PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Colin_McLeod]

There is, you can just turn the automatic update to summertime off.

That is the default (only) setting on my 1980s clock radio.

 

Edited to correct the auto correct.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Colin_McLeod

[Dunsignalling]

00 is not "wrong". It is designed to meet a set of requirements which it does perfectly well. P4 meets a completely different set of requirements.

As an OO user, P4 Is "right" in terms of absolute scale fidelity (or something very close to it) and, by that measure, OO has to be "wrong".

 

However, in terms of practical usability for mass market consumers OO is dead right.

 

John

Edited March 28, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Pacific231G]

As an OO user, P4 Is "right" in terms of absolute scale fidelity (or something very close to it) and, by that measure, OO has to be "wrong".

 

However, in terms of practical usability for mass market consumers OO is dead right.

 

John

Hi John

Some compromises were definitely required to enable a mass market product to be made that could be used by the "ordinary" railway modeller (someone like me for example!) or even the trainset owner but it never needed to be such a gross and very visually obvious compromise which seems to have been based on a requirement for toy train curves of twelve inches or less.

 

H0 works around the world for everyone from train set buyers to fine scale modellers (even P87 modellers use Streamline plain track for hidden tracks) and so I suspect would have 18mm gauge with 4mm/ft scale had that developed as the RTR standard. I generally find it fairly difficult to tell EM and P4 apart and nothing looks very wrong at Pendon (EM) but I'm afraid that when seen end on or even the track alongside platforms OO simply does look narrow gauge.

 

I was just reading a thread on bullhead track on the French forum roughly equivalent to this one associated wiith Loco-Revue*  and one contributor was wondering whether a particular model railway he'd seen in Britain could have been OO as "it didn't look to him like metre gauge as most OO models do" (The height and width of rolling stock compared with the gauge for a typical metre gauge light railway probably isn't very far different from that for a vehicle to British loading gauge compared with 4ft 1¹/_2i inch gauge track though I've not yet done the maths to check that)   

 

I know that commercial H0 models include compromises to accomodate overscale tyres such as the axle boxes being closer to the side of the vehicle than they should be but they're not starting with a gross error and then trying to make it look right. The biggest problem as we all know is wth steam locos, especially those with splashers (which weren't only found in Britain) or outside valve gear but, unless a model railway is seeen simply as a place to put model steam locos through their paces, then compromising the appearance of the whole thing just to solve that problem does seem like the tail wagging the dog.

 

* Our French counterparts are definitely looking forward to getting their hands on Peco BH especially as the well developed distribution network should make it easier to get hold of than SMP/C&L.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

"4mm scale OO gauge ready to lay track" which is contradictory; if it is 00 gauge (16.5mm) it cannot be fully to 4mm scale for standard gauge track (I've never come across a 4' 1 1/2" gauge prototype but would love to see photos).

 

Hi John,

 

Where does it say that 00 gauge represents standard-gauge track? It very obviously represents 4ft-1.5in gauge track.

 

if we are allowed to model only that for which we have photographic evidence a great many layouts would be ruled out-of-order. I invite you to prove that the real Borchester was not laid to 4ft-1.5in gauge. If we can invent fictional locations for our models, we can surely decide the track gauge in use there.

 

The point about 4ft-1.5in gauge track is that it can be properly designed using REA standard permanent way components, and accurately modelled to 4mm/ft scale. For those modellers who are engineers rather than artists this is by far the most satisfying solution.

 

Unlike all the compromises and fudges intended to make 00 gauge track look like standard gauge, which it can't do, and which look daft when 4mm/ft models run over it, or it is placed alongside a 4mm/ft platform or inside a 4mm/ft goods shed.

 

We have been over this a dozen times in various topics on RMweb, including previous pages of this one.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[ThaneofFife]

^ oh and dont we know it............

[Dunsignalling]

Some compromises were definitely required to enable a product to be made that could be used by the "ordinary" railway modeller (someone like me for example) but it never needed to be such a gross and very visually obvious compromise.

H0 works around the world for everyone from train set buyers to fine scale modellers (even P87 modellers use Streamline plain track for hidden tracks) and so I suspect would 18mm gauge with 4mm/ft scale and I'd have no problem with using 16.2mm gauge track for H0. I generally find it fairly difficult to tell EM and P4 apart and nothing looks wrong at Pendon (EM) but I'm afraid that when seen end on or even against platforms OO simply does look narrow gauge.

