PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[AndyID]

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.

 

The dimension of the outside edges of the wheels is a very important dimension, particularly on a model steam locomotive with outside motion.

 

00 was aimed at the train-set market, and that is why 00 became so prevalent. Train-sets require wide wheel treads and deep flanges to allow the equipment to run on small radius curves and over irregular surfaces, and I seem to remember that products from Hornby and Tri-Ang were very effective at meeting that requirement. If 00 had adopted a wider gauge it would still have required over-scale treads and flanges and the wheel faces, running gear, splashers etc would have moved outwards. You can observe this effect on RTR H0 steam locomotives. Personally, I think 00 steam outline locomotives look much better.

 

My objection is that I keep reading posts that decry 00 as being somehow inferior. Perhaps the requirements of 60 years ago are no longer applicable, but that's no reason to say that there was anything wrong with 00 when it was originally promoted by Hornby and Tri-Ang.

[martin_wynne]

I'm afraid I really don't see your point in option 2.

 

Hi John,

 

There are a few points to make.

 

1. There are endless topics on here agonising about the "compromises" needed to make 00 look like standard-gauge track, about 00 being "wrong" or inferior, and so on. And on and on. All this can be avoided if you change the prototype. By deciding that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track you can model it at 4mm/ft without any compromise* and sleep at night knowing that you are building an accurate scale model and not a children's toy or a bar of fudge. It's all in the mind, but then so is everything else.

 

2. Over and over again we see statements that 00 gauge runs on H0 track. It doesn't. 00 gauge models are scaled at 4mm/ft and the track for it is built using 4mm/ft scale rail, 4mm/ft scale chairs, 4mm/ft scale ballast, etc. Even if you wanted to build UK bullhead track in H0 scale (3.5mm/ft), you can't. There is no such rail, no such chairs, etc., available and it would have to be entirely built from scratch. Statements that 00 gauge models run on H0 track annoy me intensely, not simply because they are wrong, but also because it shows the writer has grown up with Peco track with no knowledge of what went before or any understanding of the history of the hobby. Annoying me intensely isn't a criminal offence, but I reserve the right to shout about it when it happens.  

 

3. It is more than 60 years since the BRMSB created a design for proper 00 gauge track at 4mm/ft scale based on the idea of changing the gauge to represent 4ft-1.5in. And until Peco decided to ignore it completely, that was in fact the track which 00 gauge modellers used. And many still do when hand building 00 track.

 

4. RTR models in 00 gauge are very clearly made at 4mm/ft for 4ft-1.5in gauge, and this is accepted without question. You can read reviews in the magazines discussing tiny errors in the position of a handrail or some such, but never any mention that the gauge is wrong. If it is acceptable for the rolling stock to be made for 4ft-1.5in gauge, I really don't see why it can't be equally acceptable and normal practice to build 4ft-1.5in gauge track for it to run on.

 

*apart from the flangeway gap. But that's a whole separate topic, and would apply to RTR models at any gauge.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Edwardian]

All of which is rather by the by.  The salient point, I imagine, is the need for track that better captures the illusion of being scaled to suit the locomotives and rolling stock.  No easy feat and no perfect result is possible, given the inaccuracy in the gauge, but, then, SMP and C&L make track that is more convincing than Peco's, largely, one suspects, because the length and spacing of the sleepers aids the illusion far better than the HO sleepering of Peco. 

 

Not, therefore, beyond the Wit of Man, or even that of undecided Peco, to achieve.  I don't think we need a profound knowledge of the history of model track, or of its more arcane technical aspects, fascinating subjects as these doubtless are, simply to identify the Great Good that would be a relatively affordable Peco range that better achieves the illusion of scale.    

[Guest]

On my layout children's toy, my OO models run rather well on HO track. Just make that track look a little better and hooray. That's all that most people are asking. Everything else is totally irrelevant to all but a select few. That select few build everything themselves to be perfect from the start. So... why does this topic about children's toy track even figure on their radar? If you're trying to alter the mindset of thousands of modellers, good luck with that.

[AndyID]

All of which is rather by the by.  The salient point, I imagine, is the need for track that better captures the illusion of being scaled to suit the locomotives and rolling stock.  No easy feat and no perfect result is possible, given the inaccuracy in the gauge, but, then, SMP and C&L make track that is more convincing than Peco's, largely, one suspects, because the length and spacing of the sleepers aids the illusion far better than the HO sleepering of Peco. 

