RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 I am guessing that Peco's bullhead flexible track will be cheaper than C&L's I think that is peoples expectation but the reality may be different, Peco may decide to price it as a"premium" product to offset the cost of new tooling over a shorter term. (ageing hobby?) They may also look at what people are prepared to pay with C&L etc and decide to have a piece of that cake. A couple of years ago I might of welcomed this announcement but since rebuilding with Exactoscale and being pleased with the results I'd probably use it again. Turnouts are what are required, not plain track with a vague promise, to me this announcement has changed nothing, it has added nothing new that the modeller can't already purchase. Interesting topic none the less, I've learnt a lot more about turnout geometry...now whether I could put it into practice is another thing! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J C Fenton Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The more this goes on, the more convinced I become that this is the most useless major announcement I can remember. Though I would welcome a source of R-T-L trackage, I found to my surprise that my reaction to Peco's announcement was one of some annoyance, even anger. Peco could and should have done this years ago. With the development of flexi-track by C&L and SMP, and we newcomers/returnees taking to Ian Rice's superb book as our 'bible', the want of a robust, reasonably priced and reliable OO R-T-L system has been both blindingly obvious to and keenly felt by very many of us for very many years. Peco, content to milk a return on its HO track, has held the hobby back years by touting HO track instead of investing in OO track. I might say "better late than never", but, as there are no points and may never be, the product adds nothing to what we have and serves only to hurt the sales of those companies that have provided the OO flexi-track that Peco has refused to make for years after it should have done. Why would I buy this if I am still left using Peco's toy-track, for OO modellers, every time I need a point? The hubris and arrogance implicit in the "if you buy lots of our pointless track, we may consider producing points", just makes me angrier still. Poor show, Peco; sort your bl**dy lives out and make us some points. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Poor show, Peco; sort your bl**dy lives out and make us some points. So you're not impressed then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well, J C, I fully agree with the logic of your position, if not quite the sentiment. Remember "anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering". Beware the Dark Side you must. For me, I would say in emotional terms my reaction is more that of frustration at the way Peco have decided to go ahead with just plain track for now, making future points contingents upon 'interest', which I read as 'sales'. And yes, without points, they'll get no sales from me. But I think this, er, 'point' has been well-enough made earlier in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 And the problem is, of course, that by announcing this track and, maybe, points, Peco have made it much harder for any other would-be entrants into the market to justify their investment. That would be fair enough ("It's not personal, only business") if they were making a real commitment - but they are not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 The hubris and arrogance implicit in the "if you buy lots of our pointless track, we may consider producing points", just makes me angrier still. If I was Peco I would have done exactly the same. It's very likely that their biggest cost so far was getting a new bullhead rail section drawn. They will get a return on that much faster selling plain track than pointwork, which would require a major additional investment. They have not said that the pointwork depends on sales of the plain track, they have said only that they are looking for a "positive reaction" to it before proceeding. That seems to me a reasonable cautious approach to the entire project and the major investment which will be needed. Yes they have supported some minor niche markets before, but always using an existing rail section and components. Starting afresh with a new rail section is a major commitment. Martin. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Despite negative reaction from some, the generally positive reaction from many seems to bear out Peco's decision. Peco seems to be a smart company and has proven itself to be a survivor in the model railway business. I have not had much to do with Peco's products for many years but recently have moved into 0-16.5 and bought many of its longtime products. This has given me a new respect for a company that knows it's market and produces quality products which you can rely on still being available many years on. For Peco not to follow on with a range of points would be ridiculous and I believe uncharacteristic of it's business plan. I have no connection with Peco. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 That, I think, rather depends upon one's definition of "positive reaction". I welcome the development as a, rather overdue, step in the right direction. I hope to see complementary points one day in the not too distant future, and would doubtless gratefully purchase such a track system, which could be a real boon, especially for larger layouts. What I won't do is spend any money on OO bullhead plain track that relies on using HO Code 75 flat bottom points and/or that would leave me needing to marry the Peco Bullhead with hand-built points. My position is quite simple, "no points, no sales", and, while taking due note of how Mr Wynne understands "positive reaction", I am not so sanguine that my brand of "positive reaction" would be what Peco was looking for. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong on that. Ultimately, despite disagreements and the odd bit of snide nonsense, I imagine that we all want the same thing here; Peco to produce OO Bullhead points and slips. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 What I won't do is spend any money on OO bullhead plain track that relies on using HO Code 75 flat bottom points and/or that would leave me needing to marry the Peco Bullhead with hand-built points. My position is quite simple, "no points, no sales", and, while taking due note of how Mr Wynne understands "positive reaction", I am not so sanguine that my brand of "positive reaction" would be what Peco was looking for. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong on that. I'm guessing that you are not a production engineer? The tooling investment required for low-cost automated production of bullhead pointwork will be considerable. Very few of the existing tools will be suitable. It seems entirely reasonable to test the water before proceeding with that. No doubt Peco could produce hand-assembled pointwork quite quickly, but would you be prepared to pay £60 for a turnout? Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) If I was Peco I would have done exactly the same. It's very likely that their biggest cost so far was getting a new bullhead rail section drawn. They will get a return on that much faster selling plain track than pointwork, which would require a major additional investment. They have not said that the pointwork depends on sales of the plain track, they have said only that they are looking for a "positive reaction" to it before proceeding. That seems to me a reasonable cautious approach to the entire project and the major investment which will be needed. Yes they have supported some minor niche markets before, but always using an existing rail section and components. Starting afresh with a new rail section is a major commitment. Martin. I'm not sure why they would need to get tooling to produce Code 75 BH rail. It's already out there. Unless you think that they are going for something special to get around the insert-moulding problem. A good idea in principle but it causes other issues. So one would probably go for ordinary BH rail for the track and just use the special for pointwork. Edited February 10, 2016 by Joseph_Pestell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 A little perspective on the competition aspect, from within RTR OO. Right back in 2003 there was glooming and downbeat prognostication concerning Heljan's entry to this market. Dog eat dog competition etc. business failures. What we actually got was a large expansion of RTR product choice, with a trend to improving standards of the product. Someone proposing that by 2016 there might be a dozen independent businesses with motorised OO RTR regularly available would have been laughed at. Bachmann, Dapol, DJM, Golden Age, Heljan, Hornby, Murphy's, OOWorks, Oxford, Realtrack, Sutton's LW, ViTrains; and then there are the squad of 'commissioners' too. If 'better OO track' is genuinely wanted by the customer base (I think it is) then the presence of competitors is a positive and likely to spur demand. Best plain track in this respect from company A that I can use for the mainlines, while the yard track can come from company B, and there's a particularly useful point from company C ... Choice between good products is typically welcomed by customers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Lord, these things are sent to try us! I suspect that whether I know diddly about production engineering or, indeed, tooling costs, is rather by the by. My view is based upon what I, qua consumer, would or would not consider worth buying. Frankly the answer that each of us has to the question "is this something worth buying", is the only answer of any relevance. Furthermore, I'm afraid that I don't give a pig's body parts for the finer points of production. I note simply that Peco produce a system of flatbottom rail on HO sleepers, which I reject as sub-standard for OO, and do not produce a bullhead OO system, which I would happily buy. The finer points of why they can make one and not the other are not matters that will affect whether or not I buy Peco's track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 I'm not sure why they would need to get tooling to produce Code 75 BH rail. It's already out there. Hi Joseph, But not necessarily in reliable quantities, and not necessarily from their usual wire drawer at their expected cost. But the main problem is that a scale BS-95R bullhead section is not suitable for RTR. It is too difficult to use with rail joiners. Peco are using a modified rail section which is essentially a flat-bottom section with a narrow foot. They do exactly the same thing with their 0 gauge bullhead track. This allows their standard rail joiners to be used -- for the new track probably their existing N gauge joiners (the 0 gauge track uses the 00 gauge joiners). For connections to their code 75 flat-bottom range they will need to tool up for a special rail joiner. Such connections will be necessary because it is very unlikely that the initial bullhead range will include curved turnouts, diamonds and slips. Even with a lottery win, design and manufacture of tooling takes time. regards, Martin. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 I note simply that Peco produce a system of flatbottom rail on HO sleepers, which I reject as sub-standard for OO, and do not produce a bullhead OO system, which I would happily buy. But do Peco know that? Have you told them? How many potential customers share that view is what they need to know, and by testing the market with the plain track and waiting for the reaction, they are no doubt expecting to find out. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Crikey, I see your point; it's my fault that Peco having been hawking HO track as ersatz OO for years. I never thought to mention that some of us might quite like more prototypical track, but, of course, without me mentioning it how could Peco have known?!? I feel such a fool. I think I'd better abandon this thread to the cognoscenti and crawl back into my hole. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 Crikey, I see your point; it's my fault that Peco having been hawking HO track as ersatz OO for years. I never thought to mention that some of us might quite like more prototypical track, but, of course, without me mentioning it how could Peco have known?!? I feel such a fool. I think I'd better abandon this thread to the cognoscenti and crawl back into my hole. None of us seem to have thought to ask Peco to keep an eye on RMWeb. We have certainly been banging on about this track issue for quite a while on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well, on reflection, a more productive use of my time might be, indeed, to write to Peco. So, I'll go off and do that. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
t8hants Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 AHh I see it all now - Plain track is pointless! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Peco would not be doing it's market research if it was not monitoring all the magazines, forums and trader responses. Besides there has been input from at least one Peco engineer on RMweb...... As I said earlier, Peco seems to be smart company and presumably can appreciate the big picture and is in possession of all the facts about production costs etc which many of us are not. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) Well, on reflection, a more productive use of my time might be, indeed, to write to Peco. So, I'll go off and do that. EMail is quicker and you get responses. My positive EMail to them when this was announced was met with gratitude. I reckon my request for a free box of BH and for the Company to go ahead with a series of compatible pointwork will have done the trick as well. Eric. Edited February 10, 2016 by Mallard60022 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Tim Dubya Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2016 EMail is quicker and you get responses. My positive EMail to them when this was announced was met with gratituide. I reckon my request for a free box of BH and for the Company to go ahead with a series of compatible pointwork will have done the trick as well. Eric. Good for you Eric, it's about time someone added some positivity to this thread by contacting the manufacturer with some jolly good suggestions. Well done that man! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now" went the song... Greedy aren't we? Nothing less than perfection and in the shops by closing tomorrow. I think we should just be bloody grateful for the track and wait and see regarding anything that follows. Edited February 10, 2016 by Pete 75C Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, and I want it now" went the song... They also did "fat bottomed girls". . ........is that what you want... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 Good for you Eric, it's about time someone added some positivity to this thread by contacting the manufacturer with some jolly good suggestions. Well done that man! Are you mad Sir!.. Damn your insolence... Positive comment has no place here. I mean next thing will be you telling Messrs PECO that people actually want this track.... I will expect you in my study at eight o'clock sharp, for the finest of thrashings. Now Sir, I bid you good day! Grayson ( School Bully ) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold NHY 581 Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 They also did "fat bottomed girls". . ........is that what you want... I thought it was ' flat bottomed rail' ......?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts