The Bigbee Line Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 If the wheelset was dropping into the crossing when running in a facing direction then the nose of the crossing would be battered. Examination of most crossings will show little contact. In older pointwork without blocks and bolts on the checkrails, there was flex in work track to allow slight side contact. This showed as a chamfer. I will try to get some pictures tonight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Godfrey Glyn Posted October 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) I am surprised to hear you describe the Desiro's as 'slightly better than a dusty bin'. The WCMLs 350s are quite nice, especially the 350/1 & 350/3 with 2+2 seating. These 2 sub-classes are 110mph units too. I am sure that they also let 350/2's loose when they cover the 110mph services because they don't arrive any later. Who said Bullhead is not modern image? Euston still has some but I think only in the 2 stabling sidings between platform 15 & 16. Soon after I retired and became able to get a Senior Railcard I bought a 7-day Railpass and one of my trips involved a trip down the WCML on a 350. I noticed that the ride was far more comfortable than I was used to in a 450 on the lines out of Waterloo. I put this down to the quality of the track, or is it that the suspension of the two 'types' is tweaked in different ways? Godfrey Edited October 11, 2017 by Godfrey Glyn 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted October 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) Almost an ad for out of the box modelling, thick black sleepers, they almost look like streamline points with the wee boxes beside them? even the class 20 and the first 5 tanks could be done RTR- the last tank looks to have been sloppily filled though lol flickr.com/8223/8262301158_c1f8b7a8cf_b.jpg Edited October 11, 2017 by Russ (mines a pint) 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBRJ Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Almost an ad for out of the box modelling, thick black sleepers, they almost look like streamline points with the wee boxes beside them? even the class 20 and the first 5 tanks could be done RTR- the last tank looks to have been sloppily filled though lol flickr.com/8223/8262301158_c1f8b7a8cf_b.jpg Is that at Fort William? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Soon after I retired and became able to get a Senior Railcard I bought a 7-day Railpass and one of my trips involved a trip down the WCML on a 350. I noticed that the ride was far more comfortable than I was used to in a 450 on the lines out of Waterloo. I put this down to the quality of the track, or is it that the suspension of the two 'types' is tweaked in different ways? Godfrey Good to hear it was not my imagination then. You would think that there are standards for tracklaying & the bogies/suspension for the 2 types would be the same....yet there seems to be a difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2017 Good to hear it was not my imagination then. You would think that there are standards for tracklaying & the bogies/suspension for the 2 types would be the same....yet there seems to be a difference? The SWML is notorious for poor track, so I imagine the units themselves are not to blame. Some drivers complain about back-ache just from driving over it. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 As promised some images of a crossing nose Movements away from the camera are 'facing' and there are no signs of contact. Movements towards the camera are 'trailing' and you can see where metal is migrating on either side of the top of the nose, forming a lip. On mainline crossings you can see where the crossing noses on manganese steel crossings have been repaired by welding and grinding to return the profile to an acceptable standard (I am no expert on this and I am sure there are stringent standards for the dimensions to be achieved and the processes to achieve this). Regarding the various 'bangs and bumps' noted. The degree of movement for your posterior to register a 'bump' is actually quite small. You feel the impact. Impacts caused by wheel defects can be the result of deformities of a depth of a few millimeters, so a wheel, if it were able to drop into a crossing gap, would have you out of your seat and across the coach. I think these 'bad patches' could be voids under the track or badly aligned joints. Anyway an interesting subject... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 My copy of the Modeller has just dropped through the letterbox; it includes a review of the first of the new BF points including four photographs and comments on the Unifrog arrangement. There is also a full page separate article which explains the principles and how the Unifrog points can be used. The RRP for the new point is £32.50. I can understand why they have followed the geometry of the code 75 FB track but I agree with the comment made earlier by Coachman that their Code 83 gives a more realistic flow to the track and to the running of a train through the points. Still a really good development in my opinion and I am looking forward to buying some in the very near future. All the best Godfrey I'm somewhat surprised that there has been no further discussion on this article and photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Ah - that'll be the Peco RTR Bullhead thread you're after; this thread is for discussing the minutiae of prototype track... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Ah - that'll be the Peco RTR Bullhead thread you're after; this thread is for discussing the minutiae of prototype track... This is the Peco RTR Bullhead thread. It just seems to have wandered a bit lately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waggy Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 This is the Peco RTR Bullhead thread. It just seems to have wandered a bit lately. What only just Lately Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Meanwhile, back on topic, I know that Peco does not have the resources to maintain its website but one might have hoped that now the points are in production the full size templates would be available as downloads under the Technical Advice Bureau section but they are not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2017 Meanwhile, back on topic, I know that Peco does not have the resources to maintain its website but one might have hoped that now the points are in production the full size templates would be available as downloads under the Technical Advice Bureau section but they are not. For track planning use the existing Large Radius Turnout templates. The new turnouts are exactly the same size. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2017 For track planning use the existing Large Radius Turnout templates. The new turnouts are exactly the same size. Martin. Sadly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr.king Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 I hope you'll excuse me for not feeling any sadness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2017 I hope you'll excuse me for not feeling any sadness. No need for any excuses. But I don't understand why you think the 12 degree crossing angle is a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 12, 2017 I'm somewhat surprised that there has been no further discussion on this article and photos. Hi Jeff Any review of a Peco product in the Railway Modeller is going to have a positive bias. Lets be honest it is going to be an extended advert. As much as I like the Railway Modeller, I still think it is the best all round railway modelling magazine, it is a Peco publication so is not going to bad mouth what the factory below the RM office is making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 No need for any excuses. But I don't understand why you think the 12 degree crossing angle is a good thing. I don't think the 12 degree angle is ideal but many aspects of our hobby are a compromise. Longer pointwork would be nice but from Peco's point of view, how well will it sell? Most of us are compromised for space so a scale length main line crossover would take up a huge chunk of the layout & make the rest look compressed. Some who want scale length pointwork will build their own. I hope I'm not being prejudiced here but Americans seem to have more space for their layouts, so longer pointwork will sell better over there. This leaves a few of us who would like longer pointwork but don't really want to build our own. I feel this is too few for Peco to make money from such a product. As much as I would like to see it, I doubt that it makes financial sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 12, 2017 I don't think the 12 degree angle is ideal but many aspects of our hobby are a compromise. Longer pointwork would be nice but from Peco's point of view, how well will it sell? Most of us are compromised for space so a scale length main line crossover would take up a huge chunk of the layout & make the rest look compressed. Some who want scale length pointwork will build their own. I hope I'm not being prejudiced here but Americans seem to have more space for their layouts, so longer pointwork will sell better over there. This leaves a few of us who would like longer pointwork but don't really want to build our own. I feel this is too few for Peco to make money from such a product. As much as I would like to see it, I doubt that it makes financial sense. A #6 turnout does not take significantly more space than the Peco large radius. But, with a 9 degree angle, it looks so much better. I accept that #8 may not be feasible for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 I'm not actually sure the RM actually review anything, the 13xx saddle tank being the latest example of a 'non-review.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 A #6 turnout does not take significantly more space than the Peco large radius. But, with a 9 degree angle, it looks so much better. I accept that #8 may not be feasible for everyone. Ah, but can you create a crossover with two #8s at the correct spacing? If not presumably you have to insert a length of track and this would make a longer crossing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Hi Jeff Any review of a Peco product in the Railway Modeller is going to have a positive bias. Lets be honest it is going to be an extended advert. As much as I like the Railway Modeller, I still think it is the best all round railway modelling magazine, it is a Peco publication so is not going to bad mouth what the factory below the RM office is making. Yes, I agree absolutely, but nevertheless I would have expected someone with trade connections to have reprinted at least the photos if not the whole review.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 12, 2017 Yes, I agree absolutely, but nevertheless I would have expected someone with trade connections to have reprinted at least the photos if not the whole review.... Unlikely, why would publishers of the Railway modeller allow the publishers of BRM to reproduce an article on a website owned by the publishers of BRM. And if any of us were to scan it in and post it I am sure the moderators would fly in action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 I'm somewhat surprised that there has been no further discussion on this article and photos. Maybe that is because publication date is only today, 12th October, so very few will have seen or had the opportunity to read it yet. Andy Y has unlocked (thank you) the November issue thread under Media - Magazines, so there may be something added there by, or by permission, of the publisher... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted October 12, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 12, 2017 Sadly. Well, nothing stopping you making your own range. How are yours going out of interest? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/?p=2135258 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79416-ready-to-lay-oo-track-and-pointwork-moving-towards-production/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts