PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Edwardian]

My twopenneth, as no other b*gger here seems to hold back.

 

What, I have often wondered, is the relationship between self-proclaimed finescale modelling and what the rest of us (attempt to) do?

 

These thoughts were prompted after I picked up a stack of old MRJs, in which there had been fierce debate about the number of bolt holes in Midland Railway rail-joiners at a certain date.

 

I concluded that P4, and whatnot, was rather like Formula One racing, as opposed to OO RTR, which was more like finding a car in which you could fit the kids and the Sainsbury's shop and which balanced performance with fuel efficiency.  

 

Just as the technology of the, say, Mondeo, a car sophisticated enough to allow any idiot to drive it more or less safely, owes everything to the trickle down of technology developed for high-performance cars, the standards that we enjoy today in the RTR market owes everything to modellers who pushed the boundaries and strove for higher standards.

 

Without people bothering about the finer points, without them agonising over standards, without them pushing themselves to produce ever better and more accurate (and occasionally reliable), models, and, doubtless, too, without the internecine blood-letting that unfolded in the pages before me as finescale modellers fought to the death for the future direction that truescale 4mm modelling would take ... well, without all that, we would not enjoy the mainstream hobby that we do today.

 

So, yes, P4 and EM are rather like F1; absolutely essential in spearheading development of technology and standards, but often just a little bit dull to watch in the meantime.

 

The fact that we (OO modellers) are even bothered about better looking OO track (or OO as opposed to HO track), is because of the look of "finescale" track, and because finescale modelling generally has led to higher standards in all off the shelf areas except a mass-market OO track-system.

[johnarcher]

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.

You're right, of course, about moving trains in a static scene, that's why many people for quite some time have talked about creating a scene where things look naturally unmoving, vehicles parked, figures in repose - rather than the famous guard petrified in mid-wave or the marching band frozen in mid-toot.

 

The phrase 'blindly copying' is interesting, it seems to be what most people would call making models that look as much like the prototype as possible - which is not obligatory of course. One could make a model of a fictional 4' 1 1/2" railway, or just a miniature railway that isn't supposed to represent any full-size reality.

However that  is something that most 00 modellers are not doing, judging by the threads on the accuracy or otherwise of the latest RTR model (eg Hattons 48xx). If one isn't concerned about that why have this thread, just use code 100 streamline, yet 00 people are welcoming bullhead Peco.

If you're not copying reality why the thread (00 mostly) about whether Bachmann or Hornby had the best GW green, why not just give them all a coat of the pink gloss left over from doing the daughter's bedroom?

As someone said earlier 00 is inaccurate, because it is a compromise arrived at for reasons that made sense at the time and still do for many people. I don't think Little Bytham (eg) is supposed to be an imaginary narrow gauge station, but a model of the (standard gauge) East Coast mainline with a few acceptable compromises.

Edited March 29, 2016 by johnarcher

[martin_wynne]

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

 

Perhaps I was highlighting the problem with the prevailing doctrine of visual realism.

 

But what if we instead judge a model railway by its operational realism? How it works; how it is designed; whether the sleepers are big enough to support the weight of the trains; whether the gate would open? One well-known and much-praised model railway has a gate in the goods yard with the hinges on the wrong side.     

 

 

But I am not so sure that I can agree with you when you say "...it was a different mindset..."

 

It certainly seems different to me. My favourite model railway book would sure read differently if the writer had been concerned with the bean sticks in the cottage garden:

 

 http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Most folks laugh when they read that. A few wonder if we haven't lost something along the way.

 

Martin.

[Colin_McLeod]

Martin that link is a brilliant reminder of what operational layouts were all about. Many thanks for sharing.

['CHARD]

Martin that link is a brilliant reminder of what operational layouts were all about. Many thanks for sharing.

 

I totally agree, Colin, and reading that has made me think I should definitely review my criteria for my future project - still (usefully) at drawing-board stage.

[Poggy1165]

This debate will never end, but the fact is that most 4mm scale modellers are satisfied with 00 standards. Long pages can be written about why this is while other long pages can be written about why it shouldn't be, but that is the position. 

 

It's pretty much the same for us 7mm scale lot. Most of us are quite happy with 32mm gauge (even though the flanges are a bit thick) despite minorities who insist that 33mm is the thing, and an increasingly vocal minority who want to go back to what used to be called 'Coarse scale' but which has now become, it seems 'Standard scale.'

 

Most people simply go for the industry default. If the industry default was EM (or in O Gauge 'Standard scale') that's what most people would go for.

[johnarcher]

Perhaps I was highlighting the problem with the prevailing doctrine of visual realism.

 

But what if we instead judge a model railway by its operational realism? How it works; how it is designed; whether the sleepers are big enough to support the weight of the trains; whether the gate would open?

Maybe the simplest way to get that right is to 'blindly copy' (aka 'model accurately') real track, which generally has sleepers that do just that.

 

But the two realisms aren't exclusive,  The fact is most 00 modellers do value visual realism (as well as operational), as they generally seem pleased with the improved appearance of 00 RTR in recent years, and usually consider they are modelling the GWR, or LMS or BR etc., and usually expect stock etc to look pretty accurate.

