Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Photo

Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

Peco bullhead points turnouts SL-U1189




  • Please log in to reply
598 replies to this topic

#576 hayfield

hayfield

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,624 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 10:37

Every layout I have built on this forum has used Peco Code 75 points and either C+L or SMP bullhead flexible track, all joined by standard Peco Code 75 rail joiners. However, Carrog in 00 uses Peco's new bullhead track with Code 75 flat bottom points. Convincing looking track is more about colouring than anything else.....

http://www.rmweb.co....g-in-00/page-48

 

Coachman

 

After watching your various layout incarnations, you are quite correct in that track which is well ballasted, painted and weathered does act to hide certain discrepancies. On the other hand well made trackwork can be visually ruined by poorly ballasting, painting and weathering. Most things are as good as their weakest link

 

The next thing is that I think we all see/remember colour differently, this is where artists come into their own, they have the gift at the same time of accentuating something, they are able to tone everything together, a true skill if not a gift

 

Of course looking either square on of from above 00 does look a bit narrow, I guess the trick is to take the eye away from this and good painting does create either an illusion or is it a distraction. To me the correct timbers size and nearer to scale spacing also adds to the illusion, but others may see it differently. Each to their own


  • Agree x 3
  • Like x 1

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#577 Pacific231G

Pacific231G

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,906 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 11:23

May I disagree with that statement. If other elements are convincing enough then the colouring adds realism but no matter how well painted some track would never look much like the real thing.

With regards to colouring I'm often not convinced that an overall colour is accurate - there seems to be lots of variation on the real thing. As has been said elsewhere recently a lot of the visual plausibility comes down to the viewing angle. For example, the way Chris Nevard shoots many of his images and the way he colours his track is utterly convincing, to me at least.

It's not just the way he shoots his images. I saw his latest layout using Code 75 FB points and BH track at Wycrail a few weeks ago and it was utterly convincing in the flesh as well as in my own far cruder photos. I think he was also using small radius points which should look far too short but in the context of an industrial yard didn't. (The whole question of longitudinal scale and compression in model railways is rather too a large can of worms to open in this thread).

Wycrail2017 052.jpg

 

There have by the way been a number of detailed articles in Loco-Revue about turning Code 75 Streamline into "hyper-realistic" H0 track (There will no doubt soon be similar articles in British magazines about doing the same with Peco's new bullhead track for OO) For plain track this was mainly about "distressing" the sleepers and spacing them out for secondary lines and sidings- the original spacing is about right for main lines- but for points, the things that seemed to make the greatest difference were replacing the plastic check rails with rail but above all replacing the rather obvious switch mechanism with a more discrete tie bar.   


Edited by Pacific231G, 07 December 2017 - 10:44 .

  • Like x 7
  • Thanks x 1
  • Agree x 1

#578 Chamby

Chamby

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 01 December 2017 - 11:42

There is no doubt that good colouring can disguise all sorts of anomalies to the casual observer.  A simple touch of the right colour paint can help quite obvious anomalies to blend in to the overall scene: for example painted wire connections soldered to the rail sides, in track and/or ballast colours as appropriate will camouflage even blobby soldering quite well.  (Yes I agree it is better to solder hidden droppers to the underside of the rails, but most people do seem to lay the track first before wiring up).

 

Code 75 bullhead rail, being of a narrower profile than both Code 75 and 100 FB rail, looks finer before you even start to add any cosmetic enhancement.  I have received many compliments about code 75 bullhead OO track that has just had the sleepers and rails painted, then carefully ballasted.... without any weathering of the ballast.  It just looks more delicate, to a finer standard.  Some people even ask if the trackwork is to EM scale, such is the effect!

 

I think this 'instant finer scale' look, together with the improved sleeper spacing, is the attraction for many people.

 

Phil.


  • Agree x 2
  • Like x 1

#579 Backtor

Backtor

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • LocationStaffordshire

Posted 01 December 2017 - 14:04

Thanks for all the help with the questions, at least I can start ordering some track now!

 

Many Thanks,

Cameron



#580 The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30,319 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 14:24

I think Peco really need someone to kick their kennel regarding their website. It’s appalling.

The sort of basic questions being asked in this forum, such as “can I join Code 75 bullhead track to the flat bottomed streamline rail” Should be on their list of FAQ’s by now. I would expect a raft of FAQ’s to help their customers get to understand this significant new development in their range.

The templates for the new points should be available as .pdf now. I know they are the same dimensions as the flat bottomed streamline.... but not everyone realises this. Peco have seen fit to publish templates of flat bottomed code 75 AND code 100 points which have the same basic layout, so why not add the new points with a different sleeper configuration?

Their whole website needs an overhaul IMHO. I trawled through nine pages of 00/HO products all lumped together searching in vain for anything to do with the new trackage system. They just don’t seem to have anything about it.

This is not a big ask, it’s just updating your website. Come on Peco, you can do better than this for your customers... and your own business!

 

Why get a new template?  OK so it's nice to have but as the footprint is exactly the same as the existing Code 75 large radius why not simply do what I did - a tiny bit of lateral thinking.  I downloaded the existing large radius templates and used them, and the new bullhead points matched them exactly once I'd got some to lay over the template - what could be simpler?


  • Agree x 2
  • Like x 1

#581 The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30,319 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 14:30

Yep, here's a mix of Peco CD75 points mixed with the new BH track and regular CD75 streamline, the pointwork is large radius set track and the large 'Y' points. Baseboard footprint 6ft x 18inches. 

https://albionyard.w...the-nation-pt2/

 

No problems mixing it, the rail height is the same between the two ranges, and Chris Nevard has also mixed CD75 points with the new BH track http://nevardmedia.b...-no-return.html

 

Peco are extending the range but haven't yet indicated what's next in crossings/slips or pointwork. I'll have a fiver on it not being shorter radius points

 

If what the chap I spoke to on their stand at the Warley Show is to be believed (and why shouldn't I believe him?) their bullhead rail attention is now directed to diamond crossings and slips.  (Which overall strikes me as a far more logical course than first looking at the smaller radius/shorter points.)


  • Agree x 10
  • Like x 3

#582 Chamby

Chamby

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 01 December 2017 - 14:55

Hi Folks,
 
has anyone tried to hack the points to reduce the track centres?
 
I'd rather try with the PDF templates from Peco first to get the cuts correct, rather than the real thing, but it would appear the templates haven't been uploaded to the Peco website yet,
 
Thanks
 
Andy

  

Why get a new template?  OK so it's nice to have but as the footprint is exactly the same as the existing Code 75 large radius why not simply do what I did - a tiny bit of lateral thinking.  I downloaded the existing large radius templates and used them, and the new bullhead points matched them exactly once I'd got some to lay over the template - what could be simpler?



Stationmaster, that is exactly what I did too. But Andy 53B makes a valid observation about the impact of sleeper position and rail cutting, and you have to admit that it is bizarre that Peco haven’t updated their website with any details about the new points. Especially since they felt it relevant to publish .pdf plans for both Code 75 and Code 100 points which have identical geometry and sleeper formation, so why not the bullhead points too?

Phil
  • Agree x 1

#583 BG John

BG John

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,083 posts
  • LocationWest Wales

Posted 01 December 2017 - 14:58

Once you've bought one, can't you put it on a scanner and print your own templates?


  • Agree x 3
  • Like x 1

#584 LNER4479

LNER4479

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,608 posts
  • Location51A

Posted 01 December 2017 - 15:27

Guys/Gals

 

Really interested in starting a project with these new style track, but I was just wondering if you can use the Bullhead with the Code 75? Or do they not fit together nicely? And has anyone tried it,

Code 75 and new bullhead track existing in harmony (as subsequently seen in action at Warley)

 

IMG_9916.jpg

I used standard code 75 joiners to attach the two together. Bit of an effort to get the joiner onto the bullhead but thereafter straightforward, big plus of course being that the sleeper thickness is consistent. At risk of pointing out the obvious:

 

Peco bullhead bottom left joins on to a Code 75 trap point; Peco bullhead ahead of the Ivatt 4MT joins on to a Code 75 Long Radius Left Hand; Peco bullhead bottom right joins (out of shot) onto Code 75 Med Rad Left Hand. No running problems encountered whatsoever.

 

Mainlines laid with code 75 to reflect flat bottom track with closer spaced sleepers in widespread use by mid-late 1960's; bullhead reserved for sidings. The contrast in styles works well (well, I think so!)


Edited by LNER4479, 01 December 2017 - 15:30 .

  • Like x 15

#585 Chamby

Chamby

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 01 December 2017 - 17:34

Code 75 and new bullhead track existing in harmony (as subsequently seen in action at Warley)

 

attachicon.gifIMG_9916.jpg

I used standard code 75 joiners to attach the two together. Bit of an effort to get the joiner onto the bullhead but thereafter straightforward, big plus of course being that the sleeper thickness is consistent. At risk of pointing out the obvious:

 

Peco bullhead bottom left joins on to a Code 75 trap point; Peco bullhead ahead of the Ivatt 4MT joins on to a Code 75 Long Radius Left Hand; Peco bullhead bottom right joins (out of shot) onto Code 75 Med Rad Left Hand. No running problems encountered whatsoever.

 

Mainlines laid with code 75 to reflect flat bottom track with closer spaced sleepers in widespread use by mid-late 1960's; bullhead reserved for sidings. The contrast in styles works well (well, I think so!)

