Jeff Smith Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Chris - it was Meatloaf that wanted is all now, it was Queen that liked fat bottomed girls.......totally politically incorrect by today's OTT standards..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 If Peco's cash flow is such that they need to sell plain track first in order to quickly recoup the cost of obtaining the bullhead rail, then one option for them would have been to say that they will (rather than "perhaps") produce matching turnouts in x months time starting with an x" radius left and right hand turnouts in e.g. January 2017 followed later that year by other formations and radii. That would take the uncertainty out of the issue for those for whom it is a problem. Meanwhile I see no problem in perhaps buying several yards of the new track for my own main line run where there are no turnouts, even if the track and turnouts in the station are different. After all track is not uniform throughout any railway company but varies from place to place. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 57xx Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) I thought it was ' flat bottomed rail' ......?? Better that than flat bottomed girls.... Chris - it was Meatloaf that wanted is all now, it was Queen that liked fat bottomed girls.......totally politically incorrect by today's OTT standards..... Getting way OT now, but Chris is right. Are you thinking of Meatloaf wanting his money back (because there are no matching points...)? Edited February 10, 2016 by 57xx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Chris - it was Meatloaf that wanted is all now, it was Queen that liked fat bottomed girls.......totally politically incorrect by today's OTT standards..... Not heard the Meatloaf song, but definitely Queen in my book..... Even more relevant. I want it all, I want it all, I want it now..... Not to mention a 'one track mind'..... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 At least we now know what the scale fishplates/ rail joiners will look like. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drgj Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I for one am pleased that Peco have announced the introduction of this track. They have always made good, sturdy stuff and to have a finescale track made to their manufacturing standards can only be a good thing. Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Not heard the Meatloaf song, but definitely Queen in my book..... Even more relevant. I want it all, I want it all, I want it now..... Not to mention a 'one track mind'..... Yep, you're quite right, I was thinking of 'Life is a lemon and I want my money back....' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2016 image.jpg At least we now know what the scale fishplates/ rail joiners will look like. Thank you Brat. I will get some lazer cut versions of those sorted ASAP. Superb graphchicks by the way. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) AHh I see it all now - Plain track is pointless! Have you told Alexander Armstrong and Richard Osman? Edited February 10, 2016 by Budgie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 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. People have been banging on about more prototypical OO track for some time. I think Peco could have released their Code 75 flat-bottomed track with wider sleeper spacing in the past; why does more prototypical have to mean bull-head? Edited February 10, 2016 by Budgie 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2016 People have been banging on about more prototypical OO track for some time. I think Peco could have released their Code 75 flat-bottomed track with wider sleeper spacing in the past; why does more prototypical have to mean bull-head? But surely more prototypical 00 track should have a gauge of 18.83mm.........? Ah, oops, hat, coat and walking out the door... Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Oh Mick, you just HAD to, didn't you.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Ah, but US 4mm 00 had 19mm track......I wonder why that didn't catch on? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerner Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 image.jpg At least we now know what the scale fishplates/ rail joiners will look like. There ought to be a Bl**dy Brilliant button Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 But surely more prototypical 00 track should have a gauge of 18.83mm.........? Ah, oops, hat, coat and walking out the door... Cheers, Mick Then it wouldn’t be 00, would it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) Getting back to the serious bit........ When I was first taught to build points and track work, it was then all copperclad, and half track (remember that) mainly built in situ. Solder was used to form the 'chair' and the sleepers were as thick as whatever the copper clad was at the time. I did try the BRooke Smith method, but found it way to time consuming. Does anyone still build point work in situ? Working from Tracksettas or as I was taught, using pre cut ply radii curves? Or has everyone gone over to Templot or similar? Building point work isn't that difficult, the hardest bit I found was filing the switch and getting the joggle right. This was back in the late 70's and there really was no other alternative........ Edited February 10, 2016 by BlackRat 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 When I last built points I used Peco rail, spikes and fibre sleepers, but I couldn't figure out 2-rail electrics so I laid a third-rail down the middle. That was in 1962! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Personally , I think PECOs announcement is a blocking one, to try and prevent certain potential competitors from entering the market. In reality they are not going to sell much track , if punters have to build point work to match. PECO will know this , announcing the track buys them time to design and manufacture the pointwork , which I beleive they will do regardless of "reaction " . 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 (edited) Does anyone still build point work in situ? Yes, which would explain why I don't have a working plank of any kind. In fact, most if it went in the bin and I started taking happy pills again. People often ask me: "Tim, why are you beating your head against the wall?" To which I reply: "Because it's lovely when I stop" P.L. Yrivet Edited February 11, 2016 by Tim Dubya 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 People have been banging on about more prototypical OO track for some time. I think Peco could have released their Code 75 flat-bottomed track with wider sleeper spacing in the past; why does more prototypical have to mean bull-head? Good point. And it would represent much of the track in the UK today while still being sufficiently "traditional". Perhaps 83 thou rail would be more appropriate, but even if it was 75 thou rail, it would still look pretty good. A cynic might suggest that Peco decided they would be a lot less likely to infuriate their installed base in the UK by switching to bullhead rail at the same time as changing the sleeper dimensions and spacing. If those were the only changes they made now some people might ask what was preventing them from doing it thirty or forty years ago. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2016 Info in today's Railway Modeller (March 2016) exactly matches the wording of the previous press release, no new information. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 People have been banging on about more prototypical OO track for some time. I think Peco could have released their Code 75 flat-bottomed track with wider sleeper spacing in the past; why does more prototypical have to mean bull-head? That would have meant having two separate ranges of code 75 FB track, one with the established sleeper dimensions and spacing that are actually to H0 scale that they sell very succesfully throughout the world and one with wider sleeper spacing just for the British 00 market. With the modern automated tooling that Peco have invested heavily in that might now be commercially viable but almost certainly wasn't in even the fairly recent past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2016 why does more prototypical have to mean bull-head? It doesn't necessarily have to be bullhead, but if flat-bottom it would need to be code 82 to be prototypical, the code 75 rail is under-scale for UK flat-bottom rail (6.1/4" height*, code 82). Whereas code 75 is exactly to scale for bullhead rail (BS-95R), and can be used in conjunction with the code 75 flat-bottom range. *FB-109, BS-110A, BS-113A flat-bottom rails. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted February 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2016 Does anyone still build point work in situ? See Jeremy's Euston project here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/98901-this-is-euston/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Some really impressive stuff, particularly in N gauge...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts