Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Tim Dubya]

Black is dirt cheap as it's dyed mixed recycled plastics. You have to use new light coloured plastics to colour them in anything other than black.

.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Tim Dubya

[LBRJ]

Is there also a possibility that they will gain sales from those contemplating going to EM - but now happy with the improved appearance of the BH points compared to previous 00 offerings?

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

I think that is a definite possibility, well it is for me

[Clive Mortimore]

I am so glad they appear to be a success after all the years of being told that Peco would never produce bullhead point work with timber spacing for 4mm modellers not 3.5mm modellers, proper 00 track. I have a problem, I am not going to use it. I am going to stick to code 75 flatbottom for the scenic part and code 100 for the fiddly yardy bit. It is because I cannot wait for Peco to produce slips, tandem points and crossovers. The track for my new layout arrives (all being well) tomorrow, and I am so excited.

 

Well done Peco and I look forward to seeing many fine layouts with the new standard of track on them.

[Ben Alder]

Are you going to use the bullhead for the plain track? A bit heretic for this thread, I know, but the existing Code 75 pointwork can, once ballasted, blend in with "00" track. It is the plain track that the eye is drawn to rather than tne points, at least on simple formations. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a real game chamger and I am very hopeful tnat it will be seen in retrospect along with the impact of Aifix and Mainline when they burst on to the scene in the seventies.

[Clive Mortimore]

Are you going to use the bullhead for the plain track? A bit heretic for this thread, I know, but the existing Code 75 pointwork can, once ballasted, blend in with "00" track. It is the plain track that the eye is drawn to rather than tne points, at least on simple formations. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a real game chamger and I am very hopeful tnat it will be seen in retrospect along with the impact of Aifix and Mainline when they burst on to the scene in the seventies.

Hi Ben

 

For consistency of appearance I am sticking with flatbottom rail. Like you, I think the new Peco product will revolutionise the hobby. Well may be not revolutionise but make a big difference. I am looking forward to seeing many new layouts.

[BlackRat]

I agree with Clive about the revolution!

 

The quality of rtr now, in general is superb, and the Peco track can only add to this.

 

I have seen some excellent layouts, no exemplary, the only 'downside' if I could call it that being the use of the old Streamline.

 

So I wonder.....how many layouts with the new track will now appear in MRJ, and which will be the first?

[hayfield]

Is there also a possibility that they will gain sales from those contemplating going to EM - but now happy with the improved appearance of the BH points compared to previous 00 offerings?

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

 

I think it is certainly going to have a very positive effect in all areas, many will want to replace H0 scale turnouts, others will want to start a new layout bases on 4 mm scale track. Then I expect a rise in track building/modifying as 00 scale modellers will want turnouts and crossings in differing sizes and formats. A few realising the dramatic effect that increasing the scale has had will want to go further in increasing the gauge.

 

All of this is good for both modellers and Peco as I suggested many months ago it will be the new must have within the ready to run part of the hobby and has created a new market to complement the existing range of flatbottom track, which I believe will carry on being supported by H0 modellers elsewhere 

 

Now will we get a range of 4 mm scale 00 gauge flatbottom track ?

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think it is certainly going to have a very positive effect in all areas, many will want to replace H0 scale turnouts, others will want to start a new layout bases on 4 mm scale track. Then I expect a rise in track building/modifying as 00 scale modellers will want turnouts and crossings in differing sizes and formats. A few realising the dramatic effect that increasing the scale has had will want to go further in increasing the gauge.

 

All of this is good for both modellers and Peco as I suggested many months ago it will be the new must have within the ready to run part of the hobby and has created a new market to complement the existing range of flatbottom track, which I believe will carry on being supported by H0 modellers elsewhere 

 

Now will we get a range of 4 mm scale 00 gauge flatbottom track ?

Given the apparent success of this new range, I would be very surprised indeed if Peco do not now bring out at the very least some Code 75FB or Code 82FB track with OO sleepering.

[Happy Hippo]

Given the apparent success of this new range, I would be very surprised indeed if Peco do not now bring out at the very least some Code 75FB or Code 82FB track with OO sleepering.

If they were to use the 7.5 angle for the crossing nose as used in the Peco code 83 stuff, that would be even better.

 

I am very close to retaining some of my 4mm stuff just to make a small 00 line using the new Peco offerings.

[tomparryharry]

I'd suggest that you've got there already The Peco code 75 concrete sleepered track runs pretty close to the real thing. In fact, the better starting point is code 100. The modern day, heavier gauge rail is probably more dimensionally accurate, in terms of depth (that is, real life versus the model stuff). Add the that, the old way of sleeper spacing has given way to he current 'best practice' of a large shoulder of ballast, leading off to the cess. The 4-foot now has  ballast covering the sleeper tops, with very little by way of sleeper to be seen.

 

If Peco to want to add extra stuff, I might respectfully suggest things like expansion joints. I can see modellers adding copious amounts of ballast, to get it looking 'just right' Exhibitions will suffer though. All that extra weight! No longer popping the BLT into the back of the car. Now, it's an artic, and an HGV licence.

 

Happy hernias, everybody!

 

Ian

[Chamby]

If they were to use the 7.5 angle for the crossing nose as used in the Peco code 83 stuff, that would be even better.

 

I am very close to retaining some of my 4mm stuff just to make a small 00 line using the new Peco offerings.

It is good to have something a bit different on the side, we all need a bit of light relief from the main project at times.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If they were to use the 7.5 angle for the crossing nose as used in the Peco code 83 stuff, that would be even better.

 

 

We did try to persuade them of that but they have preferred to stick with their traditional geometry. Can't see them changing that now.

 

Only advantage is that people can start building layouts now with Code 75FB HO pointwork (slips, etc) and replace like-for-like as the BH items become available.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Now will we get a range of 4 mm scale 00 gauge flatbottom track ?

 Possibly I have been dozing and missed an earlier example of this suggestion?

 

If the BH range is commercially successful for Peco, an FB 'better OO' equivalent has to follow. And it is potentially a simple add on to whichever FB rail section range they choose to go with: all the existing (cheaper) pieces can be retained, augmented by the more accurate OO pieces.

[Mallard60022]

It is good to have something a bit different on the side, we all need a bit of light relief from the main project at times.

I did think I was too old for that.......until I saw that lady celeb on Strictly who is older than me but is very bendy in all sorts of places.  

A. Quickstep.

[coachmann]

Don't mean this in a nit-picky way (as I think they're great) but why don't they just colour the sleepers a shade of brown by default, instead of black? Can't really cost much, surely?

I wonder if some people actually look at things they criticize.  .................They are brown!  

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by coachmann

[Pete the Elaner]

 

 

Now will we get a range of 4 mm scale 00 gauge flatbottom track ?

Are you talking about pointwork or flexi track?

The market for 00 FB pointwork would be less than for BH, partly because BH pointwork was common long after BH track started to be replaced so it is quite ok to mix FB track with BH points. It is also more similar to what we already have, so the improvement would be marginal.

 

If you mean flexi track, that's easy - space the sleepers out a bit. Peco use 7.5mm sleeper spacing for their HO track. I have found 9.5mm centres looks a little 'retro' & 8.5mm centres looks more modern so this is particularly suited to concrete sleeper track.

The sleeper length is too short for 4mm scale, but if you increase this it highlights the gauge being narrow, so the HO ones are fine as they are.

[Echo]

I wonder if some people actually look at things they criticize.  .................They are brown!  

 

They look very brown to me too! How could anyone think they are black?

 

3 more turnouts have arrived today so I shall be fiddling with them later to add to the modified crossover I have already illustrated in my earlier post. This will finish off my station throat area. At least one layout using purely Peco bullhead track is definitely on the way!

[PMP]

I wonder if some people actually look at things they criticize.  .................They are brown! 

 

Well this is a thread about the new Peco bullhead points, so by definition from previous threads, it's largely going to be a fact free zone. In addition to colour of sleepers, you can add profitability, availability and non existent London Exhibitions and that's just the last 24hrs...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Those folk who have tried bending these, what sort of radius have you got to for the outer curve?

[Pacific231G]

If they were to use the 7.5 angle for the crossing nose as used in the Peco code 83 stuff, that would be even better.

 

I am very close to retaining some of my 4mm stuff just to make a small 00 line using the new Peco offerings.

I don't think you'll be alone in that.

I'm slghtly confused though by your reference to a 7.5 crossing angle. That would be close to a #7.5 crossing (unless my maths is way out 7.5 is roughly where the the angle in degrees crosses the angle expressed as a ratio) but for straight turnouts the 83 Line range only includes #5. #6 & #8  which I make equivalent to crossing angles of 11.5⁰, 9⁰,&  7⁰ respectively.

Though people with plenty of space might prefer a shallower crossing angle, basing the whole system on it would probably exclude a lot of modellers with modestly sized layouts. Peco's 83 line #6 turnout is about half an inch longer than the 00/H0 medium length point but the #8 is almost two and a half inches longer than even the 00/H0 long point. 

 

Unlike its 83 Line range, which follows the established and prototypical N. American practice of using crossing numbers with correspondingly different divergence angles, Peco's  00/H0 Streamline geometry uses a common divergence angle quoted as 12^o. That is somewhat (some would argue totally) artificial but for a lot of modellers the ability to create fairly complex pointwork, that in reality would be tailored to the location,  from out of the box products has always been really useful. I don't think that requirement applies to anything like the same extent when modelling N. American railroads where most real track layouts seem to have been far more based on a series of separate turnouts.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Pacific231G

[bertiedog]

One thing missing so far is a new finer insulating joiner to be a near match to the new metal joiners. The existing ones work but when painted etc they do show badly in comparison. Not an easy item to slim down.

I am using thin PC strip soldered under the gap, with the the copper broken through and cosmetic side plates.

Stephen

.

[Chamby]

One thing missing so far is a new finer insulating joiner to be a near match to the new metal joiners. The existing ones work but when painted etc they do show badly in comparison. Not an easy item to slim down.

I am using thin PC strip soldered under the gap, with the the copper broken through and cosmetic side plates.

Stephen

.

Try the C&L ones, they are finer than the metal Peco joiners, fiddly little things but they work very well.

 

Phil

[tender]

One thing missing so far is a new finer insulating joiner to be a near match to the new metal joiners. The existing ones work but when painted etc they do show badly in comparison. Not an easy item to slim down.

I am using thin PC strip soldered under the gap, with the the copper broken through and cosmetic side plates.

Stephen

.

 

 

As i'll be using DCC with the BH turnouts and rail i'm hoping insulated rail joiners will be a thing of the past.

[Velopeur]

As i'll be using DCC with the BH turnouts and rail i'm hoping insulated rail joiners will be a thing of the past.

On a medium to large layout you will need power districts that have to be isolated from each other.

[Tim Dubya]

One thing missing so far is a new finer insulating joiner to be a near match to the new metal joiners. The existing ones work but when painted etc they do show badly in comparison. Not an easy item to slim down.

I am using thin PC strip soldered under the gap, with the the copper broken through and cosmetic side plates.

Stephen

.

 

N Gauge insulfishers should fit code 75 bullhead or Exactoscale plastic.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Tim Dubya