PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Adams442T]

C&L and Peco are serving very different market segments and I can't see RTL bullhead, with the inevitable compromises that large scale mass production requires, changing that. I'm quite sure C&L, who are a Peco retailer, will have no difficulty about stocking Peco BH. Unlike certain other manufacturers Peco have a reputation for looking after the retailers who sell their products.  

 

There was by the way quite a long gap, almost a year I think,  between Peco's original introduction of Streamline flex track and the appearance of Streamline points (starting with a nominal two foot radius point) Whether this was to sort out manufacturing issues or to gauge public reaction to their decision to produce scale H0 track rather than narrow gauge 4mm/ft track I have no idea.

I suspect that the real reason for the introduction of BH now is nothing more sinister than that the development of manufacturing techniques has now made it cost effecrtive to produce a product for a far smaller potential market than "tradtional" Streamline's worldwide market. 

 

I suspect that Peco's decision to issue the BH track was prompted more by DCC Concepts imminent arrival than by C&L, who with SMP, have been around for some time now.

 

Some DCC Concept items bother me though, particularly the 'six-bolt fishplate', that despite Richards explanations, seem to be a blunder of some proportions!  It remains to be seen if DCC's track and pointwork will reflect better the usual UK practice.  I think (and hope) it will, and the Peco compromises already outlined would make me reluctant to buy any.  I'd rather go back to SMP and their pointwork kits.

[coachmann]

Peco could simply say that, in the past, a good many model railway items were marketed as suitable for HO/00 to suit British and European markets.  Peco is now addressing this by producing a track system intended for the British market.....post-Brexit! 

Edited October 16, 2016 by coachmann

[martin_wynne]

Peco could simply say that, in the past, a good many model railway items were marketed as suitable for HO/00 to suit British and European markets.  Peco is now addressing this by producing a track system intended for the British market.....post-Brexit! 

 

While hoping of course, that their customers don't remember that Peco introduced the Streamline design before the UK joined the original EC in 1972.

 

"The track with the finescale longer look" I remember. I expect they are hoping there is still some mileage in that slogan -- "original Streamline, still with the longer look".

 

Martin.

[Colin_McLeod]

I don't understand the marketing problem. This is "product development" Why get angry when an improved version of what I bought years ago comes out?

[Budgie]

I suspect that the real reason for the introduction of BH now is nothing more sinister than that the development of manufacturing techniques has now made it cost effecrive to produce a product for a far smaller potential market than "traditional" Streamline's worldwide market.

In that case I wonder if Peco would like to produce a range of mixed-gauge track, such as OO and OO9 to run their narrow-gauge stuff on the same track as our main-line stock. And then HO and HOn3 (10.5 mm) for layouts in other part of the world.

[martin_wynne]

I don't understand the marketing problem. This is "product development" Why get angry when an improved version of what I bought years ago comes out?

 

It is not an improved version, the existing track will remain in production. And is likely to be preferred by some users, maybe a great many of them.

 

This is a completely new and different product. But its introduction highlights the misleading description of the existing product. They can't both be described as 00 if that means 4mm/ft scale (which it does for all other 00 models). The existing track must surely be marketed as H0 only, rather than "00/H0" unless there is some strange logic applicable only to South Devon.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

In that case I wonder if Peco would like to produce a range of mixed-gauge track, such as OO and OO9 to run their narrow-gauge stuff on the same track as our main-line stock.

 

Hi Jane,

 

That won't work unless the 009 stock has the same wheel profile as the regular 00 stock -- which it doesn't, 009 uses N-gauge wheels.

 

For mixed-gauge tracks, all wheels must be to the same profile (width), otherwise the smaller wheels will fall into the crossing gaps with a bump, and possibly derail.

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

To my mind there was and still is a big obstacle, and it is not one of technical design or financial investment.

 

That obstacle is marketing, and I still don't know how Peco are going to overcome it. I suspect they are very nervous about it.

 

If you put the new code 75 track and the existing code 75 track side by side, it will be blindingly obvious even to the most dim-witted that they can't possibly be both to the same scale or prototype. If you then say that the new track is correct 00 gauge, the only possible conclusion is that the old track isn't. Despite having been sold as such to 00 modellers for half a century.

 

Some of them are going to be mightily confused by this. Some who have spent a small fortune over many years building a large 00 layout might even get angry. In effect they are now being told that their lifetime model is all wrong.

 

Just saying that the new track is correct for the steam era is hardly going to satisfy them, when that is exactly what many of them thought they were modelling.

 

Peco's hope must be that for many modellers, track isn't a model at all. It is something that you nail down on the baseboard in order to run trains, and what it looks like doesn't matter or notice. The only important things are that it fits, doesn't break, and the trains don't fall off.

 

Martin.

 

Martin , I dont think theres a 00 modeller alive that doesnt realise that the existing PECO track is a compromise, one that they are often happy too live with, but they recognise the compromise all the same, the 00 Bullhead is just a little reduction in that compromise that may suit some modellers, and be irrelevant to many.  I see no great marketing dilemma 

 

 

dave

Edited October 16, 2016 by Junctionmad

[PaulRhB]

In that case I wonder if Peco would like to produce a range of mixed-gauge track, such as OO and OO9 to run their narrow-gauge stuff on the same track as our main-line stock. And then HO and HOn3 (10.5 mm) for layouts in other part of the world.

Not that likely as the Tillig range is quite extensive and well established and there wasn't much mixed gauge in the UK.

It is not an improved version, the existing track will remain in production. And is likely to be preferred by some users, maybe a great many of them.

 

This is a completely new and different product. But its introduction highlights the misleading description of the existing product. They can't both be described as 00 if that means 4mm/ft scale (which it does for all other 00 models). The existing track must surely be marketed as H0 only, rather than "00/H0" unless there is some strange logic applicable only to South Devon.

 

Martin.

Code 75 doesn't seem to have confuse the code 100 modellers that much

[bertiedog]

I find it odd when in a discussion about track and how bad certain points are with Peco that Tilling track is mentioned in connection with 00 as it is 100% HO.( I appreciatte it is in connection with dual track in the post).

 

Peco have aways added on the track that it suits 00/HO, a compromise for 00 and correct for scale in HO. It is printed on everything they make, clearly and boldly, so anybody believing that Peco are in some way hiding up a problem are wrong.

 

Mr Pritchard perfectly knew that Streamline was a compromise, but not forced by him, it was the modellers who had accepted 00 who had started the mess, not him!!

 

He was trying to cater for as many people as he could in the designs, and it worked. The track sold well here, and massively popular abroad for HO. My source, conversations many times with him.......and a direct talk with him about bullhead in the early 1970's, where he pointed out the inner chair issue,( even Worst Then with makers still making steam roller wheels) He said that there was a cure, that the UK changed to RP25 Type wheels as a standard all must keep, if they did that then he could make bull head track, and a finer flatbottom.....Did any makers change to a standard wheel, did diddly swat!!! and the general modeller made it worst by still purchasing models with foul wheel standards.

 

When will the UK modellers learn that it was their forefathers, not the trade who have caused the scale track messes. If the stuff was so unacceptable as some modellers still say, then they simply do not have to buy it, there are, as said dozens of times, alternatives.

 

But those alternatives are not so easily available, at a lower cost, or nicely made as Peco, Peco lasts well, is gauged correctly, and the range has expanded as demand has grown.

It is also made in the UK, not China, a big plus point.

 

The bad point with Peco is a certain slowness in reacting, careful business? and also, maybe more in the past, a partisan support from RM, obvious to anybody, but amazingly there are some people around who do not realise they are one and the same.

 

Roll on the supply of the track, somehow I will get around the small chairs and accept good running against bumps and grinds, although I for one do not have many locos with such flanges, but I know a lot of modellers who do.......

 

Also it is not just the height of the flange that causes problems with chairs, it is the root radius curve between the tyre and the flange and the angle of the face of the flange. This can lead to, say, a continental loco with large flanges running on C&L, it does because the flange face is held way from the chair top by the root curve and the face angle.

 

What does not run on C&L style chairs are straight front flanges that go to a sharp corner before the tyre, which allows the flange to run against the rail section top edge, in turn placing the flange where it will hit the chairs.

 

Peco have taken the pragmatic course and reduced the chair, making the track accept a wide range of wheels.  after all if they had not done this the product would just be another bullhead as per the existing ones, and the sales would suffer. By the small change they have opened up the market to a fine new product, and made in the UK.

 

Stephen

[PaulRhB]

My point with Tillig is dual gauge is and was common elsewhere but not in the UK so there's no point doing it in the existing range and certainly not with the new bullhead track. British builders had dual gauge tracks for export models but where NG met SG there tended to be transition rather than shared track. The L&M used transporters, the Padarn carried four 2ft wagons on 4ft gauge carrier wagons, most others had transfer docks and Guinness had the adaptor loco carrier in Ireland.

 

Peco are cautious but it seems to work very well for them and their staff as while Hornby and Bachmann hit the headlines Peco quietly goes on. We will have to wait and see how it does but I suspect many like myself have a trust for Peco and like to support a local company that will make it work

If you don't like it then as we've seen there's plenty of other options.

[Colin_McLeod]

It is not an improved version, the existing track will remain in production. And is likely to be preferred by some users, maybe a great many of them.

 

This is a completely new and different product. But its introduction highlights the misleading description of the existing product. They can't both be described as 00 if that means 4mm/ft scale (which it does for all other 00 models). The existing track must surely be marketed as H0 only, rather than "00/H0" unless there is some strange logic applicable only to South Devon.

 

Martin.

A bit like the product development of DCC control but analogue DC controllers are still in production. Edited October 16, 2016 by Colin_McLeod

[gismorail]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this point but back in 'the day' there was a competing track system made by a company called Gem which although it was very much like Peco sleeper depth the spacing was correct. I seem to remember using it on a couple of Great Western branch lines I built in the early 80's 

Does anyone remember this system   or am I imagining it 

[Junctionmad]

I never saw existing peco streamline as 00 track. It's plainly H0 track which happens to have a common gauge with 00 track. . In that respects it's the same as Tillig.

 

The new track is clearly 00 but in fact is compatible with H0 track by way of s common gauge

[coachmann]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this point but back in 'the day' there was a competing track system made by a company called Gem which although it was very much like Peco sleeper depth the spacing was correct. I seem to remember using it on a couple of Great Western branch lines I built in the early 80's 

Does anyone remember this system   or am I imagining it 

That is correct. George Mellor was a friend as was Roy Dock who took GEM over. I saw the track being assembled in long wooden racks.

[shedman]

I seem to remember that Gem track had a fibre base which cockled in humid conditions causing wavy track. I may, of course, be confusing it with something else. I tried something like this in the early 70's and went back to Peco. Prototypical track is all well and good, but it needs to be reliable. Good running comes first in my opinion. Great if you can have both, though.

[TEAMYAKIMA]

I seem to remember that Gem track had a fibre base which cockled in humid conditions causing wavy track. I may, of course, be confusing it with something else. I tried something like this in the early 70's and went back to Peco. Prototypical track is all well and good, but it needs to be reliable. Good running comes first in my opinion. Great if you can have both, though.

 

I think you are confusing GEM with WRENN.

 

G&R Wrenn produced 2 rail and 3 rail fibre based track and points with quite a wide range including a scissors crossing  IIRC

 

GEM produced and excellent plastictic code 100 flex track but AWFUL points - very limited range and a cast metal frog

 

Graham Farish produced a code 100 plastic flex track with AWFUL points - a huge dead frog! 

 

GF eventually produce LIVEWAY points which were more complicated to wire than PECO's dead frog points. Also Graham Farish used a more protypical design than PECO and as a result  you couldn't form a crossover with GF's 2ft and 3ft points, but you could form a crossover with PECO's 2ft and 5ft radius points due to PECO's (wrong) design. Also GF's 2ft and 3ft points required dedicated (different) diamond crossings, whereas PECO with its conmmon crossing angle didn't.

 

So PECO saw off these two challengers - partly due to the convenience of their (wrong) design.

Edited October 17, 2016 by TEAMYAKIMA

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this point but back in 'the day' there was a competing track system made by a company called Gem which although it was very much like Peco sleeper depth the spacing was correct. I seem to remember using it on a couple of Great Western branch lines I built in the early 80's 

Does anyone remember this system   or am I imagining it 

 

There's a GEM point on Ebay, and there was 9 yards of flex until a month ago.

 

 

 

There was also Graham Farish Formoway

 

 

It was by no means a certainty that Peco would achieve world domination with their track system.  In my opinion, Formoway looked far better at the time of release, and still looks pretty impressive now.  I wonder how Peco did come to such a dominant postion, given their relative lack of productivity and slow release to market.  Wasn't it almost 40 years in the case of the Collett 2251?

[hayfield]

The main issue with Gem turnouts was the case common crossings (something that was common practice with Peco's earlier track products as well as from other suppliers, but with Gem the cast common crossings were of a soft metal. I remember Formway but not in detail

 

As for Formway and Gem as it happens, they continued using different crossing angles to differentiate between sizes (24" & 36" radii) where as Peco cleverly kept the crossing angles the same and altered the approach lengths, but they do have different sizes of diamond crossings

[TEAMYAKIMA]

 

It was by no means a certainty that Peco would achieve world domination with their track system.  In my opinion, Formoway looked far better at the time of release, and still looks pretty impressive now.  I wonder how Peco did come to such a dominant postion, given their relative lack of productivity and slow release to market.  Wasn't it almost 40 years in the case of the Collett 2251?

 

 

I suggest the resons were

 

1. They could sell their track overseas as HO and so they had a far bigger potential market with economies of scale that brings

 

2. FORMOWAY may have looked better but the HUGE dead frogs meant that you had to run over them at express speeds even on a GWR branch line

 

3. PECO's common frog angle was an advantage when you were a schoolboy on limited funds who was regularly changing trackplan

 

4. GEM as far as I recall only made one point (l/h and r/h)

 

5 GF's FORMOWAY and LIVEWAY points required extra wiring compared to PECO

 

 

In short, PECO had a widish range (compared to GEM)  and PECO was simple to use compared to Graham Farish. I seem to rember also that PECO was cheaper than the other two ............ not to mention that they could (in effect) have free advertising space in RM as they owned it.

[Stephen Freeman]

GF may have looked better, until you actually tried to use it and stuff kept falling off. I remember going to a show in Crewe where Rugeley TV was being exhibited, they used GF and I seem to remember it featuring in their adverts, not impressed. GEM worked better but only 2 turnouts though you could bend them into a Y but visually not so good as either Peco or GF.

[coachmann]

I seem to remember GEM's track continued on sale for a while but production eventually ceased when the workforce reduced. The core business was whitemetal casting by this time casting not only for themselves but also for Anbrico, Stephem Pool and I. Roy Dock let me go in Sundays to spin 'Larriparts'  during the 1980's because things were so busy during the week!

[The Stationmaster]

The plastic bases for the GEM track were made by Ratio (I believe they might also have owned the tools - they certainly made them).

 

Farish Formoway was far, far better looking than Streamline and offered a much better range of points but with that large plastic crossing although in fact it wasn't much worse than the original Streamline design.   And just to be a bit dfferent, and save some money, I used Formoway track on the module we built in 2012 for the Good Cap'n's Taunton extravaganza. Visually not bad for near 50 year old Code 100 r-t-p track and quite happy with 21st century model trains.

 

 

 

[Pacific231G]

Martin , I dont think theres a 00 modeller alive that doesnt realise that the existing PECO track is a compromise, one that they are often happy too live with, but they recognise the compromise all the same, the 00 Bullhead is just a little reduction in that compromise that may suit some modellers, and be irrelevant to many.  I see no great marketing dilemma 

 

 

dave

Don't you believe it Dave. I'm quite amazed at how many people building model railways - including my own brother-in-law till I explained it to him- have absolutely no idea that OO uses a narrow gauge and probably don't care. Peco Streamline is fine for them, it looks better and trains run more smoothly than Setrack and being H0 scale may look better in itself (until you put a 4mm/ft scale train on it) than the wider sleeper spacing of track built to BRMSB specs. That may be accurate in terms of the sleeper spacing but does tend to show up the narrowness of the gauge and also, though this isn't often mentioned, the "correct" sleeper spacing does emphasise the excessively sharp points and curves that we habitually use. 

 

I agree with you about it not really being a marketing dilemma and I'm sure Peco will market BH using a phrase such as "traditional British steam era track" (or something very much like that)

 

I'll be very interest to see how (or if) Peco market it in France where bullhead rail was also very widely used. The wider sleeper spacing won't be a problem as that varied enormously and on the secondary lines where it survived longest (and still does) were quite wide in any case. The sleepers may be a bit long and fat but quite a lot of French modellers use SMP or C&L for "double champignon" (Bullhead) often just for plain track with Streamline for points 

 

 

In short, PECO had a widish range (compared to GEM) and PECO was simple to use compared to Graham Farish. I seem to rember also that PECO was cheaper than the other two ............ not to mention that they could (in effect) have free advertising space in RM as they owned it.

 

 

 I've seen no evidence of Peco exploiting their ownership of Railway and Continental Modeller and  I doubt very much whether the manufacturing department get free advertising space at the expense of paying advertisers as that would distort the publishing company's finances. Peco Publications and Publicity Ltd. is a separate company incorporated in 1951 (presumably when Sidney Pritchard bought Railway Modeller from Ian Allan) from the original 1946 Pritchard Patent Product Company listed by Companies House as "Non-specialised wholesale trade". There is a third Pritchard Patent Product Company (2001) Ltd. listed as "Head Office Services" though they all have the same address and some of the same directors.

 

I've also never seen much sign of reviews and editorials pushing Peco products at the expense of rivals. Again, those such as Gem and particularly GF advertised in the magazine and would hardly have continued to do so if editorial was pooh pooing their products.

The only exception to this was Sidney Pritchard's regular Peco Topics in the early 1950s but that was I think a serialisation of the Peco Platelayer's Manual that for some reason, paper rationing possibly, Pritchard had been unable to publish as a book in its revised form. 

 

Where I think Peco did subtly promote sales of its track was by encouraging an emphasis on layout rather than on say loco building. Clearly layouts require track and if more people have them then the commercial "pie" for track manufacturers will get larger and so will Peco's sales.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

I'm quite amazed at how many people building model railways - including my own brother-in-law till I explained it to him- have absolutely no idea that OO uses a narrow gauge and probably don't care.

...

...

I'm sure Peco will market BH using a phrase such as "traditional British steam era track" (or something very much like that)

 

That's my experience too. But many of them also believe that they are already modelling "traditional British steam era" and are going to be just a little surprised to discover that they should have been using a different track for it.

 

I still see Peco having to tread very carefully with their marketing, although they are of course masters of that art.

 

Martin.