PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Budgie]

If anyone wants 1 in 10 points, Shinohara/Walthers make them.

 

See http://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Pointwork___HO__Code_83_DCC_ready.html#aSDG8884

[Ian_H]

B7 and C10 ... I've forgotten what these numbers and letters mean, can somebody provide a link please.

 

As for the B52 - Boeing B-52 Stratofortress - a strategic bomber, considerably larger than a B7 turnout but probably unable to carry a class 55 whereas the B7 would have little problem.

[LBRJ]

The letter eg C is related to the length of the switches

The number is the crossing divergence as a ratio IE 6 is a 1:6 ratio....

[Mike Storey]

For those who don't think any ideas posted on RMweb should be cleared with Peco first, these diagrams might be interesting.

 

I thought I would compare the amount of offset between vehicle bodies at the centre of a Peco Large Radius crossover, with that for a typical 00 prototypical B-7 crossover at 6ft way. These diagrams are for a coach body length of 65ft:

 

 

As you can see, there isn't a lot of difference between the two. That's because the vehicle is a similar length to the turnout in both cases. The difference in crossing angle doesn't have much effect. 

 

To get a much smaller offset it is necessary to use a turnout longer than the vehicle. This is a C-10 crossover, which is the smallest that would normally be used in passenger service:

 

 

As you can see, it is quite a bit longer.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Interesting comparison Martin, but for the Ready-to-Plonk fraternity, like me, there is no Code 83 #7 straight point available from Peco, only curved, which is why I (and I think a few others on here, who have agreed when I last referred) am using #8, which are 322mm long, about 40mm longer than your B7 template, and with a 7.5 deg angle, using a nom 67" radius. (Tillig, and maybe others do sell a straight Code 7, so perhaps your example is applicable there.) There is virtually no offset when an OO Mark 1 coach set runs through a Peco  # 8, much as with your C10, but about 40mm shorter.

[Clive Mortimore]

For those who don't think any ideas posted on RMweb should be cleared with Peco first, these diagrams might be interesting.

 

I thought I would compare the amount of offset between vehicle bodies at the centre of a Peco Large Radius crossover, with that for a typical 00 prototypical B-7 crossover at 6ft way. These diagrams are for a coach body length of 65ft:

 

 

As you can see, there isn't a lot of difference between the two. That's because the vehicle is a similar length to the turnout in both cases. The difference in crossing angle doesn't have much effect. 

 

To get a much smaller offset it is necessary to use a turnout longer than the vehicle. This is a C-10 crossover, which is the smallest that would normally be used in passenger service:

 

 

As you can see, it is quite a bit longer.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

2 x £32.30 that don't need assembling and from a company with a good track record of reliability or 2 x £57.00 that need assembling by me with a known variable reliability.

 

Difficult decision. :dontknow:

[martin_wynne]

2 x £32.30 that don't need assembling and from a company with a good track record of reliability or 2 x £57.00 that need assembling by me with a known variable reliability.

 

Difficult decision. :dontknow:

 

2 x £57.00 can be curved to any radius to fit your layout space. And a lot less than £57.00 once you get started and need only to re-order basic components. I'm not suggesting that you should do that if you don't want to, only that you should make informed comparisons.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

There is virtually no offset when an OO Mark 1 coach set runs through a Peco  # 8, much as with your C10, but about 40mm shorter.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Here you go, on a B-8 crossover:

 

 

Martin.

[BlackRat]

2 x £57.00 can be curved to any radius to fit your layout space. And a lot less than £57.00 once you get started and need only to re-order basic components. I'm not suggesting that you should do that if you don't want to, only that you should make informed comparisons.

 

Martin.

Any radius......?

 

Remember to many, 8'x4' is a generous space.........

 

So I can't see that somehow, unless I'm missing something!

[Regularity]

A B52 is any one of these, surely?

And a B7:

[martin_wynne]

Any radius......?

 

Remember to many, 8'x4' is a generous space.........

 

So I can't see that somehow, unless I'm missing something!

 

Here is a C-10 curved crossover fitted inside a board 4ft wide:

 

 

For 00-BF, 60mm track spacing for clearance, minimum radius 18" (which is very tight, but would be the same with any track in a 4ft width).

 

C-10 turnouts could be built like this without difficulty, after gaining a bit of experience in trackbuilding.

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

A B52 is any one of these, surely?

And a B7:

With the first pressing of the B52s first album you got a free Rock Lobster single, I still have both.

[BlackRat]

My point ( no pun) is the any radius bit, they can't be built to any radius can they......if the min is 18".

 

And like I said, for many 8 by 4 is generous.........drop that down to under 4' and you're struggling even with set track, but as set track outsells everything else then it's clear what most people out there are doing.

[Roy Langridge]

Had this directive been extended to model railways I am sure that HO at 3.5 mm to 30.48 centimetres and rigerously applied in the UK.

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0057:EN:NOT

Don’t get me going in that one. Some of what was initially planned was farcical. I has quite a heated argument with one of the EU Commissioners who has no idea of the costs of some of his proposals.

 

Roy

[Ravenser]

But a mainline loco will not run over it !! I would guess a small 0-6-0 tank loco would also struggle.

 

The DLR has always had a couple of diesel shunters for use in the depots - and that's where the really tight curves are. I would need to check the details , and I think 0-4-0s may have been involved, but I do remember seeing one very vintage 1950s industrial shunter - I think in Poplar depot.

 

(This is one case where rigid adherence to the prototype's minimum radius , and no compression, is  a very good idea... )

 

And 312s could certainly be very rough between Shenfield and Chelmsford

Edited October 18, 2017 by Ravenser

[martin_wynne]

My point ( no pun) is the any radius bit, they can't be built to any radius can they......if the min is 18".

 

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:

 

 

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

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

For those who don't think any ideas posted on RMweb should be cleared with Peco first, these diagrams might be interesting.

 

I thought I would compare the amount of offset between vehicle bodies at the centre of a Peco Large Radius crossover, with that for a typical 00 prototypical B-7 crossover at 6ft way. These diagrams are for a coach body length of 65ft:

 

 

As you can see, there isn't a lot of difference between the two. That's because the vehicle is a similar length to the turnout in both cases. The difference in crossing angle doesn't have much effect. 

 

To get a much smaller offset it is necessary to use a turnout longer than the vehicle. This is a C-10 crossover, which is the smallest that would normally be used in passenger service:

 

 

As you can see, it is quite a bit longer.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thanks for this Martin. It's probably heresy but I'm far more concerned about how a train looks as it passes over a crossover, preferably with the  corridor connections not offset by half their width,  than within reason the precise geometry of the points they're passing over.  

[LBRJ]

Why does the thread (about a new ready to use Peco product) keep on heading  into the minutiae of hand built track?

 

There is totally no reason for this to keep happening - the two things are not related 

[Regularity]

Thanks for this Martin. It's probably heresy but I'm far more concerned about how a train looks as it passes over a crossover, preferably with the  corridor connections not offset by half their width,  than within reason the precise geometry of the points they're passing over.

 

To paraphrase, look after the geometry and the corridor connections will look after themselves.

 

Or possibly the other way round...

[Regularity]

Why does the thread (about a new ready to use Peco product) keep on heading  into the minutiae of hand built track?

 

There is totally no reason for this to keep happening - the two things are not related

 

Well, they are.

Both are track.

And each addresses the shortcomings of the other: accuracy versus out-of-the-box robustness and ease of use.

 

To make an informed choice, it is necessary to be informed about the options and consequences of the choice.

[LBRJ]

Well, they are.

Both are track.

And each addresses the shortcomings of the other: accuracy versus out-of-the-box robustness and ease of use.

 

To make an informed choice, it is necessary to be informed about the options and consequences of the choice.

 

No this thread is supposed to be about the new product from Peco, not a free for all on track standards - That could easily be discussed in the million other threads on such matters.

[martin_wynne]

No this thread is supposed to be about the new product from Peco, not a free for all on track standards - That could easily be discussed in the million other threads on such matters.

 

It's not a free for all. It's a perfectly reasonable and friendly discussion about track, and where the new product from Peco fits into the track part of the hobby. Why on RMweb is there always someone who wants to put an end to a discussion? Why not just not read it if you are not interested?

 

Martin.

[LBRJ]

Who ever said  I wanted  to put an end to discussion? Certainly not I !

 

My point, and that of anyone sentient is that this thread is about a new product from Peco....not a discussion about whether it is 4 foot 1 or 4 foot 8 or whatever else....

 

Does the track work? is it better or worse than what went before? They are the sort of things 

[martin_wynne]

Does the track work? is it better or worse than what went before? They are the sort of things 

 

We will only know that when it is finally released. I suspect this topic will then change direction significantly. In the meantime we are just chatting generally about track-related matters. What exactly is the harm we are causing?

 

Martin.

[LBRJ]

There is no harm in it..

Bu being interested in the product the thread is supposed to be about it is slightly annoyin to see 20 new posts, read them and weep, cos its just "chat", generally stuff that has been gone over time and again before.

[martin_wynne]

But why is it annoying? That's the bit I don't get. You don't have to read it.

 

Martin.