PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[martin_wynne]

There you go again, quite deliberately repeating the same clearly unpopular and provocative assertion.

 

NO, THAT IS NOT THE WIDELY ACCEPTED BASIS OF OO GAUGE MODELLING!

 

If you accept that 00 models are scaled at 4mm/ft, and the distance between the rails is 16.5mm, the answer is 4ft-1.5in whether you like it or not.

 

But I'm baffled why you are so hostile to the statement of a simple mathematical fact? What difference does it make to your modelling whether I write it down or not?

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

A 4mm model of a 60ft coach should be 240mm long. If it is in fact only 224mm long it is still a model of a 60ft coach and not a model of a 56ft coach.

 

In that case, how long would a model of a 56ft coach be?

 

Martin.

[Colin_McLeod]

It should be 224 mm.

[martin_wynne]

It should be 224 mm.

 

So a 60ft coach and a 56ft coach are both the same length?

 

In the first case it may be a very nice model, it may look like a 60ft coach, but it can't actually be one at 4mm/ft unless it is 240mm long. Otherwise if you park your "60ft" coach against a 60ft platform, it won't match.

 

Martin.

[Colin_McLeod]

Martin I was making the point that oo track is a model of 4" 8.5" track that is dimensionally short. I mentioned the short coaches to illustrate my point. At no stage did I say that a model of a 60ft coach and a 56ft coach should be the same. I said that one should be 240mm and the other 224mm.

[martin_wynne]

Martin I was making the point that oo track is a model of 4' 8.5" track that is dimensionally short.

 

But that's a meaningless statement (let's forget the coaches ).

 

There is no sense in stating a precise dimension, and then adding that it doesn't apply.

 

I could just as easily say "00 track is a model of 7ft-5in track that is dimensionally short", and then the nonsense nature of such a statement becomes obvious.

 

Martin.

[The Bigbee Line]

I think we should have "train set" and "scale". Don't get me wrong as I'm in the trainset club.

 

It's a bit like a guy brake testing a real wagon, using the timer on his IPhone. Then recording 15.34 seconds. Meaningless. 15 seconds will do. I remember when doing A levels you were taught to work to the least accurate figure. Everything else was a waste of ink.

 

Rambling over.

[Dungrange]

OO track is not a model of 4' 1.5" track. It is a model of 4' 8.5" track that happens to be dimensionally short, in the same way that rtr coaches used to be short. A 4mm model of a 60ft coach should be 240mm long. If it is in fact only 224mm long it is still a model of a 60ft coach and not a model of a 56ft coach.

 

I agree that not all 00 track is a model of 4' 1 1/2" track - just this particular range.  Up until now, Peco 00 Streamline track has effectively been a model of 4' 8 1/2" standard gauge gauge track. That is, the assumption is that 16.5 mm = 4' 8 1/2" and you scale everything from that.  That effectively gives you sleepers that are too narrow and too close together for true 4mm scale so that all the track components are in proportion to the gauge. This effectively gives you the H0/00 Streamline ranges that we are all familiar with.  In many ways, it's 00 modellers who insist that their track accurately represents standard gauge track that has led to Peco producing the same standard for so long.

 

To use your analogy of a short coach, if a 60' coach that is supposed to be 240 mm long is compressed onto an under frame that is only 224 mm long by making all of the doors and windows slightly narrower, but still retaining the same number of doors and windows, then you effectively have a coach that has been designed as though it were a 60' coach, but which isn't quite to the stated scale of 1:76.2.  That may be a nice model, but would probably draw criticism that the windows were too narrow (ie not the correct proportions) etc.  That would be consistent with the way in which the existing streamline range was designed and it has received many of the same criticisms that the sleeper spacing was wrong.

