Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[tomparryharry]

All this talk of the new PECO points being quite flexible (within reason). Does this mean one can finally produce flowing trackwork like this. If it does then that is a huge step forward for RTL track.

 

Y point.jpg

C&L components on ply sleepers to EM gauge.

 

Will the PECO point stretch to 27ft left and 6ft right. 

Just for the info for everyone, too late for me.

 

Dave.

That little photo is very, very nice. Hats off to the P.way people.

 

Ian

[The Stationmaster]

As I understand it the Midland railway had a pathological fear of facing points more so than any other company. Having been doing some research this evening I think the single-slip access into a goods yard of a small station was very much a Midland and GWR practise. The only double slips I've found quickly this evening on the Midland on main running lines were two at Buxton which was a cramped terminus. 

 

My local GER station had a double slip in the goods yard but no facing points.

 

No British Railway had a 'pathological fear of facing points' because what they were actually doing was complying with the law of the land as evidenced in the Board of Trade (latterly Dept of Transport) Requirements which for many years made it clear that the use of facing points was to be avoided on passenger lines except where such use was unavoidable, for example in the approaches to a terminus, junction, or major station.  So facing points simply weren't used - and of course they weren't much use anyway to access sidings off a running line.

 

Single slips were widely used to combine a running line crossover (trailing of course) with access to a yard or siding thus avoiding extra points and saving space.  Double slips on open mainline, and indeed in the approach to most smaller termini were unusual - they were difficult to maintain where higher speeds (above 20-25mph) occurred and required additional signalling equipment so they were in any case more expensive to provide & maintain than trailing points.  For a fairly typical wayside station a single slip is a strong probability, a double slip relatively unusual except in cramped siding layouts.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

         So where do we place catch/trap points in the top ten priorities that we need in bullhead?    

Completely unnecessary I would suggest.

 

What most have the space to model would only have trap points fitted, preventing any vehicle not on the running lines from reaching them unless properly signalled for the movement. And a trap point is either a regular point (typically terminating in a stop block, earth bank or sand trap) or just the switches to derail the vehicle well before the running lines are reached. Both are already in production, it is just up to the user to 'chop' the point if the second type is required

 

A catch point to derail the runaway is not going to feature on most layouts because:

...A sprung catch point is normally seen in a position going uphill, on a gradient. The idea is to protect anything breaking away, and running backwards, downhill. The main line from Bristol Temple Meads, up towards the junctions at Filton, had about 5 sets of sprung traps, all in about 3 miles of incline...

 ... for which reason I would suggest Peco not bother at all, but tool something likely to be useful to the majority of customers.

[tomparryharry]

I would respectfully suggest that it depends on the level of realism you wish to create (that is, if you're using Peco's bullhead, as opposed to P4, etc.

 

Taking that frame of mind into the real world will get you a tongue lashing from a railway inspector. I've seen them: It's not pretty. My response to the earlier post is in reply to what type & style constitutes a trap point. I've tried to answer as honestly & truthfully as I possibly could. I can only reply from the vantage point of operation, requirements, and Health & safety.

 

Whether Peco decide (or not) to make a trap point is up to the modeller, and Peco themselves. If it's ok with you, I'll butt out here. After all, it's only toy trains, right?

 

Have a nice weekend, everybody.

 

Ian.

[Mallard60022]

Trap, or catch points generally come in three varieties.

 

The first, or single blade trap is just that. It's the one that you will mostly find in a Peco catch point.  The second is sometimes called a 'half trap'. The full switch is included, but the track stops short of the crossing frog. Some catches have an elevated portion, to drop the wheel over the 4-foot, but protect the main running line from any further damage. The third is sometimes called a 'full trap'. To most intents & purposes it's a fully functioning point, complete with all locking, divergence & detection.  

 

There are variations to all three of these, dependant on local conditions, gradient, line speed protection, prior history. Sometimes, the inspecting officer from the Board of Trade will ask for differing additions to what you would normally see.  

