PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[AndyID]

Speaking of frogs, I took the cover off our circuit breaker panel yesterday and there was a desiccated tree frog at the bottom of the cabinet. Crunchy frog anyone?

[hayfield]

I thought I would make it clear why I hoped Peco would adopt their USA Code 83 point geometry. The '83' range also has 43" and 26" radius turnouts. I used the 43" on a layout a few years ago for a double junction and the angle of the resultant junction was shallower than when Code 75 was laid. There was an opportunity here to get away from the ages old set-track geometry, anyway I'm away to 0 gauge so happy dayz....

 

 

Coachman

 

This is one of the (in my opinion) two important questions

 

1 Do they continue with their existing Geometry on their code 75 ranges or go for something similar to the geometry of the USA code 83 range they offer, this is a hard one as using the existing code 75 geometry allows for a direct replacement for and or compatibility with existing turnouts and crossings

 

2 As they now have chair detail hopefully they will represent the differing types of chairs within turnouts and crossings

 

I would guess that they would copy the code 75 range for total integration between both systems 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

2 As they now have chair detail hopefully they will represent the differing types of chairs within turnouts and crossings

 

 

Since the 'chairs' are incorrect on the plain track,I don't hold any hope of them bothering with differing types of chairs in the S&C...

[gr.king]

I doubt that any number of pages of hot air and pedantry on here regarding geometry and terminology will now make much, if ANY difference to decisions by Peco. They'll make a track system that is a very welcome and substantial improvement on the appearance of their previous OO offerings, which is robust enough for handling by the relatively unskilled, can be laid, lifted and re-laid, and which allows most or all of the RTR models from fairly recent years to run without difficult modification. The chairs cannot be of exact scale size and prototypical shape if the track is to meet those important criteria, and will anybody really be any better off or worse off according to what they (or we) choose to call the bit where the rails cross?

Edited October 14, 2016 by gr.king

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

They'll make a track system that is a very welcome and substantial improvement on the appearance of their previous OO offerings, which is robust enough for handling by the relatively unskilled, can be laid, lifted and re-laid, and which allows most or all of the RTR models from fairly recent years to run without difficult modification. The chairs cannot be of exact scale size and prototypical shape if the track is to meet those important criteria, 

 

C&L flexitrack does have chairs that look correct on both the inside and outside of the rail.  And it will handle 'most or all of the RTR models from fairly recent years' - witness the fabulous Stoke Courtenay by John C.running with, as he puts it, 'just a rag bag of new and second-hand items'. 

 

So it can be done, but Peco chose not to.  I'm sure they have their reasons. 

[bertiedog]

C&L flexitrack does have chairs that look correct on both the inside and outside of the rail.  And it will handle 'most or all of the RTR models from fairly recent years' - witness the fabulous Stoke Courtenay by John C.running with, as he puts it, 'just a rag bag of new and second-hand items'. 

 

So it can be done, but Peco chose not to.  I'm sure they have their reasons. 

But this is the point, "most" of the RTR models, Peco cannot risk any customer complaining about the messy wheel standards in the UK causing bad running, and if you want the more restricted availability, then the C&L track is already there to satisfy the user with those requirements.

 

Peco is not making a replacement for C&L.

 

So what's wrong with C&L, ...absolutely nothing!...it caters for modellers with finer wheels.

It is not just the stock that risk running on the chairs, the main issue to my mind is power pick up, the chance of a flange touching. the chair stops pickup for a tiny moment, in normal running this is smoothed over, but at low speed or pull away it can stall a loco.

This is not a function of the C&L track, it does not happen with decent wheel flanges, but Peco have ensured by the design that any effect like this will not happen.

 

I have a lot of C&L, no problems, but I cannot run older models on it as well as modern RTR. If you want to test track very carefully,and I have done it, then put a scope across the power feed and observe the waveform, it should be a steady DC value, but if the flanges touch the top of the chairs you get a rough DC level with back EMF spikes. It does not stop the train, but shows the true situation about the power getting through.

 

One 00 track is the best, code 100 Peco, the best for reliable pickup that is.......

 

After all is said and done, if the chairs adopted offend then buy C&L or Legacy track, but it must come with the caveat that the wheels must suit.

 

Stephen.

Edited October 14, 2016 by bertiedog

[Joseph_Pestell]

Coachman

 

This is one of the (in my opinion) two important questions

 

1 Do they continue with their existing Geometry on their code 75 ranges or go for something similar to the geometry of the USA code 83 range they offer, this is a hard one as using the existing code 75 geometry allows for a direct replacement for and or compatibility with existing turnouts and crossings

 

2 As they now have chair detail hopefully they will represent the differing types of chairs within turnouts and crossings

 

I would guess that they would copy the code 75 range for total integration between both systems 

But, as others have pointed out, you don't integrate the two on a visible part of the layout. That really would show up the deficiencies (for OO) of the older Streamline.

 

The only integration that is necessary is between two pieces of track or, perhaps, the toe ends of two points. The only thing that matters there is gauge and rail height. So much better to go for a correct prototype geometry. A #6A turnout does not take up much more space than a 3ft radius turnout but the 9 degree deviation looks so much better than the 12 degree deviation on the Peco.

[Coryton]

The only integration that is necessary is between two pieces of track or, perhaps, the toe ends of two points. The only thing that matters there is gauge and rail height. So much better to go for a correct prototype geometry. A #6A turnout does not take up much more space than a 3ft radius turnout but the 9 degree deviation looks so much better than the 12 degree deviation on the Peco.

 

The points may take up a similar amount of space, but won't a lower angle of deviation mean you need more distance before the two tracks are no longer fouling each other? So - for example - platform lines will have to be longer (take up more space) to hold the same number of coaches?

[Junctionmad]

I'd personally be very surprised if PECO changed the geometry of the new bullhead away from its existing HO standard.

[martin_wynne]

I'd personally be very surprised if PECO changed the geometry of the new bullhead away from its existing HO standard.

 

So would I. They can't possibly introduce an entire new range immediately. Anyone wanting diamonds, slips etc., is going to have to combine the bullhead track with their existing code75 flat-bottom range, at least in the short term. This means the new bullhead turnouts must match the existing geometry.

 

This also rules out matching the code83 geometry, since those units can't easily be combined with the bullhead track because of the difference in rail height.

 

But Peco may spring a surprise. 12 months ago no-one was expecting bullhead track from them.

 

Anyone wanting prototypical UK bullhead geometry is probably going to have to wait for the DCC Concepts pointwork.

 

Martin.

[Budgie]

Bulbs are things that you plant in your garden to grow flowers from - the things that emit light are always refereed to as lamps (be they LED, filament, paraffin, etc)

 

I'll let you tell CPC Farnell, then. See http://cpc.farnell.com/light-bulbs-tubes

[Stephen Freeman]

I'll let you tell CPC Farnell, then. See http://cpc.farnell.com/light-bulbs-tubes

Electric Light Bulbs can go in lamps but not in the ground, well they can but they won't work.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Stephen Freeman

[martin_wynne]

Electric Light Bulbs can go in lamps but not in the ground, well they can but they won't work.

 

If it's me planting them, it won't make any difference whether they are lamp bulbs or daffodil bulbs.

[phil-b259]

I'll let you tell CPC Farnell, then. See http://cpc.farnell.com/light-bulbs-tubes

 

I was of course speaking from a British railway* perspective - where you will not find any reference to 'bulbs'. Indeed it was one of the first things my new S&T colleagues drummed into me .

 

Other industries / the general public are not so fussy.....

 

*( Railtrack / NR from 2001 in case anyone wants to prove me wrong again )

Edited October 14, 2016 by phil-b259

[Pacific231G]

I refer you to AREMA, the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, and their publication 2014 Portfolio of Trackwork Plans. This is a "real railway" organisation, and it refers to frogs all the time.

 

I also refer you to voestalpine AG, whose website refers to frogs exclusively all the time.

 

Perhaps what you really meant to say was that the term "frog" is not used on the real railway in the UK. But I'm not sure that even that is true.

I'm not scoring points but am fascinated by how words and terms change their meaning.

 

I had a look at Vossloh Cogifer's document "points and crossings" http://www.vossloh-cogifer.com/media/downloads/pdfs/Vossloh_Cogifer_points_crossings_UK.pdf

This is specficially aimed at Britain but refers to "points and crossings" rather than "switches and crossings" and there are also references to  the company's "Manganese monobloc frog with welded legs:connecting frog and rail"  The term frog therefore clearly is used professionally in British PW Engineering circles but do those making trackwork use different terms from those maintaining it?

At least they call electric light bulbs lamps and not "bubbles" (the term often use in the film and TV lighting world at least for tungsten bulbs.

 

I'd be very surprised if Peco use any geometry other than the current Streamline one for the BH points that I'm sure will follow the plain track and will undoubtedly be popular whoever gets sniffy about it.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Derekstuart]

Terminology is always going to be in a state of flux (often damned regrettable).

 

When people are arguing whether it is rail(way) station or , train station (argh) they often forget that the traditional name for it was train shed (though this was region dependent).

 

It won't be long before we refer to sleepers/ timbers as ties and track as railroad and cant as superelavation (though in fact the LNER used this term long before the Americans). Oh and trains are not comprised of a rake, but are a consist now, apparently.

 

So you might find that different age groups on 'British' Rail might call the pointy bit that rails cross a number of different things and each thinks he is using the appropriate term.

[Junctionmad]

 

*As an aside - you will not find any references to 'bulbs' in UK railway standards / catalogues either. Bulbs are things that you plant in your garden to grow flowers from - the things that emit light are always refereed to as lamps (be they LED, filament, paraffin

[/quote ]

 

A lamp is a device that emits light , powered by a " fuel " , so an electric lamp, which had an led as a bulb, is entirely proper English and correct terminology. As an aside paraffin does not emit light. , the burning of it does. A bulb refers to an enclosure around a light emitting source , typically a filament. To mix up lamps and bulbs would be confusing and I doubt network rail is engaged in redefining English.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Junctionmad

[AndyID]

It's obvious that the only way to sort this out is to establish an English equivalent of le Académie française.

[raymw]

It doesn't matter, if we understand what is meant. A table lamp is not powered by a table, nor a street lamp by a street, etc. A gas torch, has an entirely different use cf an electric torch. I know what is meant by a 'gas axe, but the electric equivalent, as yet has no common usage name, afaik. All industries have their particular language, folk refer to electricity pylons, but the 'correct' term is transmission tower, and all wood pole lines are referred to by the public as telegraph poles, and I don't think the telegraph has been around for years.

If you want to insist on calling it a frog based on an animal's hoof, then 'the frog is a mass of keratinized stratified squamous epithelium' and that is not steel, but it looks like the rear legs of a frog, the amphibian. Do we need to go into the taxonomic justification  of Anura, 'cos probably a better choice could be a 'toad', since they aren't so 'jumpy', but that could cause confusion with certain brake vans.

The way to sort it out is to understand that calling it different names doesn't make it work any better.

Edited October 15, 2016 by raymw

[Colin_McLeod]

Electric Light Bulbs can go in lamps but not in the ground, well they can but they won't work.

I thought that if you planted a light bulb in the ground it would grow into a standard lamp!

[Budgie]

It's obvious that the only way to sort this out is to establish an English equivalent of l'Académie française.

We've already got one, it's the general public, or as some would have it οἱ πολλοί.

[coachmann]

All this nerdy talk is expected from those interested in railways. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by coachmann

[PatB]

I thought that if you planted a light bulb in the ground it would grow into a standard lamp!

 

If it's the prostrate variety instead you get one of those nets of fairy lights as a ground cover.

[sharris]

It doesn't matter, if we understand what is meant. A table lamp is not powered by a table, nor a street lamp by a street, etc. A gas torch, has an entirely different use cf an electric torch. I know what is meant by a 'gas axe, but the electric equivalent, as yet has no common usage name, afaik.

But do you light up a Blow Torch with cocaine?

[Joseph_Pestell]

The points may take up a similar amount of space, but won't a lower angle of deviation mean you need more distance before the two tracks are no longer fouling each other? So - for example - platform lines will have to be longer (take up more space) to hold the same number of coaches?

The current Peco geometry gives a 50mm track centre which is overscale. So the pointwork won't take up much more length at a correct track centre of 46mm. The issue then is how to  deal with tight curves and overhangs.

As to crossovers/run-round loops, you may be right that it would need slightly longer platforms. There is a trade-off here in the coach ends/running plates (bogie locos) not swinging out so much.