PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[gr.king]

You might well think so, but if you ask the right people at Peco the correct, polite questions, it is possible to begin to understand the order in which they are working.

[KeithHC]

As has been said before speak to Peco about the track and points etc. I contacted them by e-mail saying that this was a good move but needed points etc. I did also suggest that Medium and large radius points would be the preference. As has been said I got back a very polite reply thanking me for my comments and that my e-mail would be forwarded to the development team.

 

So if you want it tell them....

 

Keith HC

[Derekstuart]

Of course, Peco are probably already aware that their core market isn't the layout builder, but the train set owner who is quite happy to run 125MPH trains around 5 chain curves and reverse curve turnouts and thus wouldn't really know about mixing FB and BH.

After all, Peco marketing department will probably already have a photo of a flat bottom turnout bolted to bullhead track ready for the advert- which many train set owners will automatically think is normal.

[Jeff Smith]

I would not really agree with your first statement, however, advertised in a recent RM was a transition piece for converting O gauge bullhead to flat bottom.......

[newbryford]

The original Glasgow Underground (aka Subway) didn't have any points either - just two concentric circles, and a crane.

 

And the gauge is 4feet, so the new track is too wide at 16.5mm................... d&mn.

[BlackRat]

Of course, Peco are probably already aware that their core market isn't the layout builder, but the train set owner who is quite happy to run 125MPH trains around 5 chain curves and reverse curve turnouts and thus wouldn't really know about mixing FB and BH.

 

After all, Peco marketing department will probably already have a photo of a flat bottom turnout bolted to bullhead track ready for the advert- which many train set owners will automatically think is normal.

And Peco have a range of Setrack, directly aimed for them..........

[TheSignalEngineer]

Of course, Peco are probably already aware that their core market isn't the layout builder, but the train set owner who is quite happy to run 125MPH trains around 5 chain curves and reverse curve turnouts and thus wouldn't really know about mixing FB and BH.

After all, Peco marketing department will probably already have a photo of a flat bottom turnout bolted to bullhead track ready for the advert- which many train set owners will automatically think is normal.

For examples of mixed profiles see posts #109 and #127 above

[Pacific231G]

I'm surprised you've not already been pulled down by the wolf pack for suggesting that such a sensible compromise could ever exist.

Their bark (or possilby howl) is always worse than their bite.

I rather liked the reaction of a quite well known 0 gauge modeller (who I won't name but his layout is one that tends to make me choose shows that it's at) when his layout was opposite the Scale 7 Society's "Why Compromise?"  slogan "Because I haven't got room in the house for bl**dy ten foot radius curves."  

[Derekstuart]

Oh yes of course there is. But it isn't 100% BH for turnouts and 100% for plain track, which is what Peco will undoubtedly portray in their adverts.

For examples of mixed profiles see posts #109 and #127 above

[Edwardian]

 

to understand the order in which they are working

I'm afraid to say that I really don't care why Peco is doing what its doing.

 

If Peco wants me to buy its bullhead track, it needs to be in a position to sell me matching points.  If it won't do that, it won't get any sales.  Currently Peco appears to be asking me to buy useless track in order that, one day, if I'm good and have bought enough useless track, Peco might eventually render it useful track by producing points.

 

A Code 75 OO bullhead ready-to-lay track system is very much overdue.  But this isn't it.  It's a half-baked announcement of a pointless product.

 

Incidentally, I do not accept the implication of some posts that Peco's current HO range is somehow good enough for the box shakers and only finescale modellers who can man-up and build their own track anyway really care about realistic track.  The RTR market has evolved considerably.  The levels of accuracy and detail that even the box-shaker has been educated to expect is now so out of step with the detail and accuracy of the RTL permanent way as to render the situation ridiculous.  

 

I think it does a disservice to all of those, like me, who have yet to develop the finescale skills (and who's overcommitted time militates against this), to assume that we would not welcome such a Code 75 OO bullhead ready-to-lay track system with open arms.

 

I hope that Peco's announcement heralds the advent of just such a system, but I don't accept that Peco is offering the market anything particularly useful or essential by producing track alone, and I, for one, won't buy the track in isolation. 

[martin_wynne]

I'm afraid to say that I really don't care why Peco is doing what its doing.

 

If Peco wants me to buy its bullhead track, it needs to be in a position to sell me matching points.  If it won't do that, it won't get any sales.  Currently Peco appears to be asking me to buy useless track in order that, one day, if I'm good and have bought enough useless track, Peco might eventually render it useful track by producing points.

 

All Peco say is that they are looking for is a positive reaction. They are not daft enough to believe they will sell masses of plain track without at least one size of matching turnout. But the investment needed to create a range of bullhead pointwork is an order of magnitude greater than that needed for plain track. It seems entirely reasonable to test the water with plain track before throwing telephone numbers of money at the project. Bullhead rail requires a different manufacturing method from their existing flat-bottom pointwork, and it will be a challenge to do it at a comparable selling price.

 

Also, a big initial investment will be in getting the new rail section drawn, which means a lot of money tied up. Plain track contains comparatively more rail than pointwork, so whatever plain track sales they do get will give them some return on that investment while working on the tooling for the pointwork.

 

If you want bullhead pointwork the best thing you can do is tell them politely that you need it. Or you could of course donate fifty thousand pounds to the project, or offer to work in their toolroom for a year free of charge.

 

Martin.

[Jeff Smith]

Of course Peco may well have put out an engineering sample to deliberately provoke reaction and discussion. It can ignore the expected comments about how useless plain track on its own is and concentrate on the positive reactions - after all there has been plenty of discussion concerning how to 'compromise' the sleeper size and spacing in OO! I suspect that when a commercial announcement is made it will have some points as well.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Jeff Smith

[Pacific231G]

Of course, Peco are probably already aware that their core market isn't the layout builder, but the train set owner who is quite happy to run 125MPH trains around 5 chain curves and reverse curve turnouts and thus wouldn't really know about mixing FB and BH.

After all, Peco marketing department will probably already have a photo of a flat bottom turnout bolted to bullhead track ready for the advert- which many train set owners will automatically think is normal.

Derek

I think you're being rather over critical if you regard any layout with four foot radius curves - 5 chains at 1:76 scale- as a "train set".Peter Denny ran expresses on a double track main line with a radius of a little under three feet and on Frank Dyer's Borchester Market, the main  line curve is between two foot six and three foot, both train sets? Obviously running an HST at full speed around a four foot radius curve represents a considerable compromise (though it looks better when viewed from inside rather than outside the curve) but modelling an interesting section of something the size of a railway has to involve compromise.

 

Peco certainly know their market well but I'm not so sure about its core being train set owners. People I know who just want to run their trains round and round on a flat baseboard (and often don't even realise that in OO it's the wrong gauge let alone the difference between FB and BH) tend to use the sectional track made by the main supplier of their trains be that Hornby, Fleischmann or whatever. That's always been true going back to Dublo, Triang and Trix etc.and I think the really clever marketing move that Sidney Pritchard made back in the 1950s was to buy Railway Modeller from Ian Allan and ensure that it was, without pushing his own products, a magazine that focussed more on model railways than on model trains. Model railways of course require track.

 

Many modellers will buy a length or two of Peco's new BH track, not a major purchase, and probably lay it on a section of open line. By the time they've done that and decided they like the look of it the points will, if Peco times it right,  be becoming available. That's exactly what they did when they introduced Streamline back in the 1960s with the first points following about nine months after the plain track.

 

BTW the last couple of times I've made longish train journeys I've noticed that Network Rail also do quite a lot of mixing of FB points with BH sidings so perhaps they're also just train set owners.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Edwardian]

 

All Peco say is that they are looking for is a positive reaction.

Martin, fair point.  Many here have interpreted this as meaning "sales".  That might not be what Peco means, of course.  I tend to err on the side of cynical, which is doubtless my problem!

 

My reaction is, I think, positive: A Code 75 OO bullhead ready-to-lay track system is very much overdue; we would welcome such a Code 75 OO bullhead ready-to-lay track system with open arms.

 

What I don't know is whether, without an accompanying sale, this is how Peco would define "positive".

 

Announcements are all well and good, but I think that if Peco release this track for sale without having at least committed to a known range of points, it is fair, relevant, and inevitable, to criticise the release.  I had understood that this was precisely what Peco would do; release the track first, on its own, with no promises. 

 

The essential message is that any lack of sales of plain track in these circumstances will not necessarily equate to a lack of appetite for a Code 75 OO bullhead track system.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Edwardian

[gismorail]

I personally am very glad to see this new development in ready to run track work and would agree with many others that it is very much over due, We must understand that Peco is a company that is a world leader in this field with years of experience and will know exactly where the market stands with regard to what will sell and make profit. They will more than likely be very much aware that the train set market is an area that is declining along with model railway sales in general therefore any new development has a certain amount of 'risk' involved and to produce just plain track as a start is a way of reducing that 'risk'. 

I also believe that their vast amount of market knowledge will be telling them that customers who purchase this new Bullhead track are more than likely to be the more serious modeller who will not be content with a range of point work that only offers medium / large radius. Perhaps there is more in the development stage that we are not aware of but remember that Peco do produce a range of track components which maybe could be developed in the future.

[Jeff Smith]

Remember also that Peco has relatively recently produced track systems for what many would think are more limited markets than OO.....

[Derekstuart]

David

 

This is why I try to avoid these discussions these days, but I had a moment of weakness.

 

Firstly, I am well aware that BH and FB is mixed on the National rail network. However, it is- as I have already written (twice) not a case that all track is BH and all points are FB. In fact, if anything it is closer to the reverse.

