PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Coryton]

I noticed it, and I think it is a very fair price - It is a pretty niche market and for something that looks OK and will work (PECO track does work) its good to me

 

I couldn't see these in a quick search on the Peco web site, but looking at other on-line traders, the RRP would appear to be £32.50.

[Mike Storey]

In a few years time the BH range, and I don't think there will not be a range, will be the normal first choice for many discerning OO modellers. The history will be forgotten or not even learned, and it will be as though it has always been there......

 

True for many, but many (perhaps more??) will also continue to use FB, as that is more correct for their locale and/or era. I suspect the next push will be for more realistic, British outline FB track, particularly turnout geometry. I am using Code 83 purely because of the more pleasing effect of bogie stock movement through it compared to Code 75/100 geometry, but it is even more difficult to make it look "British". Probably a market too niche, we once would have said, but if 00 BH does take off rather better commercially than perhaps we expect, I would not rule it out. I recognise it creates a disconnect with 75 and 100 geometry, which the new BH avoids, so perhaps it might be a step too far, but Peco risked it with 83, for a larger market of course, so who knows?

[newbryford]

A single slip would be nice as that would allow for a huge number of station layouts that used it as a crossover/access to yard so that facing points would be avoided on the mainline.

[Jeff Smith]

True for many, but many (perhaps more??) will also continue to use FB, as that is more correct for their locale and/or era. I suspect the next push will be for more realistic, British outline FB track, particularly turnout geometry. I am using Code 83 purely because of the more pleasing effect of bogie stock movement through it compared to Code 75/100 geometry, but it is even more difficult to make it look "British". Probably a market too niche, we once would have said, but if 00 BH does take off rather better commercially than perhaps we expect, I would not rule it out. I recognise it creates a disconnect with 75 and 100 geometry, which the new BH avoids, so perhaps it might be a step too far, but Peco risked it with 83, for a larger market of course, so who knows?

That of course depends on whether you prefer the flat bottom rail with visibly incorrect sleeper size and spacing or could create a story as to why BH rail is still in use on your layout and benefit from the overall better appearance.....it has been commented on that even today BH track can be seen and is occasionally still being installed.

 

The BH turnouts will be the same geometry as code 75 and 100 presumably to allow drop-in replacement....code 83 follows US standard prototype practice.

[Mike Storey]

That of course depends on whether you prefer the flat bottom rail with visibly incorrect sleeper size and spacing or could create a story as to why BH rail is still in use on your layout and benefit from the overall better appearance.....it has been commented on that even today BH track can be seen and is occasionally still being installed.

 

The BH turnouts will be the same geometry as code 75 and 100 presumably to allow drop-in replacement....code 83 follows US standard prototype practice.

 

Bit tricky to justify BH on a main line layout set anytime after 1980, or even earlier on most routes, apart from the sidings, which is what I shall be using the new BH track for. As the new BH does not improve the appearance of bogie stock moving through it, I find that far more galling than the sleeper spacing (which I can change with a Stanley knife, other makes are available) or the width (which I can disguise with ballasting and weathering) of the sleepers. I cannot disguise a Mark 1 sticking its backside out at a ridiculous angle over what is suppose to be a main line crossover......that is much more toy-like than the track IMHO.  

[mightbe]

^Why not just make your own turnouts? Better running and better looking, not to mention years faster than waiting for a RTP version (which will probably still have the same geometry anyway, given Peco's choice here).

[Jeff Smith]

^Why not just make your own turnouts? Better running and better looking, not to mention years faster than waiting for a RTP version (which will probably still have the same geometry anyway, given Peco's choice here).

Not very helpful as this whole thread is about RTL for those who don't want to build their own. The Peco geometry may persuade some to have a go but those who want to probably already have.....or have moved to code 83.....or Marcway.....

[mightbe]

*sigh*

 

Perhaps so, but then there are many posts containing 'wants'; many of which won't realistically be fulfilled on short notice. It's an uncomfortable truth that with time, patience, and reasonable fine motor skills, one doesn't have to wait for Peco

 

Everyone engages with the hobby as they see fit, but doesn't idle wishing on Internet fora seem an odd use of time? I guess I wouldn't immediately think "Oh dear, no xyz. Guess everything's on hold until abc makes one", at least not for something as accessible and straightforward as trackwork.

[coachmann]

One of the comic things about model trains is people who want 2ft radius points and double slips "in pursuit of scale appearance" cannot see the contradiction of their trains chasing around caricature curves.  Such points with wider sleeper spacing would resemble turnouts designed for horse-worked industrial sidings.

[hayfield]

One of the comic things about model trains is people who want 2ft radius points and double slips "in pursuit of scale appearance" cannot see the contradiction of their trains chasing around caricature curves.  Such points with wider sleeper spacing would resemble turnouts designed for horse-worked industrial sidings.

 

Perhaps we can expect an enterprising manufacturer supplying motorised horses to pull the wagons, but surely the sleepers would be hidden so the horses will not trip over them.

 

Seriously Coachman you have a valid point here, of course there will have to be compromises in most cases, but where is the line to be drawn where the size detracts from the looks. I say looks as most of those 00 modellers want a better looking and in scale track system for 4 mm scale modelling (all be it to a narrower gauge), rather than scale replicas. Lets face it this is what is being brought now in loco's and rolling stock, in far greater numbers

[Mark Saunders]

Perhaps we can expect an enterprising manufacturer supplying motorised horses to pull the wagons, but surely the sleepers would be hidden so the horses will not trip over them.

 

Seriously Coachman you have a valid point here, of course there will have to be compromises in most cases, but where is the line to be drawn where the size detracts from the looks. I say looks as most of those 00 modellers want a better looking and in scale track system for 4 mm scale modelling (all be it to a narrower gauge), rather than scale replicas. Lets face it this is what is being brought now in loco's and rolling stock, in far greater numbers

 

The art of Compromise is what can you live with? 

 

90% of it to me is does it look right or convincing!

 

Mark Saunders

[Flying Pig]

Perhaps we can expect an enterprising manufacturer supplying motorised horses to pull the wagons, but surely the sleepers would be hidden so the horses will not trip over them.

 

The first scale motorised horse will sell like hot cakes (provided it is sold in the livery of a biscuit factory). Of course, some will complain bitterly that it only works on DCC, or has overscale hooves, and many will indignantly demand a donkey instead. Others will remark wistfully that they scratch built one from yeast cells in 1976 and bemoan the lack of enterprise among the current generation.

[martin_wynne]

One of the comic things about model trains is people who want 2ft radius points and double slips "in pursuit of scale appearance" cannot see the contradiction of their trains chasing around caricature curves.  Such points with wider sleeper spacing would resemble turnouts designed for horse-worked industrial sidings.

 

It's not quite that bad, but certainly no more than short-wheelbase shunting engines -- round the back of the gasworks. I posted a possible design for the small radius turnout and slip using Peco geometry earlier in this topic. The slip is down to 19" radius (that's under 2 chains radius), but folks are already using them in code 75 FB so presumaby find them acceptable for running lines.

 

 

In practice the prototype wouldn't use an inside slip at such a short angle because it is impossible to fit the proper check rails for the K-crossings, as you can see. An outside slip would be used instead, like this:

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Godfrey Glyn]

My copy of the Modeller has just dropped through the letterbox; it includes a review of the first of the new BF points including four photographs and comments on the Unifrog arrangement. There is also a full page separate article which explains the principles and how the Unifrog points can be used. The RRP for the new point is £32.50.

 

I can understand why they have followed the geometry of the code 75 FB track but I agree with the comment made earlier by Coachman that their Code 83 gives a more realistic flow to the track and to the running of a train through the points.

 

Still a really good development in my opinion and I am looking forward to buying some in the very near future.

 

All the best

 

Godfrey

[2750Papyrus]

Place a shim of plastikard in the grove in front of the 'V' or frog. This will support the wheel flange and stop it dropping, but of course you would need to standardize of RTR wheels to match your loco wheels. I did this with Peco 0 gauge points....

 

WEB frog support.jpg

 

Thanks for this, coachman.  I experimented with different thicknesses in an unlaid turnout before inserting a .020" shim in the layout turnout.  Inevitably some wheels bump a little as the flanges mount the shim but much improved. 

 

My porters no longer have to call out "Mind the gap!".

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would not worry too much about additional items becoming available. For all its shortcomings, particularly the 12 deg crossing, I am sure Peco will have a big success with this new range. I would expect, on past track record (sorry!), 3' radius turnouts to be the next item.

 

If some of the other more specialised items do not arrive soon, I could see someone producing compatible kits.

[gr.king]

"Realistic" movement of the stock as it passes through the points has been mentioned more than once.

 

I know it's not a standard gauge example that I'm referring to here, but it was interesting to watch the 2-10-2T engines on the Harz system a month ago. It did not look anything like a graceful sweep to one side as they ran through facing points at a speed that we'd probably consider Unrealistic, it was more like an immediate flick to one side before more straight running at the new angle. In some situations smooth movement of the model may be too smooth.

[Tim Dubya]

^Why not just make your own turnouts? Better running and better looking, not to mention years faster than waiting for a RTP version (which will probably still have the same geometry anyway, given Peco's choice here).

 

'They' are building a wicker man for you... I wish you luck 'on the other side' 

[newbryford]

Bit tricky to justify BH on a main line layout set anytime after 1980, or even earlier on most routes, apart from the sidings, which is what I shall be using the new BH track for.

 

Captain Kernow's favourite "Horrocksford Junction" at Clitheroe is still BH for the point and single slip, but all surrounding track on the mainline is FB. Some of which is only a coiuple of years old.

 

Taken yesterday.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[coachmann]

The Hartz system is a 3' 3" and 00 gauge is 4' 1½", so while the former is a narrow gauge railway, 00 is meant to represent a 4' 8½ " standard gauge railway, not a narrow gauge system! 

Edited October 10, 2017 by coachmann

[Coryton]

One of the comic things about model trains is people who want 2ft radius points and double slips "in pursuit of scale appearance" cannot see the contradiction of their trains chasing around caricature curves.  Such points with wider sleeper spacing would resemble turnouts designed for horse-worked industrial sidings.

 

Or perhaps they do see the contradiction, but have to use corners in the track to fit what they want into the space they have and don't see why at least the track itself shouldn't look more realistic?

 

Taking my argument to silly extremes, if Peco could make set-track more cheaply using blue plastic for the sleepers, should they go for it on the grounds that nobody should complain about the colour because the curvature is un-realistic in the first place?

[Mark Saunders]

The Hartz system is a 3' 3" and 00 gauge is 4' 1½", so while the former is a narrow gauge railway, 00 is meant to represent a 4' 8½ " standard gauge railway, not a narrow gauge system!

 

If you are so concerned then by all means built or buy the track that suits you but leave us who are happy to use "OO" track at its compromise guage!

 

If you start throwing stones then others might start looking a bit more closely at what you have compromised on in your own models! It's my world and I'm quite happy with my view of it in model form!

 

Mark Saunders

[coachmann]

If you are so concerned then by all means built or buy the track that suits you but leave us who are happy to use "OO" track at its compromise guage!

 

If you start throwing stones then others might start looking a bit more closely at what you have compromised on in your own models! It's my world and I'm quite happy with my view of it in model form!

 

Mark Saunders

I most certainly was not throwing stones. I was attempting to address an earlier post about the Hertz system which is a true narrow gauge system. 00 gauge may be narrow gauge, but is meant to represent a standard gauge system, so I prefer my standard gauge locos not to sway about on points like a narrow gauge loco. 

 

The people who dont want to geddit will never get it.

Edited October 10, 2017 by coachmann

[gr.king]

The Hartz system is a 3' 3" and 00 gauge is 4' 1½", so while the former is a narrow gauge railway, 00 is meant to represent a 4' 8½ " standard gauge railway, not a narrow gauge system!

I'm failing to understand what it is that you're trying to emphasize there. I entirely agree, as stated in my original observation, that Harz is narrow metre gauge and therefore not necessarily quite the same thing as standard gauge, which OO is supposed to represent. Standard gauge locos may, or may not appear to behave on the track in a similar way to the Harz locos.

 

The Harz gauge is however about 75% of "full size" and the locos are substantial lumps, so there has to be some degree of similarity with full size standard gauge behaviour. It's not like comparing standard gauge with something like a 2 foot gauge system with top-heavy, wibbly-wobbly, short wheelbase 0-4-0 tank locos....

Edited October 10, 2017 by gr.king

[Clive Mortimore]

I remember when the Mainline class 03 was introduced, people complained it lurched from side to side. Having experienced 03 chasing me down the dockside at Ipswich and having driven them at Mangapps Railway Museum standard gauge locos lurch from side to side and even more when they traverse a point.

 

Another thing is the wheel drop issue, the real ones do. Those who think they don't never traveled in a Class 312 MBS heading towards Chelmsford  where the slow lines join the main lines at Shenfield, BANG!!! as the wheel under your bottom drops in the void leaving a void between said bottom and seat. You rapidly descend back into you seat, when . CRASH as you are thrown upwards where the wheel tries to mount the crossing vee. It was enough to wake even the hardiest of regular commuters.