PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Why so many find 4ft-1.5in gauge track unacceptable, while happily buying 4ft-1.5in gauge rolling stock, is one of life's many mysteries.

 

 

Nicely put, Mr Wynne.  

[hayfield]

 

Why so many find 4ft-1.5in gauge track unacceptable, while happily buying 4ft-1.5in gauge rolling stock, is one of life's many mysteries.

 

I may have mentioned all this before.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Nicely put, Mr Wynne.  

 

Martin

 

I think most do not find the gauge narrowing unacceptable, but its the use of H0 scale sleepers and spacing unacceptable  

 

This is a very emotive subject and I am not pointing this next comment at you (as we have happily chatted away about track matters) but a few selective others who think they know best and everyone else is wrong. Our hobby is a broad church nothing wrong in trying to replicate something exactly, on the other hand nothing wrong using Hornby Dublo 3 rail track. Modellers use differing track standards for various reasons, why should someone be forced to either re-wheel a lifetimes collection of stock or be expected to put up with track they find un-appealing visually. Nothing wrong for someone wanting to stay with 00 gauge but have better looking track exactly as there is nothing wrong with modellers moving to EM, P4 or S4 gauges or moving scales.

 

Also nothing wrong with someone having a different opinion on whether something looks right or not (there I have shot myself in the foot)

Edited October 18, 2016 by hayfield

[BG John]

With the UK divorcing itself from Europe and it's HO gauge/scale, it's the ideal opportunity for the government to impose a compulsory change of gauge for all OO layouts to EM. Mind you, if bureaucrats are involved, they'd probably make P4 compulsory because they don't understand, or care, about the technical difficulties of the change.

 

Godwin's Law applied on page 57 .

[Colin_McLeod]

its head is bigger then its bottom !

That made my day. lol

[Colin_McLeod]

isn't there a grammatical name to my error ?

 

 

opps the sin of pleonasm !!!

Yes it was a pleonasmatic use of unnecessary superfluous words that were not needed. Edited October 18, 2016 by Colin_McLeod

[Pacific231G]

With the UK divorcing itself from Europe and it's HO gauge/scale, it's the ideal opportunity for the government to impose a compulsory change of gauge for all OO layouts to EM. Mind you, if bureaucrats are involved, they'd probably make P4 compulsory because they don't understand, or care, about the technical difficulties of the change.

 

Godwin's Law applied on page 57 .

Errr whose gauge/scale?  H0 (16.5mm gauge and 3.5mm/ft scale) is as British as roast beef.   It was developed by British modellers, many of them members of the Wimbledon MRC, including Stewart Reidpath and A.R.Walkley back in the 1920s. 00 then referred to the gauge and the scale was simply the correct one for that gauge. It was only when 00 came to more generally mean a scale of 4mm/ft  (for which 18 and 19mm gauges were also suggested and used)  that 3.5mm/ft started to be called Half-O (A.R.Walkley) and then simply HO (J.N.Maskylene) to differentiate it from 4mm/ft.

 

Defining a scale as mm/ft  reveals its British origins as Europeans don't use feet and Americans don't generally use the metric system (American O scale is a quarter of an inch to the foot as opposed to 7mm/ft 1/43.5)   

Edited October 18, 2016 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

Martin

 

I think most do not find the gauge narrowing unacceptable, but its the use of H0 scale sleepers and spacing unacceptable  

 

This is a very emotive subject and I am not pointing this next comment at you (as we have happily chatted away about track matters) but a few selective others who think they know best and everyone else is wrong. Our hobby is a broad church nothing wrong in trying to replicate something exactly, on the other hand nothing wrong using Hornby Dublo 3 rail track. Modellers use differing track standards for various reasons, why should someone be forced to either re-wheel a lifetimes collection of stock or be expected to put up with track they find un-appealing visually. Nothing wrong for someone wanting to stay with 00 gauge but have better looking track exactly as there is nothing wrong with modellers moving to EM, P4 or S4 gauges or moving scales.

