Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[Junctionmad]

My reading of the thread on the new PECO bullhead track is that it has scale H0 sleepers and sleeper spacing, not 00.  So we will still need these points to match SMP or C&L plain track?

no , sleepers are spaced at 9.3mm and are 31.7mm long , very similar to C&L and SMP etc ( source Martin Wynne)

Edited January 29, 2016 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

My reading of the thread on the new PECO bullhead track is that it has scale H0 sleepers and sleeper spacing, not 00.  So we will still need these points to match SMP or C&L plain track?

 

You seem to have read wrong? Assuming the Peco web site is correct, the sleeper sizes are 4mm/ft scale (00), and the spacing is at 9.3mm centres (which is wider than SMP at 8.8mm):

 

 

Martin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hayfield]

My own reading of the situation is, assuming Peco uses a similar modular system which it has with its other ranges, this leaves a wide open gap for more authentic looking turnouts based on standard railway practice. 

 

Those only wanting bullhead clones of existing products would be happy to stay with Peco, those wanting more authentic looking turnouts and crossings could be catered for with 3D printed (or other production method) through other suppliers

[Junctionmad]

My own reading of the situation is, assuming Peco uses a similar modular system which it has with its other ranges, this leaves a wide open gap for more authentic looking turnouts based on standard railway practice. 

 

Those only wanting bullhead clones of existing products would be happy to stay with Peco, those wanting more authentic looking turnouts and crossings could be catered for with 3D printed (or other production method) through other suppliers

well , it remains to be seen.  I think PECO are moving to ensure that the british outline 00 track doesnt get out from under them , as many have said they tend to respond  when they see a potential for competitors emerging.  I suspect they will ensure the point work is better then current HO streamline, again to ensure that it doesnt leave an opening for competition.  

 

It will be good for the availability of better 00 track work at presumably more a competitive price point, bad news for those that felt they might have a march on PECO in finer scale 00  

 

 

dave 

[Dunsignalling]

My own reading of the situation is, assuming Peco uses a similar modular system which it has with its other ranges, this leaves a wide open gap for more authentic looking turnouts based on standard railway practice. 

 

Those only wanting bullhead clones of existing products would be happy to stay with Peco, those wanting more authentic looking turnouts and crossings could be catered for with 3D printed (or other production method) through other suppliers

"Authentic OO track" is an oxymoron, but the sort of products you mean have been readily available in component form for decades. However, in all that time, nobody has judged the potential demand to be sufficient to justify tooling up ready-to-lay versions that would satisfy more purist tastes in the way that Peco Streamline caters for the mainstream.

 

From what has been announced/seen so far, the Peco bullhead track and points will be a big enough improvement over their FB product to wide acceptance. It seems unlikely that it will inherit more than the geometry from what they already make.   

 

If people really care about having trackwork approaching 100% authenticity, they won't be working in 16.5mm gauge anyway.

 

John

[Junctionmad]

I dont think that PECO will gain much ground unless they bring out a comprehensive range of turnouts.  The visual difference between its announced 00 bullhead and its existing FB product line, mean that very few people are going to buy it , unless they are prepared to make their own 00 points to match, which almost by definition , the potential purchasers won't want to do that. 

 

Using the PECO 00 track work and mating it to,  for example , its HO streamline product range, would actually be visually worse then just using existing PECO HO track.  It would be similar to suggesting that SMP or C&L flexi  be connected up to PECO HO streamline points, technically yes, visually its a clanger 

 

seems unlikely that it will inherit more than the geometry from what they already make.  

well , as Martin as outlined in detail the track is very close to 00 track dimensions from C&L and SMP, the rail is lifted 0.5mm up off the sleeper etc.  The fact is PECO have obviously examined the competition and know what market they are addressing. 

 

dave

Edited January 29, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Adams442T]

"Authentic OO track" is an oxymoron, but the sort of products you mean have been readily available in component form for decades. However, in all that time, nobody has judged the potential demand to be sufficient to justify tooling up ready-to-lay versions that would satisfy more purist tastes in the way that Peco Streamline caters for the mainstream.

 

From what has been announced/seen so far, the Peco bullhead track and points will be a big enough improvement over their FB product to wide acceptance. It seems unlikely that it will inherit more than the geometry from what they already make.   

 

If people really care about having trackwork approaching 100% authenticity, they won't be working in 16.5mm gauge anyway.

 

John

 

I would agree that 'Authentic 00 track' is certainly not a concept easily quantified, but..... Peco appear to have judged well that an improved appearance 00 track in terms of better proportioned sleepers might bring them a good return, and I'm sure that pointwork is already on its way.  

 

They do appear to have listened to those demanding better looking trackwork for UK prototypes and for that we should I think be pleased.  Will it be perfect?  I'm sure not, but if it emulates the advances made by Tillig for instance, in terms of better point blades and non-clunky switchgear, I'm sure it will do well.

 

I model LNWR, LTSR, and NLR in EM at present, but I have a selection of nice Southern/LSWR locos that I have collected in recent years, and 'retro-modified' in looks, but I have drawn the line at full conversion to EM partly from the cost point of view.  If however Peco come up trumps with decent pointwork all well and good, meanwhile I'm following Hayfield's excellent blog and sorting out some 00SF pointwork in anticipation.

[hayfield]

"Authentic OO track" is an oxymoron, but the sort of products you mean have been readily available in component form for decades. However, in all that time, nobody has judged the potential demand to be sufficient to justify tooling up ready-to-lay versions that would satisfy more purist tastes in the way that Peco Streamline caters for the mainstream.

 

From what has been announced/seen so far, the Peco bullhead track and points will be a big enough improvement over their FB product to wide acceptance. It seems unlikely that it will inherit more than the geometry from what they already make.   

 

If people really care about having trackwork approaching 100% authenticity, they won't be working in 16.5mm gauge anyway.

 

John

 

John

 

I carefully omitted 100% authentic looking track. There are many who for what ever good reason want to stay with 00 gauge and are happy to compromise with the gauge (as they do with locos/coaches/wagons), in my opinion and I am happy for other to differ you can still have authentic looking 4 mm scale track in 00 gauge

[Mike Storey]

"Authentic OO track" is an oxymoron, but the sort of products you mean have been readily available in component form for decades. However, in all that time, nobody has judged the potential demand to be sufficient to justify tooling up ready-to-lay versions that would satisfy more purist tastes in the way that Peco Streamline caters for the mainstream.

 

From what has been announced/seen so far, the Peco bullhead track and points will be a big enough improvement over their FB product to wide acceptance. It seems unlikely that it will inherit more than the geometry from what they already make.   

 

If people really care about having trackwork approaching 100% authenticity, they won't be working in 16.5mm gauge anyway.

 

John

 

I second that entirely, but I hope we can credit Joseph (and some others in part) in helping to create the impetus for Peco to take this gamble. Their engineering manager had previously indicated that they had been considering this for some time but could not resolve the competing demands expressed by modellers as to what "better" 00 track had to mean, in terms of dimensions, before there would be sufficient demand. Rationalisation of their points range ("Unifrog") and development of more efficient tooling practice, have presented the manufacturing opportunity. That they have now chosen to put something on the market, given there was still no real consensus, is why I use the word gamble.

 

On first appearance, and judging from the majority of comments on the other thread, they have managed something which will please most, but inevitably not all, and hopefully it will be successful enough to expand the range.

 

Those that argue that Peco only respond to competitive pressure, are wrong. See under bi-bloc sleepered track, steel sleepered track. RTR 009 rolling stock.  etc. All innovations.

[martin_wynne]

mean that very few people are going to buy it

 

Hi Dave,

 

With a Peco announcement, you have to read every single word.

 

They haven't said anything about sales of the new track -- what they say they are are looking for is a "positive reaction":

 

 "Only plain track has been announced initially. However, if there is a positive reaction to its release then Peco may consider releasing pointwork in the future."

 

Martin.

[Mike Storey]

I dont think that PECO will gain much ground unless they bring out a comprehensive range of turnouts.  The visual difference between its announced 00 bullhead and its existing FB product line, mean that very few people are going to buy it , unless they are prepared to make their own 00 points to match, which almost by definition , the potential purchasers won't want to do that. 

 

Using the PECO 00 track work and mating it to,  for example , its HO streamline product range, would actually be visually worse then just using existing PECO HO track.  It would be similar to suggesting that SMP or C&L flexi  be connected up to PECO HO streamline points, technically yes, visually its a clanger 

 

well , as Martin as outlined in detail the track is very close to 00 track dimensions from C&L and SMP, the rail is lifted 0.5mm up off the sleeper etc.  The fact is PECO have obviously examined the competition and know what market they are addressing. 

 

dave

 

We all have our opinions obviously, but I will definitely use it to contrast the BH sidings, flowing off FB turnouts, with the FB running line on my layout. BH turnouts will certainly be needed within the sidings, but if they are the same geometry as existing, then changing them over later should be easy. More probably, given my sloth-like progress, they will have released the turnouts before I have got around to laying the sidings.......

[Junctionmad]

We all have our opinions obviously, but I will definitely use it to contrast the BH sidings, flowing off FB turnouts, with the FB running line on my layout. BH turnouts will certainly be needed within the sidings, but if they are the same geometry as existing, then changing them over later should be easy. More probably, given my sloth-like progress, they will have released the turnouts before I have got around to laying the sidings.......

i was more wondering, if you would consider using PECO 00 with its differing sleeping , ( length and spacing ) with PECO HO concrete sleeping on the same layout ?, would it not cause a visual clanger , i.e. 00 track and HO track 

Hi Dave,

 

With a Peco announcement, you have to read every single word.

 

They haven't said anything about sales of the new track -- what they say they are are looking for is a "positive reaction":

 

 "Only plain track has been announced initially. However, if there is a positive reaction to its release then Peco may consider releasing pointwork in the future."

 

Martin.

true , thats a good point. I suspect the point work is already in the making any way, 

[Mike Storey]

i was more wondering, if you would consider using PECO 00 with its differing sleeping , ( length and spacing ) with PECO HO concrete sleeping on the same layout ?, would it not cause a visual clanger , i.e. 00 track and HO track 

true , thats a good point. I suspect the point work is already in the making any way, 

 

The FB 113lb track at the location I am modelling was initially laid on wooden sleepers in 1959, which is the period I am modelling, and the track looked very different to that in the sidings, which used fewer sleepers per length, and was still the original BH, probably 98lb. So, it will not be a clanger but actually more true to the original.

[AndyID]

I would think Peco made this announcement with a certain amount of trepidation. If they toot their flute too much about how this is what track really should have looked like 50 years ago, they run the risk of alienating some of the punters who have been buying the story they have been telling for the last 50 years. I doubt if there will be a major backlash, but some folks are going to be slightly peeved.

 

I think I can detect some of that resentment here.

[Junctionmad]

I would think Peco made this announcement with a certain amount of trepidation. If they toot their flute too much about how this is what track really should have looked like 50 years ago, they run the risk of alienating some of the punters who have been buying the story they have been telling for the last 50 years. I doubt if there will be a major backlash, but some folks are going to be slightly peeved.

 

I think I can detect some of that resentment here.

i dont think so , I think most are just pleased PECO as a major player , is finally " sorting this out ".  I mean , people like me , that have stayed in the 00 camp, have used all sorts of 00 track over the years, but I never confused PECOs HO with what it was clearly not.  I mean the fine scale press and loads of " punters " have been telling us its all wrong anyway. I dont think anyone is peeved , But all this assumes PECO will follow through with a set of points that are comprehensive , allowing the construction of a decent layout , like those that can be done in HO streamline 

 

dave

Edited January 29, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have been away for a few weeks and missed the recent Peco announcement at Nuremburg.

 

It may have some adverse impact on the proposed new range of pointwork but with Peco not actually offering any points yet, it may even be that their entry into the market offers more opportunity rather than less. And we are looking to produce formations that I would not expect them to do given the tooling cost for mass-production methods.

 

It was always likely that they would enter the fray and the business plan allowed for that. So design work continues and 3D prototypes should be available soon.

I have been away for a few weeks and missed the recent Peco announcement at Nuremburg.

 

It may have some adverse impact on the proposed new range of pointwork but with Peco not actually offering any points yet, it may even be that their entry into the market offers more opportunity rather than less. And we are looking to produce formations that I would not expect them to do given the tooling cost for mass-production methods.

 

It was always likely that they would enter the fray and the business plan allowed for that. So design work continues and 3D prototypes should be available soon.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Dave,

 

With a Peco announcement, you have to read every single word.

 

They haven't said anything about sales of the new track -- what they say they are are looking for is a "positive reaction":

 

 "Only plain track has been announced initially. However, if there is a positive reaction to its release then Peco may consider releasing pointwork in the future."

 

Martin.

 

Chicken and egg situation. I can't really see many people buying a lot of track until pointwork is available. But Peco want to sell lots of track before they commit to pointwork (even plain turnouts).

[martin_wynne]

Chicken and egg situation. I can't really see many people buying a lot of track until pointwork is available. But Peco want to sell lots of track before they commit to pointwork (even plain turnouts).

 

Hi Joseph,

 

They haven't said that. Since they know their market down to the last track pin, I would think they know very well that they won't sell much track without some matching pointwork, especially as bullhead flexi-track is available elsewhere. but it was much less expensive to tool up for the plain track first, to gauge reaction. Which is what they say they are looking for -- "reaction". But the track sales won't be zero, and as probably the biggest cost so far was getting the new rail section drawn, they will get a faster return on that from selling yards of track than pointwork.

 

Martin.

[Dungrange]

I agree with Martin, Peco are looking for the 'reaction' of modellers who want 'better' 00 track.  They want to know whether the new flexi-track 'hit's the mark' before they announce turnout details.  Who is going to buy the new track and do they want turnouts that match PECO's existing geometry (ie small, medium and large radius turnouts) or prototypical geometry (say an A5, B6 and B8 or whatever is likely to be most popular with the intended market)?  Personally, I would think PECO should adopt prototypical geometry, insofar as I don't see a need to make the new range compatible with their existing range of track.

 

I think it looks like PECO's new track range will be popular.  It's just a pity that I have bought a load of C&L kits to build my own, something I probably wouldn't have done if this announcement had been made last year.  Still, I'm sure that there will still be benefits constructing my own point-work.

[Junctionmad]

Which is what they say they are looking for -- "reaction"

bear in mind that is a marketing term for --- "sales"

[hayfield]

I agree with Martin, Peco are looking for the 'reaction' of modellers who want 'better' 00 track.  They want to know whether the new flexi-track 'hit's the mark' before they announce turnout details.  Who is going to buy the new track and do they want turnouts that match PECO's existing geometry (ie small, medium and large radius turnouts) or prototypical geometry (say an A5, B6 and B8 or whatever is likely to be most popular with the intended market)?  Personally, I would think PECO should adopt prototypical geometry, insofar as I don't see a need to make the new range compatible with their existing range of track.

 

I think it looks like PECO's new track range will be popular.  It's just a pity that I have bought a load of C&L kits to build my own, something I probably wouldn't have done if this announcement had been made last year.  Still, I'm sure that there will still be benefits constructing my own point-work.

 

 

If Peco do make points/turnouts I guess they will form a similar modular system of track, whilst better will not be up to bespoke standards.

 

Your C+L turnouts will be far better in looks, be careful which 00 standards you chose if you have pre-made common crossings, with the addition of a few Exactoscale parts your turnouts will be stunning as once you get the hang of sliding the chairs on, they are quick and easy to make

[Dungrange]

... be careful which 00 standards you chose if you have pre-made common crossings...

 

Yes, I'll be using pre-assembled common crossings and I deliberately didn't buy the roller gauges that come with the C&L kits (ie DOGA Fine) so that I could buy separate gauges for the standard that seems to provoke war on this forum!! :-)  Of course I appreciate that makes the supplied templates useless and I will need to produce new templates in Templot, but the advantage of planning to build my own turnouts is that I can build them as large radius curved points (ie the 'straight' route will probably be something like a 12' - 15' radius curve).

 

Maybe Peco will go for a modular geometry as per their existing range, but that would still leave a 'gap' in the market for prototypical geometry, which Joseph may still choose to pursue.

 

In any case, I can see me buying at least a few lengths of this new Peco track when it is available to create the overgrown sidings and to lay in the fiddle yard (especially if it is cheaper than the Exactoscale Fast-track option). I know that i could use anything in a fiddle yard, but I might as well give Peco the 'reaction' that they want to produce turnouts.

[hayfield]

Dave

 

Glad you understand the shortcomings of some of the gauges available, sadly all to few do

 

Certainly for me I do not care which set of standards folk use, nothing wrong with the pre-made crossings at 1 mm flangeways. I would suggest what Martin advised was to use the 00sf check rail gauges even if you are not using 00sf, as setting the check rail in the correct position is seen as the most critical part of a good working crossing.

 

I do use Templot 4sf templates where I flare the exits to match standard 16.5 mm gauge. One tip with these kits is if you are going to use the thin plastic timbers then be carefull to fit them as soon as possible to the track bed insuring both ends of each timber is stuck down well. The common fault of these timbers is that as the solvent dries it shrinks thus curling the timbers slightly. This does not occur with either the thicker plastic timbers or the Ply timbers

 

Good luck with the build and I hope you enjoy yourself

[Dungrange]

One tip with these kits is if you are going to use the thin plastic timbers then be careful to fit them as soon as possible to the track bed insuring both ends of each timber is stuck down well. The common fault of these timbers is that as the solvent dries it shrinks thus curling the timbers slightly. This does not occur with either the thicker plastic timbers or the Ply timbers

 

I'll be using the 'thick' point timbers (another requested change when I ordered these kits), so that the finished turnouts will be compatible with the thick sleepers used in the Exactoscale Fast-track range, which as it so happens should also be the correct height for the new Peco track, which leaves me no excuse not to buy some.

[JimF51]

Anything new in the development of this range? Went awful quiet after 2 Feb.

 

Jim F