H2O Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 Thanks Martin, very accurate figures. Did you assume a straight rail from the nose of the crossing? Without major surgery (and a very slim vice) I would only be able to straighten the diverging tracks beyond the end of the check rails, so perhaps 15mm away from the nose? Possibly a small change but every little helps! Figures for that mod would be welcome :-) To reduce the track spacing I realise I could just cut the diverging track back on both points, however this does not reduce the 'snake' effect as vehicles go over a crossing from one line to another and (more importantly for this idea) reduce the diverging angle from 12 degrees Peco standard to more like 10 degrees (hopefully) to better match the larger radius slips that are commercially available. The Peco slips are 12 degree to match the points and this leads to a comparatively sharp 24 inch radius curve on the slip which I'd like to avoid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 (edited) I think a practical example of such shortening is illustrated somewhere previously on this very thread. Good luck finding it... 42 pages of flim flam and a couple of useful pics buried somewhere... >edit< I set myself the challenge of finding the images showing the track mods to provide closer spacing. Here it is. Edited September 24, 2018 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 There may be some transposed figures in the post to which that link leads. I think 45mm track centres, rather than 54mm, are perfectly possible. Compare with: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127840-peco-bullhead-points-in-the-flesh/?p=2983311 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warnz23 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I find this topic amusing and frustrating. Amusing because here we have PECO releasing a track system with the promise of a full range of turnouts and accessories and people are whining about price, joining angles etc. Frustrating because we have had concrete sleeper track for decades, now have steel and bi-bloc to boot and only 2 turnouts to match since 2011. Seriously guys, be thankful that you're getting anything from this "forward looking and innovative" company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I find this topic amusing and frustrating. Amusing because here we have PECO releasing a track system with the promise of a full range of turnouts and accessories and people are whining about price, joining angles etc. Frustrating because we have had concrete sleeper track for decades, now have steel and bi-bloc to boot and only 2 turnouts to match since 2011. Seriously guys, be thankful that you're getting anything from this "forward looking and innovative" company. I rightly or wrongly under a completely different understanding, Firstly after years of many modellers complaining Peco seeing a serious competitor launched a 4 mm scale flexitrack with their take on bullhead rail. Then very quickly brought out a pair of turnouts. The latest undertaking is a series of crossings, which I believe are due out soon. As for a full range I have heard no rumors of further additions to the range. I am just an interested onlooker but would thing a set of turnouts with timbers inline with the straight road would be the next items in the range Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted October 9, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2018 I have two uses for this planned but both need straight timbers rather than at an angle like these points. How easy are they to straighten out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Probably nigh on impossible, though no doubt someone will prove me wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBAGE Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Probably nigh on impossible, though no doubt someone will prove me wrong Will someone pick up that gauntlet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Will someone pick up that gauntlet? Why ? other than to prove a point, which I guess would be that it takes longer to rebuild one than actually make one !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBAGE Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Why ? other than to prove a point, which I guess would be that it takes longer to rebuild one than actually make one !! For no other reason than you suggested that someone might pick it up had it been thrown down. Twice if you there is now a time constraint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I'm pleased enough that Peco have actually produced some basic points with bullhead rail of about the right size and without crowded matchsticks instead of adequately spaced timbers of a decent size.... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 9, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 9, 2018 I have two uses for this planned but both need straight timbers rather than at an angle like these points. Are you sure? They are bullhead turnouts -- equalized (skewed) timbers were quite common. They can't really be called wrong for any situation. Unless you are modelling a specific prototype turnout with square-on timbers? In which case 00 gauge with Peco geometry isn't going to come near it anyway. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 I'd never noticed equalized turnout timbers before - were they really that common? I can't find much on the web about this subject. They look bl00dy odd to my eyes... The LNER diagram book seems to have straight timbers, but who knows what was actually on the ground. Probably need to refer to this sort of document and photographs for more information. Anyway, I wish Peco hadn't produced the equalised timber version... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) In Peco's defense they look excellent when used in crossovers junctions etc, but I am with you thinking that whilst in some situations they are far better looking than square on to the main road it was far more common to be square on to the straight path A photo of Bodmin (with the exception of the chairs) the geometry is spot on with equalised timbering on a crossover Bodmin again, but turnout on the main line square on to the straight road which happens to be the main line My understanding was with single turnouts the timbering followed the main road, thus straight if the main line follows the straight path, if the mail line is on the curved road then equalised timbering used. However the crossover disproves this theory and what about sidings ? Perhaps Peco will bring a straight road out after the crossings ? Edited October 10, 2018 by hayfield 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2018 I'd never noticed equalized turnout timbers before - were they really that common? I can't find much on the web about this subject. They look bl00dy odd to my eyes... The LNER diagram book seems to have straight timbers, but who knows what was actually on the ground. 4191TB2lzXL.jpg Probably need to refer to this sort of document and photographs for more information. Anyway, I wish Peco hadn't produced the equalised timber version... I think we did this one on another thread (or perhaps earlier in this one). The conclusion, as I recall, was that equalized timbering was more common on the GW than on other railways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted October 10, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2018 Are you sure? They are bullhead turnouts -- equalized (skewed) timbers were quite common. They can't really be called wrong for any situation. Unless you are modelling a specific prototype turnout with square-on timbers? In which case 00 gauge with Peco geometry isn't going to come near it anyway. regards, Martin. Seen some pictures one site is BR (WR) the other closed in 1960s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 10, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2018 I think we did this one on another thread (or perhaps earlier in this one). Yes, this one, in detail -- http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/127840-peco-bullhead-points-in-the-flesh/page-22&do=findComment&comment=2942656 (On RMweb I seem to keep posting the same stuff over and over again.) In bullhead days equalized timbering was just as common as square-on. It depends on the track layout, the type of traffic over each road, and whether the pointwork was pre-fabricated in the p.w. yard or laid out on site by the local gang. For modelling, equalized timbering disguises the severity of the radius, and is much easier to arrange within junctions, connected to slips, etc. Slips and diamond-crossings are always equalized, even for modern flat-bottom. The only reason folks say it looks wrong is that we have al become familiar with modern flat-bottom track for running lines. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faa77 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Apologies if I have missed these throughout the thread, but does anybody have any photos of the bullhead points ballasted etc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alder Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Apologies if I have missed these throughout the thread, but does anybody have any photos of the bullhead points ballasted etc? Here is one of the points in my goods yard. 16 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faa77 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Here is one of the points in my goods yard. IMG_0334.JPG Great photo! Immediately I see the the chairs are prominent (something I previously used to distinguish between O and OO track). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going2theDogs Posted November 4, 2018 Share Posted November 4, 2018 (edited) Hi All, Thought I would share an image from my layout showing the Peco Bullhead points now that I have finished ballasting. Still have to add a bit more detail & may also complete a tade more weathering to the track work to tone it down. Hope you enjoy. Edited November 4, 2018 by CB Rail 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted November 5, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2018 Now also in EM Gauge via the EMGS: http://www.emgs.org/society-announces-ready-to-lay-em-gauge-track/ See also: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139084-emgs-commissions-peco-for-rtr-em-gauge-bullhead-trackturnouts/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 Now also in EM Gauge via the EMGS: http://www.emgs.org/society-announces-ready-to-lay-em-gauge-track/ See also: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139084-emgs-commissions-peco-for-rtr-em-gauge-bullhead-trackturnouts/ Sorry for being an old stick in the mud and forgetting about the gauge difference but the EM gauge offering with timbers square on to the straight road looks so much better with the exception of facing and trailing crossovers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted November 5, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2018 Sorry for being an old stick in the mud and forgetting about the gauge difference but the EM gauge offering with timbers square on to the straight road looks so much better with the exception of facing and trailing crossovers Surely, when Peco look at that EM turnout they must see that they missed a trick with the new OO bullhead? With proper geometry and track spacing, it just looks way better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 Sensible Electrofrog design too, rather than a fudge. I'm not worried about so called "proper geometry" as that varies in reality according to requirements of the site and has to be compromised in order to make model track fit the available space, but the timbers do look good. And it is definitely not 1st April. I'm amazed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now