PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Clive Mortimore]

Oh dear.

 

It ain't propaganda, and it's not a "necessarily compromised scale". Scales work in three dimensions. If the track was built to a different scale, it would look like a 1:87 scale model of UK bullhead track. It doesn't  (and I can show you what that looks like if you would like to see it.)

 

Presumably PECO intends it to be (mainly) used in conjunction with UK 00 equipment from the likes of Hornby, Bachmann and many other suppliers which is built to a scale of 1:76.2. That equipment is designed to operate on 16.5 mm gauge track. I sorry that you find it so offensive that 16.5 x 76.2 = 1,257.3 but there isn't anything any of us can do about that.

For 'king sake we are talking model railways.

 

If you so want a true scale model, it has to be steam propelled or have its own diesel engine or if electric traction not powered through the tracks. Your carriages should have opening doors where the male passengers are courteous to allow the ladies off first.

 

If you don't want to model 00 then fine do what ever you like, I and I think most other 00 modellers will be happy for you.

 

I remain very pleased with Peco's announcement and look forward to any developments that come with the new track system.

[AndyID]

For 'king sake we are talking model railways.

 

 

Then why are you getting so steamed-up about it Clive?

Edited March 31, 2016 by AndyID

[newbryford]

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

 

Try P4.....

 

 

Hat, coat, gone.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[DropTheTap]

Then why are you getting so steamed-up about it Clive?

 

 

...as you walk away whistling...

 

[dhjgreen]

Try P4.....

 

 

Hat, coat, gone.

 

Cheers,

Mick

4SF+2 might work!

[J C Fenton]

If you reduce the track gauge to something like 16.2mm it will help a lot.

 

With what?!?

Then why are you getting so steamed-up about it Clive?

 

Someone's been stoking his fire?

[Craigw]

I am not sure of the reason for, or benefit of, the insistence that Peco has announced the production of a 4mm scale model of a fictitious 4ft-1.5in gauge track, rather than of 4mm scale track to an inaccurate 16.5mm gauge, the latter being how, I suspect, many of us understand OO gauge track.  At any rate, these are two ways of describing the same thing and I am not sure that the less conventional description really adds much, save that it will help preserve the peace of mind of any P4 modellers I encounter, because now I can tell them that my model is of a prototype that adopted 4ft-1.5in gauge. 

 

 

 

Neither approach does anything for my peace of mind, simply because I was never really bothered by it in the first place

 

A group of OO modellers arguing amongst themselves for 40 pages (this time around and excluding the other arguments in other threads) is however, pure comedy gold.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Craig

 

It is not the 00 modellers who are arguing amongst themselves, I think most of us have said "Good on you Peco" and agreed that we don't model to a scale gauge. It is the non 00 modellers who keep coming up with their own little theories and telling us we are wrong. As Pete said a few post ago
 

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.

Check out some of the layouts Pete has made, I think they are very very good.

[DropTheTap]

 

 

A group of OO modellers arguing amongst themselves for 40 pages (this time around and excluding the other arguments in other threads) is however, pure comedy gold.

 

 

Sir, you must be very easily amused...

[johnarcher]

Neither approach does anything for my peace of mind, simply because I was never really bothered by it in the first place

 

A group of OO modellers arguing amongst themselves for 40 pages (this time around and excluding the other arguments in other threads) is however, pure comedy gold.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

Actually I must admit I'm not an 00 modeller (00n3 mainly - and, no, I don't use Peco H0m track), maybe I just enjoy an argu an amiable discussion. I only got involved because this involves ideas about models and prototypes that are wider than 00, and because I've seen this 4ft 1.5in idea before and it frankly baffles me. Everyone (00, EM, P4) generally uses tighter than scale curves, does that mean everyone is modelling some different BR or SR in an alternative universe where they used 4 chain curves much more?

I was just puzzled, not criticising anyone, there are plenty of fine 00 layouts, people have their own good reasons for using it, and good luck and much enjoyment to you all.

Edited March 31, 2016 by johnarcher

[Edwardian]

Actually I must admit I'm not an 00 modeller

 

Then get out! Out! OUT! 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist that; your contributions have been among the more intelligent, if I may say so, so all the more welcome for that.

[johnarcher]

Then get out! Out! OUT! 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist that; your contributions have been among the more intelligent, if I may say so, so all the more welcome for that.

What a pity I don't have a video camera handy, you could see me blushing. Actually that's probably something for you to be grateful for.

Just to return the compliment, I like Castle Aching a lot, the townscape especially.