 

Not, therefore, beyond the Wit of Man, or even that of undecided Peco, to achieve.  I don't think we need a profound knowledge of the history of model track, or of its more arcane technical aspects, fascinating subjects as these doubtless are, simply to identify the Great Good that would be a relatively affordable Peco range that better achieves the illusion of scale.    

 

Do I detect a Meerschaum?

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi John,

 

There are a few points to make.

 

1. There are endless topics on here agonising about the "compromises" needed to make 00 look like standard-gauge track, about 00 being "wrong" or inferior, and so on. And on and on. All this can be avoided if you change the prototype. By deciding that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track you can model it at 4mm/ft without any compromise* and sleep at night knowing that you are building an accurate scale model and not a children's toy or a bar of fudge. It's all in the mind, but then so is everything else.

 

2. Over and over again we see statements that 00 gauge runs on H0 track. It doesn't. 00 gauge models are scaled at 4mm/ft and the track for it is built using 4mm/ft scale rail, 4mm/ft scale chairs, 4mm/ft scale ballast, etc. Even if you wanted to build UK bullhead track in H0 scale (3.5mm/ft), you can't. There is no such rail, no such chairs, etc., available and it would have to be entirely built from scratch. Statements that 00 gauge models run on H0 track annoy me intensely, not simply because they are wrong, but also because it shows the writer has grown up with Peco track with no knowledge of what went before or any understanding of the history of the hobby. Annoying me intensely isn't a criminal offence, but I reserve the right to shout about it when it happens.

 

3. It is more than 60 years since the BRMSB created a design for proper 00 gauge track at 4mm/ft scale based on the idea of changing the gauge to represent 4ft-1.5in. And until Peco decided to ignore it completely, that was in fact the track which 00 gauge modellers used. And many still do when hand building 00 track.

 

4. RTR models in 00 gauge are very clearly made at 4mm/ft for 4ft-1.5in gauge, and this is accepted without question. You can read reviews in the magazines discussing tiny errors in the position of a handrail or some such, but never any mention that the gauge is wrong. If it is acceptable for the rolling stock to be made for 4ft-1.5in gauge, I really don't see why it can't be equally acceptable and normal practice to build 4ft-1.5in gauge track for it to run on.

 

*apart from the flangeway gap. But that's a whole separate topic, and would apply to RTR models at any gauge.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Martin

 

Change the prototype, no way.

 

I am a 00 modeller who is happy with 00 being a bodge, wrong , never will be right etc. etc. I remain happy that it represents "standard gauge" but in reality it is still too narrow. It can never be 4 ft 1 and bit inches. It is a model not a piece of miniature engineering. And yes I am quite happy to talk about the wire representing the handrail being in the wrong place on my plastic model and at the same time have said plastic model trundle along its narrower than scale gauge track. And as a diesel modeller I have no problem where my valve gear ends up in relation to my wheels.

 

You naughty boy Clive now repeat after me "I must remember to be amazed at all P4 layouts because of their engineered track. even if the wrong sited signal box is too big for the number of levers the point work and signals suggest it should have, the points are not connected to the box with any rodding and to shunt the yard the train has to pass the starter signal and enter the next section."

 

Off course there are those finescale layouts were the passengers waiting at the station are sat on the platform bench waving their feet in the air. Trackside workers in their 1930's clothes painted orange because the layout represents the modern image.

 

I could go on, a realistic track plan, correct signalling, operating that follows railway practice and a supporting cast that matches the time period the model is set in can elevate a 00 layout to a higher standard than many "scale engineered layouts".

 

"Model, noun representation in 3 dimensions of existing person or thing or proposed structure esp. on smaller scale.....(Oxford dictionary)"

 

On exercise when in the army, " The brown stones are the enemy positions and the light ones ours" the briefing started. The stones being models for the briefing.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[martin_wynne]

I don't think we need a profound knowledge of the history of model track, or of its more arcane technical aspects, fascinating subjects as these doubtless are, simply to identify the Great Good that would be a relatively affordable Peco range that better achieves the illusion of scale.    

 

But for a great many modellers, simply creating an "illusion" isn't good enough. They crave the knowledge that they are building an accurate scale model. If it were not so, no-one would bother with EM or P4, or write reviews of the latest RTR models in the tiniest detail. By deciding that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in track, modellers using 00 trains can achieve the same peace of mind enjoyed by the builders of P4 layouts.

 

For the artists among us, creating an illusion is what the hobby is about. But not everyone is like that. Some reach instinctively for their micrometer when confronted with any difficulty in life.

 

Martin.

[locoholic]

Hi John,

 

There are a few points to make.

 

1. There are endless topics on here agonising about the "compromises" needed to make 00 look like standard-gauge track, about 00 being "wrong" or inferior, and so on. And on and on. All this can be avoided if you change the prototype. By deciding that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in gauge track you can model it at 4mm/ft without any compromise* and sleep at night knowing that you are building an accurate scale model and not a children's toy or a bar of fudge. It's all in the mind, but then so is everything else.

 

 

This is nonsense! It's well known that 4' 1.5" track never progressed beyond stone blocks and cast iron fish-belly rails. My Bachmann Deltics would look ridiculous running on an accurate model of that sort of track....

 

[Edwardian]

But for a great many modellers, simply creating an "illusion" isn't good enough. They crave the knowledge that they are building an accurate scale model. If it were not so, no-one would bother with EM or P4, or write reviews of the latest RTR models in the tiniest detail. By deciding that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in track, modellers using 00 trains can achieve the same peace of mind enjoyed by the builders of P4 layouts.

 

For the artists among us, creating an illusion is what the hobby is about. But not everyone is like that. Some reach instinctively for their micrometer when confronted with any difficulty in life.

 

Martin.

 

P4 modellers enjoy peace of mind?!?

[Dunsignalling]

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.

Hey! I'm on your side! I use 00 and harbour no ambitions to do otherwise because it lets me do things that I couldn't get away with in EM or P4.

 

00 works; and it works because it is a bodge not in spite of it. That's what good bodges do. 

 

It also works well enough to have become, and survived as, the de facto industry standard for r-t-r models of British trains (along with N which came along in the meantime).

 

In a very real sense, it doesn't need defending (though I certainly would if I thought it necessary); the number of people who continue to use it speaks for itself.  

 

I have no doubt that Martin has put forward a set of dimensions that can and, if Peco adopt them, will, result in track which looks good and upon which our trains will run better.

 

Whatever we do to them, 4mm scale models of standard gauge trains will never be or look correct when running on 16.5mm gauge track, however well engineered that may be. That's a fact and one I am fully content to live with. Yes, it can be improved but no, it can never be entirely "right".

 

Martin hides his indisputably bright engineering "light" under a 4' 1 1/2 inch "bushel", [which] does more harm than good IMHO. All that pretence achieves is to transfer the "blame" from the model to his hypothetical prototype and I consider that it detracts from his entirely valid and workable proposals for better 00 track.

 

I don't think most of us are really all that far apart on this subject; we are just using different words to describe the same thing.

 

John     

Edited March 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[martin_wynne]

P4 modellers enjoy peace of mind?!?

 

Well yes, I think they do. If you read their web forum, you get the sense that they are at ease with what they are doing, and not constantly agonising about compromise, or calling for change.

 

You can't say the same about 00, otherwise this topic wouldn't have reached 38 pages. And many similar topics before it.

 

Martin.

[Dunsignalling]

But for a great many modellers, simply creating an "illusion" isn't good enough. They crave the knowledge that they are building an accurate scale model. If it were not so, no-one would bother with EM or P4, or write reviews of the latest RTR models in the tiniest detail. By deciding that you are modelling 4ft-1.5in track, modellers using 00 trains can achieve the same peace of mind enjoyed by the builders of P4 layouts.

 

For the artists among us, creating an illusion is what the hobby is about. But not everyone is like that. Some reach instinctively for their micrometer when confronted with any difficulty in life.

 

Martin.

So, we just move from "illusion" to "delusion"; pretending the prototype is like that won't make a blind bit of difference to what the darn model looks like. 

 

John

Edited March 31, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[BlackRat]

If we were all building accurate scale models, wouldn't we be demanding things like proper reversing valve gear and inside motion?

 

Brake levers that can be moved, illuminated head, rail and guards van lamps?

 

Moving vehicles?

 

Blades of grass and leaves, as opposed to nylon flock tubules and ground foam?

 

We could go on and on couldn't we.......but it would be pointless (ouch).