 

I was just reading a thread on bullhead track on the French forum roughly equivalent to this one associated wiith Loco-Revue*  and one contributor was wondering whether a particular model railway he'd seen in Britain could have been OO as "it didn't look to him like metre gauge as most OO models do" (The height and width of rolling stock compared with the gauge for a typical metre gauge light railway probably isn't very far different from that for a coach or wagon to British loading gauge compared with 4ft 1¹/_2i inch gauge track though I've not yet done the maths to check that)   

 

I know that most commercial H0 models include compromises such as the axle boxes being closer to the side of the vehicle than they should be but they're not starting with a gross error and then trying to appear to be to scale.  The biggest problem as we all know is wth steam locos, especially those with splashers (which didn't only occur in Britain) but unless a model railway is seeen simply as a place to put model steam locos through their paces then compromising the appearance of the whole thing just to solve that problem does seem like the tail wagging the dog.

 

* Our French counterparts are definitely looking forward to getting their hands on Peco BH especially as the well developed distribution network should make it easier to get hold of than SMP/C&L.

If you look at the way Hornby Dublo locos are constructed, compared with today's products, they are, whatever their virtues, mechanically crude examples of 1930s engineering.

 

The standards devised by the BRMSB in the 1940s were derived from what was technically possible using the 1930s methods and machinery still in use. Toy and model production was well down the list of priorities for modernisation in those times. Present "austerity" bears little comparison with that of Britain (and the rest of Europe) in the 1940s and early 1950s. 

 

Many HO scale locomotives nowadays have finer wheels just as our OO ones do but, in the past, HO steam outline locos with over-width splashers were commonplace.

 

My personal preference is for all the compromises to be tucked away underneath where most of us can ignore them and those who are bothered can do something about it without disturbing the "bodywork". I suspect the EM and P4 contingent largely agree.

 

Modern r-t-r design and production standards could easily allow a 1mm increase in OO gauge but most of us still want our new stuff to work with (most of) our old stuff.

 

Would it be worth the disruption? I think not.

 

John  

[Guest]

I still don't get it. I'm quite happy with OO and frankly don't give a monkey's about how "wrong" it all is. Obviously as I'm in a minority of 1, Peco have made a terrible marketing mistake. I'm the only one that buys and uses their products and frankly that's not sustainable. They will obviously go out of business tomorrow.

That assumes, of course, that everybody else thinks Peco is such an abomination that they build their own track. Back to reality... for those that do build their own, it's admirable, but you're the ones in the minority. As a self-confessed box-opener and obviously not a "proper" modeller, I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of being reminded that everything I do is "wrong". This is a thread about a ready-to-lay product for OO modellers. For those of you that can do better, that's great, but how about butting out and leaving us quite contented lesser mortals to it instead of preaching the gospel over and over and over again like some unwanted Jehovah banging on your front door? Now there's a radical thought.

[Dunsignalling]

Hi John,

 

Where does it say that 00 gauge represents standard-gauge track? It very obviously represents 4ft-1.5in gauge track.

 

if we are allowed to model only that for which we have photographic evidence a great many layouts would be ruled out-of-order. I invite you to prove that the real Borchester was not laid to 4ft-1.5in gauge. If we can invent fictional locations for our models, we can surely decide the track gauge in use there.

 

The point about 4ft-1.5in gauge track is that it can be properly designed using REA standard permanent way components, and accurately modelled to 4mm/ft scale. For those modellers who are engineers rather than artists this is by far the most satisfying solution.

 

Unlike all the compromises and fudges intended to make 00 gauge track look like standard gauge, which it can't do, and which look daft when 4mm/ft models run over it, or it is placed alongside a 4mm/ft platform or inside a 4mm/ft goods shed.

 

We have been over this a dozen times in various topics on RMweb, including previous pages of this one.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

I agree, but we are where we are and those who balk at it are catered for plentifully in terns of chassis kits etc with which to make their escape.

 

Many (most) of us need to exploit the compromises (and, yes, advantages) involved in OO in order to fit more than a "shunting plank" into our available space. If putting up with those compromises allows me to run 6-coach passenger trains rather than 6-wagon freights, so be it. 

 

I consider the 4' 1 1/2" argument to be condescending. Why not be open about it and admit that, for historical and practical reasons, many of us run trains of a scale that doesn't match the gauge of our track? Is that any worse than inventing a fictional cover-story?   

 

If we make track of 16.5mm gauge that is prototypically proportioned in every respect, and we want it to represent standard gauge, it will be HO scale, whatever we call it and whatever size trains we chose to run on it.

 

A growing number of OO modellers find Tillig HO track to be more convincing than the alternatives because everything is to one scale. It thus looks prototypical when there are no trains about and, when there are, one looks at them, not the track. 

 

However, I fail to see that fudging the scale/gauge of the track a la BRMSB OO standard is any better than running OO trains on proper scale HO track.

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

 

.  

Edited March 28, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[martin_wynne]

I consider the 4' 1 1/2" argument to be condescending. Why not be open about it and admit that, for historical and practical reasons, many of us run trains of a scale that doesn't match the gauge of our track? Is that any worse than inventing a fictional cover-story? 

 

Because that is the only way to create a prototype which can be modelled as proper railway track for 00 gauge model trains. The models are built to 4ft-1.5in gauge, so the obvious thing to do is to build track to the that gauge for them to run on. If a prototype for 4ft-1.5in gauge track doesn't exist, all we can do is create it.

 

It's not just my weird approach, it is the basis of the BRMSB track standard for 00.

 

Martin.

[Derekstuart]

But you of all people should appreciate that whilst it might only need a few lines of code to produce such a warning, when you add in the pointless animated icon, inane message and irritating beep would probably require an extra terabyte of storage and 8 gb minimum memory.

Fortunately no lasting harm done -- just an alarming screen covered in several dozen warning messages about file time-stamps changing.

 

After the millions of man-hours spent developing Windows over 25 years, you would think a simple message saying "It's time to update the system clock to daylight-saving - do it now?" wouldn't be too much to ask for.

 

Martin.

 

 

Edited: When trying to be a smart ar** one should remember the difference between a mb and gb...

Edited March 28, 2016 by Derekstuart

[gr.king]

I thought the nonsense about OO modellers supposedly intending to model an imaginary prototype with a four-feet one and half inches gauge would soon appear again. Apart from the few brainwashed into accepting this weird idea by a strange green tree, I can't think of any typical OO modellers who would accept that they are modelling a proptotype gauge that never existed, as opposed to the truth of the matter which is that they are modelling the standard gauge but with deliberate concessions to practicality.

[AndyID]

It's only seems weird to those who insist on using Imperial Millimeters

[Pacific231G]

If you look at the way Hornby Dublo locos are constructed, compared with today's products, they are, whatever their virtues, mechanically crude examples of 1930s engineering.

 

The standards devised by the BRMSB in the 1940s were derived from what was technically possible using the 1930s methods and machinery still in use. Toy and model production was well down the list of priorities for modernisation in those times. Present "austerity" bears little comparison with that of Britain (and the rest of Europe) in the 1940s and early 1950s. 

 

Many HO scale locomotives nowadays have finer wheels just as our OO ones do but, in the past, HO steam outline locos with over-width splashers were commonplace.

 

My personal preference is for all the compromises to be tucked away underneath where most of us can ignore them and those who are bothered can do something about it without disturbing the "bodywork". I suspect the EM and P4 contingent largely agree.

 

Modern r-t-r design and production standards could easily allow a 1mm increase in OO gauge but most of us still want our new stuff to work with (most of) our old stuff.

 

Would it be worth the disruption? I think not.

 

John  

I don't think it was ever necessary to reduce the gauge by as much as fifteen percent and the BRMSB clearly agreed because they did specify 18mm as the gauge for scale OO. 

However, the bottom line in all this is that we are where we are. Whatever folly or misplaced pride led to it and, whether you see it as underscale or scale but for a different gauge (though that doesn't explain the abnormally wide tyres)  the vast majority of modellers in Britain will continue to use OO until railways are as distant a memory as stage coaches and galleons.

 

The best OO layouts will continue to exude atmosphere and give a convincing and atmospheric impression of a full size railway (especially when trains are seen from the side) even with trains and curves half what they should be and hopefuly Peco's new bullhead track will help more modellers to achieve that.

