Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Pete the Elaner]

Don't worry, I am sure this poster will not be around long & I agree with your point about getting involved with a discussion which is really of no interest to them.

He rant was full of errors but I don't think anyone has picked up on this one yet.

 

The "Unifrog" idea is not new, and has been seen on other manufacturers points in the past. And in the past it often failed as it allowed the wheel backs to touch the opposite rail (and therefore cause a momentary short) as the wheels approached the "unifrog". Depending on the control system being used, whether 16v AC (DCC) or 12v DC this won't do your electrical equipment any good. Metal wheels on coaches and wagons will likely cause repeated momentary shorts (jerking of the train) and the worse case scenario, burn out of parts of the controller.........

Obviously missing the point that Peco are NOT marketing these at the modeller who uses very coarse wheels, Their code 100 will be fine for that & it is not being discontinued.

Their opinion was that is anyone prepared to pay the higher price for this will already be running stock with finer wheels & better b2bs which would not cause this problem.

Changing code 100 track to Unifrog would be another matter.

 

 

Business is driven by revenue & in this case, sales. Apparently the new Bullhead range is selling well (we know because a retailer made this comment earlier in this thread) so Peco have quite clearly got it right.

[hayfield]

I don't know how to say this, but it appears someone at Peco has made a few mistakes with these new Bullhead points !

 

The sleepers on these points appear to be both wrongly angled, not even parallel, and spaced too far apart. And there could be an electrical issue with the "Unifrog" especially on the medium and small radius versions. Indeed these new points look more like narrow gauge crazy track. Having just seen a photo plan view of a Large radius Righthand point on the Kernow models website !!!!

 

The "Unifrog" idea is not new, and has been seen on other manufacturers points in the past. And in the past it often failed as it allowed the wheel backs to touch the opposite rail (and therefore cause a momentary short) as the wheels approached the "unifrog". Depending on the control system being used, whether 16v AC (DCC) or 12v DC this won't do your electrical equipment any good. Metal wheels on coaches and wagons will likely cause repeated momentary shorts (jerking of the train) and the worse case scenario, burn out of parts of the controller......... 

 

How it is on real life Bullhead points:

On Left or Righthand points the sleepers should be at 90 degrees to the straight track. Not as seen on these points angled halfway between the straight and curved tracks.

 

The gap between sleepers on Bullhead mainline points in early BR days (1953) should be, according to old BR documents & plans in my library, 14 and one eighth of an inch apart. That's 4.72mm in OO scale.

 

As sleepers on Bullhead points were 10 inches wide (3.34mm in OO scale) and I can't say what the Peco sleeper is, but it may be too narrow as well as being spaced too far apart. Whatever it is, it looks totally wrong, even absurd.

 

As Peco's website do not show a single solitary Bullhead track item, I am guessing, but I suspect Peco have used the same size sleeper at roughly the same spacing as on their Bullhead flexi track. I say roughly, because the sleepers on these points DON'T appear to be parallel. 

Point sleepers on mainline track were wider than on plain track, and the point sleepers spaced closer together. As they had to take a much heavier pounding.   

 

As it happens I do not need Peco's new points (as I build my own, as seen on my layout Basingstoke, in Modelling real locations) but I am interested in seeing a picture of their Bullhead flexi-track, as that may prove useful if I can find a good plan photo.... 

 

 

 

The Duke 71000        

 

 

 Peco's turnouts are generic so follow the principal rather than any one prototype. Their geometry follows their well tried and tested format which allows the construction of complex formations with ease. They are to 4 mm scale using 00 gauge principals with chair details including some (but not all) types of special chairs

 

As you have said, if you are following a particular prototype it is highly likely both C&L and Exactoscale between them have the correct type of chairs, perhaps with the addition of special chairs for turnouts, crossings and slips, so you can get as close to the prototype as possible

 

I tool a quick look at the posting for your layout, its a pity you have not come across Martin before as his Templot system would have saved you hours drawing up turnouts and crossings, as for your comments on Peco's looks here is a comment from your own layout thread

 

My point building method (and there are many) is not the most elaborate. I could of course spend days building each point by using real wood sleepers, chairs, and all the other complex real life parts

 

All I can say is unlike the vast majority of copperclad built turnouts, Peco's turnouts have chairs and no slits across the sleepers/timbers, I can understand that with such a large layout compromises have to be made, just like the ones Peco have to make so that their product is not only compatible with their existing range but also appeals to the greatest audience

 

Good luck with your layout and do look up Templot as it could save a bit more construction time for you

[Kiwi]

Never seen this Kiwi thing before. Big spoiler who needs to get a life.

P

Thank you so very very much, kind sir.

[Richard Lee]

[snip]

 

Whilst its now not relay acceptable to the majority for a LMS train to pull a rake of SR coaches, 

[snip]

...unless you are modelling something like the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway perhaps?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Martin, 

I don't know who you are, but the measurements I quoted I took from an original Institute of Civil Engineers paper, published in 1953. Further it seems that these measurements (although adopted by BR at the time), were most likely taken from the GWR. The meaurements you have quoted are more typical of those applying to flat bottom rail track from the late 1950's early 1960's. 

 

Also I am fully aware of how track was laid, having been on many BR engineering possessions as far back as the 1970's.  However I was not going to use terms such as Timbers or baulks, as this would most likely cause confusion on this website. 

