PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[gr.king]

 

. The dimensions of 4ft-8.5in gauge track are irrelevant

 

 

Even with a pretty vivid imagination I don't think I could make up such a bizarre and hilarious statement. Maybe somebody slipped something into one of my drinks, or I ate something that was a bit "off" and I'm hallucinating?

[DropTheTap]

 

So, to save Peco the bother (if it is bothered) of reading 36 pages, I can summarise for their benefit;  Nice idea, but pretty useless without any points.

 

 

I half agree, which probably means that I half disagree!

 

There are plenty of modellers who have built very nice looking layouts by re- spacing PECO code 75 plain line sleepers while retaining the points more or less out of the box.

 

I completely accept that there needs to be a range of points to go along with the plain line, yet the plain line alone will save vast amounts of re- sleepering work for some people.

 

And I know that there are OO track systems available (points and plain line) with "scale" spacing between sleepers but these are not cheap, nor are they widely available to us foreign modellers. So providing that the new system retains a price competitive advantage over Marcway, C&L etc., it's certainly welcomed by some of us.

[Edwardian]

I half agree, which probably means that I half disagree!

 

There are plenty of modellers who have built very nice looking layouts by re- spacing PECO code 75 plain line sleepers while retaining the points more or less out of the box.

 

I completely accept that there needs to be a range of points to go along with the plain line, yet the plain line alone will save vast amounts of re- sleepering work for some people.

 

And I know that there are OO track systems available (points and plain line) with "scale" spacing between sleepers but these are not cheap, nor are they widely available to us foreign modellers. So providing that the new system retains a price competitive advantage over Marcway, C&L etc., it's certainly welcomed by some of us.

 

Well, I think I can fully agree with you.  I would add that I have seen some marvellous layouts that get-away with the HO spacing, simply because they are so convincingly ballasted and weathered, even though that is a point against me.

 

Given what you say about adjusting sleeper width, and given the availability of RTL flexi-track with correct spacing from other manufacturers, albeit more expensive than Peco Code 75 HO track, it is really the absence of a reasonably priced alternative to Peco's Code 75 HO points that we have felt the most keenly.

 

So, just to announce track with a 'maybe later' on the points is, I find, a little frustrating, and certainly makes the announcement far less significant than it might have been.

[johnarcher]

 

 

 

 

Even with a pretty vivid imagination I don't think I could make up such a bizarre and hilarious statement. Maybe somebody slipped something into one of my drinks, or I ate something that was a bit "off" and I'm hallucinating?

 

It's quite simple, this is 4' 1 1/2" track, irrelevant to 4' 81/2", so would anyone who was thinking of using it in a model of a standard gauge railway go away and leave the thread to the hordes of people modelling 7" narrower lines.

[DavidH]

 

Even with a pretty vivid imagination I don't think I could make up such a bizarre and hilarious statement. Maybe somebody slipped something into one of my drinks, or I ate something that was a bit "off" and I'm hallucinating?

 

 

Except that's not quite what he said, by truncating the sentence and taking it out of context you've made a nonsense of Martyn's argument, in order to fit your particular agenda. Are you a politician perchance? ;-)

[johnarcher]

Except that's not quite what he said, by truncating the sentence and taking it out of context you've made a nonsense of Martyn's argument, in order to fit your particular agenda. Are you a politician perchance? ;-)

Maybe not entirely fair, while it is true that this (like all 00 track) is actually a 4mm scale model of 4ft 1.5in gauge track to say that "The dimensions of 4ft-8.5in gauge track are irrelevant in this exercise, except in so far that 4ft-1.5in track uses the same REA components" (the full sentence) does rather ignore the fact that 4ft 8.5in track is exactly what most of the buyers will want to use it to represent, and are therefore often concerned about the relationship of its proportions with those of standard gauge, so the dimensions of standard gauge track are not irrelevant.

Edited March 30, 2016 by johnarcher

[Guest 40-something]

Christ

[Derekstuart]

Is it worth having a thread of "4ft 1.5in track: practicalities of"?

Though no doubt within a few days it would be blaming someone for something about something else.

[gr.king]

My so called "agenda" is the one that most OO gauge modellers must want - preservation of the notion that we are modelling the standard gauge and we want the track itself to look as nearly as possible a correctly proportioned model of real standard gauge track. The last thing most of us would want is for Peco to take the recurring advocacy of an imaginary narrow gauge prototype on here, with or without some token reduction of sleeper spacing, as an indication that the majority of OO modellers subscribe to that concept.

It may not make a huge difference in the end to the final proportions of the new track, but if the narrow gauge concept is adopted as the basic idea and then for some reason warped to produce an even narrower gauge look, possibly to make the track applicable to some other scale, then the final product might just end up being poor for the primary purpose.

Edited March 30, 2016 by gr.king

[Edwardian]

My so called "agenda" is the one that most OO gauge modellers must want - preservation of the notion that we are modelling the standard gauge and we want the track itself to look as nearly as possible a correctly proportioned model of real standard gauge track.

 

Well said!

[Derekstuart]

gr.king

 

Martin did recently write in this or another equally depressing thread that he approached model trains from an engineering point of view and that most people now approach it from an artistic point instead.

 

There. You CANNOT reconcile those two different viewpoints unless you go for an accurate gauge, prototypical curves and exactly engineered track. You might of course be able to use selective compression along the backscene to create an illusion of distance.

WHY OH WHY can people not accept each other's viewpoint and be done with it for heaven sake. Despite being firmly in S4 territory, I still look at "coarse" track such as P4 and EM and respect the work. Why can people not just live and let live?

 

NO ONE is FORCING anyone to this idea of 4 1.5.

 

Now, hello wall- here's my head. BASH. BANG. WALLOP.

[newbryford]

Back on-topic of Peco bullhead track.

 

I asked at the Peco stand at York, about the possibility of making pointwork to match.

 

The reply was "you're not the first to ask".

 

There was an obvious follow up question from me if they were going to do it. He replied that they haven't decided yet, but they were taking on board the number of requests and interest in the bullhead track and that was pretty much the end of conversation.

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited March 30, 2016 by newbryford

[AndyID]

For a standard gauge locomotive, the distance between the outer edges of the driver treads is 66.1 inches. Scaled at 1:76.2 this is equivalent to 22 mm.

 

I just measured the same dimension on a Wrenn locomotive. It's 21 mm. A Tri-Ang/Hornby loco measures at 22 mm.

 

What were we saying about there being something "wrong" with 00? Seems quite alright to me.

[BlackRat]

Back on-topic of Peco bullhead track.

 

The reply was "you're not the first to ask".

  

Cheers,

Mick

Blimey don't tell me the technical bureaus gone all technical with technology!

 

An email to Peco is worth (almost) a 1,000 posts on here.........

[Edwardian]

they haven't decided yet,

 

I have: SMP Marcway

[martin_wynne]

Even with a pretty vivid imagination I don't think I could make up such a bizarre and hilarious statement. Maybe somebody slipped something into one of my drinks, or I ate something that was a bit "off" and I'm hallucinating?

 

There are 3 dimensions which cannot be reconciled:

 

4mm/ft

4ft-8.5in

16.5mm

 

For a solution one or more of them must be modified. The usual options are:

 

1. change the 4mm/ft to 3.5mm/ft.

 

2. change the 4ft-8.5in to 4ft-1.5in.

 

3. change the 16.5mm to 18.83mm

 

My preference is for options 2 or 3. Others prefer option 1.

 

However, from their published drawings, it seems Peco have chosen option 2 for their new track. I'm sorry you don't like it.

 

Martin.

[57xx]

Christ

 

 On a bike.

[johnarcher]

There are 3 dimensions which cannot be reconciled:

 

4mm/ft

4ft-8.5in

16.5mm

 

For a solution one or more of them must be modified. The usual options are:

 

1. change the 4mm/ft to 3.5mm/ft.

 

2. change the 4ft-8.5in to 4ft-1.5in.

 

3. change the 16.5mm to 18.83mm

 

My preference is for options 2 or 3. Others prefer option 1.

 

However, from their published drawings, it seems Peco have chosen option 2 for their new track. I'm sorry you don't like it.

 

Martin.

Martin

I rather wish we could do what someone suggested and have a separate thread on this, as, while your summary of the problem is obviously true,  I'm afraid I really don't see your point in option 2. I'm quite ready to accept it could be my lack of understanding, as I have the greatest respect for your modelling experience, knowledge of trackwork and for the achievement of Templot (which I would probably admire even more if I understood more than 10% of its abilities)..

 

However I don't want to divert this thread any further, the question is about this Peco track and its potential, on that I would agree with those who have talked about pointwork. The lack of that has always been an objection to C&L and SMP, so if Peco did introduce pointwork they would be in such a different position relative to the other makers that I don't see that they can learn much about their possible market share from just offering the same as them.

Edited March 30, 2016 by johnarcher

[Joseph_Pestell]

We really do repeat ourselves endlessly don't we.

 

00 is a compromise. It will always be "wrong". All we can hope to do is to mitigate the situation so that it looks as good as possible, which really can be quite good.

 

The mathematics mean that all of the various proposed solutions end up looking much the same however one gets there.

 

Ultimately, it does not matter at all so long as our trains run on it reliably and we like how it looks.

[polybear]

Does that mean they start out as EM and end up as 00?

Or perhaps 00 ending up as 00-sf......

 

I asked at the Peco stand at York, about the possibility of making pointwork to match.

 

The reply was "you're not the first to ask".

 

There was an obvious follow up question from me if they were going to do it. He replied that they haven't decided yet, but they were taking on board the number of requests and interest in the bullhead track and that was pretty much the end of conversation.

 

So that could mean that, having purchased the "new improved Peco bullhead trackwork" , only to learn that Peco subsequently pull the plug on the idea of matching turnouts then you're stuck with trackwork having differing visual appearances.  I'd be less than happy.

At the moment I can't get too excited, since all Peco are offering (sorry - plan to offer) is something that has been available from other sources (C&L and SMP) for some years.  I wonder how those suppliers feel about this advance announcement - will their sales of 00 plain trackwork now be dropping off, since some modellers may now be awaiting availability of the plain trackwork from Peco, followed by the hoped-for matching turnouts?  In a similar vein I do know that Mike Edge was less than impressed with Heljan's announcement of a forthcoming Class 17 Clayton (which was still 18-24 months away IIRC) since it screwed the sales of Mike's etched kit (I still bought the kit, as it happens).

 

Brian

[JimF51]

Peco shows a section of OO "gauge" track made to 1/76 "scale" and says they are looking for favorable reaction before committing to points. I took that to mean favorable reaction to the said piece of track, NOT the announcement itself. To that end, I sent off a email to them soon after seeing the announcement, thanking them and giving my positive reaction. 

 

I also did not take it that they were looking at favorable sales. If sales were going to drive the decision, I think they would have made a large amount of the plain track and gotten it on dealer shelves right away.

 

As for the Peco track affecting C&L and SMP's sales, perhaps, but difficult to say without knowing just how much they sell of OO gauge track. I would think it is their least selling items, and their core business is the EM and P4 buyers. Unlike we OO gauge track users, they do not have a alternative, other than building their own. For myself, the price savings is more than enough to make me wait and see what develops with Peco. The new track may come in at a higher price point, but I doubt it will be up as high as that from C&L. A C&L point kit is more than 3 times the price of a Peco point, and flex track is more than double Peco's.

 

Unbelievable how convoluted a route this whole topic has gone.

 

Jim

[Dunsignalling]

There are 3 dimensions which cannot be reconciled:

 

4mm/ft

4ft-8.5in

16.5mm

 

For a solution one or more of them must be modified. The usual options are:

 

1. change the 4mm/ft to 3.5mm/ft.

 

2. change the 4ft-8.5in to 4ft-1.5in.

 

3. change the 16.5mm to 18.83mm

 

My preference is for options 2 or 3. Others prefer option 1.

 

However, from their published drawings, it seems Peco have chosen option 2 for their new track. I'm sorry you don't like it.

 

Martin.

Option one is a commercial non-starter. I refer you to my Edward Beal quote earlier.

 

Option two is just dressing the thing up in new imperial raiment, however good the underlying engineering may be.

 

Option three is (for most of us) impractical unless we are willing to severely limit the kind of layouts we build.

 

There is a single coherent answer, "none of the above", i.e. to accept that there is a discrepancy for which there is no complete solution and disguise it as best we can. The mechanical solution you propose may well do just that - If it works and looks better than what we have at present, let me at it.

 

I'm perfectly happy with the results option two produces, I  just find the attempts to justify it by pretending that it will create perfect scale models of some notional railway cringeworthy and completely unnecessary. Maybe it would, but Far Twittering and Oysterperch already does that far more entertainingly............

 

Rather than three choices, how about three principles:

 

1. Like it or not, 00 is a bodge but one that works well enough to have survived for many decades. It is simply not possible to address every aspect in which it diverges from true scale without it ceasing to be 00. If it were, it would have been done long ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion now. 

 

2. It is possible to get round it, if one is so inclined (though not on an out-of-the-box basis) either by moving to 3.5mm scale or by adopting a gauge accurate to 4mm scale.

 

3. Neither of the options outlined in [2] are going to find favour with mass market r-t-r suppliers. However, it is possible to make something that looks better and works better without losing the advantages that accompany the compromises.

 

I'm hoping and trusting that the last is what will emerge from Beer in due course.

 

John

Edited March 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[AndyID]

1. Like it or not, 00 is a bodge

 

Making statements like tends to make people defensive about 00. Apparently, it even gives some people an inferiority complex.

 

00 was developed to meet a certain set of requirements, and it still meets those requirements very well. It is not "a bodge". If the gauge had been widened by 2 millimeters, the wheels on steam outline locomotives would be in the wrong place (see my post above) as they are on RTR H0 equipment, or Lionel's ill-fated 00 system.

 

The irony is that because 00 put the wheels in the right place, it enabled the development of EM and P4 and unfortunately that has resulted in the notion that 00 is somehow "inferior".  00 isn't in any way inferior to EM or P4. It just fulfills a set of requirements that are different from those of EM and P4.

[DropTheTap]

Making statements like tends to make people defensive about 00. Apparently, it even gives some people an inferiority complex.

 

00 was developed to meet a certain set of requirements, and it still meets those requirements very well. It is not "a bodge". If the gauge had been widened by 2 millimeters, the wheels on steam outline locomotives would be in the wrong place (see my post above) as they are on RTR H0 equipment, or Lionel's ill-fated 00 system.

 

The irony is that because 00 put the wheels in the right place, it enabled the development of EM and P4 and unfortunately that has resulted in the notion that 00 is somehow "inferior".  00 isn't in any way inferior to EM or P4. It just fulfills a set of requirements that are different from those of EM and P4.

 

Not sure I get where you're coming from here chief. The distance between the outer edges of the wheels on a locomotive is not a pertinent dimension. What keeps the thing on the rails is the distance between the inner faces. Are you sure it wasn't the thickness of those old wheels making the outer face dimension appear accurate?

 

OO is inferior to EM and P4 only in terms of scale accuracy between the gauge faces of the rails. Even as an OO gauge modeller I can accept that.

[edcayton]

Not sure I get where you're coming from here chief. The distance between the outer edges of the wheels on a locomotive is not a pertinent dimension. What keeps the thing on the rails is the distance between the inner faces. Are you sure it wasn't the thickness of those old wheels making the outer face dimension appear accurate?

 

OO is inferior to EM and P4 only in terms of scale accuracy between the gauge faces of the rails. Even as an OO gauge modeller I can accept that.

 

Yeah but no but that's not true is it? I think that what Andy was saying is that the distance between the outer face of the wheels and the rest of the loco IS important-filling the splashers and looking from anywhere but side-on. If the wheels etc were dead-on for 16,5 mm gauge, but to P4 standards then the loco may look more unrealistic.

 

Ed