 

However, for this particular range, Peco seem to have designed every element of the track to 4mm scale - ie rail height and profile, sleeper width and spacing and since each component of the model (which is what track is) is at 1:76.2, that therefore means that this particular range is an accurate scale model of 4' 1 1/2" track.  There is nothing to stop individuals pretending that is really 4' 8 1/2" gauge to match the prototype that they are modelling - it's up to individuals how they want to think.  Many won't care.

 

That is, the new range of track is more analogous with taking a 60' coach and removing one compartment or one window to create a 56' coach that has windows and doors that are the correct dimensions - just not enough of them - and making a model of that on your 224 mm under frame. It's still not right, but in my opinion, it would look less odd when mixed with scale length coaches because the windows on the 56' coach (even although no such prototype may have existed) would match the windows on the scale 60' coach.  In the same way, I think this new range of track is better, because the sleeper spacing etc better matches the rolling stock that sits on it.  

[PaulRhB]

They aren't real?

So in however many pages we have ascertained:

 

Peco are making bullhead track.

 

It's to the accepted mainstream standard.

 

There are other options for 16.5mm OO

 

There are the options of P4 and EM.

 

People will have different opinions, some won't agree to disagree.

 

You alone can decide if you will accept it's compromises and whether to buy it.

 

Life goes on.

 

 

I'm off to build a scale speed trap so I can fine myself for driving my trains too fast.

[Dungrange]

They aren't real?

 

No - just a toy - but of course we can all use our imagination and pretend that it represents something that is real.  16.5 mm can be whatever you want it to be - we just don't all agree what that is!!!

[martin_wynne]

Up until now, Peco 00 Streamline track

 

Up until now, there hasn't been any 00 Gauge track in the Streamline range.

 

Even Peco don't call the existing track 00 -- they call it 00/H0 in the UK, and H0/00 for the rest of the world.

 

This new bullhead track is the first and only plastic-based 00 Gauge track that Peco have produced. And glory be, they have got it exactly right -- a 4mm/ft scale model of 4ft-1.5in gauge UK-style track. That's what the designation "00 Gauge" means -- a scale of 4mm/ft and a track gauge of 16.5mm. Peco's existing track is not scaled at 4mm/ft, so it can't be called 00 Gauge, and they don't and never have. They do actually know what they are doing down in Devon.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

I have to admit I find it highly entertaining that people can get so steamed up about 00 gauge. 00 is a perfectly good solution for a real problem, and Peco seem to have done an excellent job of producing bullhead 00 track, but when anyone dares to point out that the the scale gauge is inescapably 4.125 feet the reaction is sometimes quite a bit worse than telling someone they have a really ugly baby.

[martin_wynne]

when anyone dares to point out that the the scale gauge is inescapably 4.125 feet

 

It's fun to do it though -- and all laid on for your entertainment.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

So don't try to saddle us with an un-necessary and incorrect "definition" just because you cannot cope with something that doesn't suit your track design software.

 

Templot can cope perfectly well with any old scale, gauge and timber size you care to choose. I know this because I have used it to produce 00 track with sleeper size and spacing that is deliberately altered in an attempt to disguise the fact that the scale gauge is 4.125 feet. I suspect this is anathma to Martin Wynne but he seems to tolerate my strange experiments and, so far anyway, we have managed to resist going for each other's jugulars.

[gr.king]

Simple. The gauge, if scaled up, does work out at the wrong figure, but that doesn't mean that OO is deliberately portraying a corresponding, and non-existent, prototype.

Why would OO modellers want to know exactly what sub-variety of track this new Peco product represents? We know the gauge has to be wrong to allow other highly practical aspects of OO to work. Since the track cannot therefore be a precise model of any type of track, it is only the general look that counts.

It is a near-miracle that Peco have at long last agreed to go so far as to produce at least a general representation of British bullhead track with reasonably spaced sleepers of something like realistic proportions. There is no comparison with the question of what modellers will or much more typically won't accept in the way of generic locos or generic rolling stock. The manufacturers can afford to make many specific types of locomotives and rolling stock because the balance of costs and sales allows that. Neither Peco nor any other manufacturer could possibly make any money out of the manufacture of model versions of dozens of subtly different types of ready-to-lay bullhead wooden sleepered OO track, including the all-important points for each variety. The one type that is offered therefore has to be accepted as generic, undefined, not given a specific identity.