 

Secondly, you can quote all the excellent layouts that you want. But HST's do not run at 125MPH on 5 chain curves. That does not mean I am critical of them. But I suspect the overwhelming majority of track sales at Peco (opinion no evidence) goes to train set owners rather than modellers. One does not need to look too far even here on RMW to realise that a lot of modellers don't really appreciate the difference between FB and BH (it doesn't make them bad people nor does it make their layout c**p).

 

For that reason Peco have probably concluded that for now if they show a photo of BH track clipped to FB turnouts that a lot of modellers and most train set owners will think perfectly normal (and again, I am well aware of the mix in reality).

 

Now, where's that ignore button gone?

[AndyID]

 

But I suspect the overwhelming majority of track sales at Peco (opinion no evidence) goes to train set owners rather than modellers.

 

 

Ah, but there's the rub

 

When does someone cease being a "train set owner" and become a "modeller"?

 

(It's a rhetorical question.)

[Colin_McLeod]

I did not realise Peco sold 3ft radius curves. They sell flexible track and I suspect the buyers do so because they want track that is NOT train set. By selling Settrack and various ranges of flexible track it is clear that Peco's market consist of both train set builders and also railway modellers.

[Derekstuart]

When does cold water become hot?

 

Ah, but there's the rub

 

When does someone cease being a "train set owner" and become a "modeller"?

 

(It's a rhetorical question.)

[Jeff Smith]

The actual difference between Peco FB rail and Peco BH rail does not seem to be very much visually, it's the sleeper spacing and size, and the chairs, that would be more noticeable when using the new BH with the old FB.

 

It's a shame the engineering sample wasn't shown next to a piece of code 75 for comparison.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Jeff Smith

[martin_wynne]

The actual difference between Peco FB rail and Peco BH rail does not seem to be very much visually, it's the sleeper spacing and size, and the chairs, that would be more noticeable when using the new BH with the old FB.

 

That's why I suggested earlier in this topic that Peco may use the existing code 75 FB internal rails and blade stampings for the new pointwork, leaving bullhead rail only for the outer stock rails. This would allow them to use their existing insert-moulding technology for the greater part of the pointwork and a lot of their existing tooling. The code 75 FB rail could be just as easily insert moulded into chairs rather than the present clip fixings. I suspect this is the only way they could get near to the current FB selling prices.

 

Martin.

[dajt]

@Edwardian Is plain BH track and FB points any worse than SMP plain track and copper-clad, gapped sleepers with solder 'chaired' points? Or BH points with stamped point blades with huge gaps from the stock rails? Would you even notice from 3' away? If I was to use this track system I'd rather have matching points but it doesn't make sense to have it be a deal breaker.

 

@martin_wynne Could they reuse the existing tools in your example? Wouldn't the point sleeper base be one die so they'd need to make another one anyway to accomodate BH stock rails?

 

I'd also question whether Pecos main market is train set people. I'll bet a lot of layout builders in the US and Aus use Peco code 83 or 75 flex track and points for 'serious' layouts in HO. The US market may even dwarf the UK market, I don't know.

[BlackRat]

When does cold water become hot?

 

When your testicles start to descend, as opposed to ascend........

[Pacific231G]

David

Firstly, I am well aware that BH and FB is mixed on the National rail network. However, it is- as I have already written (twice) not a case that all track is BH and all points are FB. In fact, if anything it is closer to the reverse.

 

Secondly, you can quote all the excellent layouts that you want. But HST's do not run at 125MPH on 5 chain curves. That does not mean I am critical of them. But I suspect the overwhelming majority of track sales at Peco (opinion no evidence) goes to train set owners rather than modellers. One does not need to look too far even here on RMW to realise that a lot of modellers don't really appreciate the difference between FB and BH (it doesn't make them bad people nor does it make their layout c**p).

 

For that reason Peco have probably concluded that for now if they show a photo of BH track clipped to FB turnouts that a lot of modellers and most train set owners will think perfectly normal (and again, I am well aware of the mix in reality).

 

Now, where's that ignore button gone?

 

I was quoting those layouts precisely because even the largest setrack radius, no 4, is equivalent to only 43metres in OO or about two chains so anyone running an HST round a five chain curve is likely to be well beyond the train set stage. A train of Mk 3 coaches requires a minimum radius of 90 metres which is well within the 100metres of 5 chains. Obviously they would run at only a slow speed around such a curve but most modellers have to compress the length of the prototype to a very considerable degree (and I'd argue that it's aesthetically desirable to do so) Most would regard a four foot radius curve in OO as a reasonably generous one. It was your apparent implication that any modeller  using such a curve for fast mainline running is just a trainset owner who wouldn't know the difference between FB and BH rail that I was reacting to.

 

Some modellers probably will lay BH track amidst FB pointwork and I was only pointing out that there are prototypes for that but I'll bet that what Peco will show will be a well modelled section of plain line. That's what they did when they introduced Streamline and so far as I know there never were any images comparing it with Pecoway

Edited March 25, 2016 by Pacific231G