PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[chris p bacon]

I suspect in cost grounds it will be considerably cheaper then C&L fastTrack 

Do we know that for sure?

 

This is new R&D and tooling and we've no idea how Peco will have priced this. could be it's a "premium" product

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Ian,

 

Any sign of the foam ballast inlay?

 

Martin.

Have they committed to a foam ballast inlay for this range? I would not expect it to be a very popular option.

[Derekstuart]

I suppose Aston Martin would be equally worried about Vauxhall releasing a new version of the Corsa.

 

I would have thought (and I am only surmising) that 00 flexi represents a quite small part of the C&L sales revenue/profit. Certainly I wonder about the wisdom of predicting negative effects for a small business that is currently up for sale.

Look an extremely useful track to me, I suspect in cost grounds it will be considerably cheaper then C&L fastTrack which will give Pete some grief . OO Modellers will be spoiled for choice , now lets see who gets the points out first 

[Junctionmad]

I suppose Aston Martin would be equally worried about Vauxhall releasing a new version of the Corsa.

 

I would have thought (and I am only surmising) that 00 flexi represents a quite small part of the C&L sales revenue/profit. Certainly I wonder about the wisdom of predicting negative effects for a small business that is currently up for sale.

One would reasonably assume that any purchaser would be entirely cognisant of the various developments in track from both peco and dcc concepts and will not be affected one way or the other by comments from people like me. Equally as you say C&L have products across a gamut of railway modelling and are not dependant on any single strategy. As a purchaser of Petes fine products , I wish him well in his recovery and his sale

[chris p bacon]

One would reasonably assume that any purchaser would be entirely cognisant of the various developments in track from both peco and dcc concepts and will not be affected one way or the other by comments from people like me. Equally as you say C&L have products across a gamut of railway modelling and are not dependant on any single strategy. As a purchaser of Petes fine products , I wish him well in his recovery and his sale

Indeed and they are stockists of Peco.

[martin_wynne]

Even more interesting than the track will be the marketing.

 

How do you explain to 50 years worth of loyal customers, with between them a massive installed base of Peco Streamline, that the track you have been selling them for all these years is not actually 00 and never was? I suspect a large proportion of them are not aware of the fact. But even they must surely notice the difference when the two are placed side by side. I expect a lot of emphasis on the fact that it is bullhead rail instead of flat-bottom, in the hope that will be accepted as the reason for the dramatic difference in the appearance of the track.

 

Martin.

[ColHut]

I am guessing they will keep the peco code 100 and replace or supplement the code 75. That way for those for whom it never mattered will get the cheaper code 100, and, like all improvements, new modellers may choose the BH over the old code 75.

 

regards

[Jeff Smith]

Continental HO modellers have commented on the popularity of Peco code 75; it will probably stay around.

[AndyID]

I am confident we will see some matching turnouts before the end of this decade.

 

Check please!

[hayfield]

Even more interesting than the track will be the marketing.

 

How do you explain to 50 years worth of loyal customers, with between them a massive installed base of Peco Streamline, that the track you have been selling them for all these years is not actually 00 and never was? I suspect a large proportion of them are not aware of the fact. But even they must surely notice the difference when the two are placed side by side. I expect a lot of emphasis on the fact that it is bullhead rail instead of flat-bottom, in the hope that will be accepted as the reason for the dramatic difference in the appearance of the track.

 

Martin.

 

I do not think too many will be upset, they have described it as 00/H0 for years and (rightly so) have an excellent reputation within the hobby for the quality of their products

 

Additionally whilst a few existing customers may feel a little short changed, most will welcome with open arms this new development and for the company it creates new sales opportunities. The fact that they have invested in a new design of rail being a cross between flatbottom, which we have been informed suits their turnout and crossing manufacturing system and bullhead rail which the more discerning modellers have been requesting for ages, they have thoroughly thought through the implementation of producing a new range of track.

 

By announcing a new track system many have held off buying competitors products. One could even say they may be creating additional sales by stating " if sales are high enough we will introduce a track system". It can also be said that for them to maintain their market share they need to release this product range.

 

As for how this will affect the competitors will vary, those who do more than just 00 gauge ready to run will be less affected

 

Another question could be, if 00 gauge modellers became accustomed to quality scale(ish) track would some move to EM gauge. This being an easier step up from 00 gauge, whilst the numbers would be low in comparison to 00 gauge modellers it could considerably swell the ranks of EM modellers. Not forgotten those who model P4 but the implications of that slight extra step may be too much

[Bernard Lamb]

Marketing.

