PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[martin_wynne]

Also of course, stuff is not laid on here for people. The idea is that the content should be provided by people. If you want the discussion to go in a particular direction, make a post in that direction yourself and steer discussion towards it.

 

Martin.

[LBRJ]

Also of course, stuff is not laid on here for people. The idea is that the content should be provided by people. If you want the discussion to go in a particular direction, make a post in that direction yourself and steer discussion towards it.

 

Martin.

 

I have made several posts to the effect that THIS thread should be about PECO track, and not some half dreamed up nonsense.

[martin_wynne]

I have made several posts to the effect that THIS thread should be about PECO track, and not some half dreamed up nonsense.

 

But telling others what a topic should be about isn't directing it there yourself. If you want to steer the discussion back towards the new Peco turnouts, here are some subjects which you could post about:

 

1. the strength of the over-centre spring needed with solid switch blades.

 

2. the spacing and position of track pin holes.

 

3. the availability of foam ballast inlay.

 

4. the removal of end chairs to fit the fishplate-style rail joiners.

 

5. whether the metal check rails are live. This always improves running.

 

Martin.

[Ron Solly]

But telling others what a topic should be about isn't directing it there yourself. If you want to steer the discussion back towards the new Peco turnouts, here are some subjects which you could post about:

 

1. the strength of the over-centre spring needed with solid switch blades.

 

2. the spacing and position of track pin holes.

 

3. the availability of foam ballast inlay.

 

4. the removal of end chairs to fit the fishplate-style rail joiners.

 

5. whether the metal check rails are live. This always improves running.

 

Martin.

 

 

Good topics there Martin.

[Guest]

I think what is annoying some folk is that the endless and repetitive technical discussions about handbuilt track and the terminology used means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of folk that will buy these new Peco turnouts. As has been pointed out, if you're adept at handbuilding, why on earth would you be interested in the Peco product? Martin is quite correct that all viewpoints are valid, some of them are just more annoying than others. Personally, I'm not overly interested in handbuilt track although I do admire the work of those that know which is the hot end of a soldering iron... craftsmanship is craftsmanship. What is undeniable is that it's ridiculously hard to find any facts in this thread amongst all the pages and pages of speculation.

[martin_wynne]

What is undeniable is that it's ridiculously hard to find any facts in this thread amongst all the pages and pages of speculation.

 

Hi Pete,

 

But that's because there aren't any facts until the product is released -- beyond what anyone can find in the Peco announcements without coming here. We can't even be sure that the pre-production photos will match the finished product.

 

Also, the recent posts about comparison with B-7 turnouts is not specifically about hand-built track. DCC Concepts have said that they will be introducing RTR B-7 turnouts to go with their flexible bullhead track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[ThaneofFife]

The Peco #8 also works very well with the longer Mk3 coaches not just Mk1's.  Its probably about the minimum length you'd want for a convincing looking transition with Mk3's.  All comes down to available space.  

Edited October 19, 2017 by ThaneofFife

[Joseph_Pestell]

Sure, they can be built to any radius. Whether anything would run round them is up to you. By minimum 18" I meant that was the smallest radius anywhere within it, in order to fit within a 4ft baseboard width. You can go tighter if you want to, like this:

 

c10_curved.png

 

C-10 turnout in 00. 6" radius in the outer track.

 

Martin.

 

This could be useful for the cakebox challenge!

[PMP]

Hi Pete,

 

But that's because there aren't any facts until the product is released -- beyond what anyone can find in the Peco announcements without coming here. We can't even be sure that the pre-production photos will match the finished product.

 

Also, the recent posts about comparison with B-7 turnouts is not specifically about hand-built track. DCC Concepts have said that they will be introducing RTR B-7 turnouts to go with their flexible bullhead track.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

This is utter buffoonery.

 

Accurate facts about these products have been placed on here by myself and at least two others pretty much since the announcement.

 

There's a review of the product in the November Railway Modeller that you have copied images from onto this thread. Simple question for you because it looks like we have to go back to basics as your communication skills for whatever reason aren't setting the world alight, which is why people are clearly getting     annoyed with you (again) ;

 

Why would the Railway Modeller do a product review on an item, that doesn't 'match the finished product'?

 

 

 

The discussion of curved C10's C5's or even C sick Steve's is irrelevant as the people who buy this product aren't going to make them, and crucially neither are Peco.

 

No one wants to stop discussion on different types of track or pointwork or show pictures of things that manufacturers aren't going to make, its just this isn't really the place to do it.

 

There's a perfectly good thread on imaginary track manufacturing here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/ On that thread you can talk to a manufacturer who isn't going to make the track you want as well, not that he won't make the track to your ideal geometry they're clearly open to just the sort of discussion you'd like to have and revel in it. He just won't make the track.