 

A sprung catch point is normally see in a position going uphill, on a gradient. The idea is to protect anything breaking away, and running backwards, downhill. The main line from Bristol Temple Meads, up towards the junctions at Filton, had about 5 sets of sprung traps, all in about 3 miles of incline. The up relief line at Maesmawr (South Wales) was fully signalled to passenger standard, and as such, was fully protected. so, facing point locks, detection, signals, track circuits, etc. 

 

A diagram of your preferred layout location is always a really good place to start. Places like Waterloo, Clapham, & London Bridge are good to see, but not for the faint-hearted! Me? I'm off to study the track plan at Ashburton!

 

Ian.

Two at the north/east end of Seaton Junction's platform loops do exactly that. My up one is 'fixed' at the moment but my down one may well be interlocked and then I shall 'unpeg' and interlock my up one so it looks more realistic. I suspect my CCE/S & T Consultant will want to see that.

Phil

[Pacific231G]

I would say they're an easy win for Peco and have greater relevance to BH than to FB track as well so maybe an early expansion to the range?

I'd expect the next product to be medium radius left and right hand points. Given the number of people modelling branch line termini or their equivalent in restricted spaces who simply wouldn't have room for the longer points, they should be a good seller. From what turns up secondhand my impression is that three foot radius points were probably the best seller in the SMP range and even for handlaid 00 track that seems to have been the most common size. Until Peco added large radius points to the Streamline range I don't think that any of the ready made track manufacturers offered points with a nominal radius of more than three feet.Trap/catch points were a fairly late addition to the Streamline range but though everyone modelling British railways* probably should be using them relatively few of do.  

 

*Outside of Britain and presumably its empire, the other major users of chaired track with bullhead rail  (or its symmetrical equivalent) tended to use derailers rather than trap points to protect running lines but I can't see anyone producing a working RTL version of one of these.

This one on bullhead track is open (but the line at Blaye is closed and the operating rodding has been removed) When closed it it would have derailed anything going from left to right

while this one on FB track

is closed but the sidings (at Noyelles) are open. This would derail anything trying to roll from right to left and it protects the main Paris-Boulogne main line. 

Were derailers like this ever used in Britain?

Edited November 18, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Pint of Adnams]

I would say they're an easy win for Peco and have greater relevance to BH than to FB track as well so maybe an early expansion to the range?

Don't forget chaps (and not forgetting any modellers of the female persuasion) that Peco has already gone through this exercise with the 0 gauge BH range which, ignoring the recently-released BH setrack points and track due to the appearance of ever more RTR locomotives and rolling stock, has scale sleepering/chairs and comprises:

 

flexible track

medium radius (1828 mm/6' nominal) turnouts LH and RH (these are 416mm long remember)

medium radius Y turnout

curved LH and RH turnouts

catch points LH and RH

long crossing (573mm)

double slip (573 mm, which, as is the long crossing, made up of two identical halves plugged together at the centre)

 

All with 8 deg. angle of divergence.

 

Save for the radius of the turnouts, I can foresee the 00 BH range expanding in a similar way.

 

In 0 gauge the converse to 00 applies, a very limited FB range - just flexible track and medium radius LH and RH turnouts.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Pint of Adnams

[Pint of Adnams]

I had almost forgotten how to include jpgs to a forum contribution. It might be timely to promote the existence of a number of drawings for pre-grouping LSW S&C, published by the South Western Circle, and against which these new products from Mr Peco might be compared.

 

LSW 1890 & 1902 Pattern Example S&C.jpg

 

The Peco product would appear to be for the post-grouping REA standard, whereas the pre-grouping product had a number of small differences. However, for 4ft 1-1/2" gauge, Rule 1 still suits me.

We are now in serious danger of becoming the next Peco points thread to be locked...

[Pacific231G]

Don't forget chaps (and not forgetting any modellers of the female persuasion) that Peco has already gone through this exercise with the 0 gauge BH range which, ignoring the recently-released BH setrack points and track due to the appearance of ever more RTR locomotives and rolling stock, has scale sleepering/chairs and comprises:

 

flexible track

medium radius (1828 mm/6' nominal) turnouts LH and RH (these are 416mm long remember)

medium radius Y turnout

curved LH and RH turnouts

catch points LH and RH

long crossing (573mm)

double slip (573 mm, which, as is the long crossing, made up of two identical halves plugged together at the centre)

 

All with 8 deg. angle of divergence.

 

Save for the radius of the turnouts, I can foresee the 00 BH range expanding in a similar way.

 

In 0 gauge the converse to 00 applies, a very limited FB range - just flexible track and medium radius LH and RH turnouts.

This begs a fascinating question. Peco's 32mm gauge medium point has double the nominal radius of the 16.5mm gauge medium radius point as you'd expect as it's roughly double the gauge and is slightly shorter than double its length yet it has a far shallower crossing angle of 8 rather than 12 degrees.

 

Can someone who really understands track geometry explain this?

 

Three foot radius points with an 8 degree crossing angle (close to 1 in 7 or #7) sound far more useful than the same length and radius with a 12 degree crossing but all the nominal three foot radius points I've measured (Peco, SMP, and a couple of others) have a crossing angle of 10-12 degrees. 

If an 8 degree crossing is possible in that length then I'd have thought that the equivalent of the O gauge points for 16.5mm gauge would be far preferable to the current 12 degree geometry,  a back of the gasworks crossing angle of 1:4.7 . 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Pacific231G

[gr.king]

Now that I've had my hands on a set of these points, I can state some details that are certainly of practical value to my plans, and may be of use to others.

 

Without cutting any webs or creating any damage or permanent deformation of the point structure, a curved point can certainly be formed with approximately 8 foot radius, smoothly curved, through the previously straight road. It requires a fair bit of pressure to get the frog area to curve gently in conformity with the rest of the point, but it is possible and everything springs back to normal when the pressure is released. The tips of the point blades get "out of parallel" and the tie bar slightly skewed, but the switching action is still free and effective. The tip of the inner blade would probably need a tweak to make it nest correctly in the machine notch in the stock rail. The toe-ends of the stock rails also project unequally from the curved point, but look easy enough to trim - or you could just fit the rail joiners as they are and trim the ends of the next piece of track to match.

 

By practical measurement and by careful calculation (using the geometric formula for the sag of a curve), I reckon that if the previously straight road is formed to around 8 foot radius, the more tightly curved road takes on something like a 2 foot 9 inch radius.

 

If you keep the inner radius up to 3 feet, the radius through the previously straight road is about 10 feet.

 

If you form the two curves so that they are both equally as close as they can be to my original target figures of 8 feet and 3 feet radius, the curves would actually be about 8 feet 11 inches and 2 feet 10.5 inches.

 

I feel these will be more than adequate in my eventual cunning plan. I'm slightly regretting the fact that Peco spaced the timbers so widely between the crossing itself and the trailing end of the point - I think one more timber within that space would have looked better. Also, the attachment of the switch-rail bonding wires so close to the crossing makes it awkward for anybody who doesn't want to live with the "risk" of the electrical breaks being right at the knuckles - you can't just tack in a couple of extra bonding wires then put "conventional" cuts in the rails between the existing switch-rail bond attachements and the crossing, because you'd have stubs of rail by the crossing supported by only one chair each! If you want to change things you've got to change virtually all of the bonding.

 

Before I make further decisions I'll fix a point and some plain track temporarily to a piece of board, with the outer radius set to 8 feet, and check that a good range of my locos and stock have no difficulty running through.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Really been sat on the fence with these and thought I was probably going to continue to make my own.

