PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Junctionmad]

LIke most threads on here of more than about 5 pages...They descend into a slanging match.

The problems is that if you think you're right, you don't want to let it lie & it is not possible to have a sensible argument in a reasonable timeframe.

 

as is often stated , if you dont like the thread , then dont read it. Nothing annoys me more then people criticising the nature of a thread rather then criticising  the subject of the thread 

[Pete the Elaner]

What slanging match?

 

I keep seeing such suggestions in RMweb topics where I can't see anything untoward. Is it me?

 

A robust argument is not a slanging match. It is simply evidence that folks have got their brains switched on. And a good thing too.

 

Martin.

I've seen plenty of comments directed at you which you could have reacted badly at, but you don't seem to have done so.

I find your postings quite insightful.

[Pete the Elaner]

P4 and more correctly S4 are " dead realistic "

 

PECO bullhead is a realistic interpetration  , but " dead realistic " , no 

I don't think P4/S4 look dead right either. They are obviously as close as you can get in 4mm though.

I think the issue is that the top of the rail is flat, or at least made to look flat by soft track rubbers which clean too much of the rail head.

[LBRJ]

by any definition of the term " dead realistic " I would take it to mean that the track is as close a facsimile to the real thing as practical. to me P4 and more correctly S4 are " dead realistic "

 

PECO bullhead is a realistic interpetration  , but " dead realistic " , no 

I never said Peco BH track was dead realistic - I said it was a step change in the appearance of a ready to lay, off the shop shelf track system for most UK modellers

Its is not Pecos aim to make it perfect looking, "more suitable than what went before" is the aim - and in the they have succeeded admirably

 

I did say that some OO and EM track can, and does, look dead realistic.....IF we are to argue over  only matters of gauge and other tolerances one of us is missing the bigger picture about what makes track look "real". There is a lot more to achieving that realistic effect than whether you rails are set a matter of 2.33mm further or lesser apart

[Colin_McLeod]

I believe I understand this thread now. As a lot of our layouts are roundy roundy it follows that the signalling thread would go round in circles.

[Colin_McLeod]

I believe I understand this thread now. As a lot of our layouts are roundy roundy it follows that the signalling thread would go round in circles.

Sorry. Wrong thread.

[Kiwi]

Sorry. Wrong thread.

Maybe - but then again maybe not ........

[coachmann]

Sorry. Wrong thread.

Try a larger needle...

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Personally, PECO producing a single left and right point is a bit " meh ". You can't really achieve the " look" of the prototype with good flowing curves...

The first thing I will try when the product is in my hands is cutting through the webs and very slightly curving the point. Done this successfully for years with the Peco codes 100 and 75 FB large rad points, and it works well. The 'threepenny bit' effect is lost which is all to the general good.

 

The only 'meh' aspect of the large radius point is that the radius isn't large enough. Hopefully Peco will see their way to something yet larger (and maybe with closer to correct geometry too) once they realise that this is where the sales may be found: something much better than anything previously available in RTR OO chaired plastic based track systems.

[Roy Langridge]

Hopefully Peco will see their way to something yet larger (and maybe with closer to correct geometry too) once they realise that this is where the sales may be found.

 

Will it though? The bullhead track is less mainstream for those who just build a layout for the kids, so I imagine the sales of bullhead points will be much lower than for other ranges (in part as a result of the price, in part because of sales to HO modellers). What would the sales be for an even larger radius point? Yes it will be attractive to a certain audience (me included) but will that market be good enough for it to be a good seller (i.e. make a sufficient return on investment)?

 

That said, I hope I am very wrong. A long crossing would also be nice.

 

Roy

Edited September 12, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Will it though? ...What would the sales be for an even larger radius point? Yes it will be attractive to a certain audience (me included) but will that market be good enough for it to be a good seller (i.e. make a sufficient return on investment)?...

Ever hopeful on my part Roy.

 

The 'hairshirt brigade' insisted for over thirty years that there was no way the UK modeller would pay the required price for decent quality OO RTR, equivalent to that which HO modellers enjoyed as 'good basic standard' models. Well, they were wrong, even if the answer was a long time coming.

 

The best of RTR track has been badly lagging behind our OO models for near two decades now. Hopefully, Peco might think it worth a punt on something really good. It may have to retail at double the price of the current code 75 FB large rad point. But if it is good, it will sell: this is the brave new world...

[Zunnan]

I'd have to agree. A narrower crossing angle, and therefore larger set of points, would be a very welcome development; especially if that led on to slips and crossings. Something along the lines of an Anglicised code 83 range could be a good direction to take the bullhead range in and not very far from what Peco already produce.

[coachmann]

I mentioned Code 83 large radius point geometry early in this thread but the response was no, no, no.....We have to use medium and small radius points because of space and we like cramming everything onto our 8' X 4' boards...or words to that effect. They are the big spenders that Peco, Hornby and Bachmann depend very much on.

 

Trainset-man outnumbers historical-modellers by a very good margin, indeed the former have always bought RTR and RTP whereas historical-man only started taking advantage of improving RTR about 17 years ago and then only buys what suits his period and region. In fact, when I see SE&CR locos in pre-group livery on boards crammed with blue diesels, a red Hall and everything else from  blue or red boxes, I wonder how many RTR-dependent folk will bother to change their existing 00/H0 streamline for bullhead track.  I suspect this new Peco track will not be taken up as much as some people think.

Edited September 12, 2017 by coachmann

[martin_wynne]

Trainset-man outnumbers historical-modellers by a very good margin, indeed the former have always bought RTR and RTP whereas historical-man only started taking advantage of improving RTR about 17 years ago and then only buys what suits his period and region. In fact, when I see SE&CR locos in pre-group livery on boards crammed with blue diesels, a red Hall and everything else from  blue or red boxes, I wonder how many RTR-dependent folk will bother to change their existing 00/H0 streamline for bullhead track.  I suspect this new Peco track will not be taken up as much as some people think.

 

Hi Larry,

 

I mentioned way back in this or some other topic that when folks see the two hanging side-by-side on a peg, quite a few are likely to think the 00/H0 stuff looks better for a mainline layout in a small space. Alongside it, this new Peco turnout looks like something from a light railway backwater or old industrial sidings. Peco haven't helped this by some of the design details. Or maybe that is intentional to protect the existing range? They are not daft.

 

I'm glad you mentioned trainset-man and historical-man. I have long felt that we have two completely different hobbies crammed into the same box, but we are not allowed to say so. This may be a greater diversification for Peco than we have realised -- my guess is that they are quite nervous about their investment. Part of the problem is that historical-man typically builds a shunting plank layout with 3 turnouts. Trainset-man crams half of Crewe into the back bedroom.

 

Martin.

[Dunsignalling]

Hi Larry,

 

I mentioned way back in this or some other topic that when folks see the two hanging side-by-side on a peg, quite a few are likely to think the 00/H0 stuff looks better for a mainline layout in a small space. Alongside it, this new Peco turnout looks like something from a light railway backwater or old industrial sidings. Peco haven't helped this by some of the design details. Or maybe that is intentional to protect the existing range? They are not daft.

 

I'm glad you mentioned trainset-man and historical-man. I have long felt that we have two completely different hobbies crammed into the same box, but we are not allowed to say so. This may be a greater diversification for Peco than we have realised -- my guess is that they are quite nervous about their investment. Part of the problem is that historical-man typically builds a shunting plank layout with 3 turnouts. Trainset-man crams half of Crewe into the back bedroom.

 

Martin.

I think Peco's business model demands that they serve all segments of the market - Setrack, one-step up (Code 100), two steps up (Code 75 FB) and now the more discerning end (of OO, anyway) too.

 

They might get away with not making short radius points in Bullhead, but I suspect that, in order to attract the breadth of purchasers they will need to generate the kind of sales volumes they are accustomed too, they will have to produce them in medium radius.

 

Some people's back bedrooms are big enough for operationally worthwhile satisfying* layouts using long radius points. My front one isn't and I'll be sticking with Code 75 FB until I know how Peco intend to proceed beyond what has already been announced.

 

* Which I define as one on which I can run trains not just shunt them as that (on its own) gets old quite quickly for me.

 

The new plan I am currently working up delivers a main platform long enough to hold a five coach train and look suitably "off-peak" when there is only a 3-set in. I would prefer to use bullhead track, but that depends on me being able to use medium radius points. Adjusting the whole layout around long radius ones throughout the visible areas would lose me slightly over a coach length, cutting my maximum train to three plus a 4-wheel van with a bit to spare. That's just not a trade-off I'd be willing to make.

 

John

Edited September 12, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[AndyID]

A train set comes in a box. You set it up on the carpet or, if you are really lucky, on the dining-room table. When you are done, you put it all back in the box.

 

A model railway is usually semi-permanent and mounted on some sort of baseboard. (My first one had Tri-Ang standard track.)

[PatB]

I'm glad you mentioned trainset-man and historical-man. I have long felt that we have two completely different hobbies crammed into the same box, but we are not allowed to say so. This may be a greater diversification for Peco than we have realised -- my guess is that they are quite nervous about their investment. Part of the problem is that historical-man typically builds a shunting plank layout with 3 turnouts. Trainset-man crams half of Crewe into the back bedroom.

 

Martin.

 

Only half of Crewe?  .

 

Semi-seriously, though, I think we've a lot more than just two hobbies under the generic Model Railway banner. What about the timetablers, the loco builders, the scenery folk, the electronics/automation/DCC enthusiasts, the signalling buffs, the layout planners, the stock repainters, the collectors, the track builders, the baseboard experimenters and probably half a dozen other groups I've forgotten. OK, there's usually some overlap, but there certainly seem to be many "railway modellers" who prefer to concentrate on one or two particular aspects of the hobby without expending a huge amount of thought or effort on other areas.

[PaulRhB]

I think short radius next would make a lot of sense with the Pecketts, P's and Barclays on the market. A lot of potential for industrial and light railway layouts in OO now

I think the spread of skills and interests is the reason the number of model Railway mags is greater than most other hobbies on Smiths shelves. The crossover in those interests makes a lot of these products viable. War gaming is about the only other hobby with such a rich choice of ready to use and a large range of kits.

Edited September 13, 2017 by PaulRhB

[Mike Storey]

Hi Larry,

 

I mentioned way back in this or some other topic that when folks see the two hanging side-by-side on a peg, quite a few are likely to think the 00/H0 stuff looks better for a mainline layout in a small space. Alongside it, this new Peco turnout looks like something from a light railway backwater or old industrial sidings. Peco haven't helped this by some of the design details. Or maybe that is intentional to protect the existing range? They are not daft.

 

I'm glad you mentioned trainset-man and historical-man. I have long felt that we have two completely different hobbies crammed into the same box, but we are not allowed to say so. This may be a greater diversification for Peco than we have realised -- my guess is that they are quite nervous about their investment. Part of the problem is that historical-man typically builds a shunting plank layout with 3 turnouts. Trainset-man crams half of Crewe into the back bedroom.

 

Martin.

 

True, and that is exactly how I am going to use it, as a good contrast between my Peco running lines (Code 83 FB made to look as British as possible) and this Code 75 BH in sidings and branches off. Having mocked up the two in plain line, side by side, the effect is very pleasing. I am lucky in that I (will) have the space for large radii throughout my scenic section, so the new points will do very well, and will look like medium radius when alongside a Code 83 No.8 turnout! It will mean I will eventually buy more BH points than FB ones on my scenic section. I suspect many will use the new track in this way, for eras/locations where BH would not be right for the running lines. As said, most people do not have the space these days for Large radius, so Medium radius may be a must to increase sales, at the expense of further investment.

 

Peco may be nervous, but hopefully the (reported) popularity of the plain line BH sales has made them less so?

[ianLMS]

If Peco had BH track/points available 5 years ago, I would have definitely gone down that route. My track-building skills are completely unknown, and to try to build around 24 points by hand was not an option I felt I could embrace. I looked at the option of SMP R-T-P BH track but again, it was the points that stopped me as I would need to build them myself, they wouldn't fit in my space and the pre-made ones were not cost effective. Decent SMP BH track with Peco points would have looked very odd and defeated the purpose of trying to get more authentic looking track. So to me, Code 75 FB was the only option.

 

Now I have laid my Peco track and points, ballasted, weathered and wired them up, it is extremely doubtful that I will rip it all up to replace it with new BH track. It will wait until I decide to build a new layout. By then, hopefully the unknown will be known and the issues ironed out.

 

My layout is a scenic 12 x 8ft roundy-roundy with a condensed track plan that looks like a large twin track train-set plan from the old Hornby books, but to me, its still a model railway and not a train-set - I enjoy all aspects of modeling, including the electronics, DCC, scenery, kit building, scratchbuilding and I try to portray 1930's LMS in the North West. Therefore, am I not a hybrid of both train-set man and historical-man, which, will probably apply to large percentage of us on RMWeb?

 

This is where this new Peco track really appeals - Simply put, its for the average modeller who wants to have more authentic looking track, readily available in the local shop/online, requiring minimal time/skill to install, but enhances the look of their railway regardless of track plan, size or operating methods. Many high quality layouts at exhibitions and in the modeling press etc use Code 100 or Code 75 FB track and no-one bats an eye lid. They are still jaw-droppingly good layouts, so this to me, is a great advancement regardless of "un-prototypical dimensions or not being exact replicas of the real thing". This will mean in the future, we will have many more great looking layouts now with OO BH track instead of FB.

Edited September 14, 2017 by ianLMS

[Pint of Adnams]

True, and that is exactly how I am going to use it, as a good contrast between my Peco running lines (Code 83 FB made to look as British as possible) and this Code 75 BH in sidings and branches off. Having mocked up the two in plain line, side by side, the effect is very pleasing. I am lucky in that I (will) have the space for large radii throughout my scenic section, so the new points will do very well, and will look like medium radius when alongside a Code 83 No.8 turnout! It will mean I will eventually buy more BH points than FB ones on my scenic section. I suspect many will use the new track in this way, for eras/locations where BH would not be right for the running lines. As said, most people do not have the space these days for Large radius, so Medium radius may be a must to increase sales, at the expense of further investment.

 

Peco may be nervous, but hopefully the (reported) popularity of the plain line BH sales has made them less so?

Bullhead is not that dated. I have a copy of a photograph taken in June 1957 at East Suffolk Junction, where the London-Norwich main line tracks run parallel with those about to diverge to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. Beyond are the Upper Goods yard and Ipswich DCE's yard. All of the permanent way is still Bullhead and so the Peco products will suit me perfectly for my 'Suffolk Junction' layout. I will however really need a double slip for the crossing from the Up Norwich and Up Lowestoft into the Goods reception - absolutely typical Great Eastern practice.

[Seanem44]

Hey all...  I had some questions on bullhead so it looks like I'm at the right place.  For a new OO layout (14 feet scenic end to end station terminus), is it a good route to go right now?  I see they have finally introduced some points, albeit large radius.  Would it look too odd mixing and matching bullhead and non bullhead points for goods yards, etc., as I am assuming the only offered points are really too large for good yards (or are they?)  Or should I just stick with the tried and true peco track readily available?

 

Thanks

[martin_wynne]

Bullhead is not that dated.

 

Bullhead track is still be installed new in places. See for example this at Exeter:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59971-good-news-from-riverside/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Dungrange]

I am assuming the only offered points are really too large for good yards (or are they?)

 

If you want a scale model of a goods yard and not too much else, then the large radius points are ideal, but it depends on the space you have and what you are trying to achieve.  

 

If you scale down points on the mainline these will be much bigger than the large radius point being produced by Peco.  There is a slow speed scissors crossover in the centre of Edinburgh Waverley station and the length of the crossover is about the same as three Mark 3 coaches when an HST is snaking into its platform - ie 3 foot long in 4mm scale.  Higher speed crossings could easily be twice this length.  However, the average modeller is space constrained, which means that they often don't have the space for true scale point and crossing work.  As such, if you compress higher speed mainline point work down to the size of the Peco large radius point, then you should probably also compress the smaller points in the yard down to the medium or small versions for aesthetic reasons, but I'd always favour using as large a radius point as you can.  I'd therefore start by seeing whether you can achieve what you are looking for using the large radius points. 

 

I'm not a fan of the small radius points and I think if Peco produce these with the wider sleeper spacing, they may look a bit odd, but possibly acceptable in a cramped industrial environment.  As someone else has indicated, I'd also prefer if the next point produced in this range was an extra large point.  I've made the decision to build my own points simply because the large point is not large enough.

[Seanem44]

If you want a scale model of a goods yard and not too much else, then the large radius points are ideal, but it depends on the space you have and what you are trying to achieve.  

 

If you scale down points on the mainline these will be much bigger than the large radius point being produced by Peco.  There is a slow speed scissors crossover in the centre of Edinburgh Waverley station and the length of the crossover is about the same as three Mark 3 coaches when an HST is snaking into its platform - ie 3 foot long in 4mm scale.  Higher speed crossings could easily be twice this length.  However, the average modeller is space constrained, which means that they often don't have the space for true scale point and crossing work.  As such, if you compress higher speed mainline point work down to the size of the Peco large radius point, then you should probably also compress the smaller points in the yard down to the medium or small versions for aesthetic reasons, but I'd always favour using as large a radius point as you can.  I'd therefore start by seeing whether you can achieve what you are looking for using the large radius points. 

 

I'm not a fan of the small radius points and I think if Peco produce these with the wider sleeper spacing, they may look a bit odd, but possibly acceptable in a cramped industrial environment.  As someone else has indicated, I'd also prefer if the next point produced in this range was an extra large point.  I've made the decision to build my own points simply because the large point is not large enough.

Sounds good. Sounds like I will go with the bullhead and use the large radius points for ALL points.