 

Also nothing wrong with someone having a different opinion on whether something looks right or not (there I have shot myself in the foot)

If I were modelling in OO I might well prefer BRMSB over Peco's H0 track  (even in H0 I often widen the 60cm sleeper spacing to somethng more appropriate for sidings and branch lines) but I don't think I could then use two foot radius curves or points as the sleeper spacing does, to my eyes if nobody else's, make them look even more unrealistically tight.

 

It does though as you say come down to what looks right or in other ways is best for each modeller and that's not something that anyone else can lay down. There's no wrong or right so I'm not sure why it is such an emotive subject though it clearly seems to be.

 

Looking at many 00 layouts I find the narrow gauge of the track far less disconcerting than enormous tension lock couplings and coaches with two foot gaps between their vestibule connections passing over reverse curves that would decant any unfortunate passengers on their way to the dining car straight into the four foot instead.   

Edited October 18, 2016 by Pacific231G

[BG John]

Errr whose gauge/scale?  H0 (16.5mm gauge and 3.5mm/ft scale) is as British as roast beef.   It was developed by British modellers, many of them members of the Wimbledon MRC, including Stewart Reidpath and A.R.Walkley back in the 1920s. 00 then referred to the gauge and the scale was simply the correct one for that gauge. It was only when 00 came to more generally mean a scale of 4mm/ft  (for which 18 and 19mm gauges were also suggested and used)  that 3.5mm/ft started to be called Half-O (A.R.Walkley) and then simply HO (J.N.Maskylene) to differentiate it from 4mm/ft.

 

Defining a scale as mm/ft  reveals its British origins as Europeans don't use feet and Americans don't generally use the metric system (American O scale is a quarter of an inch to the foot as opposed to 7mm/ft 1/43.5)   

Typical! Someone has to come along and ruin a good laugh with boring old facts .

[raymw]

afaik, before ww2, the USA foot was a smidgen shorter than the UK foot, so any scale it would all be wrong now...

[Richard Lee]

Looking at many 00 layouts I find the narrow gauge of the track far less disconcerting than enormous tension lock couplings and coaches with two foot gaps between their vestibule connections passing over reverse curves that would decant any unfortunate passengers on their way to the dining car straight into the four foot instead.   

One word to answer you: Kadees!  [You can also try genuine Roco couplings between the coaches, or if they are too tight you could try Hornby's slightly larger version of the Roco ones.]

[Clive Mortimore]

The trouble with Peco 00/H0 track apart from being wrong and looking terrible, is it is reliable, easy to use, ready assembled, compatible with most types of wheels, electrically sound, reasonably priced but the points now come in a packet not a box!!!!

 

When and if someone can produce track that looks better and performs like Streamline then some modellers may swap. Strangely it looks like it might be Peco themselves.

[Pacific231G]

One word to answer you: Kadees!  [You can also try genuine Roco couplings between the coaches, or if they are too tight you could try Hornby's slightly larger version of the Roco ones.]

 

Quite

 

I discovered Kadees many years ago when I had an American switching layout for which they were a total no brainer and have used them whenever possible ever since- including microtrains couplers for H0e. They do look a bit chunky with side buffered stock and don't on their own solve the excess space between vehicles issue.

With NEM boxes it often takes a bit of choosing between the different shank lengths to get the buffers almost but not quite touching. I do have some Roco couplings within a rake of Rivarossi Inox (stainless steel) DEV coaches 

Though they're pretty close together you can still see a small gap  between coaches though that probably calls for a very flexible corridor connection rather than trying to get the coaches any closer. 

 

Kadee's standard coupler head is overscale but though they do have a scale version the market for offering them for NEM boxes is probably a but too niche.

 

Going back to track. My small terminus layout uses code 100 Streamline. In photos (as in the goods yard above) the rail section looks fairly gross and my next layout will probably use code 75. However, when I'm actually looking at the layout this seems far less obvious or objectionable.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Pacific231G

[No Decorum]

Why so many find 4ft-1.5in gauge track unacceptable, while happily buying 4ft-1.5in gauge rolling stock, is one of life's many mysteries.

 

I may have mentioned all this before.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

I do apologise in advance but I cannot resist pointing out that the obvious way to keep these people happy is to produce 4' 8½" track and to continue to produce 4' 1½" rolling stock.

