Jump to content
 

PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

Free At Last

By Free At Last,
in Peco

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Martin - do these have moulded-on chairs (for BH rail) and how precise is the gauge?  Presumably you have to cut some webs for curved track?

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Yes, moulded bullhead chairs. Yes the rail needs to be threaded yourself, and the webs cut for curving. There were frequent complaints that the gauge was tight, due to age-shrinkage of the sleeper mouldings. So not suitable for significant curving in P4, although the EM version was fine.

 

The chairs are 2-bolt GWR pattern.

 

I will see if I can take a close-up picture of the chairs later.

 

It's all a bit academic because this has long been out of production, although it does come up on ebay sometimes. As far as I know Peco have never tried to reintroduce it, although who knows if the 00 bullhead is successful. The age-shrinkage problem could be overcome by using a higher-density polymer or a higher injection pressure on a bigger moulding machine. (He said without ever having seen the tooling to know whether that would be practicable. smile.gif)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pacific231G

Pacific231G

Posted
Posted (edited)

They do however possess the tooling for it, because they now own Ratio:

 

post-1103-0-20780300-1459297617.jpg

 

Martin.

I notice the gauge is given as 18.83mm "nominal" . I supposes that's obvious really as surely even the best injection moulding isn't accurate to 10-2 mm but I wonder how precise they were even when new. Actually what is the gauge tolerance for P4?

Edited by Pacific231G
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyID

AndyID

Posted
Posted (edited)

I notice the gauge is given as 18.83mm "nominal" . I supposes that's obvious really as surely even the best injection moulding isn't accurate to 10-2 mm but I wonder how precise they were even when new. Actually what is the gauge tolerance for P4?

 

That might explain why there were reports about the gauge being a bit tight. They should have been aiming for 18.83 minimum.

Edited by AndyID
Link to post
Share on other sites
dajt

dajt

Posted
Posted

However the dogs whatsits it certainly is not.

Bernard

 

I think the excitement is based upon the idea that it will be possible to buy BH track and points with the same ease and cost as the Peco FB can be today. Certainly around here getting anything other than Peco track would involve a lot of postage and waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

I notice the gauge is given as 18.83mm "nominal" . I supposes that's obvious really as surely even the best injection moulding isn't accurate to 10-2 mm but I wonder how precise they were even when new. Actually what is the gauge tolerance for P4?

 

As far as I recall (because it is getting on for 40 years ago), the "nominal" was added to the label after the shrinkage problems came to light. Presumably to satisfy trade description legislation.

 

There isn't, or shouldn't be, a conventional "tolerance" on a track gauge. Except on NMRA's planet, the specified track gauge figure is always the minimum. It is allowed to go wider, and is intended to do so on sharp curves, but it must never be less than the specified figure.

 

For P4, the minimum is 18.83mm, and gauge widening on curves is allowed up to 19.05mm. For the full P4 chapter and verse, see:

 

 http://clag.org.uk/p4standards.html

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

This link includes some interesting replies from Richard Johnson about the projected bullhead pointwork from DCC Concepts:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266

 

It is a really serious commitment (a very healthy 6 figure sum) to make a track range, but we are totally committed to the project with a real passion! We have already approved all flex track tooling (down to varying very subtle woodgrain that is even different on each sleeper) and it's close to full production. We are also well along the path to final approvals for the first point-work... which looks really nice and is VERY detailed. We already know that it will be more detailed and accurate than Peco can manage.

 

Martin.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyID

AndyID

Posted
Posted

This link includes some interesting replies from Richard Johnson about the projected bullhead pointwork from DCC Concepts:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266

 

 

Martin.

 

It's pretty clear Peco is not fully committed to this project. The DCC announcement might encourage Peco to get moving, but they might also prefer to wait and see how DCC gets on before they invest any serious money.

 

Either way, it should be quite interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

It's pretty clear Peco is not fully committed to this project. The DCC announcement might encourage Peco to get moving, but they might also prefer to wait and see how DCC gets on before they invest any serious money.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I'm not convinced the two products will be aiming for the same market.

 

Richard Johnson at DCC Concepts has said that he is not going to copy the short Peco-type "RTR" geometry and will be using full prototypical geometry, even suggesting that it will be based on pre-grouping Midland Railway designs because of his own modelling interests. So essentially he is looking at modellers who might otherwise be handbuilding their 00 track and want a quicker or fully-chaired alternative. He has also said he is not going to use insert moulding of the rails, which will be inclined in the chairs. So that would mean lower tooling costs but likely a much higher end cost, and perhaps some element of final assembly by the user.

 

Peco on the other hand are probably looking at their existing volume market and wanting a comparable low-cost instant-use product. They have already said the new track will be compatible with their existing Code 75 flat-bottom range, which almost certainly means interchangeable geometry. I have suggested that to get low-cost production insert moulding and their trademark snap-over stretcher bar, they may use their existing flat-bottom metalwork for the blades and internal closure rails. (That's just my guess, I have no information about it.)

 

Which means resourceful modellers will have complementary products for more flexible layout planning. Probably a short turnout equivalent to their existing "medium radius" turnout from Peco, and a longer 1:7 turnout from DCC Concepts. Sales of each may drive further sales of the other.

 

Plus the 3D-printed product which Joseph Pestell is working on, so 00 gauge modellers may have their bullhead dreams coming true.

 

I'm already getting a sense that many 00 modellers are finding flowing handbuilt track (and Templot) too difficult or demanding. Just straws in the wind, but perhaps such usage will fall back to the world of EM and P4 where it started.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

p.s. Richard Johnson has dropped hints about flangeway gaps and better running for the new pointwork. He is currently supplying 16.2mm 00-SF gauges for use with his Legacy track kits, and in the past has written approvingly about the benefits of 00-SF. Who knows... smile.gif

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Ramblin Rich

Ramblin Rich

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

I see from the product announcement story in BRM that DCC Concepts are intending to release B7 and B5 size turnouts; I'd think the B5 is a bit closer to the Peco geometry and intended perhaps to entice some customers who haven't got the room for larger geometry turnouts. The possible prospect of finer flangeways as well and the intention to have the product available later this year makes it worth a close look; I probably won't go out and buy any Peco code 75 turnouts in the meantime. I imagine Peco's code 75 sales may fall if others are holding off to see what emerges form DCC Concepts and Peco in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

I don't think a B5 is possible. It would need to be an A5 or, more probably, some older type switch.

 

I still think that if Peco do produce a new range of points they will abandon their traditional geometry and go for #6 and #8 as per their US range.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Blue Max

Blue Max

Posted
Posted

I have suggested that to get low-cost production insert moulding and their trademark snap-over stretcher bar, they may use their existing flat-bottom metalwork for the blades and internal closure rails.

 

Martin,

 

To make a mould tool that would incorporate insert moulding with the associated shut off faces, draft angles to internal cavity faces and potentially cammed moving tool inserts for turnout bases, would be nigh on impossible at realistic tool costs. I have worked in the injection moulding plastics business for over 36 years and it would be a toolmakers nightmare.

 

But I guess we will see what, if anything, they eventually come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
Martin,

 

To make a mould tool that would incorporate insert moulding with the associated shut off faces, draft angles to internal cavity faces and potentially cammed moving tool inserts for turnout bases, would be nigh on impossible at realistic tool costs. I have worked in the injection moulding plastics business for over 36 years and it would be a toolmakers nightmare.

 

Hi Max,

 

I'm also a toolmaker, and have designed and made injection moulding tools, with complex inserts, slides and split lines. So I do know what you are saying.

 

But Peco already use insert moulding for their pointwork. They use a special flat-bottom rail section without any web (just an inverted T) to avoid undercuts.

 

Since they are already doing that, and have all the tooling to create these inserted rails, it would make sense to use them for the internals of the new bullhead turnouts. I agree that insert-moulding bullhead rail would be a toolmaker's nightmare, although they do use it on their 0 gauge bullhead turnouts to a limited extent, and simply allow the polymer to flash a little way along the web.

 

It looks as though DCC Concepts may now beat them to it, but they won't be using insert moulding (not least because they say they will be using inclined rails -- an utter folly in my view for RTR track, but that's just me, we shall wait and see). See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110254-dcc-concepts-oo-gauge-bullhead-turnouts/page-3&do=findComment&comment=2302800

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites
bertiedog

bertiedog

Posted
Posted

What is the reasoning for the inclined rails in 00?, surely they should be confined to a gauge standard that has properly tapered wheel tyres to work in at least a near correct manner? 00 wheels go from flat to excess taper already, the makers still will not adhere to proven standards, even suggesting RP25 when they then add a bit more flange to" ensure it stays on the track".

 

We will only find out about the success or not of Peco Bullhead well after introduction, but It must be delaying potential code 75 flat bottom sales. The DCC 00 track looks interesting but is not going to be main stream in interest for sales. Cost may be the final factor, Peco are competitive in price, given inflation, they are cheaper than when introduced by a large margin.

 

Stephen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
d00m

d00m

Posted
Posted

Looking at the close up pictures of peco sl 108f, although it is being sold as bullhead, the rail cross section looks flat bottom... has anyone else noticed? The press release also said it would be compatible with existing code 75 track and turnouts...

The overall look is a great improvement though so I'll buy some!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
martin_wynne

martin_wynne

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

Looking at the close up pictures of peco sl 108f, although it is being sold as bullhead, the rail cross section looks flat bottom... has anyone else noticed?

 

Peco's idea of bullhead rail is flat-bottom rail with a narrow foot. This can be seen in their published drawing:

 

post-1103-0-41735500-1453983106.png

 

They do this for their 0 gauge track too. The reason is to allow the use of their conventional rail joiners (which don't work well with proper bullhead rail).

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyID

AndyID

Posted
Posted

I've had no bother whatsoever using Peco N gauge rail joiners on SMP bullhead track, so it's simply not true to say that conventional rail joiners don't work well with proper bullhead rail.

 

Peco must have changed the design then because the Peco N gauge joiners I have don't work for toffee on SMP code 75. I can get then to work, but only if I squeeze them with pliers.

 

I use Micro Engineering Code 55 joiners. They work really well with SMP code 75 bullhead rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyID

AndyID

Posted
Posted

Peco's idea of bullhead rail is flat-bottom rail with a narrow foot. This can be seen in their published drawing:

 

post-1103-0-41735500-1453983106.png

 

They do this for their 0 gauge track too. The reason is to allow the use of their conventional rail joiners (which don't work well with proper bullhead rail).

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

Another reason Peco might use that rail profile is to maximize the clearance between wheel flanges and the inside jaws without removing too much material from the jaws. (Don't ask me how I know :) )

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Lee

Richard Lee

Posted
Posted
The reason is to allow the use of their conventional rail joiners (which don't work well with proper bullhead rail).

 

Martin.

You can use Peco Code 75 rail joiners to connect Peco Code 75 points to SMP flexible track.  I have done so on my smaller layout for my Hornby LB&SC Railway liveried Terriers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28XX

28XX

Posted
Posted

Well that's brilliant. Shame I've laid two boxes worth on Stourhampton in the last year. But for the hobby, this is fantastic news. Let the 00 / EM / P4 standards debate froth begin.

 

Andy Y, you're gonna need a bigger server!!

46 pages! I tell your future!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...