Jump to content
 

Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh


AJ427
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

I don't know, I didn't label the image... but Hattons lists the #6 turnouts as 1092mm, which is 42.99 inches.

 

Technically, US turnouts don't have a radius as the diverging route is not a continuous curve.  

Edited by Dr Gerbil-Fritters
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Peco Code 83 No.6 point has a nominal radius of 1092mm and an angle of of 9.5. The diamond is also 9.5 to create a double junction etc. So the double slip is based based on the diamond and is also 9.5.  

 

Peco Code 75 points overlaid on top of Peco Code 83 to show the different angles....

post-6680-0-61323800-1529314329.jpg

post-6680-0-61323800-1529314329.jpg

Edited by coachmann
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Peco Code 83 No.6 point has a nominal radius of 1092mm and an angle of of 9.5. The diamond is also 9.5 to create a double junction etc. So the double slip is based based on the diamond and is also 9.5.  

 

Peco Code 75 points overlaid on top of Peco Code 83 to show the different angles....

attachicon.gifWEB Peco 75 & 83 angles.jpg

A few years ago, Peco announced "extra-long" finescale electrofrog points, which were to have had the same shape and geometry as the US No. 8 points but with UK pattern sleepers. After a couple of years, these were quietly dropped.

 

If you want really long scale Peco-compatible finescale points (and have deep pockets and an understanding financial department, and plenty of room on your layout) check out Weinerts "Mein Gleis" (= "my track") points. They use Peco rail and rail height, with continuous blades, but have German double-sleepers: The main page for Weinert's "Mein Gleis" system is at www.mein-gleis.de; for the flyer, go to https://weinert-modellbau.de/ and click on "Mein-Gleis-Flyer 2017" at the top right. Many accessories also available (like brass check-rail chairs for continuous check rail or embedded track).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What of course would be really nice would be of Peco would re-jig the rest of the finescale points with continuous blades like the new bullhead points.

Not sure that would work for Turnouts with the shorter radii... the bullhead rail has a narrower profile than FB so flexes more easily.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Peco Code 83 No.6 point has a nominal radius of 1092mm and an angle of of 9.5. The diamond is also 9.5 to create a double junction etc. So the double slip is based based on the diamond and is also 9.5.  

 

Peco Code 75 points overlaid on top of Peco Code 83 to show the different angles....

attachicon.gifWEB Peco 75 & 83 angles.jpg

 

But there's that weasel word "nominal" again. Peco's large radius points are 5' "nominal" radius but have been shown to be much less than that in reality. I suspect the same is true of the Code 83 double slip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's that weasel word "nominal" again. Peco's large radius points are 5' "nominal" radius but have been shown to be much less than that in reality. I suspect the same is true of the Code 83 double slip.

You are missing the point Joe. Trains diverge from the straight at a 'slimmer' angle and so they look more satisfactory and prototypical. It is self evident from my photo that the Code 83 large radius point has a longer sleeker curve than the Code 75. 

Edited by coachmann
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You are missing the point Joe. Trains diverge from the straight at a 'slimmer' angle and so they look more satisfactory and prototypical. It is self evident from my photo that the Code 83 large radius point has a longer sleeker curve than the Code 75. 

 

Larry, that I totally agree with. I was amazed that Peco thought it a good idea to stick to 12 deg for the new 00 range.

 

And while the #6 slip doubtless has quite a tight radius curve, it will still be a whole lot better than the Code 75 BH slips shown in those pics.

 

I was merely commenting on the radius as claimed by a previous poster.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peco was obviously in a cleft stick. If it copied the Code 83 geometry it is more prototypical but cannot be a drop in replacement for code 75. By sticking to the existing geometry it presumably hopes to sell to those upgrading existing layouts; which can be done progressively for those on tight budgets.

 

I'm sure this was discussed at great length in the boardroom. I do not envy Peco it's dilemma but the decision was probably financially risk based - as many commercial decisions are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Larry, that I totally agree with. I was amazed that Peco thought it a good idea to stick to 12 deg for the new 00 range.

 

And while the #6 slip doubtless has quite a tight radius curve, it will still be a whole lot better than the Code 75 BH slips shown in those pics.

 

I was merely commenting on the radius as claimed by a previous poster.

 

We're still waiting to see your alternative, or even a CAD of them.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/?p=2135258

I'm sure myself and a few others would be more than happy to purchase your product, in addition to the excellent Peco items currently, and soon to be, available

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still waiting to see your alternative, or even a CAD of them.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/?p=2135258

I'm sure myself and a few others would be more than happy to purchase your product, in addition to the excellent Peco items currently, and soon to be, available

 

I'm sure you would have seen them and parted with your money by now if they were available.    The guy will soon announce them if that is his intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm sure you would have seen them and parted with your money by now if they were available.    The guy will soon announce them if that is his intention.

 

If they are as good as the Peco versions I almost certainly would, depending on radii, the same with the DCC concepts pointwork.  I've already got some of the Peco points and track in stock for the next layout and have already used the plain track, see below.

 

post-68-0-50549000-1530353855_thumb.jpg

 

What I can't use, is products that don't exist.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are as good as the Peco versions I almost certainly would, depending on radii, the same with the DCC concepts pointwork.  I've already got some of the Peco points and track in stock for the next layout and have already used the plain track, see below.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_0792.JPG

 

What I can't use, is products that don't exist.

 

 

Firstly can I congratulate you on your track laying skills, which from the photo supplied looks stunning

 

As for the point about alternative turnouts the costs of making even a small selection available is astronomically expensive, as well as Joseph's proposition DCC Concepts had a system on the drawing boards, added to this there have been a couple of modellers experimenting with 3D printing. It seems that as soon as Peco showed its intention the two former proposals ceased.

 

Given the interest in both EM and P4 gauges has never tempted anyone to provide any turnouts and crossings where there is no competition, I doubt if anyone will will enter the fray. What may happen is that some enterprising 3D designer will provide turnout and crossing bases, leaving the modeller to prepare and fit the rails 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Sorry Martin, showing my ignorance, but what are RAM and CLM? Those appear to be about halfway between a #4.5 and a #5 crossing. 

 

Hi David,

 

Yes they are. The difference between CLM and RAM makes almost no difference in modelling. But if I don't put both, someone is sure to jump in with a "correction".

 

The difference is in the way the unit angles are defined and measured.

 

RAM = Right Angle Measure = Templot default and some Continental European prototypes:

 

ram_angle_diagram.png

 

RAM unit angles are traditionally used by modellers because they correspond with normal engineering practice and are easily set out with dividers -- all RAM measurements are either along the rail or at right-angles to it. Templot uses RAM unit angles by default for this reason.

 

 

CLM = Centre Line Measure = most USA and UK prototypes:

 

clm_angle_diagram.png

 

CLM measurements are made along an imaginary centre-line between the vee rails, and at right angles to that centre-line. Neither measurement is along the rail. It's easy to do on the ground with gauging tools which fit across the rails, but more difficult on a drawing board. CLM unit angles are used because the rules-of-thumb formulae which are used by the p.w. gang when setting out pointwork on the ground are simplified, and produce closer approximations to the true mathematical result.

 

Nowadays with everything done on computers there is no real need for unit angles, we could work directly in degrees or radians. But tradition dies hard and the unit numbers are brain-friendly and easy to remember.

 

To convert the unit angles to degrees, for unit angle N:

 

CLM degrees = 2 x ARCTAN ( 1 / ( 2 x N ) )

 

RAM degrees = ARCTAN ( 1 / N )

 

So for 1:5 crossings (#5 frogs):

 

CLM = 2 x ARCTAN(1/10) = 11deg 25min 16.27sec

RAM = ARCTAN(1/5) = 11deg 18min 35.76sec

 

Note that for increasing N (flatter angles) the difference between CLM and RAM diminishes. For modelling purposes the difference in angle is insignificant, but it can make a detectable difference to the length of a turnout. Try swapping from RAM to CLM in Templot to see the slight difference.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Martin. A very clear explanation. I'd got used to the French, or at least the SNCF, system of quoting crossing anges as tangents ranging (before high apeed lines) from 0.167  (1:6) to 0.034 (1:30) I'd always assumed these were based on a nominal right angle triangle so RAM  but am now not quite so sure. However they did have just six standard crossing angles and three switch angles (18 minutes, 25 minutes and one degree)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Firstly can I congratulate you on your track laying skills, which from the photo supplied looks stunning

 

As for the point about alternative turnouts the costs of making even a small selection available is astronomically expensive, ::SNIP

 

 

Thank you John (hayfield), I am very much the type of person that these OO track products are aimed at, having built my first layout in EM using K&L individual components. I don't mind track building but its not my real enjoyment, so having swapped primarily from EM to OO these products are of interest.

 

I am aware of the significant cost of the tooling and complexity for these products, so the proposal in the previous mentioned thread (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/page-57&do=findComment&comment=2135258 ) for a range kicking off with a minimum of 8 items in the range, was pretty unrealistic then, with no CADS or EP's evident, and I'd suggest even more so now.

 

At Warley last year the DCC points were still as I understand from the conversation I had with Richard, in tooling. It seems odd that a person so close to starting manufacturing his range of eight products isn't cracking on with such an open goal, rather than suggesting a manufacturer with an existing product in the market place, does it differently.

 

Its a money, mouth, placement thing, as I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are at the start of a new chapter as far as what may be available within the next few years with 3D printing, I guess its just over 30 years ago paper printers were available for home computing, these were expensive and only in Black ink, we have had a situation of cheap colour printers for over 20 years with scanning and faxing abilities.

 

My own view is. On commercial terms I don't think we are far off having machines which can print turnout and crossing bases where simple assembly can be done either by the supplier or customer. Software wise its a simple step to be able to offer a large range of sizes and chair type, not forgetting gauge options. In the future no doubt these machines will be available for home use at reasonable prices. It may also be an option in the future to be able to print the rails in a material which is electrically conductive !!

 

Experiments are on going with a few modellers making great steps towards this being available. The first hurdle is the printing costs, then finding the right material which retains the detail whilst being both robust and flexible whilst allowing parts to be fused together. One modeller has come very close to this option, but sadly has gone off in a slightly different tangent

 

I can foresee in the near future a modeller will be able to order a RTR  turnout not only in the size they require but specify which type of chair is used. Look at the quality of Modelu's products

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think we are at the start of a new chapter as far as what may be available within the next few years with 3D printing, .....

 

I can foresee in the near future a modeller will be able to order a RTR  turnout not only in the size they require but specify which type of chair is used. Look at the quality of Modelu's products

I think this will only be an interim short term offering, not a sustainable business model. It is more likely that you and I will be able to download and print our own customised trackwork, using our personal desktop 3D printers. Imagine something like a very user-friendly templot... then just pressing the ‘print’ button.

 

And it won’t be just trackwork either. Stock, buildings, signals, scenic components... the list will be endless. The business model is already being developed with downloadable and printable card models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the still the 'small' matter of bending the rails, making the 'V' and filing down the switch blades, attaching a switch bar and inserting the lot into the 3D plastic chair base. Then there is the problem of fragility unless the bullhead rail is held at strategic points by metal 'staples'.  All this filing & forming has to be done regardless of the form of construction, yet from my experiences of many years ago, the easiest bit was soldering the rail to the copper-clad sleepers!

Edited by coachmann
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...