that.

 

However DCC Concepts claim to be introducing bullhead pointwork more closely matching prototype geometry (although I suspect in a very limited range of sizes), so modellers will have a choice.

 

Martin.

 

Please have a think about what you have just said

 

the phrase ".....something more prototypical...." does not mean the same thing as ".....something prototypical....."

 

If modellers have difficulty confusing the two statements - more fool them.

 

Peco have never said they are producing a completely accurate copy of the prototype, just something that looks a bit more like Bullhead rail pointwork than any of their current range - which complements their existing code 75 range (rather than establishes a whole new range with incompatible geometry).

 

As you note there are plenty of other players in the field for those wishing to have track that matches the prototype as much as is physically possible (which is not the same thing as RTR track buyers wanting something more prototypical) so if what Peco have chose to do bothers people - they should look at other providers offerings.

[Pint of Adnams]

Further speculation with the associated 'negative waves' and strict prototypical comparisons at this stage of development of the product can only be unhelpful and potentially compromise the addition of other P&C components in the range. It is almost certainly now a matter for Peco to assess sales numbers in order to decide future development of the range - which, anyone having bought into it will need, a basic left and right turnout will not suffice for long - and I for one will prefer not to have to spend out on crossings and especially slips only to purchase replacements in, hopefully, the not too distant future.

 

Speaking to a trader last Saturday, sales of the new plain track are promising so some folks must be travelling in hope.

[gr.king]

Please have a think about what you have just said

 

the phrase ".....something more prototypical...." does not mean the same thing as ".....something prototypical....."

 

If modellers have difficulty confusing the two statements - more fool them.

 

 

I frequently encounter the same problem in my daily work, that of those who cannot appreciate that some statements or questions only draw comparisons and are not absolute. How many hundreds of times have I wanted to bang my head, or somebody else's head, against the wall, when I've shown somebody two unequally imperfect images and ask them to tell me which is the clearer of the two, only to receive the utterly pointless, uninformative, time-wasting statement of the obvious, i.e. "they're both blurred".....

[Dungrange]

I frequently encounter the same problem in my daily work, that of those who cannot appreciate that some statements or questions only draw comparisons and are not absolute. How many hundreds of times have I wanted to bang my head, or somebody else's head, against the wall, when I've shown somebody two unequally imperfect images and ask them to tell me which is the clearer of the two, only to receive the utterly pointless, uninformative, time-wasting statement of the obvious, i.e. "they're both blurred".....

 

I guess that makes you an optician or optometrist!!  However, I agree that some people never seem to listen properly or in the example you highlight, probably don't appreciate the reason why you ask these questions.  For the same reason, you get members on here that complain that something isn't perfect without understanding the production compromises that have to be made either to produce the product, or at least produce it at a price that modellers are willing to pay.  There is rarely a perfect solution, just one with more acceptable compromises than other potential solutions.

[coachmann]

Wanting to bang heads is something I want to do regularly on RMweb. When I post words or images on here, I end up wishing I hadn't bothered when it attracts puerile comments from talent-less dipsticks who never post any of their own modelling, if indeed they actually do any.  But they are always here to hypotheses and attempt to discredit anyone who they regard as heretics. I am sure the majority of railway modellers have no time whatsoever for armchair theorists/meddlers/pundits/bullsh*tters. 

[raymw]

It's possibly a question of why the image is posted, or the question asked. Often the poster makes assumptions, assumes others are 'inside their mind'. Sometimes a question seems to be implied, but not intended. It is also acceptable for friends to take the piss, and others, who do not know the background of the 'friendship' join in, which can lead to offense. Also, you have folk who are 'givers' having to interact with those who are 'takers'. That is easily overcome in situations other than an open forum. Basically, just 'get over it'.

[martin_wynne]

I've shown somebody two unequally imperfect images and ask them to tell me which is the clearer of the two, only to receive the utterly pointless, uninformative, time-wasting statement of the obvious, i.e. "they're both blurred".....

 

That's because you asked the wrong question.

 

If you ask which is clearer, you are suggesting that both should be clear, but one may be more so than the other -- in which case by telling you that both of them is blurred (instead of clear) they are trying to be helpful.

 

How about you being more helpful by asking which is less blurred?

 

Don't be so dismissive of other people's brain, just because it doesn't work the same way as yours.

 

Martin.

[gr.king]

As a matter of fact, I've tried that form of question, and just about every other conceivable form of brief question over the course of 33 years. Regardless of the question, there is a significant percentage of those who supposedly speak English as a first language who cannot grasp what the question is asking for! There are plenty of people out there who cannot understand that "less blurred" means best, and who will respond to your suggested question by wrongly selecting the more blurred image, and there are quite a number of others who will state that they cannot be sure of what the question means....

 

There are no simple answers. Some people simply cannot understand language. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by gr.king

[Colin_McLeod]

There are also people who for some reason just wont answer the question. For example: Q. Where can I purchase 3/4" ply. A. Why not use 1/2"?

[chris p bacon]

There are also people who for some reason just wont answer the question. For example: Q. Where can I purchase 3/4" ply. A. Why not use 1/2"?

Well,  they've got a point.    You've completely ignored using 2 sheets of 9mm bonded together..........

Edited May 11, 2017 by chris p bacon

[The Bigbee Line]

As a matter of fact, I've tried that form of question, and just about every other conceivable form of brief question over the course 33 years. Regardless of the question, there is a significant percentage of those who supposedly speak English as a first language who cannot grasp what the question is asking for! There are plenty of people out there who cannot understand that "less blurred" means best, and who will respond to your suggested question by wrongly selecting the more blurred image, and there are quite a number of others who will state that they cannot be sure of what the question means....

 

There are no simple answers. Some people simply cannot understand language.

I have the same problem when asking for information over the phone or by email. Today I was trying to establish if a left or right hand variation of an item was required.... As peoples idea of left and right hand can vary, I sent a picture of each item, one painted red and the other in primer. Even then it took some doing to establish what they required...

 

Sometimes people answer with the answer that they think will please you....

 

Sometimes they think by magic that you have the power of second sight and know the answer already.

 

Not sure if it's how there brain is wired or whether it is lack of training... I know that I can struggle with things sometimes, a Lenz manual for me is hard work, probably because I need to familiarise myself with the way its written etc.

 

Anyway, when asking such questions its always best to check the persons answer...

[martin_wynne]

I remember an incident in a specialist model shop many years ago.

 

Customer walks in and approaches the counter. "Do you sell plugs?".

 

Shopkeeper: "What sort of plugs? Banana plugs, multi-pin plugs? Sorry I don't stock 13 amp mains plugs but I might be able to find one for you".

 

Customer: "One and half inch bath plug".

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

I remember an incident in a specialist model shop many years ago.

 

Customer walks in and approaches the counter. "Do you sell plugs?".

 

Shopkeeper: "What sort of plugs? Banana plugs, multi-pin plugs? Sorry I don't stock 13 amp mains plugs but I might be able to find one for you".

 

Customer: "One and half inch bath plug".

 

Martin.

Two Ronnies?