 

The perfect layout only exists in the eyes of its owner.

 

I've given up on my idea for a helix, not because I can't but because I don't have the space that I thought I had.

 

Sometimes good folk out there forget all about the art of compromise, let's aim for perfection where we can, and be realistic that it's not going to happen.

[J C Fenton]

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

 

The mere fact that Peco remains undecided pretty much writes them off for me. 

 

Points to go with my new track or no points, oooh, I can't decide!  .

 

Stuff that - I'd rather back, with my wallet, the people who are actually making passable OO track. 

[J C Fenton]

Well yes, I think they do. If you read their web forum, you get the sense that they are at ease with what they are doing, and not constantly agonising about compromise, or calling for change.

 

You can't say the same about 00, otherwise this topic wouldn't have reached 38 pages. And many similar topics before it.

 

Martin.

 

To be fair, mate, it probably wouldn't have without you.

[martin_wynne]

So, we just move from "illusion" to "delusion"; pretending the prototype is like that won't make a blind bit of difference to what the darn model looks like. 

 

If you look at Andy's 3D printing topic, where he has created several different options for 00 track, you can see that they do look different. Quite a few replies preferred his 3.75mm/ft option (using 4mm/ft components) rather than a full BRMSB 4mm scale option.

 

I didn't, but that's just me. There is clearly an interesting discussion to be had. We should be able to discuss such things in friendly terms, instead of the bad-tempered stuff which comes up on RMweb whenever 00 gauge is mentioned.

 

Martin.

[Colin_McLeod]

16.5mm track is actually a 4mm representation of standard 4' 8.5" track. It happens to be a bit short of true scale dimensions just like Hornby's short Mk3 and the platforms and distance between stations on my layout.

[Wheatley]

If we were all building accurate scale models, wouldn't we be demanding things like proper reversing valve gear and inside motion?

 

Brake levers that can be moved, illuminated head, rail and guards van lamps?

 

Moving vehicles?

 

Blades of grass and leaves, as opposed to nylon flock tubules and ground foam?

 

 

 

It's the difference between looking like and functioning in exactly the same way as. All those items on your list can be made to look pretty much like the real thing (with a bit of effort), even if they don't function exactly like the real thing. Conversely Peco Streamline manages the exact opposite - it functions like real track* but looks like nothing except Peco Streamline. C&L on the other hand works just as well and looks a lot closer - like using a Parkside underframe instead of a Tri-ang one.

 

[* in that it keeps the train upright and pointing in the right direction, I'm aware that the dynamics are different because weight and mechanical forces don't scale.]

[Dunsignalling]

If you look at Andy's 3D printing topic, where he has created several different options for 00 track, you can see that they do look different. Quite a few replies preferred his 3.75mm/ft option (using 4mm/ft components) rather than a full BRMSB 4mm scale option.

 

I didn't, but that's just me. There is clearly an interesting discussion to be had. We should be able to discuss such things in friendly terms, instead of the bad-tempered stuff which comes up on RMweb whenever 00 gauge is mentioned.

 

Martin.

I wasn't referring to the appearance of track in isolation, but how it relates to the models that run on it.

 

A dead-scale 4mm scale replica of a notional 4' 1 1/2" gauge Duchess is still going to look exactly the same as an 00 model of a real standard gauge one!

 

John

[martin_wynne]

To be fair, mate, it probably wouldn't have without you.

 

Thanks for the heads-up. Time for a rethink.

 

I have tried to post constructive ideas, drawings, diagrams, prototype info on RMweb. But if it's not wanted I will stop bothering and transfer my attention to my posts in this topic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84769-days-when-you-know-why-you-live-in-the-british-isles/page-26&do=findComment&comment=2147636

 

Martin.

[JimF51]

Well yes, I think they do. If you read their web forum, you get the sense that they are at ease with what they are doing, and not constantly agonising about compromise, or calling for change.

 

You can't say the same about 00, otherwise this topic wouldn't have reached 38 pages. And many similar topics before it.

 

Martin.

 

Hmm, perhaps peace of mind regarding track gauge they use, but there has been a constant ongoing discussion about poor performing layouts for this past year, at least. I must be reading a different forum, and reading a different Society's journal. There is concern that many members are not being true to the 'code' (or whatever) and building said correct gauge track to the level needed for untroubled running. Or not building their locos and rolling stock to that 'code'.