 

Alternatively start a new discussion here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/160-handbuilt-track-templot/  it appears to be a place for just this type of content.

 

If discussing the DCC track then theres opportunities to discuss their product and the geometry here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110254-dcc-concepts-oo-gauge-bullhead-turnouts/page-1

 

Just a thought.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is utter buffoonery.

 

Accurate facts about these products have been placed on here by myself and at least two others pretty much since the announcement.

 

There's a review of the product in the November Railway Modeller that you have copied images from onto this thread. Simple question for you because it looks like we have to go back to basics as your communication skills for whatever reason aren't setting the world alight, which is why people are clearly getting     annoyed with you (again) ;

 

Why would the Railway Modeller do a product review on an item, that doesn't 'match the finished product'?

 

 

 

The discussion of curved C10's C5's or even C sick Steve's is irrelevant as the people who buy this product aren't going to make them, and crucially neither are Peco.

 

No one wants to stop discussion on different types of track or pointwork or show pictures of things that manufacturers aren't going to make, its just this isn't really the place to do it.

 

There's a perfectly good thread on imaginary track manufacturing here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/ On that thread you can talk to a manufacturer who isn't going to make the track you want as well, not that he won't make the track to your ideal geometry they're clearly open to just the sort of discussion you'd like to have and revel in it. He just won't make the track.

 

Alternatively start a new discussion here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/160-handbuilt-track-templot/  it appears to be a place for just this type of content.

 

If discussing the DCC track then theres opportunities to discuss their product and the geometry here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110254-dcc-concepts-oo-gauge-bullhead-turnouts/page-1

 

Just a thought.

 

He still might!

 

But it's only sensible to take stock of what is happening elsewhere. No-one thought, when I launched that thread, that Peco would go for a BH option.

[Ron Solly]

This is utter buffoonery.

 

Accurate facts about these products have been placed on here by myself and at least two others pretty much since the announcement.

 

There's a review of the product in the November Railway Modeller that you have copied images from onto this thread. Simple question for you because it looks like we have to go back to basics as your communication skills for whatever reason aren't setting the world alight, which is why people are clearly getting     annoyed with you (again) ;

 

Why would the Railway Modeller do a product review on an item, that doesn't 'match the finished product'?

 

 

 

 

 

without having the RM to read, does the  review go into the actual specifications of the new turnout?

[Clive Mortimore]

without having the RM to read, does the  review go into the actual specifications of the new turnout?

Hi Ron

 

I know I have mentioned extracts from the review and will do again. The points are the same size as the existing large points in both the code 100 and code 70 ranges, with Pecos unprototyical 12 degree cross angle. Therefore you can use the same templates when planning your layout. The plastic moulding is different as the timber spacing and rail fixings are a closer representation to British bullhead practice in 1/76th scale set to 00 gauge. The other big changes are, continuous closure rails and blades, improved appearance at the toe end of the point which has resulting in the elimination of the well know Peco feature of being able to attach their point motor directly to the point and the much discussed unifrog. It has all the features we modellers have asked for while maintaining the same footprint of the existing range

[chris p bacon]

There's a review of the product in the November Railway Modeller that you have copied images from onto this thread.

 

Simple question for you because it looks like we have to go back to basics as your communication skills for whatever reason aren't setting the world alight, which is why people are clearly getting     annoyed with you (again) ;

 

The issue I have with RM 'reviewing' Peco products is they always read more like a advert, I'd prefer to wait until another mag looks at them.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Andy Y

[Ron Solly]

Thanks Clive, I was wondering if they gave actual figures of flangeway dimensions, etc  similar to what I have read regarding loco reviews of  dimensions and technical details.

[Guest]

There's a perfectly good thread on imaginary track manufacturing here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/ On that thread you can talk to a manufacturer who isn't going to make the track you want as well, not that he won't make the track to your ideal geometry they're clearly open to just the sort of discussion you'd like to have and revel in it. He just won't make the track.

 

But it's only sensible to take stock of what is happening elsewhere. No-one thought, when I launched that thread, that Peco would go for a BH option.

 

It's been known since January 2014 (good grief - that's nearly 4 years ago) that Peco were working on something...

 

This is the letter that I received back from Peco, also posted over on Joseph's thread, dated 6th January 2014...

 

Thank you for your letter regarding a more prototypical OO track range. We have looked at this on a number of occasions and we haven’t seemed to have been able to come up with compromise that keeps enough people happy. We have, in the meantime, been working on making efficiencies with our tool making that could allow us to make more specialist track efficiently. So we are actually in the process of drawing up some plain track with the correct sleeper spacing. We will have to see where this leads... but I am hopeful we can achieve a satisfactory compromise.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to write and if we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ben Arnold

Engineering and Development Director

Pritchard Patent Product Co Ltd.