Edited March 29, 2016 by johnarcher

[Jeff Smith]

Perhaps I was highlighting the problem with the prevailing doctrine of visual realism.

 

But what if we instead judge a model railway by its operational realism? How it works; how it is designed; whether the sleepers are big enough to support the weight of the trains; whether the gate would open? One well-known and much-praised model railway has a gate in the goods yard with the hinges on the wrong side.     

 

 

 

 

It certainly seems different to me. My favourite model railway book would sure read differently if the writer had been concerned with the bean sticks in the cottage garden:

 

 http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Most folks laugh when they read that. A few wonder if we haven't lost something along the way.

 

Martin.

Now, was this clockwork or electric? If the former how do you shunt with clockwork? Reading about the operation of the Buckingham Branch, of similar vintage and appearance, the skill was to wind the loco just enough to complete the journey and stop in the appropriate place. If electric was it two rail and thus technically ahead for its time?

 

Either way, the track was evidently built for much heavier stock.......

[Jeff Smith]

A candidate 4ft 1 1/2" railway could perhaps be found on the Island of Sodor. Bachmann US sells representative 4mm stock that runs on HO track......perfect!

[rue_d_etropal]

as long as there are enough people to buy something then it should be commercially viable. That is still the case even for items that interest a very small percentage of modellers, and most OO modellers are happy with code 100 flat bottomed and HO spaced sleepers. In fact most are so happy, you don't tend to hear them, so they get ignored.

The shift from coarse to finer scale rail has been over a longish period, and is very gradual.

Interesting just had a look in Don Boreham's book about narrow gauge modelling, and he makes a comment about spiked finer rail causing problems with wheel, and the benefits of paxolin strip then becoming easier to get hold of. Much has changed since he wrote those words but I think having trains that actually work properly is most important thing, unless you just want something to look pretty on a shelf.

On the subject of OO standards, it is worth while looking at some of Greenley's writings. I do remember noticing that OO in America was being pushed as 19mm gauge.

 

What really bugs me is that given OO is 2mm+ under width that the wheels are more rigid so models require larger radius curves, and this can make a trainset type layout, which traditionally was how most of us started, just too big for many homes. I have seen old Fleischmann tender locos happily going round tighter curves.

It is OK providing something for the very small minority of people wanting it, as long as it is sustainable for that company. Will be interesting to see what take up of this new track there is. Still think r2r EM gauge would have more potential, as it is close to broader gauges in HO, so covers two different markets for one price of development. Then again Peco should, I hope, have done the research and not just listened to the noisy few.

[Edwardian]

most OO modellers are happy with code 100 flat bottomed and HO spaced sleepers. In fact most are so happy, you don't tend to hear them, so they get ignored.

The shift from coarse to finer scale rail has been over a longish period, and is very gradual.

 

 

I disagree.  Most OO modellers 'accept' HO track because there is no RTL OO alternative.  If there was, they would buy it.  Hence someone here said that Peco was in a large measure responsible for holding the hobby back in terms of (more) realistic track.  A little harsh, perhaps, but there is something in the argument that the sheer dominance of an HO product that sells because there is no effective alternative in most people's eyes militates against investing to raise the standard.

 

I agree that the shift from coarser to finer has been gradual.  That is history, however.  I believe that the market is easily discerning enough to prefer OO, as opposed to HO, track.  As I have said, the disparity between modern RTR locomotives and stock and the RTL they run on is now quite glaring.

 

Everytime I see one of the superb new Hornby Colletts of a stretch of HO track I wince; they are now from two different worlds.  HO RTL track for OO British outline should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

So, come on Peco, where are the points?

[Derekstuart]

Ask someone who has only ever eaten at McDonalds what he thinks to the quality and he will say he is satisfied.

 

Ask someone who usually eats at the Ritz what he thinks of McDonalds and he will likely go green.

[martin_wynne]

Ask someone who usually eats at the Ritz what he thinks of McDonalds and he will likely go green.

 

I've never eaten at the Ritz. But I'm willing to bet it doesn't beat a cheese & pickle sandwich.

Eaten sitting on the front of a Land Rover, parked up by Offa's Dyke.

 

 

Martin.

[J C Fenton]

Most OO modellers 'accept' HO track because there is no RTL OO alternative.  If there was, they would buy it.  Hence someone here said that Peco was in a large measure responsible for holding the hobby back in terms of (more) realistic track.  A little harsh, perhaps, but there is something in the argument that the sheer dominance of an HO product that sells because there is no effective alternative in most people's eyes militates against investing to raise the standard.

 

...

 

So, come on Peco, where are the points?

 

Me! Me! Me! I am that Grumpy Modeller!

 

Sure, I think that Peco's HO product has made us all victims of its success.  I would be delighted to buy Peco OO British outline track, BUT ONLY IF IT IS PART OF A RANGE INCLUDING POINTS!!!!!! 

 

In the meantime, what does Peco want in response to ONLY announcing plain track?  Praise? Gratitude? Sales?

 

'Oh Peco, our Saviour!'  'Well, Peco's not your saviour, he's a naughty boy and he's late into this game!'

