Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Jim76]

Are there any plans for a three-way or tandem layout arrangement in bullhead?

[martin_wynne]

22 minutes ago, Jim76 said:

Are there any plans for a three-way or tandem layout arrangement in bullhead?

 

In the video Peco are asking for feedback and ideas from users about what to produce next.

 

Martin.

[Jim76]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

In the video Peco are asking for feedback and ideas from users about what to produce next.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin, thanks. I wasn’t able to comment on the video as the comments were turned off. Cheers, Jim 

[martin_wynne]

3 hours ago, Jim76 said:

Hi Martin, thanks. I wasn’t able to comment on the video as the comments were turned off. Cheers, Jim 

 

I don't know why comments are turned off. It is maybe because they have set the Made For Kids option on YouTube.

 

They are clearly asking for feedback, see:

 

 

Send them an email?

 

Martin.

[Free At Last]

I have had quick replies from PECO using Facebook, the media some frown upon.

[retbsignalman]

Producing the rest of the range will hopefully not take too long now  with just curved, Y and catch points left.

I did ask if they would consider a revisit to the code 75 flat bottom range with prototypical sleeper spacing, but was informed that wasn't on the plan unfortunately. 

Which is a shame really as the bullhead pointwork looks a bit odd next to its flat-bottomed counterparts......

Cheers 

Graeme 

[gr.king]

4 hours ago, retbsignalman said:

the bullhead pointwork looks a bit odd next to its flat-bottomed counterparts......

 

Vice versa, surely, even if the out-of-scale FB has been the (grudgingly) accepted dominant form for decades now.

[The Stationmaster]

Talking to the Peco rep at the Kernow 20th Anniversary event they are definitely seeking people's views about what to do next in the bullhead range although it is possible that they are already forming some ideas for future developments.  So definitely worth getting in touch with Peco if you have any ideas.

[MarkSG]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Talking to the Peco rep at the Kernow 20th Anniversary event they are definitely seeking people's views about what to do next in the bullhead range 

 

Bullhead settrack 😀

[David Stannard]

On 17/09/2022 at 22:45, retbsignalman said:

Producing the rest of the range will hopefully not take too long now  with just curved, Y and catch points left.

I did ask if they would consider a revisit to the code 75 flat bottom range with prototypical sleeper spacing, but was informed that wasn't on the plan unfortunately. 

Which is a shame really as the bullhead pointwork looks a bit odd next to its flat-bottomed counterparts......

Cheers 

Graeme 

 

 Would be nice if some small radius points were added to the range as well for use in yards and sidings.

[gr.king]

When the need for Peco bullhead was being  discussed some years ago, the notion of anything less than the large radius points was sneered at by certain purists who considered that with the increased spacing of the timbers, anything less than large radius would look ridiculous, and who bombarded the discussion with enough track theory to drown out anybody else. As it appeared that we might never get medium radius, let alone small, even if the initial offerings weren't a flop, I bought enough large rad points to suit a layout extension and struggled to work the design around the longer points.

As it turns out, now that I'm well beyond the point of being fully committed, I think the large radius points, thank I suspect to the preachings of the purists, look less satisfactory than the new medium radius ones. Why? Because Peco have over-extended the timber spacings around the frog in order to put them precisely "correctly" under the crossing nose and other critical support positions in full size, full gauge track. In the medium radius design they seem to have much more sensibly ignored all that and maintained the regular spacing to get the consistent overall look, rather than spoiling the big picture in order to get isolated details right to suit "those obsessed with real track rules (by the yard) .

I do suspect that short radius would look a little odd though...

[Chamby]

Curved turnouts would be my preference for the next product in this range.

 

 

[D-A-T]

I just wish PECO would move away from their “standard” crossing angle (12 degrees I think) and produce more prototypical turnouts. Start with a B7 with complimentary slips and crossings and proceed from there. 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, David Stannard said:

 

 Would be nice if some small radius points were added to the range as well for use in yards and sidings.

But would the one piece switch rails be feasible in small radius points?   Maybe it is us - the customers - who need to get used to the idea that small radius points are actually too sharp a curve in the real world for anything but a short wheel base wagon to get round in the real world.   I would much prefer to see Peco going towards a larger radius with a prototypical crossing angle but it would mean thinking about layout planning in a different way.

[Harlequin]

I sent Peco this a long time ago when they first asked for suggestions on the Bullhead range:

Streamline+ Concept 11.pdf

(The original file was lost in the great crash. This is the same file re-uploaded.)

 

The idea was to keep the modularity of Streamline, which makes planning using these parts very easy but to introduce a new standard geometry of 9° at joins and 45mm between track centres which allows better crossing angles and larger turning radii.

 

Other than, "Thankyou for your suggestions", I heard nothing. Either they're slowly cogitating the suggestion or maybe a it's just a cr*p idea not worth thinking about...

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Harlequin

[The Stationmaster]

I got the firm impression that they, or some of them, are open to more radical ideas BUT it will then come back to many other things having to be considered before they will commit.  in that respect they are of course like any company introducing something new where they need to retain a compatibility with what they have sold previously into that particular part of the market.  Just look at the different views about where they should go next expressed in the last few posts in this thread. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[martin_wynne]

I don't see any way to make practical suggestions without access to the Peco sales figures -- which they are obviously not going to provide. The arrival of the prototypical Finetrax 00 bullhead kits has shifted the market position of Peco back towards their RTR roots.

 

In many ways this has all come 30 years too late. There is nothing technically about the bullhead range which they could not have done years ago.  Had they done so, they could now be dominant at the finescale end of the market.

 

But nowadays bullhead is on the wane. For a whole generation of modellers bullhead is now an historic interest only and not seen around them on the present-day railway. In the long term, bullhead is going nowhere.

 

If Peco were really on the ball they would shift their focus to do something about finescale flat-bottom track which is actually a model of something -- instead of toy track bearing no resemblance to any UK prototype. Imagine Hornby releasing a range of utterly freelance locomotives to the wrong scale?

 

Martin.

[David Stannard]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But would the one piece switch rails be feasible in small radius points?   Maybe it is us - the customers - who need to get used to the idea that small radius points are actually too sharp a curve in the real world for anything but a short wheel base wagon to get round in the real world.   I would much prefer to see Peco going towards a larger radius with a prototypical crossing angle but it would mean thinking about layout planning in a different way.

 

For those who just want to build your typical terminus based layout or a fiddle yard to fiddle yard design with a scenic section wedged between longer prototypical points are fine, but for those of us that would like to have a roundy roundy styled layout where we can enjoy watching our trains run freely around the layout it would be nice, not everyone has a +20' by +10' space to play with their trains.

 

36 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

I don't see any way to make practical suggestions without access to the Peco sales figures -- which they are obviously not going to provide. The arrival of the prototypical Finetrax 00 bullhead kits has shifted the market position of Peco back towards their RTR roots.

 

In many ways this has all come 30 years too late. There is nothing technically about the bullhead range which they could not have done years ago.  Had they done so, they could now be dominant at the finescale end of the market.

 

But nowadays bullhead is on the wane. For a whole generation of modellers bullhead is now an historic interest only and not seen around them on the present-day railway. In the long term, bullhead is going nowhere.

 

If Peco were really on the ball they would shift their focus to do something about finescale flat-bottom track which is actually a model of something -- instead of toy track bearing no resemblance to any UK prototype. Imagine Hornby releasing a range of utterly freelance locomotives to the wrong scale?

 

Martin.

 

 For those that model " Modern Era" flatbottom is obviously the rail of choice, that said there are plenty of us who model Steam Era where Bullhead is accurate for that time, the fact that all of the major and minor producers are still offering models of steam locomotives as well as adding more classes to their RTR ranges is ample proof that there is a market for Bullhead just as much as there is for flatbottom. I have held off on committing myself to building a layout until I have a decent variety of Bullhead track at my disposal, yes I may have to sit around and wait for a while, but I have plenty of other projects as well as other model rail interests to keep me occupied in the meantime.

Edited September 20, 2022 by David Stannard

[PaulRhB]

32 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

But nowadays bullhead is on the wane. For a whole generation of modellers bullhead is now an historic interest only

Ok so Hornby, Bachmann, Dapol etc should stop producing steam locos too? 
😆
Not to mention modelling preserved lines. 

 

32 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

and not seen around them on the present-day railway.
 

I work in a panel box and I can see bullhead from the window in daily use . . . 
 

See the reception road for the depot to the left of the 47, plus most of our sidings  

 

 

32 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

In the long term, bullhead is going nowhere.

So all these pre grouping specials in SECR and LNWR liveries look better on flat bottom rail? 😉
 

39 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Imagine Hornby releasing a range of utterly freelance locomotives to the wrong scale?

Wot, like Steampunk? 😇

[martin_wynne]

2 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I work in a panel box and I can see bullhead from the window in daily use . . . 

 

I said on the wane, not extinct.

 

What will you be seeing from that window in 10 years time? Or 20 years?

 

3 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

So all these pre grouping specials in SECR and LNWR liveries look better on flat bottom rail? 

 

Of course not. But nor do they look good on bullhead track which looks unlike anything the prototype ran on. My guess is that those buying them who care about track will be building finescale bullhead track for them to run on. The kits and parts are all there now and increasing -- Peco not needed.

 

Martin.

[PaulRhB]

26 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

My guess is that those buying them who care about track will be building finescale bullhead track for them to run on. The kits and parts are all there now and increasing -- Peco not needed.

Martin, I strongly suspect from evidence on here, local shows and friends layouts most of the pre group rtr stuff is running on rtr track. 
I’ve handbuilt track on a couple of layouts but I still use rtr on others, It’s good enough for me in the time I have available and I suspect that’s true of many others. 
Nothing wrong with hand building but Peco covers a different part of the market where compromises like they’ve made make financial sense for a large enough number to be viable. They produce individual parts too along with C&L etc so cover the finer scale end too. 
If it’s not good enough then handbuilding is a very viable option but too daunting for many to even attempt. 

[David Stannard]

28 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I said on the wane, not extinct.

 

What will you be seeing from that window in 10 years time? Or 20 years?

 

 

Of course not. But nor do they look good on bullhead track which looks unlike anything the prototype ran on. My guess is that those buying them who care about track will be building finescale bullhead track for them to run on. The kits and parts are all there now and increasing -- Peco not needed.

 

Martin.

 

 In 10 to 20 years there will still be an interest in steam era layouts just as there is today.

 

As to the bit about PECO not being needed to supply bullhead track due to kits being available is kind of farcical, considering you were advocating that PECO bring out a range of flatbottom track built to similar finescale standards

[PaulRhB]

35 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

I said on the wane, not extinct.

 

It was more in the context of this statement 

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

For a whole generation of modellers bullhead is now an historic interest only

It’s not historic it’s still current to todays modeller. 

 

35 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

What will you be seeing from that window in 10 years time? Or 20 years?

I’d put money on 10 years being bullhead still as the likely major renewal is currently 15-18 years away. 
Beyond that it depends on the survival of the depot at Salisbury. If it goes so do most of the sidings but it’s unlikely to be totally relaid otherwise. 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

I don't see any way to make practical suggestions without access to the Peco sales figures -- which they are obviously not going to provide. The arrival of the prototypical Finetrax 00 bullhead kits has shifted the market position of Peco back towards their RTR roots.

 

In many ways this has all come 30 years too late. There is nothing technically about the bullhead range which they could not have done years ago.  Had they done so, they could now be dominant at the finescale end of the market.

 

But nowadays bullhead is on the wane. For a whole generation of modellers bullhead is now an historic interest only and not seen around them on the present-day railway. In the long term, bullhead is going nowhere.

its available with anything like 

If Peco were really on the ball they would shift their focus to do something about finescale flat-bottom track which is actually a model of something -- instead of toy track bearing no resemblance to any UK prototype. Imagine Hornby releasing a range of utterly freelance locomotives to the wrong scale?

 

Martin.

You can always tell someone who doesn't understand the OO track market, you can't tell them much though.

Finetrax, which shop do you get it at? nice product that it is, its as good as unknown to the OO market and until its available with anything like the the ease that Peco is, its not going to affect the Peco range in any significant way. The talk of RTR roots makes no sense either, Peco is used by huge numbers, possibly the majority of kit builders too, look at the layout threads here, or visit an exhibition.

 

Its not come thirty years too late, thirty years ago we were still thinking Lima and early Bachmann was the height of fidelity, there was no market demand for this track, people buying track were still firmly wedded to the Streamline ranges CD100, and to a much lesser extent CD75. They still are. You tell us there's nothing technically that they couldn't have done thirty years ago, yet you were telling us that Peco wouldn't be making these points with one piece blades. By the way what is the size of the finescale market? You say they'd be dominant, looks like they are already, if modellers are buying HO/OO streamline to run kit built stock on. We'll see just how big the finescale market is with the EM point sales, if there's a market the EM crowd will rapidly be commissioning new ready to lay products. As I understand it, they're not.

 

You say Bullhead is on the wane, but steam traction finished finished fifty years ago, and if its on the wane why are all the new manufacturers core products all suitable to run on bullhead track? Why are these new manufacturers entering the wrong market? Why is there an interest in French HO modellers in particular to use this mushroom head track if Peco have got it so wrong?

 

You say Peco should make a model of a real thing? Well I'm not sure if you're aware but OO track isn't a model of real thing the distance between the rails is too narrow, which shows a real lack of knowledge about the OO market.

 

What OO modellers wanted was better looking OO track. And that's what we've got, and those modellers whom have used it appear happy with it.

Simples.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by PMP
spellin

[martin_wynne]

5 minutes ago, PMP said:

Its not come thirty years too late, thirty years ago we were still thinking Lima and early Bachmann was the height of fidelity, there was no market demand for this track, people buying track were still firmly wedded to the Streamline ranges CD100, and to a much lesser extent CD75.

 

Not where I was 30 years ago they weren't. In the club I was in, modellers were hand-building track in 00, EM and P4:

 

 

A system of bullhead trackwork and easy-assemble kits would have been grabbed with both hands. Truly there are two different hobbies on RMweb.

 

Martin.