[PMP]

The issue I have with RM 'reviewing' Peco products is they always read more like a advert, I'd prefer to wait until another mag looks at them.

The review is no different in style/content to most reviews they do.

 

I don't read any favouritism in the review, and they do point out older stock may not be suitable due towheel width and flange depth, and some of the other factors regarding the unifrog element of the design.

[Coryton]

Hi Ron

 

I know I have mentioned extracts from the review and will do again. The points are the same size as the existing large points in both the code 100 and code 70 ranges, with Pecos unprototyical 12 degree cross angle. Therefore you can use the same templates when planning your layout. The plastic moulding is different as the timber spacing and rail fixings are a closer representation to British bullhead practice in 1/76th scale set to 00 gauge. The other big changes are, continuous closure rails and blades, improved appearance at the toe end of the point which has resulting in the elimination of the well know Peco feature of being able to attach their point motor directly to the point and the much discussed unifrog. It has all the features we modellers have asked for while maintaining the same footprint of the existing range

 

Genuine question: were people asking for the self-isolating feature of current Peco points to be dropped?

[coachmann]

I think what is annoying some folk is that the endless and repetitive technical discussions about handbuilt track and the terminology used means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of folk that will buy these new Peco turnouts. 

This is the nub of the problem that has existed on RMweb ever since the forum ceased to be a forum to attract railway modellers (people who build things). People who are almost wholly dependent on RTR have flooded in because that is what the new owners of the site wanted. Off-the-shelf collectors who dont like the idea of railway modellers discussing things outside of their planet of knowledge will just have to get used to the fact that railway modellers were here first and they do tend to discuss things that are of interest to them.  Just as those of us who took the decision to stay with RMweb after Warners bought the site have adapted  to seeing bucket loads of wish lists and regular moaning about RTR detail, prices and late deliveries.

 

To those who have joined recently, I would urge them to settle down and get used to the working of this forum before jumping in with heavy boots telling all and sundry how they should be behaving.

Edited October 19, 2017 by coachmann

[Guest]

There's a review of the product in the November Railway Modeller...

 

That was my whole point about "facts". If the product has been reviewed and, according to some sources, will be imminently available, then obviously there are facts available. These "facts" are getting lost in this thread.

Despite Railway Modeller's close ties with Peco, I find it inconceivable that they will have reviewed something that differs from what will be shortly be available to purchase...

[PMP]

He still might!

I'll wager a sum of money, to be donated to charity, money to be held by Warners until a nominated date that this doesn't happen.

 

So, you didn't reply to my earlier question of where you are in the production http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107569-peco-announces-bullhead-track-for-oo/?p=2885194

 

What is the status of your 'moving towards production'

 

Will it be released before the DMU's?

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124041-class-175-180-in-4mm-rtr/

[Guest]

This is the nub of the problem that has existed on RMweb ever since the forum ceased to be a forum to attract railway modellers (people who build things).

 

Absolute nonsense.

[PMP]

Genuine question: were people asking for the self-isolating feature of current Peco points to be dropped?

Part of the concept is to roll unifrog out across the Peco ranges, thus reducing manufacturing costs, and stock holding for both the manufacturer and retailers.

Both parties will only need to stock one range that's dual purpose, rather than two ranges. My understanding is this is across all new pointwork and when old point tooling requires replacement or upgrading.

[coachmann]

Absolute nonsense.

You could be right of course. Only Andy Y knows why he set up RMweb, but at a time when forums were being set up for all sorts of hobbies and interests, I assumed when i joined RMweb in 2007 that it was a forum for railway modellers.  I would not have joined a forum that only discussed RTR and no one built anything.  Why would I?

Edited October 19, 2017 by coachmann

[Guest]

I would not have joined a forum of box openers. Why would I?

 

...it's your constant belittling of those of us who can't fold a sheet of brass or use a lining pen that I find rather insulting. What was it you called Hornby Magazine recently? The "Box-opener's Beano", that was it. You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion (as am I), but just get down off your high horse once in a while.

[coachmann]

...it's your constant belittling of those of us who can't fold a sheet of brass or use a lining pen that I find rather insulting. What was it you called Hornby Magazine recently? The "Box-opener's Beano", that was it. You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion (as am I), but just get down off your high horse once in a while.

I would never get down to your level pal.  People need to get it into their heads that railway modelling and opening  boxes of RTR are two distinctly different hobbies. It is alright you waffling, as you often do, but what exactly do you contribute to this forum? 

Edited October 19, 2017 by coachmann