[Joseph_Pestell]

One word to answer you: Kadees!  [You can also try genuine Roco couplings between the coaches, or if they are too tight you could try Hornby's slightly larger version of the Roco ones.]

Kadees (or any other couplers) won't resolve the problem of excessive movement of the coach ends. You can only do that by increasing the radius and reducing the crossing angle. That's why some of us are keen to see Peco adopt proper prototype geometry.

[Pacific231G]

afaik, before ww2, the USA foot was a smidgen shorter than the UK foot, so any scale it would all be wrong now...

Other way round apparently. Before the foot (actually the yard) was internationally defined in terms of metres in 1959

the US foot (stilli in use as the "survey foot" in some states) was 0.304800609601 m but the British foot was 0.304798966667 m. The international foot is 0.3048 m

 

This is a little worrying as the scales we use are based on so many mm to the foot so there could be a difference of almost two parts per million betweeen a scale model built before 1959 and one built now. They'd surely look completely wrong if run in the same train.  

[bertiedog]

Has anybody confirmed the exact width of the new Bull head sleepers? ..in a press release or magazine, or from Peco, as they did suggest that the code 75 points would be compatible, (within reason), but has the new track the same width as the current code 75 00/HO track?....or will it have the wider scale size length sleepers meant for 4mm scale?

 

From the published photos it does look wider, and with the spacing wider, can hardly match the code 75 points sleeper spacings.

 

I hope this is the reason they seem to be moving faster on manufacturing points to match, or a bit of over ballasting will be called for to hide the sleepers of the existing points! Myself, it may be to use C&L parts again, which will mean a match with rail, spacing and length, and reasonable chair match.

 

The alternative may be the DCC legacy points as and when made, the track is already here, and does solve the inner chair size problem, as long as good design modern wheels are used.

 

Although the Legacy stainless steel track looks nice on it's own, it shows up the colour miss match with N/Silver rail, and does have a slight issue of looking brand spanking new all the time, while N/S is more toned down, and on the whole is good looking.

 

Stephen

[bertiedog]

Other way round apparently. Before the foot (actually the yard) was internationally defined in terms of metres in 1959

the US foot (stilli in use as the "survey foot" in some states) was 0.304800609601 m but the British foot was 0.304798966667 m. The international foot is 0.3048 m

 

This is a little worrying as the scales we use are based on so many mm to the foot so there could be a difference of almost two parts per million between a scale model built before 1959 and one built now. They'd surely look completely wrong if run in the same train.  

Maybe this is the reason Everest's height alters, was there an American in the team who first measured it?.........Such minor differences mean nothing to Engineers or Architects, it is only Physicists who get sleepless night over it.

 

Of greater concern is the US gallon, which messed up and still does, MPG figures for car comparisons....Will we get back gallons now we are leaving Metric Europe? .. Would we return to the UK gallon, or for trade reasons go over to the US Gallon? Boris should explain.......

 

Thank goodness they never ditched the pint!.

 

Stephen

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Be very very careful when changing units of measurement

[Colin_McLeod]

afaik, before ww2, the USA foot was a smidgen shorter than the UK foot, so any scale it would all be wrong now...

How many smidgens in a foot? Would that be US smidgens or UK smidgens?

[martin_wynne]

Has anybody confirmed the exact width of the new Bull head sleepers?

 

Hi Stephen,

 

It isn't released yet, so nothing can be confirmed. But based on their previously published artwork it is 4ft-1.5in gauge track with 8ft long 10" wide sleepers at 2ft-4in centres, at 4mm/ft scale (this scaled from the 16.5mm gauge):

 

 

 

Peco appear to have closely matched bullhead track having 26 sleepers per 60ft rail, which was used on prototype curves below 20 chains radius, and elsewhere on soft ground.

 

In 4mm/ft scale, 20 chains radius is 5280mm ( 17ft radius), so clearly almost all the curved track on a typical model railway would correspond to this.

 

 

The mid-rail spacing at 26 sleepers per 60ft is 2ft-4in, which scales to 9.33mm centres. Which appears to be the spacing of the new track illustrated in the Peco artwork.

 

The artwork in question is still online here: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/447cc01a867103118302481e1/files/PECO_News_Spring_Rep_2016.pdf

 

From that page we can see that the "bullhead" rail is actually a flat-bottom section with a narrow foot (Peco's 0 gauge bullhead rail is similar), although this is not so evident in the pre-production photos, so they may have had a change of heart on that.

 

The inner jaw of the chair has clearly been modified to clear overscale wheel flanges.

 

Also in this view we can measure the sleeper length more accurately. Using the ruler tool in Templot it appears to be 31.75mm (7ft-11.1/4in) at the base (slightly less at the surface allowing for the mould draft angle):

 

 

This is artwork, not production drawings, so treat it accordingly.

 

Martin.

Edited October 18, 2016 by martin_wynne

[Ian Abel]

Other way round apparently. Before the foot (actually the yard) was internationally defined in terms of metres in 1959

the US foot (stilli in use as the "survey foot" in some states) was 0.304800609601 m but the British foot was 0.304798966667 m. The international foot is 0.3048 m

 

This is a little worrying as the scales we use are based on so many mm to the foot so there could be a difference of almost two parts per million betweeen a scale model built before 1959 and one built now. They'd surely look completely wrong if run in the same train.  

David, they quite assuredly wouldn't "look" wrong (I know you are joking, but needed to contradict for effect   ), however I can GUARANTEED they would be DECLARED wrong by a rivet counter/micrometer wielding crowd, in spite of them not being able to even tell which were which!

 

The ability to formulate what is wrong/out-of-scale/not realistic and therefore should be dismissed as an abomination and unacceptable, when we're really just talking about boys (and some girls) playing with toy trains in their basement/shed/living room, lends some comedic value to the entire hobby, and sometimes I think we need to just remember it's supposed to be ENJOYABLE/FUN for the individual themselves. IF others ALSO find it acceptable/enjoyable, that's a bonus! 

 

I use Peco Code 100 (boo, traitor, string him up!!), would like something finer/more realistic but am invested in a LOT of it now and will gradually replace with something I like more.

I mostly run RTR Hornby and Bachmann (HORRORS!!!  ), most that I've detailed, some kit built locos and wagons, the track is "peco standard right-of-way spacing", probably several unrealistic junctions, I can't run trains longer than 6-8 coaches into my mainline station, but guess what - I LIKE IT and my bloody cat (the only regular visitor/audience in the train room) does too, and he can't tell it's not the mirror image of what I used to see on the Waterloo-Portsmouth mainline I grew up with, so it IS REALISTIC IN MY KINGDOM.

 

Give PECO/DCC Concepts etc., a break for pities sake.

They ARE trying to provide improvements, and surely anything that gets closer is better than just moaning about anything anyone attempts to bring to market for us???

 

I've followed this thread from the beginning (and the DCC concepts track thread also - and don't get me STARTED on the various RTR complaint threads), started out for me as an "...ooo, that's nice, I think I might like some of that...", and 58 pages later I wonder why anyone ever tries to add products to the marketplace for us?

Those that do are usually pilloried for any minor mistakes ALL OF WHICH can't be see from my/everyones normal viewing position - I generally don't get down to track level and watch from 3-4 inches away!

 

Coat, hat, heading for bomb shelter...

[Downer]

If you think people are getting fussy on here, try the great non-flaring spoke scandal on the Hornby B12 thread.  

[gr.king]

One word to answer you: Kadees!  [You can also try genuine Roco couplings between the coaches, or if they are too tight you could try Hornby's slightly larger version of the Roco ones.]

I don't see them as much of an "answer". No need whatsoever for Kadees in order to effect close coupling, and on most British stock they do not give an appearance any more prototypical than the smallest tension locks. Nothing much compares for unobtrusiveness with a simple wire coupling of some sort or best of all a true scale coupling.

[Jeff Smith]

Just looking back at post #1151 which showed the picture of the first production sample, the rail appears to have a thicker 'foot' not the thin one shown in the pre-production artwork. Also in terms of marketing it seems Peco has already decided the approach.

 

[Derekstuart]

I managed to read half a page of that thread before resigning myself to the idea that I would rather boil my head than read it all.

 

We can all have our likes and dislikes, but a sense of perspective is quite useful

If you think people are getting fussy on here, try the great non-flaring spoke scandal on the Hornby B12 thread.