Jump to content

Junctionmad

discussions about track

Recommended Posts

Peco's track advert in the model railway mags here in France, for Le Double Champignon, has changed to highlight this new BH point, as well as the BH track, so they are clearly expecting significant sales here, and from some comments already, I think they are right. It is clearly the track many have been waiting for to model a typical French branchline or freight only route. I have not spotted a review of the points yet, but the BH track was reviewed many months ago (by Loco-Review - I have not seen any others) and they were pretty enthusiastic. It is clear enough from the volume of layouts features, that the majority of HO (and increasingly 0) modellers to that standard, use Peco.

 

The trouble will be, as ever here, the supply. Apart from the big boys in Paris, most stockists keep only a very small selection of Peco, and you have to order what you want, which for many means you may as well order from the UK and pay the postage, which will still make it about one third cheaper. The bi-bloc, which they really raved about here, is still not routinely stocked in a shop (Jouetec) in a city the size of Bordeaux (1.2 million inhabitants)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I collected my Bullhead points from Dave Harding's shop up in Exeter this afternoon, no connection just a happy customer!

 

I'm very impressed with the look of them. The fish plates aren't half bad either. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm very impressed with the look of them. The fish plates aren't half bad either. 

 

 

Aren't they just.

The carpet monster is licking his lips in anticipation.

Another plus point for the track is that if a rail is pulled out of a chair the chair can be pushed back on. With a gentle push it will click back into position. Not something I can manage with the two alternatives.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read many posts regarding track & after much consideration I think I will again use non bullhead Peco code 75 with 'wooden' sleepers on my new 4' long cameo layout. I like the idea of better sleeper spacing & dummy joints & fishplates in the correct places so can somebody confirm that it is easy to adjust the sleeper spacing, what the distances should be in a goods yard layout & what the lengths of track should be before a dummy fishplate join. I will leave the points as they are so we are only talking about a few short lengths of straight track.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read many posts regarding track & after much consideration I think I will again use non bullhead Peco code 75 with 'wooden' sleepers on my new 4' long cameo layout. I like the idea of better sleeper spacing & dummy joints & fishplates in the correct places so can somebody confirm that it is easy to adjust the sleeper spacing, what the distances should be in a goods yard layout & what the lengths of track should be before a dummy fishplate join. I will leave the points as they are so we are only talking about a few short lengths of straight track.

Thanks.

Here goes...

 

I have used a mixture of Peco code 75 flatbottom for fast/slow lines & C&L bullhead for the DC lines on my WCML layout. With the Peco's sleepers spaced out a little, I have to look very closely to see the difference.

Peco's bullhead sleepers are spaced at about 9mm centres.

Peco's flatbottom is spaced at 7.8mm centres.

I have found that 8.5mm for fast lines & 9.5mm for secondary lines improves the appearance noticeably.

Bearers on pointwork were always a little closer & as you remarked, these are a lot harder to re-space.

It takes me about 30 minutes per m length of track to cut the webbing, space the sleepers out roughly then glue the track down with the sleepers spaced properly.

I initially cut myself a tool from plasticard which was ok but a little rough. I then realised I could make a tool much more uniformly (& consistently) with a laser cutter.

Then I thought I could share these with others so they have recently become available through the Double O Gauge Association.

I have no pointwork on my layout's scenic section so the difference between 9.5mm spacing & pointwork may be a bit unsightly. I have not tried it.

If your layout is mainly straight (as mine is) you may also want to consider narrowing the 6' by 5mm to 45.5mm. Some of the spacers also help with this but I also have a separate tool for it.

 

This layout was done with 8.5mm sleeper spacing & narrower 6' way. Pointwork is unmodified.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/56505-a-change-is-as-good-as-a-rest/?view=getlastpost

 

& my own layout, using C&L bullhead for the platform lines & high level line then modified Peco (flatbottom) Streamline for the main lines.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120795-south-hampstead/?view=getlastpost.

 

Rails were laid in 60' lengths on the real railway. I would have done this on my layout if I had thought of it at the time.

