Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[47137]

Perfectly logical, except I wondered why they have excluded BH, when they could say they have "Five" types of HO track?

The Peco BH looks a bit chunky with H0 trains. I'll make a guess, Peco will market it as a product specifically for the UK, and omit it from their advertising elsewhere. If I modelled French railways in H0, I'd look to SMP Scaleway for a more authentic appearance.

 

- Richard.

[Mike Storey]

The Peco BH looks a bit chunky with H0 trains. I'll make a guess, Peco will market it as a product specifically for the UK, and omit it from their advertising elsewhere. If I modelled French railways in H0, I'd look to SMP Scaleway for a more authentic appearance.

 

- Richard.

 

Sorry Richard, but you are wide of the mark. Peco have been advertising BH heavily in France, for the past six months or more (until the last editions, when they switched to the rest of their HO range). The three French model railway mags I regularly buy (or at least dip into when no-one is looking - they are flipping expensive here....) have gone overboard in article after article about about how good it is for secondary French (and some other) layouts, how to lay it and wire it etc, and a few layouts have already appeared that have used it.

 

SMP on the other hand, is completely unknown here to the locals. There is a much greater tendency for modellers to use Code 100 too, for modern mainlines at any rate, so the Peco BH does not look as chunky to them as it might do to you. (It doesn't to me either - as I will use it in sidings, alongside Code 83 main line track.)

 

Given that HO track is to scale for European mainland modellers, home made or kit built track is much rarer here, especially since Peco brought out Bi-Bloc and steel-sleepered track too. Peco's narrow gauge 009 is also very popular (in fact more readily available in my local purveyor of such things, Jouetec in Bordeaux), which is surprising given the number of alternatives much longer established here.

 

Another amazing fact is that the French mags have gone ape about the new release of British outline 0 gauge Peco wagon kits, with articles saying and showing how useful they will be for French secondary lines layouts, with only minor cosmetic changes. They are pushing 0 gauge quite hard here now (a new phenomenon to me) given there are some lovely French outline, reasonably priced locos already available, but up to now, only crazily expensive rolling stock to go with them. Stand by for new Peco 0 gauge track adverts......

 

Peco certainly seem to have a good nose for French (and wider) tastes (unless it is all a complete accident......). Perhaps Young Mr PPPritchard has a holiday home here? If so, why haven't I been invited over????

[47137]

I'm happy to accept my guess is wide of the mark; but I'll stand by my first and third sentences. The Peco sleepers are too broad and too far apart for a 1:87 application, be it in France or Britain. Hence "chunky". I don't write this as a criticism; rather it reflects the nature of the Peco BH range as a niche thing for the UK market.

 

If the French are buying it, this can do only good for continuing manufacture of the range, and maybe some expansion for more pointwork.

 

- Richard.

[Pacific231G]

I'm happy to accept my guess is wide of the mark; but I'll stand by my first and third sentences. The Peco sleepers are too broad and too far apart for a 1:87 application, be it in France or Britain. Hence "chunky". I don't write this as a criticism; rather it reflects the nature of the Peco BH range as a niche thing for the UK market.

 

If the French are buying it, this can do only good for continuing manufacture of the range, and maybe some expansion for more pointwork.

 

- Richard.

The sleepers may be slightly too broad in 1:87 scale for SNCF's current standard wooden sleeper size of 2600mm long x 250mm x 150mm high (the same dimensions as British sleepers)  but, according to an earlier text book on French railways, the breadth could be anything between 240- 300mm, possibly depending on the type of wood, As in Britain, sleeper lengths also used to  be a bit longer averaging about 2.7m  For new track SNCF went over to flat bottom fairly early on after it was formed in 1938 but though they were starting to turn to flat bottom, a lot of bullhead track had been laid by the previous companies  apart from the Nord and Est (and to some extent the PLM) so, particularlty on secondary tracks, might well have still been on older sleepers until quite late. 

 

The sleeper spacing, though long standardised by SNCF with FB rail for fast main lines at 60cms (Peco Streamline is well to scale for this in H0) was rather wider under double-champignon track and also varied considerably depending on the railway company, weight of rail and use. There were for example fewer sleepers under a goods yard siding than a main line. Because sleepers weren't equally spaced between rail joints they were usually expressed as the number of sleepers in a panel of track and these too came in different lengths.  Peco's sleeper spacing is therefore likely to be correct for quite a lot of track and no spacing would be universally to scale.   

 

I thought Peco's BH sleeper spacing was a bit closer than SMP's and I think SMP sleepers are a tad wider but in any case many French modellers have been quite happily using SMP track to represent double champignon for years so are unlikely to be anything but very pleased with Peco's latest offering.

 

I did wonder whether Peco pulling back a bit on its advertising of "double champignon" in French magazines may simply reflect very high demand from its British dealers taking up all the available production.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Pacific231G

[47137]

20 sleepers of Peco BH take 200 mm - this scales at 2'6" pitch for 00 which is just right if we ignore the closing up every 60 ft.

20 sleepers of SMP type J take 177 mm - this scales at 2'6" (just!) for H0.

 

For me (British prototype), SMP has the edge for H0 because the sleepers are solid and I can trim a bit off each end to represent 8'6" sleepers. The Peco track has a hollow under every sleeper which will show unless I hide it with ballast. But for a modeller of French railways wanting 2.7m sleepers at a wider spacing then the Peco BH does look rather good - especially with the matching turnouts.

 

- Richard.

[Mike Storey]

The sleepers may be slightly too broad in 1:87 scale for SNCF's current standard wooden sleeper size of 2600mm long x 250mm x 150mm high (the same dimensions as British sleepers)  but, according to an earlier text book on French railways, the breadth could be anything between 240- 300mm, possibly depending on the type of wood, As in Britain, sleeper lengths also used to  be a bit longer averaging about 2.7m  For new track SNCF went over to flat bottom fairly early on after it was formed in 1938 but though they were starting to turn to flat bottom, a lot of bullhead track had been laid by the previous companies  apart from the Nord and Est (and to some extent the PLM) so, particularlty on secondary tracks, might well have still been on older sleepers until quite late. 

 

The sleeper spacing, though long standardised by SNCF with FB rail for fast main lines at 60cms (Peco Streamline is well to scale for this in H0) was rather wider under double-champignon track and also varied considerably depending on the railway company, weight of rail and use. There were for example fewer sleepers under a goods yard siding than a main line. Because sleepers weren't equally spaced between rail joints they were usually expressed as the number of sleepers in a panel of track and these too came in different lengths.  Peco's sleeper spacing is therefore likely to be correct for quite a lot of track and no spacing would be universally to scale.   

 

I thought Peco's BH sleeper spacing was a bit closer than SMP's and I think SMP sleepers are a tad wider but in any case many French modellers have been quite happily using SMP track to represent double champignon for years so are unlikely to be anything but very pleased with Peco's latest offering.

 

I did wonder whether Peco pulling back a bit on its advertising of "double champignon" in French magazines may simply reflect very high demand from its British dealers taking up all the available production.

 

For sure, the extent to which the wooden sleepers of secondary lines in France have split, rotted and expanded, during years of neglect, is astounding. Our most local line, from Saintes to Niort via St Jean d'Angely, had the grottiest sleepers and track imaginable until late last year, when they replaced the lot over several weeks of closures. But prior to that, any imaginable deference to the original dimensions is futile.

[Fat Controller]

For sure, the extent to which the wooden sleepers of secondary lines in France have split, rotted and expanded, during years of neglect, is astounding. Our most local line, from Saintes to Niort via St Jean d'Angely, had the grottiest sleepers and track imaginable until late last year, when they replaced the lot over several weeks of closures. But prior to that, any imaginable deference to the original dimensions is futile.

I wonder who will be the first to model those rusty steel bands to be found holding the outer ends of most wooden sleepers together..

[Pacific231G]

I wonder who will be the first to model those rusty steel bands to be found holding the outer ends of most wooden sleepers together..

 

I don't know if they were the first but Decapod have offered them for 0 and H0

for quite some time. There was a good article on superdetailing track in Loco Revue no. 753 (April 2010) that made mention of them.

 

You can see them with both BH and FB track on these images of little used lines at Longué near Saumur and at Arques la Bataille near Dieppe that I took about ten years ago.

 

 

I'm not sure what proportion of wooden sleepers have ended up with them but certainly quite a few.

 

In H0 you could probably create a reasonable impression of them with something like an office staple but Decapod's brass etches of these frettes de traverses  (that's what they're called) are very detailed .

 

In H0 (catalogue ref 3220)  they're  €5.90 for an  etch with 350 (enough for 175 sleepers) of the things https://www.decapod....1500032209.html

In 0 scale (catalogue ref. 3307)  €7.90  for 210 of them (enough for 105 sleepers) .https://www.decapod....1500033077.html

 

They advise chemical browning of them to give the characteristic rusty finish and will sell you a bottle of the relevant chemical.

 

For detailing French track the Decapod website  http://www.decapod.fr is worth a look with everything from lineside telephones (ancient and modern) and kilometre posts to cosmetic eclisses (fishplates) and bornes de garage francs (fouling markers) 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

I used to sell (30 years ago) SMP to a local modeller in France. He went to a lot of effort to carve the sleepers to give that very irregular look that you get on French branch lines.

[PMP]

I used to sell (30 years ago) SMP to a local modeller in France. He went to a lot of effort to carve the sleepers to give that very irregular look that you get on French branch lines.

 

Any news on your competing product?