That said the fact that they do look better than I expected and are proving to be slightly flexible my lead me to look out for some edible headgear 

[Anglian]

No British Railway had a 'pathological fear of facing points' because what they were actually doing was complying with the law of the land as evidenced in the Board of Trade (latterly Dept of Transport) Requirements which for many years made it clear that the use of facing points was to be avoided on passenger lines except where such use was unavoidable, for example in the approaches to a terminus, junction, or major station.  So facing points simply weren't used - and of course they weren't much use anyway to access sidings off a running line.

 

Single slips were widely used to combine a running line crossover (trailing of course) with access to a yard or siding thus avoiding extra points and saving space.  Double slips on open mainline, and indeed in the approach to most smaller termini were unusual - they were difficult to maintain where higher speeds (above 20-25mph) occurred and required additional signalling equipment so they were in any case more expensive to provide & maintain than trailing points.  For a fairly typical wayside station a single slip is a strong probability, a double slip relatively unusual except in cramped siding layouts.

 

 

Stationmaster – thanks for your response and rather more precise information. My words paraphrased another writer – I think David Jenkinson. Chances of me finding the reference are very slim but I'll try.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Anglian

[TheSignalEngineer]

 

*Outside of Britain and presumably its empire, the other major users of chaired track with bullhead rail  (or its symmetrical equivalent) tended to use derailers rather than trap points to protect running lines but I can't see anyone producing a working RTL version of one of these. taquet d'arret (open) Blaye .jpg

This one on bullhead track is open (but the line at Blaye is closed and the operating rodding has been removed) When closed it it would have derailed anything going from left to right

while this one on FB track

Taquet d'Arret T6 (closed) Noyelles 2006.jpg

is closed but the sidings (at Noyelles) are open. This would derail anything trying to roll from right to left and it protects the main Paris-Boulogne main line. 

Were derailers like this ever used in Britain?

Apologies for the poor quality but this was recovered from a degraded colour transparency taken at Wolverhampton HL in 1973. It was in the middle siding between platforms 1 and 2. There were three at Wolverhampton at that time, all now gone. They were worked by Westinghouse EP cylinders as used to move the points in Hump Yards.

 

Photo C E Steele

 

There is still one in the siding next to the Down Bay at Leamington Spa worked by an HW electric point machine.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I would respectfully suggest that it depends on the level of realism you wish to create ...

 That's exactly what I was driving at. The usual deficiency of model railways is a lack of trap points. All but the very simplest track layouts should include these, and typically there is enough space to do so.

 

The sprung catch point typically occurs in locations very, very few have the space to model realistically. (I could actually have one in the layout I am building, but it is just inside the 'Hotel Curve' tunnel at KX, and thus out of sight.) As a result I would suggest this item has very low priority for production, despite its necessity on the prototype.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the "wide to gauge" trap point too; especially common in station environs.

[Clive Mortimore]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned the "wide to gauge" trap point too; especially common in station environs.

Like this one I knocked recently. A wide to gauge trap point requires opposing movement of tie bars and blades so would need careful thinking by a RTP track manufacturer, but is possible.

 

Set for trains to run over it.

 

Set as a trap.

 

It works

 

Made from Peco ftatbottom code 75 track. They would be a great if a RTP track manufacturer was to make them.

[tomparryharry]

The 'wide to gauge' type of trap is a fairly recent addition to the real life situation. Indeed, I've seen photos on RM web, so it must be real!. I need to dig out my notes on these new-fangled bits of iron.

 

Ian.

[Clive Mortimore]

The 'wide to gauge' type of trap is a fairly recent addition to the real life situation. Indeed, I've seen photos on RM web, so it must be real!. I need to dig out my notes on these new-fangled bits of iron.

 

Ian.

Hi Ian

 

They are not a new thing. Tempsford on the GNR line between Sandy and St Neots had two, one for each of the sidings between the running lines. They are placed where a normal trap point could derail something on to a running line, the idea being the runaway vehicle plonks its wheels in the ballast and keeps on a straight line and hopefully upright.