The new Everard Junction has been done with these lengths & sleepers re-spaced by eye. You can find this on Youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here goes...

 

I have used a mixture of Peco code 75 flatbottom for fast/slow lines & C&L bullhead for the DC lines on my WCML layout. With the Peco's sleepers spaced out a little, I have to look very closely to see the difference.

Peco's bullhead sleepers are spaced at about 9mm centres.

Peco's flatbottom is spaced at 7.8mm centres.

I have found that 8.5mm for fast lines & 9.5mm for secondary lines improves the appearance noticeably.

Bearers on pointwork were always a little closer & as you remarked, these are a lot harder to re-space.

It takes me about 30 minutes per m length of track to cut the webbing, space the sleepers out roughly then glue the track down with the sleepers spaced properly.

I initially cut myself a tool from plasticard which was ok but a little rough. I then realised I could make a tool much more uniformly (& consistently) with a laser cutter.

Then I thought I could share these with others so they have recently become available through the Double O Gauge Association.

I have no pointwork on my layout's scenic section so the difference between 9.5mm spacing & pointwork may be a bit unsightly. I have not tried it.

If your layout is mainly straight (as mine is) you may also want to consider narrowing the 6' by 5mm to 45.5mm. Some of the spacers also help with this but I also have a separate tool for it.

 

This layout was done with 8.5mm sleeper spacing & narrower 6' way. Pointwork is unmodified.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/56505-a-change-is-as-good-as-a-rest/?view=getlastpost

 

& my own layout, using C&L bullhead for the platform lines & high level line then modified Peco (flatbottom) Streamline for the main lines.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/120795-south-hampstead/?view=getlastpost.

 

Rails were laid in 60' lengths on the real railway. I would have done this on my layout if I had thought of it at the time.

The new Everard Junction has been done with these lengths & sleepers re-spaced by eye. You can find this on Youtube.

Many thanks for that Pete. The main problem is that the Peco point work is flat bottomed so using the new bullhead will look odd & not match. As my yard will be only 4' long I need to use mainly small radius points to save space & with no remote sign of Peco issuing these in bullhead I am stuck with the difference! Considered other makes but Peco work well with everything else such as Cobalt motors & the like. Used Peco for years without any real problems & as you say you have to look closely to see the difference once painted & ballasted.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that Pete. The main problem is that the Peco point work is flat bottomed so using the new bullhead will look odd & not match.

post-68-0-69479700-1545160001_thumb.jpeg

 

post-68-0-40925300-1545160108_thumb.jpeg

 

The response that I’ve had from those who’ve seen this, has been unanimously positive, and I’m pleased with it. Peco CD 75 large radius points, and the new Bullhead.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that Pete. The main problem is that the Peco point work is flat bottomed so using the new bullhead will look odd & not match.

 

That can be overcome to a great extent by applying cosmetic chairs to the Peco points. here is a shot of one of mine with bullhead track - C&L in this instance.

 

post-2642-0-26115000-1545170256.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That can be overcome to a great extent by applying cosmetic chairs to the Peco points. here is a shot of one of mine with bullhead track - C&L in this instance.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_1417-crop.jpg

How easy is that Ben? Can you run through the procedure?

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it easy enough, if a bit tedious but I worked on two or three at the same time to let the glue dry, and the instant improvement in appearance was a spur to carry on. Here is a link to a post I made about it...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75560-cosmetic-alteration

That's interesting & has transformed the look of the point.

There are some jobs which take a lot of effort but seeing a result like that makes it feel worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that Pete. The main problem is that the Peco point work is flat bottomed so using the new bullhead will look odd & not match. As my yard will be only 4' long I need to use mainly small radius points to save space & with no remote sign of Peco issuing these in bullhead I am stuck with the difference! Considered other makes but Peco work well with everything else such as Cobalt motors & the like. Used Peco for years without any real problems & as you say you have to look closely to see the difference once painted & ballasted.

Regards.

I wasn't suggesting using bullhead track. FB standard rail with BH points would be more prototypical

I have got into the habit of trying anything new on a small test board. I did this with spacing sleepers further apart, adjacent lines closer together & using Copydex to secure both track & ballast before I committed to doing either on a layout. I would certainly recommend this to anyone trying something new.

