coachmann Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) I dont know why people who say they are building their own points just have to tell us the Peco points aren't good enough for them. Do we really need to know? I am sure that most buyers of the new bullhead flexible track are delighted with their purchase and will see the bullhead points as the icing on the cake. Why wouldn't they when the appearance is 100% better for modelling up to a particular period in British history than the HO 'Streamline' track system. To those building thier own points, I'm happy for you. Be happy for us lesser mortals! Edited September 9, 2017 by coachmann 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium dhjgreen Posted September 9, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 9, 2017 I dont know why people who say they are building their own points just have to tell us the Peco points aren't good enough for them. Do we really need to know? I am sure that most buyers of the new bullhead flexible track are delighted with their purchase and will see the bullhead points as the icing on the cake. Why wouldn't they when the appearance is 100% better for modelling up to a particular period in British history than the HO 'Streamline' track system. For those building their own track, good luck to them, but this thread about Peco track isn't for you. I build my own points and that common crossing looks pretty good to me. Just need to see the blade end now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 This is something they have always done. Ok for a simple junction but wrong for a crossover. I wonder if it is to provide a little extra strength at the end of the rail? No it isn't - I've just checked in the catalogue and the through or 'straight' line has the last timber perpendicular to the running rails on RH and LH turnouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) But I don't quite understand why the final timber on the straight running line appears to be slightly skewed. Still a knife taken to the web will soon fix that. That end sleeper is not skewed, it is square to the rails. The angle of the photo is deceptive. It is the the main crossing timbers which are skewed: This is perfectly prototypical in some circumstances. Lots of info on this in other track topics. regards, Martin. Edited September 9, 2017 by martin_wynne 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 No it isn't - I've just checked in the catalogue and the through or 'straight' line has the last timber perpendicular to the running rails on RH and LH turnouts. Whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I havent been into this thread fro ages and see that at 115 pages theres still an incredible amount of handbag raising about P4/EM/OO etc rather than the actual thread topic of PECO bullhead. theres still a smell that if you are sticking with 00 its in some way inferior to those that model in the gauges. 115 pages of it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Limpley Stoker Posted September 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2017 The end result looks excellent for the gauge. I hope all the discussion on this thread has helped Peco in their endeavour to please as many people as possible. I have a lot of points to replace and, like many I suspect, have a rolling programme of replacement. Now what I really need is Bachmann's promised crane. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Whatever. Typical - a brief apology would have been preferable and more polite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I havent been into this thread fro ages and see that at 115 pages theres still an incredible amount of handbag raising about P4/EM/OO etc rather than the actual thread topic of PECO bullhead. theres still a smell that if you are sticking with 00 its in some way inferior to those that model in the gauges. 115 pages of it! Nothing wrong with modelling in 00 (whichever variant) as there is nothing wrong with using EM or P4. At last 00 scale/gauge modellers have a RTR turnout to compliment their ever improving range of stock. On the other hand if the modeller feels that track in H0 scale better reflects the appearance of the narrowed gauge that's also fine. We are a broad church with lots of differing modelling needs, from the pure collector to the finescale scratch builder. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand without constructive criticism and pushing the boundaries nothing will ever improve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Harrison Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Perfect; coming out end of September and it's my birthday early October. I don't think, somehow, I'll have the problem of finding something to spend birthday money on this year at least Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Not trying to be super critical, but just offering up some observations from the photo the first timbers being separated (timbers within the Vee now too short) rather than joined, which to me looks better Not really seen either up closer or the switch end, but they have missed a trick by not representing the block chairs or the slab and bracket chair (A position on common crossing) Some may think this is nit picking, but if they fitted the wrong valve gear on a loco, observations would be accepted I will wait till I see one in the flesh, but simple attention to basic details would lift it even higher 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 The photo looks impressive, almost like it was hand-built.......... I am off to order a dozen or so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBRJ Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I said, quite recently, that I am very impressed from what I see of the product There seems to be some confusion though that this should have been top-end, dead realistic track - no it shouldn't! It is Peco streamline, ready to lay, as soon as you have brought it home from the shop. It works, it is robust; and now it is available with BH rail and "better" sleepers/spacing it is a step-change for most model railway applications. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I dont know why people who say they are building their own points just have to tell us the Peco points aren't good enough for them. Do we really need to know? I am sure that most buyers of the new bullhead flexible track are delighted with their purchase and will see the bullhead points as the icing on the cake. Why wouldn't they when the appearance is 100% better for modelling up to a particular period in British history than the HO 'Streamline' track system. To those building thier own points, I'm happy for you. Be happy for us lesser mortals! It's not that the peco point isn't good enough , in fact it's a very good looking piece of trackwork, the problem relates to the availability of a range of point work , such that you can begin to build bullhead track layouts that begin to mimic the prototype. It's not a " polishing my apple " process , it's a comment on the inability to build any sort of prototypical trackwork with in effect one point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I said, quite recently, that I am very impressed from what I see of the product There seems to be some confusion though that this should have been top-end, dead realistic track - no it shouldn't! It is Peco streamline, ready to lay, as soon as you have brought it home from the shop. It works, it is robust; and now it is available with BH rail and "better" sleepers/spacing it is a step-change for most model railway applications. No one, ever expected " dead realistic track " , it's 00 after all , it can't be " dead realistic " by definition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2017 I will wait till I see one in the flesh, but simple attention to basic details would lift it even higher The biggest disappointment for me is the flared check rail ends. Those short sharply bent ends cry out "toy track", or the handbuilt track you sometimes see where it is clear the builder never looked at any real track. This is what a real 4-chair check rail typically looks like: However, as the Peco check rails are actual rail and not moulded-in, it should be fairly easy to replace them with something more like the above picture. The overall appearance would be massively improved. It's true that check rails with sharp bent ends are sometimes seen on the prototype -- on narrow-gauge tracks, on industrial sidings, on early pre-grouping track. But I suspect none of that is what most buyers are looking for. Apologies for introducing prototype details into this topic, which I know is frowned on by some. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBRJ Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 No one, ever expected " dead realistic track " , it's 00 after all , it can't be " dead realistic " by definition Funny that 'cos I have seen plenty of dead realistic OO and EM track - It may be slightly less that the real gauge, and the flangeways may be overly wide but using that as a stick to beat this product with is somewhat like claiming a family hatchback is no good because the wing mirrors are a funny shape 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve45 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Any news on price? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 No one, ever expected " dead realistic track " , it's 00 after all , it can't be " dead realistic " by definition Funny that 'cos I have seen plenty of dead realistic OO and EM track - It may be slightly less that the real gauge, and the flangeways may be overly wide but using that as a stick to beat this product with is somewhat like claiming a family hatchback is no good because the wing mirrors are a funny shape Nothing wrong with constructive comments, or airing genuine observations. The sister thread to this was about realistic looking track. No doubt this item is within their finescale range, so as with any stock that that is now introduced where it differs from the original I can understand the geometry of the first heal timber being as it is for practicable reasons, and is easily altered if required. As for the lack of bridge or slab and bracket chairs, its a bit like putting King cylinders on an A3 loco. Most will not have a clue its wrong, some will In reply to the hatch back reply not wing mirrors but not being able to un-clip the back seats from the hatch door Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Typical - a brief apology would have been preferable and more polite. Because you contradicted me on something you were wrong about...& that was the only thing you said in your post! ...unless you misunderstood what I was trying to explain? There are a couple of photos of a crossover with Peco pointwork in port #1 of this thread. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120862-groundframe-or-point-motors-in-station-crossover/ The last bearers by the rail joint where the points meet are perpendicular to the rails they support. This is wrong for a crossover; They should all be perpendicular to the rails on the main running line & if you were really fussy, the middle few should support both running lines & the crossover. Those who are bothered enough by it could modify their pointwork & I have no doubt there are some who have done so. I would have done if I had a crossing on the scenic section of my layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfsboy Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 This thread is ,I gather, already being used by the CIA as part of the the research into strange irrational beliefs and cults of old white men . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 10, 2017 This is wrong for a crossover; They should all be perpendicular to the rails on the main running line Not always. It depends on the company, the period, and the traffic over each route. If one half of the crossover is a slip or diamond-crossing, the turnout timbering is very often skewed to match, to simplify the layout. What we can all agree on is that the bent timber on the end of the flat-bottom turnouts is laughable. At least Peco have not repeated that with these latest bullhead turnouts. In practice the two end sleepers would be full-length and interlaced, but that wouldn't fit with the Peco geometry. No doubt it will be fairly easy to rectify, and these little details would all lift this product to a higher level. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 LIke most threads on here of more than about 5 pages...They descend into a slanging match. The problems is that if you think you're right, you don't want to let it lie & it is not possible to have a sensible argument in a reasonable timeframe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 10, 2017 What slanging match? I keep seeing such suggestions in RMweb topics where I can't see anything untoward. Is it me? A robust argument is not a slanging match. It is simply evidence that folks have got their brains switched on. And a good thing too. Martin. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Funny that 'cos I have seen plenty of dead realistic OO and EM track - It may be slightly less that the real gauge, and the flangeways may be overly wide but using that as a stick to beat this product with is somewhat like claiming a family hatchback is no good because the wing mirrors are a funny shape by any definition of the term " dead realistic " I would take it to mean that the track is as close a facsimile to the real thing as practical. to me P4 and more correctly S4 are " dead realistic " PECO bullhead is a realistic interpetration , but " dead realistic " , no Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts