Junctionmad

Perhaps Mr Fenton, in the spirit of goodwill that has prevailed in this topic, you might prefer the use of " lack of knowledge " as opposed to the perjorative term. " ignorance ". That term tends to be used to describe deliberate or wilful " lack of knowledge " , which I am comfortable, is not a feature of the respondents here. Dave

It's not that I have anything " against " REA standardised turnout designs. It's that I can't really see the point of not using PECOs existing geometry. It should be pointed out , that in itself REA is not the same concept as the geometry of PECO. Peco would still have to standardiise REA based point work to ensure that its geometry worked out. My own hand built stuff is REA , but the issues are somewhat different for RTL track work , I'd contend Perhaps Martin Wynne might be best placed to comment here. To some extent it's all irrelevant as presumably PECO. Have made up their mind.

well, I understand what Hayfield was saying. I mean as I construct my own ( copper clad in the past) you sort out the geometry by adjusting the inter crossover track to suit. ( and by using transition curves etc ) But you cant do that really in PECO. or more correctly few of its buyers would want that . if you use different crossing angles that you will have newbies making up strange geometries. but I except your word it looks better . but i dont see why the average PECO 00 user would want to stray from code 75 geometry I mean look at Grantham , is the geometry giving issues , i dont think so

Yes I know john, thats why I dont understand some looking for REA turnouts. I suspect its because they dont understand the issues maybe ??

I dont think PECO will release anything as kits. I suspect that they have already done the design for the point work and know they can insert mould the track. I still dont quite understand the geometry issue. whether you make a say crossover out of a 36" large radius PECO point or you make it from a B7 etc , hardly makes much of a difference , yes having variety of crossing angles can be useful , but its hardly a big issue for the majority of 00 modellers dave

indeed and I expect this is exactly what PECO will give them. existing geometry in bullhead with matching timbering to their new bull head rail

true very true, we shall see in time,

well peco have announced its will be compatible with existing point work so i expect any points will follow existing peco geometry I'm never quite sure why people mention REA geometry , (the GWR didnt use it, for example). some of the geometries like a c8 result in a big point . peco at least by holding the crossing angle the same, allow intermixing, in reality the real thing used intermediate angles to suit the location, so simply substituting REA geometry for peco doesnt bring all that much to the party remember the key advantage is that the timbering,chairs and rail more closely represent uk bull head practice , thats all, hence people will not use existing peco HO, because the track will not "look" right, nothing to do with geometries . dave

it will look " better" , it will always be 00 track with all its compromises , even p4 isn't correct prototypically after all. I dont think anyone would claim that the new track will fix all known issues with 00, including the existence of twelve ten thumbed modellers :D Dave

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

actually part of the issue with 00 is that you cant guarantee that the all models out there will run perfectly at all. You design for the middle of the bell curve !

Yes, I would agree, PECO will most likely merely duplicate the existing code 75 range of point work, most likely in uniform. The timbering and track detail will no doubt correspond as best they can with their new 00 Bullhead. Hence the geometry will be the same. I cannot see them switching , rather like their code 87 range to REA geometry for example, nor would there really be any reason to do so, in my opinion. dave

thats the function of old age, to help slow , youths reckless dash to change , of course they win and you always loose, a function of a problem of longevity Im afraid Dave

I dare anyone to admit that good track work isn't important in the overall model. Yes, a few, can model to this level of realism. but I suggest that everyone would like to " aspire" to it. Better track is always better, even if we compromise in what we model because , lets face it most us have to. But the point still stands. Trackwork is as much part of railway modelling as a finely detailed loco is and Martin, This is finely engineered theatre !! dave

I entirely agree John, I only picked a P4 layout cause it jumped into my mind

well lets agree to disagree, If you look at large P4 layouts like Adavoyle etc , You see the whole panorama and its just " looks " right, The track flows and sweeps like the real thing, the details, while individually are not noticeable from any distance, nevertheless, add to whole look of the layout. Detail is always beneficial Dave

I think the successful existence of " proper " 00 trackwork , from C &L and SMP disapproves your argument. You are correct in relation to well laid and weathered FB PECO 75 , But , especially for steam era , well laid and weathered BH to 00 proportions will " look even better ". As for large layouts , any perusal of the larger P4 layouts will disprove your theory. Great looking track is just that. It's a funny perspective , never mind the rolling stock , but people will spend countless hours detailing model buildings , yet make little effort to make the track look right. To this end , RTL bull head WITH a range of suitable point work , will be an easy way to improve the look without too much effort and that's great Dave

C&L can of course , , for a few dollars more, satisfy that urge today

I think PECO have a fair bit of latitude in the price point. Given theres nothing out there to compare with , i.e. 00 timbering bullhead . They can certainly almost double the streamline pricing and still be competitive. whats rather strange, is the market is going to be very crowded, with potentially 4 suppliers of flexi 00 bullhead with improved timbering

Given what they. PECO , have tried to do with the bullhead offering, I fully expect they will improve the look of the points as well, maybe removing some of the visual clangers like the switch blades and the plastic check rail.. If they can do that and retain their legendary robustness , I think that will be great. I suspect , in order to differentiate this product line, they will make visual changes in the forthcoming point work, I would be surprised if they just duplicated the current H0 point work into 00. Dave

hey PECO , loads of people are considering p4 flexi,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

did the GWR ever do anything that other people did ????, I think the americans called this "cussedness", I mean they couldn't even use the same vacumn as everyone else on their brakes

OMG , dont let martin see them, he'll be building a 4'1"1/2 railway in your garden

1, check 2, check 3, naw,they will still throw rocks

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