 

There will also be people working in P4 who model every blade of grass in precise scale and really believe that to be the secret of good modelling while failing to give the slightest feel of the real thing. Others will work to the same exacting standards but their layouts will not only make you feel as if you are seeing the real thing but also that you'd love to be there*.  Even P4 locos don't have clouds of steam pouring out of every gland nor from the train heating pipes along the train, nor do you feel the ground tremble as they  pass so there's really no such thing as a truly authentic  4mm'ft scale model and they all rely on a degree of imagination.

 

*The modelled location I really most want to visit is still Madderport and who wouldn't want to take a train of dubious gauge and scale up the Madder Valley!!

Edited March 28, 2016 by Pacific231G

[AndyID]

I don't think it was ever necessary to reduce the gauge by as much as fifteen percent

 

You could be right David, but unless someone goes to the trouble of defining a clear set of requirements, doing all the necessary design engineering and building a lot of first articles to assure the product meets the requirements, it could be speculation.

[autocoach]

Isn't it called 00 gauge because we go round and round about it all the time and end up at the same point? This topic refers to the use of bullhead rail and wider sleeper spacing for 16.5 mm track proposed by the major UK manufacturer of model railway track. It seems the topic gets a lot people's knickers in a wedgie. Personally I would have preferred the UK used 3.5 mm/foot 1:87.1 scale like the rest of the world but for a variety of peculiar historical reasons it didn't happen. So let's just get on with running our little trains as we like and save the little spinning electrons needed to continue the argument round and round.

[Clive Mortimore]

I still don't get it. I'm quite happy with OO and frankly don't give a monkey's about how "wrong" it all is. Obviously as I'm in a minority of 1, Peco have made a terrible marketing mistake. I'm the only one that buys and uses their products and frankly that's not sustainable. They will obviously go out of business tomorrow.

That assumes, of course, that everybody else thinks Peco is such an abomination that they build their own track. Back to reality... for those that do build their own, it's admirable, but you're the ones in the minority. As a self-confessed box-opener and obviously not a "proper" modeller, I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of being reminded that everything I do is "wrong". This is a thread about a ready-to-lay product for OO modellers. For those of you that can do better, that's great, but how about butting out and leaving us quite contented lesser mortals to it instead of preaching the gospel over and over and over again like some unwanted Jehovah banging on your front door? Now there's a radical thought.

Hi Pete

 

You little rebel you......making things that are "wrong".

 

I like Peco and double owe gauge. I must do as I have three unfinished layouts in the manshed which use the "wrong" stuff. Now if I built the "right" stuff none of me engines, carriages or trucks would run very well on it. I have heard you can get wheels at great expense to put under your toys to run on the "right" stuff, so there is a solution. Use the "wrong" stuff and save ££££££££. 

 

Who ever came up with calling the "wrong " stuff double owe must have been a gunner because it isn't called double zero, which it should be according to my maths teacher, zero is a (non) number and owe is a letter. I say the chap who first called it 00 must have served in the Royal Artillery, for orienting the guns to the potential targets they are pointed on the zero line, and it is always called the zero line. Now when communicating from the observers position to the guns with a fire mission if there are any 0s in say the grid reference they are called owe not zero so that the chaps at the gun end of the communication do not confuse the message with the zero line, and shoot at the wrong blighter.

[Derekstuart]

You don't think that the "strange green tree" might just be trying to provoke people into thinking about what they are doing then?

 

You have three choices:

- Move to an accurate gauge
- Carry on pretending that it represents 4 8.5

- Pretend that main line trains did in fact run on 4 1.5

 

I for one haven't been brainwashed by any strange green trees and can't think of anyone else who has.

 

I thought the nonsense about OO modellers supposedly intending to model an imaginary prototype with a four-feet one and half inches gauge would soon appear again. Apart from the few brainwashed into accepting this weird idea by a strange green tree, I can't think of any typical OO modellers who would accept that they are modelling a proptotype gauge that never existed, as opposed to the truth of the matter which is that they are modelling the standard gauge but with deliberate concessions to practicality.

 

Though I did have to laugh at that. "strange green tree".

 

[newbryford]

The gauge is right. It's the scale of the stock that's wrong........

 

Cheers

Mick

[Derekstuart]

Stop winding people up Mick!

The gauge is right. It's the scale of the stock that's wrong........

Cheers
Mick

[newbryford]

Stop winding people up Mick!

Me?

Bring back clockwork template 0 gauge.

 

Now that's a wind up......

[Colin_McLeod]

Why all this talk of 16.5mm v various gauges between 18mm and 19mm when the new Peco track is still 16.5mm?

 

BTW I have got so accustomed to Peco sleeper spacing that the new track reminds me of the coarse scale track of the past when the number of sleepers was reduced to save materials.

 

In any case IMHO the closer spacing does make the track look better/longer as originally advertised by Peco. I may be in a minority here but Rule No 1 and all that.

[martin_wynne]

You don't think that the "strange green tree" might just be trying to provoke people into thinking about what they are doing then?

 

The strange green tree might also be trying to turn the boat around, or at least get folks to think about doing so.

 

For all of its life, the strange green tree has seen the craft and ethos of railway modelling shifting inexorably towards three-dimensional artistry, and away from miniature engineering. "Model what you see, even if you don't understand it". "If it looks right, it is right". "It's all about creating atmosphere, ambience, stirring childhood memories."

 

In which case, why have moving trains? If nothing else moves? People walking, running, working, minding the gap; road traffic tearing along, creeping forward, turning corners; leaves rustling in the wind; clouds drifting across the sky. Birds singing. Rain.

 

But no, nothing. All locked static in place forever, as in a painting. Fine. But then, to destroy the illusion, the trains move. It doesn't make sense.

 

Whereas in earlier times, the craft of railway modelling was to design and build a working miniature transport system. The distance between the rails being one of the design decisions in the building process. Based on what is necessary to make the system work -- rather than measuring the local railway track, and blindly copying it.

 

It was a different mindset from the prevailing mood in the hobby today. But perhaps worth thinking about, and wondering where we are going and what we might have lost in the process?

 

If you are building a railway from A to B, why would you not make it 4ft-1.5in gauge, if your CME can obtain suitable rolling stock off the shelf for that gauge?

 

Martin.

Edited March 29, 2016 by martin_wynne

[No Decorum]

In any case IMHO the closer spacing does make the track look better/longer as originally advertised by Peco. I may be in a minority here but Rule No 1 and all that.

I was told that there are 8,000 members of the Bachmann Collectors’s Club and that must be small compared to the total number of railway modellers. So far as I can see, we’re all in a minority of one. Don’t worry about it, Colin.

[Derekstuart]

Some people might think the strange green tree is wrong. Some enlightened people might think the strange green tree is quite right. Though I am not sure how we could model the rest of the non railway items as you describe. Take birds in trees or in flight. A sparrow would be perhaps 40thou tip to tail in 1:76.2

 

But I am not so sure that I can agree with you when you say "...it was a different mindset..." I would suggest that there has always been an element of train set owners, model artists and model engineers. For my own part, like everyone else I started in the former, thought I was in the second but have drifted towards the latter and am far more concerned with the wheel/rail interaction than what shade of blue the loco carries.

 

But like I said, the 'strange green tree' is provoking people into thinking about what they are doing.

 

 

The strange green tree might also be trying to turn the boat around, or at least get folks to think about doing so.

 

For all of its life, the strange green tree has seen the craft and ethos of railway modelling shifting inexorably towards three-dimensional artistry, and away from miniature engineering. "Model what you see, even if you don't understand it". "If it looks right, it is right". "It's all about creating atmosphere, ambience, stirring childhood memories."

 

In which case, why have moving trains? If nothing else moves? People walking, running, working, minding the gap; road traffic tearing along, creeping forward, turning corners; leaves rustling in the wind; clouds drifting across the sky. Birds singing. Rain.

 

But no, nothing. All locked static in place forever, as in a painting. Fine. But then, to destroy the illusion, the trains move. It doesn't make sense.

 

Whereas in earlier times, the craft of railway modelling was to design and build a working miniature transport system. The distance between the rails being one of the design decisions in the building process. Based on what is necessary to make the system work -- rather than measuring the local railway track, and blindly copying it.

 

It was a different mindset from the prevailing mood in the hobby today. But perhaps worth thinking about, and wondering where we are going and what we might have lost in the process?

 

If you are building a railway from A to B, why would you not make it 4ft-1.5in gauge, if your CME can obtain suitable rolling stock off the shelf for that gauge?

 

Martin.

[alfsboy]

To much scale makes you pale.