[martin_wynne]

I suspect this is anathma to Martin Wynne

 

Hi Andy,

 

Not at all, it's great to see your experiments. In fact as you know, I have included your dimensions in the Templot pre-sets with the designation H00-DN:

 

 

What would have me seeing red is if you called your track 00 Gauge.

 

Changing the meaning of existing designations is the greatest sin -- are you listening Terry Flynn?

 

Martin.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Conventional wisdom (an oxymoron) has it that we have OO now because contemporary (inter-war) motors would not fit into HO scale models of UK prototypes.  So we continued to use HO track but increased the scale to 4mm/foot.  Is this true?  Was there such a huge consumer base at the time that we couldn't go with 18mm gauge?   Why did we use HO scale track anyway, pesky foreign nonsense.

 

Did anyone try to develop EM commercially?

[mightbe]

I think Martin has gotten far too technical in his approach. 

 

It would be convenient if gauge defined a scale, but it does not. Only the scale itself defines a scale, and in the case of 00 the convention happens to exist outside the ruling scale. That is to say that for 00, 16.5mm represents 4'8.5" by fiat and nothing more. Even if everything else is to 4mm/ft there is no formal decree mandating that all measures must be true to the scale. By convention, many things are not to scale or else ' 'approximate' but this is rarely frowned upon by the mainstream (flanges, anyone?). 

 

I believe that the vast majority view 16.5mm gauge track in a scale 4mm/ft as representative. Furthermore this convention is based on a longstanding instance of doublethink that no amount of math or logic will dislodge in the near future. 

 

Nickel silver is frequently used to represent steel. "This heresy flies in the face of all science and matter. The two alloys are nothing alike on any level, atomic or apparent. In order to overcome this metallurgical fact we must suppose that the former became the prefered material for rails sometime in the 19th century."

 

Best not to get too technical.

 

Quentin

[NHY 581]

This whole thread could have dealt with in one post.

 

 

Quote;

 

'Thank you PECO.'

 

Rob.

[martin_wynne]

 Since the track cannot therefore be a precise model of any type of track, it is only the general look that counts.

 

That's no help to the toolmakers down in Devon -- they need drawings with actual dimensions on them, and the only way the designers can provide that is to know what prototype they are scaling from. Even if it is fictional.

 

But it needn't be fictional if that is what worries you so much. Go to your local heritage railway and ask them to lay some 4ft-1.5in track in the yard. Then notice that this new Peco track is an exact scale model of it.

 

Martin.

[dhjgreen]

This whole thread could have dealt with in one post.

Quote;

'Thank you PECO.'

Rob.

Not as much fun though.

[martin_wynne]

we must suppose that the former became the preferred material for rails sometime in the 19th century.

 

No supposition about it. Everybody knows than when rails are laid 4ft-1.5in apart they are almost always made of nickel-silver.

 

Martin.

[AndyID]

No amount of mental gymnastics or semantic manipulation will overcome the inescapable fact that at a scale of 4mm to 1 foot, 16.5 mm represents 4.125 feet.

 

If you don't like that it's simple enough to make H0 bullhead track. I have. It looks great. The proportions and gauge are spot-on. It's a really good model of the track that was used extensively in the UK. But when you put 00 equipment on it it looks pretty bad

[mightbe]

And no amount of facting will overcome the inescapable fact that no one* cares, or seems to.

 

*other than those who don't model in 00 such as myself, Martin, and others

Edited August 28, 2017 by mightbe

[SouthernBlue80s]

I really want them to bring out point work. Anyone have any news on this?

This is the burning question for me.

 

Currently I am having a point built to mach the Peco bullhead track.