I seem to remember some body, probably Cyril Freezer, saying that the closer sleeper spacing on Peco track was actually an advantage, due to almost all layouts being compressed length wise. It appeared that there was more track footage than was actually the case.

For me I do not like the chairs. Far too much height difference between the outside and inside jaws. Compared with C&L it is very obvious.

Bernard

[gr.king]

I am confident we will see some matching turnouts before the end of this decade.

 

Check please!

 

Is that the decade that ends in either 2019 or 2020, or are you thinking of the ten year period that starts today?

 

 

 

The low profile inside portion of the chair will probably be a great relief and a great asset to those not wishing to change all of their wheels, including many who have in the past used C& L and even in some cases SMP but who have had to devise means such as razor blades mounted in blocks to allow them to skim the tops off all of the inner chair parts.

Edited October 11, 2016 by gr.king

[hayfield]

Marketing.

I seem to remember some body, probably Cyril Freezer, saying that the closer sleeper spacing on Peco track was actually an advantage, due to almost all layouts being compressed length wise. It appeared that there was more track footage than was actually the case.

For me I do not like the chairs. Far too much height difference between the outside and inside jaws. Compared with C&L it is very obvious.

Bernard

 

 

Is that the decade that ends in either 2019 or 2020, or are you thinking of the ten year period that starts today?

 

 

 

The low profile inside portion of the chair will probably be a great relief and a great asset to those not wishing to change all of their wheels, including many who have in the past used C& L and even in some cases SMP but who have had to devise means such as razor blades mounted in blocks to allow them to skim the tops off all of the inner chair parts.

 

 

This is a good example of a win-win scenario, improving the quality of the product, choice and differing wheel standard compatibility 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am confident we will see some matching turnouts before the end of this decade.

 

Check please!

 

But only some. For this project to work, it needs a good range of matching pointwork. I think that people would like some more detailed information from Peco about what they intend to do, both in terms of type of pointwork and geometry.

[AndyID]

But only some. For this project to work, it needs a good range of matching pointwork. I think that people would like some more detailed information from Peco about what they intend to do, both in terms of type of pointwork and geometry.

 

Sorry Joseph. I was being sarcastic. At this rate I'll be pleasantly surprised if we see any turnouts from Peco during this decade.

[BG John]

A sort of solution to the variety of pointwork problem is Peco's approach with their O-16.5/On30 track. They just do "medium" radius left and right turnouts that are half way between OO small and medium radius, and a Y. If you want anything else, they sell sleeping to adapt their OO products, by cutting away some of the HO sleepers and replacing them with ones that match the narrow gauge. But they only suggest doing the easy bits, while I have plans to do the lot! Probably not a solution most people would like, but I think it adds to the fun!

[martin_wynne]

Another question could be, if 00 gauge modellers became accustomed to quality scale(ish) track would some move to EM gauge. This being an easier step up from 00 gauge, whilst the numbers would be low in comparison to 00 gauge modellers it could considerably swell the ranks of EM modellers. Not forgotten those who model P4 but the implications of that slight extra step may be too much

 

Hi John,

 

I suspect readily available proper 00 track may cause a move in the opposite direction. Especially with the DCC Concepts track claiming to use prototype geometry and "narrow flangeways". Several EM and P4 modellers already have 00 projects too, simply because the modern 00 RTR stock is so good, but also quite expensive. Not everyone wants to spend £100+ on a model and then immediately pull the wheels off.

 

We have seen the upsurge in interest in 00-SF handbuilt track resulting from the quality of modern RTR. I can see the same happening with matching ready-to-lay track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[coachmann]

How do you explain to 50 years worth of loyal customers, with between them a massive installed base of Peco Streamline, that the track you have been selling them for all these years is not actually 00 and never was? I suspect a large proportion of them are not aware of the fact. But even they must surely notice the difference when the two are placed side by side. I expect a lot of emphasis on the fact that it is bullhead rail instead of flat-bottom, in the hope that will be accepted as the reason for the dramatic difference in the appearance of the track.

Just about everything in life has seen development except for the ironing board and iron, and I doubt Peco is going to be lambasted for producing track that modelers expect in this day and age. I imagine shopkeepers will tell their un-knowledgeable customers that this is the latest track from Peco and it is based on the type of track used by British railways in steam days. Gross simplification I know but it should be sufficient. 

[hayfield]

Just got the Railway Modeller through the letter box, the track will be available in November, rail joiners with fishplate detail will follow and looks like turnouts will be following

[hayfield]

Hi John,

 

I suspect readily available proper 00 track may cause a move in the opposite direction. Especially with the DCC Concepts track claiming to use prototype geometry and "narrow flangeways". Several EM and P4 modellers already have 00 projects too, simply because the modern 00 RTR stock is so good, but also quite expensive. Not everyone wants to spend £100+ on a model and then immediately pull the wheels off.

 

We have seen the upsurge in interest in 00-SF handbuilt track resulting from the quality of modern RTR. I can see the same happening with matching ready-to-lay track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

I think most modellers have more than one project on the go and certainly having finer scale 00 gauge models with complementary stock, buildings and trackwork gives another option, personally I think the same rational goes for moving to EM gauge especially if its only tweaking the wheels

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

For me I do not like the chairs. Far too much height difference between the outside and inside jaws. Compared with C&L it is very obvious.

Bernard

 

It's not just the height difference, The inner 'chairs' resemble spring clips for flat bottom track while the outside resembles a cast iron chair and key for bullhead track.  Which was why I said in my previous post 'I'm willing to bet there's no track that looks like the Peco'.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Joseph_Pestell]

It's not just the height difference, The inner 'chairs' resemble spring clips for flat bottom track while the outside resembles a cast iron chair and key for bullhead track.  Which was why I said in my previous post 'I'm willing to bet there's no track that looks like the Peco'.

 

I went back a few posts to look at a photo and I see what you mean. Peco presumably feel that it is important to their market that the new track accepts a wide range of wheels. But it does certainly compromise the appearance a bit.

[bertiedog]

But then no 00 track is like any anybody has ever seen, it is all a compromise to cope with 4mm scale on 16.5 track. Peco cannot risk making the inner chair any higher than the code 75 clearances, it would lead to issues with slightly older wheels with sharp flanges, no curve to the tyre or no tapered tyre.

 

It is a bit different with the DCC Legacy, the clearance is smaller, the inner chair a bit bigger, and some wheels do touch the tops. But the Legacy track is aimed more at enthusiasts that know the issues and are running consistent standard wheels.

 

Peco are much more main stream, and bullhead track was considered near impossible, when Streamline had to cope with in the earlier days wheels from Tri-ang and Dublo, as well as scale versions.

 

It is the slow move towards standard smaller flanged wheels that has made the product possible. But there must be tolerances that cope with bigger flanges, which DCC have not allowed for in the same way. Don't forget that it is not just the flanges of stock running on the top of the chairs, but the loco pickup wheels, and even a tenth of a thou rub cuts off the power. Peco cannot risk that in any way.

 

Cyril Freezer's comments on the sleeper spacing were well known, but his other point was consistency across the whole layout. Most modellers are not in a competition at a show, the layouts are for their own satisfaction, and it really matters little what track is chosen. It is nice to have a RTR bullhead from Peco, it matters not a jot if it fails in minor ways to look exactly right, who really cares that much?

 

If you do care then move to P4/S4, there is only so far that 16.5 mm track can be taken in appearance and Peco seem to have made a good job of it.......at last!

 

Anyway track laying is on hold at t. this year!he moment till prices and supply details are known, hopefully this side of Christmas, this year!

 

Stephen

[bertiedog]

Look at it the other way, the inner chair is raised till it just clears the max size RP25 or DOGA flange. you could not run Lima, Mainline, early Bachmann, and you would take pot luck with Hornby's various wheel flange sizes, as to whether anything would run. Even Romford driver flanges from the past would foul.

 

Peco simply cannot risk making something that does not work correctly first time. I suspect that once ballasted into place, and suitably painted to weather it, the inner chairs will not "show", the overall effect is of the raised chaired track, and the wider sleeper spacing, but then it also demands RTR pointwork to match.

Stephen

Edited October 11, 2016 by bertiedog

[gismorail]

Just about everything in life has seen development except for the ironing board and iron, and I doubt Peco is going to be lambasted for producing track that modelers expect in this day and age. I imagine shopkeepers will tell their un-knowledgeable customers that this is the latest track from Peco and it is based on the type of track used by British railways in steam days. Gross simplification I know but it should be sufficient. 

Spot on with that Larry a balanced view on this topic at last. Also one must remember that on a worldwide basis the code 100 / 75 spacing is more correct which begs the question as to what percentage of sales are made up of UK sales compared to worldwide ???