 

 

Is that foam ballast I spy on the running lines?   :o


  • Like x 1

#586 55020

55020

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • LocationAberdeen

Posted 01 December 2017 - 18:14

So when are Peco going to produce finescale bullhead track with concrete sleepers??    :scratchhead:  :scratchhead:


  • Like x 2
  • Friendly/Supportive x 1
  • Funny x 1

#587 LNER4479

LNER4479

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,608 posts
  • Location51A

Posted 01 December 2017 - 18:53

Is that foam ballast I spy on the running lines?   :o

Yup.



#588 Pint of Adnams

Pint of Adnams

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • LocationSliding down wrong leg of trousers of time!

Posted 01 December 2017 - 19:20

  

Stationmaster, that is exactly what I did too. But Andy 53B makes a valid observation about the impact of sleeper position and rail cutting, and you have to admit that it is bizarre that Peco haven’t updated their website with any details about the new points. Especially since they felt it relevant to publish .pdf plans for both Code 75 and Code 100 points which have identical geometry and sleeper formation, so why not the bullhead points too?

Phil

Elsewhere (Parkside by Peco thread) I posted that Peco are working up the new website and so one might hope that so much that is currently missing - the last updates date back the best part of a year save for the Parkside holding page - might well appear with the new website in the near future. In the meantime the basic geometry of the code 75 template works, just that the timbers are in the wrong places.


  • Informative/Useful x 2

#589 The Stationmaster

The Stationmaster

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 30,319 posts

Posted 02 December 2017 - 11:31

So when are Peco going to produce finescale bullhead track with concrete sleepers??    :scratchhead:  :scratchhead:

 

That could be quite useful but I suspect lots of people wouldn't know the extent to which it was used 'back in the day' and oddly (from what I saw) most of it on the WR was on secondary and branch lines so it could be of real use to many modellers.

 

The real difficult one would be concrete pot sleepers but I doubt we;ll ever see that on an r-t-p basis and will just have to use 3-D printed pots and metal or plasticard strip for the steelwork.


  • Informative/Useful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#590 31A

31A

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,724 posts

Posted 02 December 2017 - 16:10

That could be quite useful but I suspect lots of people wouldn't know the extent to which it was used 'back in the day' and oddly (from what I saw) most of it on the WR was on secondary and branch lines so it could be of real use to many modellers.

 

The real difficult one would be concrete pot sleepers but I doubt we;ll ever see that on an r-t-p basis and will just have to use 3-D printed pots and metal or plasticard strip for the steelwork.

 

 

Although they do make 'Bibloc' track for the Continental market, which is similar in principle.



#591 martin_wynne

martin_wynne

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,752 posts
  • LocationWest of the Severn, UK

Posted 02 December 2017 - 16:55

That could be quite useful but I suspect lots of people wouldn't know the extent to which it was used 'back in the day' and oddly (from what I saw) most of it on the WR was on secondary and branch lines so it could be of real use to many modellers..

 

Chaired bullhead on concrete sleepers, on the now-closed Hartlebury - Bewdley section of the SVR in 1968.

 

1. GWR through bolts:

 

2_031551_430000000.jpg

 

 

2. BR(W) chair screws:

 

mount_pleasant_tunnel_july_1968.jpg

 

Martin.


Edited by martin_wynne, 02 December 2017 - 17:37 .

  • Like x 6
  • Informative/Useful x 3

#592 The Bigbee Line

The Bigbee Line

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,956 posts
  • LocationWatton

Posted 02 December 2017 - 17:00

There was a lot of concrete sleepered bullhead on the Ashford - Hastings line. The hammer blow at the joints lead to the end sleepers being replaced by wood. The 60’ rails were also welded into 120’s. A lot ended up in Sidings.
  • Informative/Useful x 2
  • Agree x 1

#593 Mike Storey

Mike Storey

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • LocationCharente Maritime, France

Posted 02 December 2017 - 20:12

Elsewhere (Parkside by Peco thread) I posted that Peco are working up the new website and so one might hope that so much that is currently missing - the last updates date back the best part of a year save for the Parkside holding page - might well appear with the new website in the near future. In the meantime the basic geometry of the code 75 template works, just that the timbers are in the wrong places.

 

That is good news. Their website is rarely useful, apart from the templates. The coding method for their track range even less so. Their "search" facility is practically useless.

 

Good job their actual products are so flaming good!


  • Agree x 5

#594 34theletterbetweenB&D

34theletterbetweenB&D

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,405 posts

Posted 02 December 2017 - 23:45

Do Hornby not supply flanged wheels as an alternative?

Which are a fat lot of good if the bogie doesn't pivot. You end up with a slightly long-wheelbase 4-8-0.

They have included a flanged wheelset in all the pacifics I have purchased. With a little hacking about to maximise sideplay I have fitted these flanged wheelsets and that limits the loco to a plain track minimum radius of about 30", and the Peco medium radius point. (They derail on Peco slips and small radius points, substitution radius of 24".)

 

I do a lot of viewing at track level, and lack of a flange, let alone a stationary wheelset with the tyre off the rail jars. The apologists for Hornby's bodge should remember that it would reduce costs to resume making all six or more coupled locos as functionally four coupled with flangeless wheels between: no need to hinge rods at all, there's a useful saving. Why should leading truck wheels have flanges either, they are not functionally required, and the frame can be cast integral with the chassis block? It's a slippery slope...


  • Agree x 3
  • Like x 1

#595 Michaelsutton1u

Michaelsutton1u

    Registered Member


  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:06

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 

Cheers guys.



#596 Chamby

Chamby

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts
  • LocationCornwall

Posted 05 December 2017 - 13:19

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 
Cheers guys.

I use a craft knife to slightly widen the gap between the ‘jaws’ of the fishplates, this makes them easier to slide on. I also find it best to hold the fishplates with a small pair of long nosed pliers when sliding them on.

One other thing you will find with the bullhead track, if you are using track fixing pins and a softer track bed such as woodland scenics foam, is that the rails can very easily pop out of the chairs whilst being pinned. I find it best to drill a 0.5mm pilot hole in the sleeper, and slightly countersink this hole before using pins to fix. A quick coat of sleeper grime and the pin then becomes almost invisible.
  • Like x 2
  • Informative/Useful x 1

#597 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,630 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 14:00

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 
Cheers guys.

It helps to use a small file to sharpen (taper) the rail web and lower part so that entry into the fishplate is eased. And if it is freshly cut rail to ensure there are no burrs.
  • Agree x 4
  • Like x 1

#598 Bernard Lamb

Bernard Lamb

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,684 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 14:40

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 

Cheers guys.

I would suggest sliding the fish plates on to one end of a prepared length of track while holding it at chest height and in good light.
Then as mentioned by Chamby ease out the gap. I do this just for the first mm or so to give a lead in. Any further then they can be too loose and fail electrically. I know you should use dropper wires and connect all joins in rails but I persist in being lazy. Then put the length of track into position, ensure that the four rail ends are in perfect alignment and slide the joiners across onto the fixed rails. Repeat as required. You will soon get the hang of it. I am working with SMP track and it works fine for me. Nor had a problem with other makes of track either including home made from rail and chairs.
Bernard
  • Like x 2

#599 gr.king

gr.king

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,601 posts

Posted Yesterday, 19:52

I note that the information card in the packet with the points suggests that for joining the new bullhead to the established flat-bottom code 75 the SL-110 rail joiners should be used. I've always thought that these look pretty huge even compared to the broad-footed FB rail, their length exaggerating the size, and I suspect they'll be even more of an eyesore in company with code 75 BH.
I realise that the new dedicated BH joiners with suggestions of bolt detail are available and are a mere 5mm long, and they should, with careful use, suit Peco-to-Peco code 75 BH rail joints.
After noting the discrepancy in rail section I found when joining SMP to Peco 75 BH, and the difficulty in making the "reasonably discreet" 9mm long SL-310 N-gauge rail joiners do a proper job (whereas they always work a treat for me if joining SMP to SMP) I've been thinking about other types of rail joiner I've used in the past. I remembered some of a similar size from many years ago, that did more than simply grip the foot of the rail, as the various Peco FB types do, and which actually extended a little up the sides of the main rail web. After a while, my local stockist ran out and (in pre-internet days) I simply switched to the nearest alternative that he had, the cruder Peco ones. Having now looked at the mighty internet I believe the type I used to use were the Minitrix 66525 connectors. They don't appear to currently be widely stocked in the UK and delivery from Germany seems to hugely overpriced, but if I can get some at reasonable cost at some time, I think these, gently tweaked with pliers, may do a better job of aligning and gripping joints between dissimilar makes of code 75 BH rail


Just to add to this, I've now measured up the rails in my SMP flexible track and the Peco points using the most suitable calliper I have. Allowing for a possible zero-error on the calliper, it appears that the main vertical web is around 0.4mm thick in the SMP rail and at least 0.55mm thick in the Peco rail. I think this emphasizes the likelihood that a rail-joiner / fishplate that grips only around the rail foot without any extension up the sides of the web (the basic Peco pattern) is likely to leave the head of the slimmer SMP rail with the ability to move from side to side if it is not otherwise braced. Obviously, the SMP rail is only likely to be loose enough to do that if a very short piece of flexible track with insufficient numbers of supporting chairs is in use, but the need to avoid this situation is something to remember.
  • Informative/Useful x 3








Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Peco, bullhead, points, turnouts, SL-U1189

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.