PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[PMP]

Reading the RM review, they make the point (see wot I dun there), that these turnouts are UK made and largely hand assembled.

 

Speaking to Peco today, I have been told that they are in production at the factory.

[Coryton]

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.

 

But with a shallower divergence, doesn't it need more space overall to get clearance between the two lines (e.g. if used in a station or goods yard?)

[gr.king]

What for some, who have already decided that they want longer, shallower-angle turnouts than the Peco design, may not be a "significant" increase in length, may well be a critical increase in length for others who seek to fit a track layout into a space that is only just big enough for the long established Peco geometry.

 

Turning to the practical matter of the Unifrog, non-self switching, bond arrangements on the new points, it appears to me from the view of the underside that it is perfectly simple to alter the bonding so that a single changeover contact coupled to the blade movement will create the switching effect that has been a widespread standard for many years. Whether DCC users want both diverging roads permanently live I have no idea, but for analogue DC I can't see the justification for the statement (from Peco) that they "would not recommend" converting to the switching / isolating form. Is that simply so that Peco can have the chance to sell you two separate section switches for the roads beyond the point, when in fact you need a maximum of one or a home made set of contacts?

[Tim Dubya]

or use a Tortoise ©

[Ron Solly]

Turning to the practical matter of the Unifrog, non-self switching, bond arrangements on the new points, it appears to me from the view of the underside that it is perfectly simple to alter the bonding so that a single changeover contact coupled to the blade movement will create the switching effect that has been a widespread standard for many years. Whether DCC users want both diverging roads permanently live I have no idea, but for analogue DC I can't see the justification for the statement (from Peco) that they "would not recommend" converting to the switching / isolating form. Is that simply so that Peco can have the chance to sell you two separate section switches for the roads beyond the point, when in fact you need a maximum of one or a home made set of contacts?

Normally diverging roads under DCC are always live so that loco lights and sound can be maintained if required even though the road has not been selected or even for block detection in hidden storage/fiddle yards.

 

Has any one got a photo of this Unifrog concept?

[AndyID]

 

Has any one got a photo of this Unifrog concept?

 

More info in this thread    http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121872-unifrog/

[Ron Solly]

More info in this thread    http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121872-unifrog/

 

Thanks,I have now read that thread.

[mightbe]

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. 

 

Misses the point somewhat, Jeff only asked for a photo. Ever heard of fair use/dealing? 

 

"...for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, review or criticism, or for the reporting of current events"  of a work which has previously been made available to the public "by any means" (i.e., been given reasonable distribution).

 

(In short, as long as you do not literally reproduce the article--its typesetting, design, and layout--in its entirety, then the use would be "fair", or at least eligible to be so. For example, a quoted excerpt from the text is not infringement, but a scan of an entire page is. Likewise, a single photograph published as part of a larger work [the article, in this case] is not infringement even though the photograph is technically intellectual/artistic property it its own right, because it was published as part of a larger work. Given that the photograph was probably done in-house, or within RM in any case, it probably wasn't published separately. These laws protect both originator and user, mind you, not just in the one direction)

 

(In the US almost everything short of a scan of the entire article would be considered fair use.)

 

Quentin

[Clive Mortimore]

Misses the point somewhat, Jeff only asked for a photo. Ever heard of fair use/dealing? 

 

"...for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, review or criticism, or for the reporting of current events"  of a work which has previously been made available to the public "by any means" (i.e., been given reasonable distribution).

 

(In short, as long as you do not literally reproduce the article--its typesetting, design, and layout--in its entirety, then the use would be "fair", or at least eligible to be so. For example, a quoted excerpt from the text is not infringement, but a scan of an entire page is. Likewise, a single photograph published as part of a larger work [the article, in this case] is not infringement even though the photograph is technically intellectual/artistic property it its own right, because it was published as part of a larger work. Given that the photograph was probably done in-house, or within RM in any case, it probably wasn't published separately. These laws protect both originator and user, mind you, not just in the one direction)

 

(In the US almost everything short of a scan of the entire article would be considered fair use.)

 

Quentin

I won't say "Hi" as you didn't.

 

Is that US law? If so this is a British forum so may come under English and/ or Scottish copyright laws. I am sure Andy Y will advise should someone share the article or part of it in open forum.

[AndyID]

 

Is that US law?

 

Nope.

[Andy Y]

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....

As Clive says there are copyright issues and if anyone copied and published it here it would be removed in line with the forum rules everyone agrees to by joining.

[Guest]

I don't think the wannabe lawyers need to run to Google or Wikipedia for advice. The law is often an ass. Using a photo or scanning an entire article/review from a magazine and then posting it here just isn't really "cricket", is it? Common sense should prevail and anyone that has an amount (no matter how small) of it should realise the rights and wrongs... Still, just something else to argue about, isn't it?