Peco have not announced short radius bullhead pointwork & I do not expect them to. I can understand their logic & agree with it:

Most modellers who want more accurate track (ie bullhead) will also want longer pointwork because that looks more accurate too.

Most of those wanting shorter radius will also be more willing to compromise on appearance, leaving those who actually want a shorter bullhead point too small a minority to make such a product commercially viable.

My words, not Peco's but I am sure this is their logic for producing longer pointwork.

 

I like Ben's modified points though. I have already suggested this to some of my fellow club members because 1 wants to use bullhead rail but I don't think we can justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it easy enough, if a bit tedious but I worked on two or three at the same time to let the glue dry, and the instant improvement in appearance was a spur to carry on. Here is a link to a post I made about it...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75560-cosmetic-alteration

 

 

Ben

 

I remember your post and possibly about the best upgrade of Peco track I have seen, when kept apart from scale hand built track it certainly passes the "looks" test,

 

Unless a viewer is specifically looking for certain track aspects the quality of overall presentation cleverly hides its manufacturing design differences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't suggesting using bullhead track. FB standard rail with BH points would be more prototypical

I have got into the habit of trying anything new on a small test board. I did this with spacing sleepers further apart, adjacent lines closer together & using Copydex to secure both track & ballast before I committed to doing either on a layout. I would certainly recommend this to anyone trying something new.

Peco have not announced short radius bullhead pointwork & I do not expect them to. I can understand their logic & agree with it:

Most modellers who want more accurate track (ie bullhead) will also want longer pointwork because that looks more accurate too.

Most of those wanting shorter radius will also be more willing to compromise on appearance, leaving those who actually want a shorter bullhead point too small a minority to make such a product commercially viable.

My words, not Peco's but I am sure this is their logic for producing longer pointwork.

 

I like Ben's modified points though. I have already suggested this to some of my fellow club members because 1 wants to use bullhead rail but I don't think we can justify it.

Yes I agree Pete about the point radius & the Peco logic. I would love to have the space for the larger points but on a 4' cameo you are desperate for space & to avoid the layout being 'point heavy'. I need some sidings & track with points taking up minimum space.

Regards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't suggesting using bullhead track. FB standard rail with BH points would be more prototypical

I have got into the habit of trying anything new on a small test board. I did this with spacing sleepers further apart, adjacent lines closer together & using Copydex to secure both track & ballast before I committed to doing either on a layout. I would certainly recommend this to anyone trying something new.

Peco have not announced short radius bullhead pointwork & I do not expect them to. I can understand their logic & agree with it:

Most modellers who want more accurate track (ie bullhead) will also want longer pointwork because that looks more accurate too.

Most of those wanting shorter radius will also be more willing to compromise on appearance, leaving those who actually want a shorter bullhead point too small a minority to make such a product commercially viable.

My words, not Peco's but I am sure this is their logic for producing longer pointwork.

 

I like Ben's modified points though. I have already suggested this to some of my fellow club members because 1 wants to use bullhead rail but I don't think we can justify it.

A long shot but I guess there would never be in the prototype a situation where the points were FB with the track next to them BH!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long shot but I guess there would never be in the prototype a situation where the points were FB with the track next to them BH!?

Probably existed but likely to be less common than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long shot but I guess there would never be in the prototype a situation where the points were FB with the track next to them BH!?

I don't know about Britain but I've seen umpteen examples of that in France. SNCF settled on FB track very early on but about half the pre-nationalisation companies  had used double champignon (bullhead) track. Any post nationalisation and certainly post war changes to a track layout would have been very likely to have used FB but it was general policy to retain existing facilities - including track- as far as possible.

 

A quick skim through my photofiles turned up two obvious examples. 

post-6882-0-58496200-1545217889_thumb.jpg

Trôo used to be a through station on a CF de l'Ouest  secondary line running along the valley of the Loir (not the Loire) from Vendôme but was reduced to a goods only terminus serving the local silo. The silo is no longer rail served - there's been a concentration on a far larger silo further back towards Vendôme which is- but  Trôo is the terminus of a preserved autorail service "Le Train Touristique de la Vallée du Loir" that finishes its run at Trôo  (well known for the troglodyte dwellings in the cliffs above the village). The FB points are at the terminus end of the run round loop and it looks like what had been the passing loop was cut back when Trôo became a terminus to avoid fouling a former level crossing behind where I was standing. All the rest of the track at Trôo was (and from recent videos still is) BH.  The station at Trôo features an H0 scale model of the line in what had been the chef de la gare's apartment upstairs but I'm pretty sure it's laid with Peco FB Streamline tracks. .

 

post-6882-0-30533100-1545217973_thumb.jpg

This example was at Arques la Bataille on the old Dieppe-Paris main line. about six kilometres (four miles) SE of Dieppe.  The points- at the Paris end of the impair (down) platform accessed a private siding (probably a mineral loader) that was probably cut in sometime in the 1950s - 1960s.  The track beyond it, and from about one rail length from the switch end behind where I was standing, as well as all the remains of the largely dismantled pair (up) line were still BH.

According to recent aerial pictures that set of points has now gone but the line, now single track,  ends about a kilometre further on at a fairly busy mineral loading point for the local quarries built on the trackbed of the former main line. The entrance points here are also FB but the rest of the track is (or was) still BH and consists of a simple run round loop. This must have simply reused the track from the "up" line.Beyond here the former main line has been turned  into a Voie Verte or Greenway. 

post-6882-0-19257700-1545217933_thumb.jpg 

I didn't take these photos specifically to note the different rail types and I've seen (but not always photographed) the same thing elsewhere- including on the metre gauge Blanc-Argent line. PW is PW so I rather doubt if the same thing didn't happen quite often in Britain .

 

There is still a length of BH track at the extreme buffer end of the Greenford Branch platform at Greenford but at the other end of the branch there is an example of BH pointwork with FB rail at either end of it*  and, as the western chord of the triangular junction connecting the branch to the GWML is still laid with BH, the points leading to that from the GWML will also be an example of a FB turnout with bullhead track leading  from it on the diverging route.

 

*The Greenford branch's southern junction, with the GWML relief lines,  is triangular with the PW depot , Plasser und Theurer, and now some stock sidings enclosed by it. The  junction between the two chords at the apex of the triangle is a traditional two points and a diamond crossing double track junction that is still bullhead, North of that the double track branch itself is FB and so is the the eastern chord where BH track was replaced when the new bay platform at West Ealing station was installed. The western chord is still laid with BH almost if not entirely as far as the junction with the relief lines.

Edited by Pacific231G
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long shot but I guess there would never be in the prototype a situation where the points were FB with the track next to them BH!?

 

Cwmbargoed, a long time ago, would prove you wrong.  And it wasn't alone even tho' it was none too common.  Our local branch junction right now would also prove you wrong as would Kennet Loop just east of Reading which is laid in bullhead and has flat bottom points at both ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cwmbargoed, a long time ago, would prove you wrong.  And it wasn't alone even tho' it was none too common.  Our local branch junction right now would also prove you wrong as would Kennet Loop just east of Reading which is laid in bullhead and has flat bottom points at both ends.

Thanks Mike I wanted to be proved wrong! I think I will now go with Peco BH on my proposed yard project assuming that the FB points were relayed a while ago but the sidings tracks were left. The track with better sleeper spacing, nicely ballasted, painted & weathered I can live with! My existing layouts need a magnifying glass to see the track is FB & not BH anyway! The biggest discrepancy in '00' is the track width we are stuck with, so spacing the sleepers better & weathering heavily disguises things to a good degree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£26 at Hattons.

Cheers,

Keith

Blimey! And I thought the Trix track I am buying for my new layout was expensive........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That can be overcome to a great extent by applying cosmetic chairs to the Peco points. here is a shot of one of mine with bullhead track - C&L in this instance.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_1417-crop.jpg

 

Until I noticed the Peco fishplates I thought you were pulling our legs and it was a picture of the real thing. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.