Edited May 31, 2018 by PMP

[martin_wynne]

Peco advert in July RM (page 610) says "Progress with bullhead slips and crossings - Design work for all 3 items now complete - tool design for the moulded parts is at an advanced stage." Plus a small CAD image of the double-slip.

 

Martin.

[RBAGE]

Excellent news. 

 

Any ideas whether the project might be finished before the very vague "end of the year" timing we've had so far?

 

Planning to start laying 20+ points and need 2 crossings.

[Pacific231G]

I used to sell (30 years ago) SMP to a local modeller in France. He went to a lot of effort to carve the sleepers to give that very irregular look that you get on French branch lines.

It's curious that Loco-Revue's revue of Peco 's Bullhead points in February edition was fairly critical of both the excessive width (for 1:87) of the sleepers and the relatively high price of about 40€ and thought the price in particular might limit their sales in France. Yet in April the only advert for Peco track was by LR Modelisme itself and that only included the "double-champignon"  plain track and turnouts.

The revue did mention that modellers wanting to evoque the chaired rail of the Ouest and Sud Ouest used SMP and C&L but these had not been widely distributed in France so were not easy to come by. The problem of sleeper width would have been no less with either but nobody outside P87 circles seemed to mind that too much.Members of the Dieppe club in particular have exhibited a good number of diorama modules with chaired track (all AFAIK SMP or C&L)  and, having seen them a good few times over the years, I must say that, when it's ballasted and weathered, OO bullhead doesn't look wrong. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Roy Langridge]

Peco advert in July RM (page 610) says "Progress with bullhead slips and crossings - Design work for all 3 items now complete - tool design for the moulded parts is at an advanced stage." Plus a small CAD image of the double-slip.

 

Martin.

 

I notice the use of the word "crossings" not "crossing".  I thought that they only planned the long crossing? If so, I wonder if this is now changed or is that a typo in your quote?

 

Roy

[RFS]

I notice the use of the word "crossings" not "crossing".  I thought that they only planned the long crossing? If so, I wonder if this is now changed or is that a typo in your quote?

 

Roy

 

But it does say "all 3 items".  Assuming single slip and double slip count as two items, that only leaves room for one more …..

[Skinnylinny]

I'd hope they're going to make more than one of each product number! Hence the use of "crossings", rather than "crossing".

Edited June 15, 2018 by Skinnylinny

[coachmann]

Assuming the double slip is 2' radius like the Code 75 and 100, I won't be laying such toy appearance stuff on any layout I build. The whole point behind some of us hoping Peco would adopt their own Code 83 geometry was becasue we looked ahead and considered the slips. 

[Pacific231G]

Assuming the double slip is 2' radius like the Code 75 and 100, I won't be laying such toy appearance stuff on any layout I build. The whole point behind some of us hoping Peco would adopt their own Code 83 geometry was becasue we looked ahead and considered the slips. 

I agree. The plain crossing will probably look OK but I was looking to include a Peco code 75 slip in a throat I was planning but when I set it up as a test rig, running H0 coaching stock over it looked absolutely dreadful. Even without a reverse curve buffers were practically at the other end of the opposite buffer beams and to my eyes the slip itself just doesn't look like real trackwork (Though to be fair I've seen some trackwork just outside Victoria Station that doesn't look like real trackwork either)

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

All the more perplexing as they made a decent job of the code 83 #6 double slip...

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[martin_wynne]

I notice the use of the word "crossings" not "crossing".  I thought that they only planned the long crossing? If so, I wonder if this is now changed or is that a typo in your quote?

 

Hi Roy,

 

It's not a typo, It's "crossings" in RM. However I think folks are failing to understand prototype terminology. A slip is a diamond-crossing with the addition of side slip roads. All 3 items can be referred to as "crossings".

 

Martin.

[Fluo66]

All 3 „crossings“ are shown in post #722 (page 29) of this thread.

[Pint of Adnams]

All 3 „crossings“ are shown in post #722 (page 29) of this thread.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127840-peco-bullhead-points-in-the-flesh/?p=3021045

[ThaneofFife]

the line 83 geometry is very nice and just about passes with modern mk3 coaches with minimum end swing (if space weren't an issue youd hand bulld to longer specs).  

[Joseph_Pestell]

All the more perplexing as they made a decent job of the code 83 #6 double slip...

 

post-238-0-86420300-1487767568.jpg

 

Are you sure that is 43" radius? It does not look it.

[Harlequin]

I think the Peco designers could retain the overall dimensions of the slip crossings while increasing the radii of the slip curves to ~915mm, I.e. "Medium" radius.

 

That would be quite a neat solution because the slips would still plug into the Streamline system in the same way as the Code 75/100 slips and crossing. They would almost be drop-in replacements except for the slightly increased width at the "neck" and new positions for tiebars.

 

Having said that, the tiny image in RM this month looks disappointingly like small radius...

Edited June 18, 2018 by Harlequin