Edited March 31, 2016 by johnarcher

[AndyID]

Hi Craig

 

It is not the 00 modellers who are arguing amongst themselves, I think most of us have said "Good on you Peco" and agreed that we don't model to a scale gauge. It is the non 00 modellers who keep coming up with their own little theories and telling us we are wrong. As Pete said a few post ago

 

Check out some of the layouts Pete has made, I think they are very very good.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has said anything critical regarding what Peco has announced so far. A lot of people have said it's not much use without matching points and I doubt if many people would disagree with that.

 

Personally, I take exception when 00 is described in pejorative terms without any description of how it should have been done differently. I've attempted to explain the reasons why 00 is the way it is and as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with it at all, but I would be interested in hearing about any alternatives.

[newbryford]

, there is nothing wrong with it at all, but I would be interested in hearing about any alternatives.

 

P4?

 

Oh, b*gger, I've already got my hat and coat......

 

"Check please!"

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Craigw]

Sir, you must be very easily amused...

 

I consider it the RMWeb equivilant of watching cats getting washed videos on Facebook

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Clive Mortimore]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has said anything critical regarding what Peco has announced so far. A lot of people have said it's not much use without matching points and I doubt if many people would disagree with that.

 

Personally, I take exception when 00 is described in pejorative terms without any description of how it should have been done differently. I've attempted to explain the reasons why 00 is the way it is and as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with it at all, but I would be interested in hearing about any alternatives.

Sleeper spacing is wrong, sleeper length is wrong...........for starters and that is based on image manipulation from the photo of it on show at the toy fair then converted to a templot image .

 

Do we need to be told where 00 has gone wrong and how you are going to put it right? If we want to we can read your thread about your 3.what ever mm scale you are printing your track to. Good luck with that project but is not for me.

 

For ages some of us have been saying "it is about time 00 modellers had some better looking track and point work". If we were to revisited the threads about better looking 00 trackwork some familiar faces appear telling us 00 is wrong , we should be modelling to a certain standard etc. and none of those voices seem to be 00 modellers. 

 

Trackwork is not the only aspect of railway modelling. Building locomotives is for some or rolling stock or trackside buildings or signalling or making their own road vehicles or sculpturing the little population for others. There are those who have artistic talents and have great scenic layouts or wonderfully weathered locos. Some are not so good at the modelling side but really enjoy operating. Only two of this list do not apply to me.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I can't get the quotes thing to work properly where there are two quotes in a past post.

 

So to answer the first point in #982: 4SF helps with the issue of buffer lock because when using 00 standards there is a lot of play between the wheels and the rails. That means that when propelling the train the wagons (short wheelbase) tend to skew and the buffers not engage. With the much tighter interface between 00 wheelsets and rails on 16.2mm gauge track, this skewing does not take place. The downside is that the play on 00 track is  there to allow "trainset curves". Modelling to 4SF standards needs larger radius curves or gauge widening.

[AndyID]

Anyway, rather than casting nasturtiums on other modeller's characters, here's a nice piccy that you can throw rocks at instead, should you feel so inclined. It won't mind.

 

 

This turnout is actually scaled with a view to making it a bit more appropriate for the 00 equipment that will run on it. Martin and I don't necessarily agree that this is the way to go, but we can discuss it objectively. Y'all might want to try it sometime.

 

 

 

[DropTheTap]

Cracks me up when people overturn a petrol can, throw on a match and then complain when they get burned: like watching videos of cats get washed, as someone said a little while ago!!

 

Personally, I feel like much of this thread has been objective. Vociferous, and somewhat circular, but mostly objective.

[gr.king]

One and a half?

 

Duly corrected. EIGHT AND A HALF.

[AndyID]

Do we need to be told where 00 has gone wrong and how you are going to put it right? If we want to we can read your thread about your 3.what ever mm scale you are printing your track to. Good luck with that project but is not for me.

 

 

Basically, that's what Martin said too, except he was slightly more tolerant

[Vistisen]

It is really simple for me, If I could, I would build hand made 'OO' gauge points. Anyone who say I could learn to, has not seem my ham-fisted attempts at soldering. I would therefore like to buy ‘OO’ gauge track including points. If I can’t, then I’ll carry on buying Tillig HO points that are SO beautiful to look at compared the current PECO streamline range, and sod the track work I’ll attempt to distract the viewer with decent ballasting and scenery.

[AndyID]

Sleeper spacing is wrong, sleeper length is wrong..........

 

Are you sure about that Clive? I got as far as page 13 in the thread and I still couldn't find anything like that. As far as I could see, everyone (me included) was very positive about what they had seen from Peco so far. There were some concerns raised about how much we might depend on dimensions derived from their images, but I'm sure those dimensions were derived entirely in good faith.

[raymw]

There is a solution on the horizon (if you look in the right direction).

Many years ago, Raychem, a very successful USA company, with offices in Swindon (UK), provided heat shrink plastic insulation to the leccy supply industry and others. The shrinking was a one way process, it could not easily be stretched back to the supplied size. However, processes have now evolved so that by applying the correct temperature, plastics can be stretched or shrunk as desired. We could, therefore lay track to 18.0 mm gauge, say, with plastic sleepers, then apply heat, and the gauge shrinks to 16.5mm, and when it cools to normal room temperature -i.e. 22deg C - it reverts back to 18.00 mm gauge.

This means that the track looks to scale at 4mm to foot, but when the loco/train runs over it, it can be made to shrink to 00 gauge (but only out of sight beneath said train), provided the correct temperature is applied as the train passes.

There are a couple of snags, however. The ballast has to be flexible, else it piles up under the wheels. I had thought the flexible foam Peco ballst strip would be fine, but it tends to melt.

You won't be able to lay the track in the loft, due to temperature variations, nor in cold sheds, since at near freezing temperature it sort of becomes gauge 1, and once it 'over stretches', it needs a very high temperature to reset it back to normal working range, so to speak.

However, I've currently 3d printed a short length of track for experimental purposes, but I'm stuck on how to generate enough instantaneous heat below the train, without either melting said train or setting fire to the surrounding area. The setting of fire could be quite realistic, for passing steam locos, but maybe not so realistic for other motive power.

Unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to make pointwork based on this principle. There is a fundamental problem with 4mm scale pointwork, in that as the gauge narrows, so the checkrail gap widens.

I feel a neater solution would be to make the axles of the train from thick 'memory wire', then by applying the correct current through the axles, the axle would change length and the train could be run on virtually any gauge track. The current could be supplied via the track/wheels, of course, and it would work with a ddccc signal superimposed on top of it. I've estimated that about 15A per axle at 1V would do the job, and experiments with a couple of welding transformers may follow.

Anyone got a decent loco/train I could borrow, one of those fancy bendy Rapido jobbies would most likely be OK?

 

Best wishes,

Ray

[AndyID]

There is a solution on the horizon (if you look in the right direction).

 

Many years ago, Raychem, a very successful USA company, with offices in Swindon (UK), provided heat shrink plastic insulation to the leccy supply industry and others. The shrinking was a one way process, it could not easily be stretched back to the supplied size. However, processes have now evolved so that by applying the correct temperature, plastics can be stretched or shrunk as desired. We could, therefore lay track to 18.0 mm gauge, say, with plastic sleepers, then apply heat, and the gauge shrinks to 16.5mm, and when it cools to normal room temperature -i.e. 22deg C - it reverts back to 18.00 mm gauge.

 

This means that the track looks to scale at 4mm to foot, but when the loco/train runs over it, it can be made to shrink to 00 gauge (but only out of sight beneath said train), provided the correct temperature is applied as the train passes.

 

There are a couple of snags, however. The ballast has to be flexible, else it piles up under the wheels. I had thought the flexible foam Peco ballst strip would be fine, but it tends to melt.

 

You won't be able to lay the track in the loft, due to temperature variations, nor in cold sheds, since at near freezing temperature it sort of becomes gauge 1, and once it 'over stretches', it needs a very high temperature to reset it back to normal working range, so to speak.

 

However, I've currently 3d printed a short length of track for experimental purposes, but I'm stuck on how to generate enough instantaneous heat below the train, without either melting said train or setting fire to the surrounding area. The setting of fire could be quite realistic, for passing steam locos, but maybe not so realistic for other motive power.

 

Unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to make pointwork based on this principle. There is a fundamental problem with 4mm scale pointwork, in that as the gauge narrows, so the checkrail gap widens.

 

I feel a neater solution would be to make the axles of the train from thick 'memory wire', then by applying the correct current through the axles, the axle would change length and the train could be run on virtually any gauge track. The current could be supplied via the track/wheels, of course, and it would work with a ddccc signal superimposed on top of it. I've estimated that about 15A per axle at 1V would do the job, and experiments with a couple of welding transformers may follow.

 

Anyone got a decent loco/train I could borrow, one of those fancy bendy Rapido jobbies would most likely be OK?

 

Best wishes,

Ray

 

I think you might be on to something there Ray, but wouldn't it be a bit easier to make rulers out of the stuff? They could have a built-in battery a calibration dial graduated in Kelvin.