 

Edit, I built mine as there is not one available not as an exercise in point making. I do hope one day a RTP manufacturer can produce these for us who like our RTP track.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Izzy]

Like this one I knocked recently. A wide to gauge trap point requires opposing movement of tie bars and blades so would need careful thinking by a RTP track manufacturer, but is possible.

 

Set for trains to run over it.

100_4651a.jpg

 

Set as a trap.

100_4653a.jpg

 

It works

whoops.jpg

 

Made from Peco ftatbottom code 75 track. They would be a great if a RTP track manufacturer was to make them.

 

Would a centrally pivoted rod/thingy plugged into the two tie-bars move both in opposte direction, closing/opening together?

 

Izzy

[Clive Mortimore]

Would a centrally pivoted rod/thingy plugged into the two tie-bars move both in opposte direction, closing/opening together?

 

Izzy

That is my plan when it gets laid.

 

Shall we call a halt to discussing my trap point here but feel free to continue on Sheffield Exchange. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Scottest]

That is my plan when it gets laid.

 

 

 

This talk of getting laid could so easily go wrong........

[coachmann]

Back on target........Why did Mainline etc enter the RTR market producing scale models? Because Hornby wasn't.  Why did Hornby start producing scale models. Because everyone else was. Peco is now at that crossroads IMV.  Who was buying C+L and SMP bullhead flexible track to put with their handbuilt points? Traditional scale modellers. So why did Peco produce bullhead flexible track?  To persuade scale modellers to put money in Peco's moneybox. So what is the next move? To dissuade modellers from building points. So unless Peco produces larger radius points, they will never break into the scale modellers market. And if they dont', someone else will!  There is nothing to gain from chasing Mr. Spacestarved with bullhead 2' radius points......He gave up on realistic track years ago.

[Clive Mortimore]

Back on target........Why did Mainline etc enter the RTR market producing scale models? Because Hornby wasn't.  Why did Hornby start producing scale models. Because everyone else was. Peco is now at that crossroads IMV.  Who was buying C+L and SMP bullhead flexible track to put with their handbuilt points? Traditional scale modellers. So why did Peco produce bullhead flexible track?  To persuade scale modellers to put money in Peco's moneybox. So what is the next move? To dissuade modellers from building points. So unless Peco produces larger radius points, they will never break into the scale modellers market. And if they dont', someone else will!  There is nothing to gain from chasing Mr. Spacestarved with bullhead 2' radius points......He gave up on realistic track years ago.

Yeah Larry, I did.

 

It is nice now there is going to be a range that looks better, so perhaps Peco will think of those who have spent their money on previous ranges and do their bullhead track in the smaller radii as well as chasing those "scale" modellers with bigger points. It was only a few years ago when the likes of you and me were saying "Please make us some better looking points" and the naysayers were arguing it would never be done but today there is the prospect of both scale and small radii points. Let's hope for both. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Hi Ian

 

They are not a new thing. Tempsford on the GNR line between Sandy and St Neots had two, one for each of the sidings between the running lines. They are placed where a normal trap point could derail something on to a running line, the idea being the runaway vehicle plonks its wheels in the ballast and keeps on a straight line and hopefully upright.

 

Edit, I built mine as there is not one available not as an exercise in point making. I do hope one day a RTP manufacturer can produce these for us who like our RTP track.

There was a set in the spur at the north end of Snow Hill dating from the 1912 rebuilding. Derailing from standard traps would have been head on into the Down Main or alternatively demolish the signal box. Edited November 19, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[frobisher]

There is nothing to gain from chasing Mr. Spacestarved with bullhead 2' radius points......He gave up on realistic track years ago.

I'd almost say if Peco were to chase that market, BH set track would be the way to start, but that's a whole different can of worms ("more realistic set track"... I can see various heads exploding just trying to reconcile that one... )