PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Richard Lee]

Nevertheless, I do believe that the new Peco track is a good development.  Yes, there is better flexible track available, and also the facility for those who care to to built even more accurate track.  On the other hand, I believe that it will make it easier for those modellers who are unlikely to spend a huge amount of time, money and trouble on their track to produce better looking layouts.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Agree, it would be nice to have A B & C type crossings with one-piece switch blades but I think it best that they stick to their current geometry for ease of production and appeal to the train set market / compatibility with existing products.

 

Top stuff, been waiting far too long for this.

 

Agree, it would be nice to have A B & C type crossings with one-piece switch blades but I think it best that they stick to their current geometry for ease of production and appeal to the train set market / compatibility with existing products.

 

Top stuff, been waiting far too long for this.

 

But which current geometry?

[Joseph_Pestell]

As a sceptic, another question now crosses my mind. Is Peco willingly offering this new plain track with genuine willingness to also produce points if it sells well? Suppose instead they have had this design in reserve for some time, and have now seen the threat from the rumoured DCC Concepts ready made pointwork range, possibly from the admittedly pricey C & L items, and from the announced intentions of one of our fellows on this forum. Might the current move simply be aimed at spoiling the market for rivals, so as to ensure that genuine competitors to the existing Peco points never appear, or at least that their manufacturers don't survive for long enough to make any real impression, leaving Peco free to simply continue to offer the existing code 75 points?

 

Perhaps my hypothesis is simply too fanciful and no more than another unfounded conspiracy theory?

 

People will be surprised that I have not been on RMWeb since this announcement. In fact, I have been away and without easy internet access.

 

Grahame, I'm a sceptic too! But let's not allow that to influence my actions.

 

The Peco announcement may lead me to modify my plans a bit. But we always knew that they might do this and the way that I have been progressing my project took account of this. There is therefore little reason for me to change what I was planning. Indeed the number of new layouts that are created as a result of Peco's involvement may even be a boost as we would be producing elements of pointwork that Peco will either never produce or not produce for many years yet. It may just need a bit more thought with regards to compatibility issues.

[martin_wynne]

We go lineside to watch trains, not gaze at the track.

 

Who's this we?

 

I visit railways to look at the infrastructure. Not just track, but bridges, viaducts, cuttings, tunnels, signals, stations. The trains are a damn nuisance and get in the way. I can see them in a museum. You can't see the Forth Bridge in a museum, you have to go there. And who does that to look at the trains?

 

Martin.

[Guest]

Who's this we?

 

Everyone except you and a handful of others, I'd imagine.

[Edwardian]

Track maketh the layout.  Conversely, it does not matter how good the scenery and rolling stock are, bad track will let the whole thing down.

 

I am not that excited by track, if I'm honest.  Cary Grant once said something along the lines of a gentleman is the background for showing off the beautiful woman on his arm.  You notice her, not his finely cut suit.  But, the suit has to be right if it is not to be noticed!

 

Good track does the same for the things that move along it. IMHO.

 

I have seen some layouts that 'get away' with Peco HO track because they are so artfully ballasted, coloured and weathered.  It strikes me as not an easy illusion to pull off.  More usually, OO needs all the help it can get to militate against the narrowness of the gauge.  Code 75 rail and better length and placing of sleepers seems to me to be the way forward.  

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

As I posted recently in another context, this thread clearly illustrates what a broad church the railway interest is.

 

I share with Martyn Wynne the enjoyment of the engineered railway formation in the landscape with the structures various required. And I like to see trains running on this formation. The track? Just background, like birdsong, and the tasty pub lunch I enjoyed midway through the day. It would be very boring indeed if we were all uniform in our interests.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Before we get into a slanging match, can we not agree that theintroduction by PECO of this trackwork is a GOOD THING and something that is POSITIVE for the hobby AS A WHOLE.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Before we get into a slanging match, can we not agree that theintroduction by PECO of this trackwork is a GOOD THING and something that is POSITIVE for the hobby AS A WHOLE.

 

In principle, a good thing. We could all agree with that.

 

In practice, not such a good thing if they don't rapidly make available a decent selection of pointwork and by launching this half-cock they prevent others from doing it properly.

[Edwardian]

I agree.  A good, if so far rather pointless, development.

 

I see some merit in both Mr Wynne's and Coachman's positions.  Like Coachman, I am not primarily drawn to the visual spectacle of track.  Mr Wynne's attention to it is, however, amply justified, because without care being taken over the appearance of model track, a layout won't look convincing, whatever you run on it. 

 

Added to which, I have a suspicion that Mr Wynne's tongue may have been in his cheek.

 

Further, Mr Wynne was talking of the infrastructure as a whole, including the civil engineering structures, and I think few could sensibly doubt either the appeal or the importance of modelling the infrastructure.  One of the last books I purchased was an album on GW infrastructure.  It certainly repaid the read, despite the absence of trains in view.  There are no shortage of albums picturing trains.   

Edited February 1, 2016 by Edwardian

[The Stationmaster]

In view of the various comments about what people look at on the (real) railway I have opened a new thread which will hopefully encourage discussion (and avoid any slanging matches).  We are, as 34theletter betweenB&D has said, a broad church and it might be useful and interesting to see just how broad our interests are and how they can be of mutual use to us.  The thread is here -

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107765-what-do-you-look-at-when-out-about-on-the-railway/ 

[BG John]

Surely most people wouldn't consciously notice the track, but getting it nearer to the real thing would add something to the overall effect that makes the whole model more convincing, without the average viewer realising (or even caring) how it's achieved. And for those who do notice, it helps too, as one element of the scene that really grates with some people can ruin the whole effect. There are some lovely layouts on RMweb that are ruined for me when I spot the girders the wheels are running on!

[No Decorum]

Perhaps you should have a look at P4newstreet.com

 

Separately, a wise man who frequents these discussions once wrote that "one of the problems with railway photos is that when they are taking photos of the track they wait until a locomotive is in the way." I cannot disagree and at the last exhibition I was at I got quite irritated by them keep running trains over the top of the track that I was looking at.

 

Perhaps the only reason that so many people don't take more interest in track is because they don't realise how un-realistic most RTL stuff is.

Quite right too. Level crossings are very useful. They stop the traffic so that I can admire the road without all the traffic running over it.

[PaulRhB]

And what's stopping people using C&L kits or Marcway ready built points if they are in that much of a hurry? I'm sure they'll stretch to a packet of cornflakes to get the card to shim up the points

As I built my layout 'BPB' (Before Peco Bullhead ), I mixed C&L and Marcway as building points is a huge chore to me, time I'd rather spend doing the modelling bits I enjoy. I've built loads of points in the past so I was delighted that there were rtr ones and assuming Peco do produce some eventually I'd happily mix them with Marcway who offer a wider range than Peco are likely to for several years. Not being cruel to Marcway but I suspect it's going to be hard to keep someone on producing them long term and if / when they had to stop there would only be the C&L rtr option at three times the price and the waiting lists would grow.

Marcway may well be forced to drop one or two points from their range but as the main cost is no doubt labour and they offer a huge variety of gauges I doubt it will cripple them.

Custom built pointwork to match a specific location or awkward space is in no danger but like the full size railway if you can use a standard part then it makes it a lot easier.

[Colin_McLeod]

Although slightly off topic I could not resist posting these images.

 

Here is a section of Triang Super 4 track produced between 1962 and 1973. Sleeper sizes are 31.92mm x 3.33mm at 9.3mm centreline spacing:

IMG_5382.JPG

 

And here is the same track matched to my predicted revised Peco Small Radius turnout:

IMG_5390.JPG

 I

Spooky!

I always said the old ones were the best.

[Colin_McLeod]

I wonder - remember this is the company that for many years would not allow adverts in their 'flagship' magazine to include internet addresses!

LOL but a database does not have to be electronic. They might have lots of big red books containing sales data

[PaulRhB]

Surely most people wouldn't consciously notice the track,

Oh dear I'm one of those who do when done well it's a very impressive model in itself.

 

BUT . . .

, but getting it nearer to the real thing would add something to the overall effect that makes the whole model more convincing, without the average viewer realising (or even caring) how it's achieved.

That said I don't let it wind me up if the rest of the overall impression looks like a real railway. This is where good modelling helps you overlook the minor inaccuracies because it looks right due to everything else being blended together. Widnes Vine Yard is one of many good examples of that on here.

[polybear]

I'm sitting on the fence with this one - not sure it's a good thing or not yet.  Not so sure that C&L & SMP will see it as a good thing, since (correct me if I'm wrong here) they already sell a similar product, so surely it will hit their sales?

Also, will modellers be tempted to mix n' match the existing PECO turnout offerings with the latest plain trackwork - whilst they may be compatible, how will they fare visually with one another?  Not sure I'd be tempted to use the new plain trackwork with "old" turnouts on a layout, on the (possible) promise of a new range of turnouts to match the new plain trackwork.  Somehow ripping up the turnouts on a half-built (or finished) layout doesn't appeal to me somehow....

I can't help but think that PECO have taken the easy/cheap option on this one, instead of doing it properly.  Seems a bit ar5e about face to me somehow

 

Brian

 

(apologies if any/all the above has been said already - I'm only skimming this thread since life is just too short....)

[Colin_McLeod]

On the prototype the track is only a means to support the train. The loco is only a means of moving the train which in itself is only the means of moving passengers and freight.

[martin_wynne]

On the prototype the track is only a means to support the train. The loco is only a means of moving the train which in itself is only the means of moving passengers and freight.

 

But the prototype is called a railway. It is the track which differentiates it from other modes of transport. You might think modellers of railways would regard that as the most significant part to get right?

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Quite right too. Level crossings are very useful. They stop the traffic so that I can admire the road without all the traffic running over it.

 

I admire roads too. The hill in the background has a disused railway tunnel running through it, and behind me was a much-photographed railway. But my camera lens chose this instead:

 

 

Martin.

 

[The Fatadder]

I do think it a little short sighted not releasing any points at the initial stage, as that might have encrouged more people to make the switch. The avaibility of kits from C&L etc won't make that much of a difference, other than taking the existing small market for finer track.

 

The real potential for this product is in the people who don't currently build track, yet want a better quality to go with their RTR. And you are hardly going to attract someone who wants to start building his layout today if you only sell half the range, pending the success of the straight track.

 

Personally when I first saw Peco were doing British OO track I was thinking there was a real reason to revert back to modelling OO for the garage continuous run leaving the P4 stock for the exhibition layout. But as I'd still have to build the points, I may as well do it properly in P4...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thinking out loud now as I get to terms with this new development.....

 

I think the surprise element here is the fact that Peco are going into BH. On the various threads here, the assumption was that Peco might be persuaded to make a track better suited to 00 dimensions but that it would still be FB (which is fine in a context where many modellers are focusing on the steam/diesel transition era and thereafter). Peco would not do BH. So I was persuaded by various folk here that any new track system that I proposed should be BH (whereas my initial starting point was to use existing metalwork from an overseas manufacturer and commission some UK 00 sleepering for it).

 

BH track does not create any problems for them. It can be manufactured in exactly the same way as their other flexi tracks. But turnouts are another matter. The widely held view is that bullhead rail will not work with insert-moulding. Is that right or have Peco found a solution? If not, we could be waiting a very long time for those turnouts.

[gr.king]

I always said the old ones were the best.

 

If it has already been said somewhere in this lot I apologize for repetition, but just imagine if Triang had improved from Super 4 by simply reducing the massive rail section and the underlying broad web, leaving other proportions as they were, rather than going to Continentally inspired Peco-lookalike System 6. We'd have been most of the way to properly proportioned track while I was still a child!

[martin_wynne]

The widely held view is that bullhead rail will not work with insert-moulding. Is that right or have Peco found a solution? If not, we could be waiting a very long time for those turnouts.

 

Hi Joseph,

 

See my previous post: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/?view=findpost&p=2184968

 

Martin.