[AndyID]

I don't think the wannabe lawyers need to run to Google or Wikipedia for advice. The law is often an ass. Using a photo or scanning an entire article/review from a magazine and then posting it here just isn't really "cricket", is it? Common sense should prevail and anyone that has an amount (no matter how small) of it should realise the rights and wrongs... Still, just something else to argue about, isn't it?

 

Including yourself, of course.

[Guest]

Including yourself, of course.

 

Wouldn't do to buck the trend, eh?

[hayfield]

What for some, who have already decided that they want longer, shallower-angle turnouts than the Peco design, may not be a "significant" increase in length, may well be a critical increase in length for others who seek to fit a track layout into a space that is only just big enough for the long established Peco geometry.

 

Turning to the practical matter of the Unifrog, non-self switching, bond arrangements on the new points, it appears to me from the view of the underside that it is perfectly simple to alter the bonding so that a single changeover contact coupled to the blade movement will create the switching effect that has been a widespread standard for many years. Whether DCC users want both diverging roads permanently live I have no idea, but for analogue DC I can't see the justification for the statement (from Peco) that they "would not recommend" converting to the switching / isolating form. Is that simply so that Peco can have the chance to sell you two separate section switches for the roads beyond the point, when in fact you need a maximum of one or a home made set of contacts?

 

 

The Peco geometry is a well tried formula which has stood the test of time and has proved to work in creating turnout and crossing formations. As said from many, space is always a consideration. Yes its a compromise but a compromise which is welcomed by those who use the system. The majority of those wanting this development were asking for a better looking product in 4 mm scale, whilst being able to keep the compatibility with the current system.

 

Peco must be congratulated for this step forward which is aimed at their existing customer base, those wanting something bigger and or to scale will have to either build or have built bespoke items especially when it comes to formations of turnouts and crossings. Putting it simply if they produced an A5 turnout, if the modeller wanted a crossover they would have to splice the two A5's together, not really the plug and use instillation of their existing systems.

[Pint of Adnams]

I picked up (and paid for!) a copy of November RM today. The 'review', as might be expected, includes the Peco reasoning behind replication of the existing track geometry, an explanation of the choice of timbering arrangement and other detail differences from previous products, for example the switch blades not being hinged and the absence of 'plug in' holes in the sleepers by the tie-bar for appearance rather than ease of fitting a point motor in the usual way. Some effort is made to explain the Unifrog concept; for example the length of the isolated crossing section is stated (25.4mm) which is acknowledged to be greater than the wheelbase of the Hornby Peckett, and some detail concerning wiring and isolating requirements for DCC and DC in addition to the separate article.

 

It concludes with what is either a personal view of the reviewer or a subtle signpost from Peco marketing, expressing the hope that this will 'spearhead other items for the bullhead range, such as slips, crossings and three-way points'.

[Pete the Elaner]

I picked up (and paid for!) a copy of November RM today. The 'review', as might be expected, includes the Peco reasoning behind replication of the existing track geometry, an explanation of the choice of timbering arrangement and other detail differences from previous products, for example the switch blades not being hinged and the absence of 'plug in' holes in the sleepers by the tie-bar for appearance rather than ease of fitting a point motor in the usual way. Some effort is made to explain the Unifrog concept; for example the length of the isolated crossing section is stated (25.4mm) which is acknowledged to be greater than the wheelbase of the Hornby Peckett, and some detail concerning wiring and isolating requirements for DCC and DC in addition to the separate article.

 

It concludes with what is either a personal view of the reviewer or a subtle signpost from Peco marketing, expressing the hope that this will 'spearhead other items for the bullhead range, such as slips, crossings and three-way points'.

I only buy magazines when there is an article which I feel makes it worth the read, which for me is not very often. It sounds like this article alone makes this edition something I must have.

It will be nice to hear Peco's views & justifications to why they have made the choices they have done & have the detailed description of how they intend the pointwork to be wired.

[Gilbert]

I only buy magazines when there is an article which I feel makes it worth the read, which for me is not very often. It sounds like this article alone makes this edition something I must have.

It will be nice to hear Peco's views & justifications to why they have made the choices they have done & have the detailed description of how they intend the pointwork to be wired.

 

I suspect Peco have very good business reasons for the decisions they've made as I assume they know their market better than we do...?

I've read the review and the article - all helpful and I think the unifrog sounds quite clever - as a confirmed user of PMs with switches for frog polarity  I shall not miss bonding rails and snipping connections under electrofrog points.

It also seems to me from my quick read that the design "favours" DCC users (lights fuse and heads for bunker)

Chris

Edited October 13, 2017 by Gilbert

[sparaxis]

Unifrog isn't really any radical new idea. Back in the days of cardboard and Seccotine Edward Beal called it an isolated frog. He recommending the concept that we have come to love (?) as Electrofrog as a better answer as 1: you did not need a switch to polarize the frog and 2: You automatically "isolated" the one of the routes as both rails ended up the same polarity.

 

I run a eclectic collection of British, European and American stuff. My layout is on two levels, with the upper level using Marklin C-track modified for two rail. Using the outputs from an ESU Switchpilot extension, each C-track frog is switched, and then one or the other closure rail is powered from the feed to the frog. This is because the closure rail that is in the path of the stud contact pickup shoe needs to be dead or a short may result. Works just fine.

 

The lower level uses Rocoline code 83, and this is conceptually identical to unifrog. The frogs are isolated and for the first couple of years I didn't get around to wiring them up. Eventually I did, using the contacts on the point motor. In my experience all of the "better class" motors have contacts for this purpose. If you want to use the stone age Peco solenoid, you can always add one of the offered switch options. I used the microswitches a lot in my code 100 days.

 

In my experience, relying on blade contact for conduction to the closure rails and frog is not reliable in the long term, and I would rather have bonds as required and a separate feed to the frog.

 

My only dilemma is since my chameleon-like layout mainly "European" in appearance, how can I justify some BH track. (Maybe a micro layout?)

[Gilbert]

 

 

In my experience, relying on blade contact for conduction to the closure rails and frog is not reliable in the long term, and I would rather have bonds as required and a separate feed to the frog.

 

 

Definitely - and be sure the PM you select is reliable - I've just replaced a load of AC powered PMs with Cobalts...

[mightbe]

I don't think the wannabe lawyers need to run to Google or Wikipedia for advice. The law is often an ass. Using a photo or scanning an entire article/review from a magazine and then posting it here just isn't really "cricket", is it? Common sense should prevail and anyone that has an amount (no matter how small) of it should realise the rights and wrongs... Still, just something else to argue about, isn't it?

 

Still, one of those things is protected use* and the other is clearly infringement

 

Quentin

 

*though not for the purposes of this forum, it seems

Edited October 13, 2017 by mightbe

[Coryton]

Unifrog isn't really any radical new idea. Back in the days of cardboard and Seccotine Edward Beal called it an isolated frog. He recommending the concept that we have come to love (?) as Electrofrog as a better answer as 1: you did not need a switch to polarize the frog and 2: You automatically "isolated" the one of the routes as both rails ended up the same polarity.

 

For people who do things "properly" and wire up their points with a polarity switch rather than relying on the point blades for contact then the unifrog arrangement seems like a good idea - and that may well be the majority of the market for the bullhead points. Likewise not being able to clip an old-fashioned solenoid point motor directly to the points.

 

However, regarding rolling this out across the entire range I doubt I'm the only person with DC who uses the self-isolating nature of the current points (both isolating and live frog).

 

Finding time to work on my (DC) layout is hard enough - without being able to add a set of points that I can change with a finger and instantly have a working siding I can leave an engine in I'd struggle even more to find time to actually run trains.

 

It's interesting that the Railway Modeller article on the bullhead points article says they don't recommend changing the bonding, yet on Peco's web site for their HOm unifrog points they say that it's a "simple job" to remove a wire to make it behave like insulating frog points (but not, presumably, electrofrog). Maybe there's unifrog and there's unifrog?

 

In any case, as said above it seems they can't and won't behave like live frog points (i.e. live frog and self-isolating) and even to get the live frog requires a polarity switch and extra wiring.

[martin_wynne]

I don't know if this will work...

 

edit: worked for about 30 minutes, and then stopped

 

obviously a time-limited link.

 

Martin.

Edited October 13, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Bernard Lamb]

I picked up (and paid for!) a copy of November RM today. The 'review', as might be expected, includes the Peco reasoning behind replication of the existing track geometry, an explanation of the choice of timbering arrangement and other detail differences from previous products, for example the switch blades not being hinged and the absence of 'plug in' holes in the sleepers by the tie-bar for appearance rather than ease of fitting a point motor in the usual way.

Any comment on how the point motors fit?

I have always regarded this as one of the major selling points as part of the integrated system that Peco and their customers love.

Bernard

[Clive Mortimore]

Any comment on how the point motors fit?

I have always regarded this as one of the major selling points as part of the integrated system that Peco and their customers love.

Bernard

Hi Bernard

 

The review states that they are designed not to have the same fitting as the older points, this is to improve the appearance at the toe of the switch, and it does.   What the article suggest is modellers buy the PL10E with the extended pin and a PL9 mounting plate, along with a Pl13 switch to make the unifrog an electrofrog.