 

To be honest, it was all the negative back and forth over this that made think about not renewing. Then I was told by a member, via email, that 'anyone' who looks at real track and then at commercial OO track on a layout will 'immediately' notice how wrong it looks, that check rail gaps are way over wide, V rails wrong, etc, etc.. Well, aren't I a dummy! Because when I look at track, I bl***y well don't notice that. I look at the overall effect. I will notice if it is FB rail as opposed to BH raised up on chairs, mainly because the former would not be correct for the period I am interested in.

 

That email and Tony Wright's guest article in the last S4 News issue I received made me realize I can be perfectly happy with 00 gauge track.

 

And you can say the same about OO, I think, as there are thousands out there happily using 00. This topic is this many pages long due to input from all sorts who do not use 00, not because of those who do.

 

Jim

[gordon s]

No need to rethink at all, Martin.  I don't always agree with everything you post, but life would be boring without alternative view points.  One thing is certain though, your contributions are always thought provoking and the technical assistance you offer invaluable.  Please ignore these thinly veiled personal attacks and carry on posting.

 

Track subjects would be a lot less interesting without your input.

[edcayton]

Martin, I agree that your posts have always been positive (even if I don't understand it all) and you have not descended to the carp bickering of some others. I appreciate your input.

 

Ed

 

Gordon posted while I was typing

Edited March 31, 2016 by edcayton

[brian777999]

It's the couplers that bother me in OO gauge. Nothing looks right to me except three link couplers. Can somebody invent working three links couplers without buffer lock please

[Edwardian]

Thanks for the heads-up. Time for a rethink.

 

I have tried to post constructive ideas, drawings, diagrams, prototype info on RMweb. But if it's not wanted I will stop bothering and transfer my attention to my posts in this topic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/84769-days-when-you-know-why-you-live-in-the-british-isles/page-26&do=findComment&comment=2147636

 

Martin.

 

Before you disappear with your bat and ball, I may say that I believe everyone gives you credit for your knowledge and expertise.  Whether or not it is strictly germane to a thread about a Peco's announcement of a track product that they have evidently already designed, does not lessen the degree of expertise on show or make it a less interesting read.

 

I don't imagine that I disagree with any of your contributions, and, indeed, I doubt that I would disagree even were I to understand more than every third word of what you say. Sadly, there is a novice and a duffer amongst us (me), so apologies if I fail to grasp the meaning or relevance of some of what is said. 

 

My concern is not with your contributions, but with what I understand to be the essential point of the topic; reaction to Peco's announcement.  Despite our collective facility for arguing over points with which we agree, I do see certain common themes ("consensus" might be pushing things a bit too far!), and, if I were to attempt a summary, I might say:

 

• Though some debate about the relative merits of P4, EM and whatnot, and hand-building track etc, all of which is valid, if not always original, the announcement is really only of concern to OO modellers who are likely to use RTL track, so the inherent imperfections of OO are a given, and it is also a given that those potentially affected by the announcement accept that.
• Most people see the announcement as positive
• Most people would like to see points, slips etc, i.e. a track system.
• Some people would buy plain track even with no points or even a promise of points.
• Others would not buy the track without it forming part of a RTL system, hence, sales of plain track will not be a reliable guide to levels of interest in a RTL system.
• The idea that people would not buy better looking OO track if such a range was put on a par with the current HO system is a fallacy.
• The current position, the announcement of plain track without any commitment to points cannot, by any stretch, be considered a satisfactory state of affairs, so it is to be hoped that Peco makes the right decision before too long.

For my part, I am unlikely to differ with any opinions within the above range, but am happy to debate contrary views, as, clearly any number of views on the subject are possible! 

 

I am much less sure where your contributions fit in, for all their evident quality, but that may be a lack of understanding on my part or explanation on yours. It may be that you can make this clear to me. Happy, as ever, to be led by the hand to the bright sunny uplands of enlightenment.

 

I should add that I am, quite genuinely interested to understand where you are coming from and the relevance of the information you are providing.  This is, first, because I think your expertise commands respect, second, because I would not be easy with any unnecessary or unresolved differences lying between us, and third, because I am interested to understand these matters. 

 

I was brought up to believe that knowledge is like a fine pocket watch; you only take it out and show it when someone asks the time.  Well now I am asking you the time.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Edwardian