 

865 posts on and I'm still left thinking 'plain track, no points; what's the big deal about this announcement?'

[Edwardian]

 

865 posts on and I'm still left thinking 'plain track, no points; what's the big deal about this announcement?'

 

I feel that if we only knew the answer to that question, we would understand so much more about the human condition.

 

I am drawn in against my better judgment time and again.  Quite why, I could not say!

[Derekstuart]

That does look rather peaceful, Martin.

[Trains&armour]

I've never eaten at the Ritz. But I'm willing to bet it doesn't beat a cheese & pickle sandwich.

Eaten sitting on the front of a Land Rover, parked up by Offa's Dyke.

 

 llandinshop_wood_1280_rp.jpg

 

Martin.

 

 

I see your point....

 

Wrong side of the Dyke though!

Edited March 29, 2016 by Trains&armour

[martin_wynne]

That does look rather peaceful, Martin.

 

It's all those green trees.

 

[Coryton]

 

865 posts on and I'm still left thinking 'plain track, no points; what's the big deal about this announcement?'

 

Perhaps because this is a significant change after decades of Peco selling HO track as 00, and people saying that the market for 00 track is too small for Peco to bother with (despite it being somehow worth making 009/HOe and HOm track).

[Martin_R]

Do I plan to purchase the new track when I start planning and building my new layout at the end of this year - NO.

Would I purchase the new track and a range of matching points/crossings when I start my new layout later this year - Definitely YES

 

If PECO decide to dribble in a range of points/crossings over the next few years then I'm sorry but SMP are likely to get my hard earned cash for both track and the points/crossings I need over the next year or so.

[Derekstuart]

Careful they don't try to talk about track...

It's all those green trees.

[westerner]

I'm amazed this thread is still going. Most of the points of view have been aired more than once if not several times.

Edited March 29, 2016 by westerner

[newbryford]

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.

 

 

Somehow, there are times when I can fit into any of those three categories.............. It depends what time of day/day of the week/mood I'm in.

 

Model railways are all about compromise and what level you will accept and be happy with.

I "model" in 4mm/00. My main compromise is 16.5mm gauge and Peco track - mostly for time and reliability considerations.

 

If I lay Peco track, I know it will not take that long and will work -I have built pointwork and used C&L bits, but that layout had 5 points. It took me 2 hours per point. Setting up a point motor took another 20 minutes. Laying a peco point takes 10 minutes. Setting up a Tortoise - 10 minutes, setting up a Peco motor, 2 minutes.

 

My current layout has about 45 points including 2 double slips - they all work first time. I haven't done the maths, but that's a lot of my scarce spare time saved. I'd rather be building/detailing/painting stock.

 

Another compromise is that I use electricity to power my train set  model trains - not diesel fuel or coal. After all, if we have prototypical track, we need prototypical energy sources don't we?

 

I'm currently off to my shed to do some modelling to hack up a Dapol 73 to make it look more like the one I want (yes, it's yellow), but it'll still have wheels 16.5mm apart.......... After all, you can't tell from side on.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[dajt]

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

 

 

There is a 4th choice - don't think about it at all, and not worry about it.

 

I'm playing with the idea of building a "train set" for the kids, and have designed the track plan using Hornby/Peco set-track parts. I didn't once consider anything else. I'm sure if I was any good at layout design and scenery etc it would look acceptable to me and most other people.

 

If I was the type to build a layout, I'd want to use S scale or Scale-7 or 1:32. But as I'm not the type to build a layout I'm building a train set to play on and it will use set-track! I did make a bunch of BH/copper clad OO-fs track a couple of years ago to see if I could do it, and it was easy enough, but I wouldn't go to all that trouble for a train set or test track.

 

As for the topic of this thread, if Peco made BH flex track I'd opt for that just because it would be a better result for near zero extra effort on an 00 layout or train set and if they made BH points I'd use them too. I discounted use of the existing BH flex track because they're too much hassle to get where I live, whereas I'm guessing Peco stuff would make its way here or somewhere nearby.

[dajt]

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."

...

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?

 

I think I agree with you when I consider what I enjoy about the hobby, but I'm not sure it's for everyone.

 

I enjoy the 'miniature engineering' side of things more than any other aspect but what we design and build are nothing like the real thing. I know what an injector does and roughly how it works but the little bit of brass I turn up to look like one doesn't do anything, it is a static prop. Same for every other bit of detail on a loco. Even the con-rods contribute nothing except friction, and the various suspension systems and drive systems owe nothing to the prototype. So I'm not modelling the prototype, I'm building something that looks like it in miniature but mechanically has no relation to it.

 

Same for most things to do with track and signalling. Most of the stuff we build like block detectors, servos to drive signals or points, etc have nothing to do with the prototype.

 

So it's all a fantasy and I can't see why someone can't be taken seriously if they decide the track gauge doesn't matter that much.

 

I love the crafts(person)ship side of the hobby as it pertains to building locos and rolling stock and even prototypical operation as far as emulating it is possible but I think there is room for other approaches. They don't interest me but so what?

 

I skip reading about layouts, especially articles of the "atomosphere, ambience" type but I don't begrudge their existence.