 

So I will re-iterate what I said. On Left and Righthanded points the sleepers were at 90 degrees to the straight track. They did NOT splice the difference between the straight and curved routes (as on a diamond). Even on a diamond they did not have the odd unequal lengths seen on one side of the Large Radius Righthanded point.  They certainly were never skewed - not parallel - too each other. Which is what is seen with the Peco point I have just looked at on the Kernow website. So unless someone at Kernow has been interfering with the product before posting their picture, I maintain that the Peco point I have seen is totally un-natural.

 

Further the era this trackwork is supposed to be aimed at cannot possibly be pre-grouping, unless Peco are intentionally trying to commit financial suicide. Logically it has to suit the era of the Big Four and up to the 1960's.  

 

As too the "Unifrog" I do not think that was a good idea from an electrical point of view. However it may have eased the design problem with this new track in view of the fact that the sleepers ARE too far apart. As 26 sleepers on a 258mm long (Large radius) point is too few, both realistically and visually on the model.  

 

The Duke 71000  

 

Tony,

 

Even by your standards, that is a fairly incendiary response! It would have been easy enough for you to find out, from his many informative posts on here, who Martin is. He knows his trackwork.

 

Like you, I regret that Peco  have chosen to go for equalised timbering rather than perpendicular which would have suited my modelling interest better. Likewise there may be some NER modellers bemoaning the lack of interlaced sleepering.

 

But it is not wrong.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[Joseph_Pestell]

Never seen this Kiwi thing before. Big spoiler who needs to get a life.

P

I don't think you meant the Kiwi.

 

Mind, I am feeling a bit that way about Kiwis after Saturday night's match.

[gismorail]

Well I finally got to see the new Peco Bullhead points at Warley and I don't care what any of the so called experts have to say about the product I personally think it looks right for my compromised and ' not quite perfect' modelling attempts.......at the end of the day I am but an amateur model railway builder who enjoys the relaxing nature of this wonderful hobby.

So thank you Peco for producing this new track system and I look forward to building better looking track formations in the future for my own personal amusement   

[Pete the Elaner]

A load of waffle completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

[bertiedog]

RE- 71000 Quoting me, his reply is about as relevant to Peco Bullhead as the price of fish in Whitby..........i never mentioned their website and what has tamping got to do with model track, or indeed this thread.

 

On Peco and websites.....well it has been raised before with them, and until recently they referred customers to the printed catalogue or a Peco stockist......certainly not the modern way of constant updates on the web.

 

Peco far prefer to rely on what is basically a house journal, The Railway Modeller Magazine, for it's own in house advertising for new products,as it sells direct to the market.place and customers.

Stephen

[Anglian]

What has a derailment in Spain got to do with Peco 00 bullhead model track? I may often be stupid but I fail to see the relevance to what is being discussed.

 

Going back to an earlier post by Duke 71000 that suggests that using a pre-group style for their ready to lay bullhead points is 'financial suicide' doesn't tally with the current position. In fact quite the opposite is true given the initial strong sales and repeat orders.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Anglian

[Guest]

What has a derailment in Spain got to do with Peco 00 bullhead model track?

 

I thought about that for a while and then gave up. That's 5 minutes of my life I could have wasted elsewhere...

I do understand that to some folk, these new points could be better or slightly different in some way. What I don't understand is how someone can say they're completely wrong. That's rather narrow-minded. They are far better than what went before and for the majority, that is probably good enough. It's probably good enough for Peco as well.

[dhjgreen]

Have a look at 71000s layout topic to see what they believe is correct.

[Guest]

What has a derailment in Spain got to do with Peco 00 bullhead model track?

 

Nothing, apparently. 71000's post seems to have vanished.

[Mallard60022]

Thank you so very very much, kind sir.

Apologies, it was the 71000 idiot I was after. I do hope you are not offended?

Phil

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mallard60022

[Scottest]

"Unwise, to carp and criticise"

 

Mr Gilbert's libretto is still appropriate even after a century or more.

 

My first photo shows how "standard" aspects of turnouts were never standard in real life.

 

 

 

in my second photo, it can be seen that for the early part of its life, the detail of turnouts was largely covered with ballast.

 

 

 

Finally, I have attempted to show that the alignment of timbers (not sleepers) was always subject to individual circumstances.

 

 

Details of LSW turnouts is covered as best I could in a series of drawings produced for the SWC some years back.

I say "as best I could" deliberately. As yet, no one has proved these drawings to be wrong.

 

Scottest

[Mallard60022]

I don't think you meant the Kiwi.

 

Mind, I am feeling a bit that way about Kiwis after Saturday night's match.

Absolutely. I am an idiot and thanks; I have deleted the original comment.

Phl

Edited November 27, 2017 by Mallard60022

[newbryford]

Don't worry, I am sure this poster will not be around long & I agree with your point about getting involved with a discussion which is really of no interest to them.

He rant was full of errors but I don't think anyone has picked up on this one yet.

 

 

He also forgot to mention that the gauge is 16.5mm...............

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Mod4]

Please can we keep this topic to the OP of the Peco bullhead points and not wonder off into the many other types of trackwork styles and types that I might suggest "would be at the end of the railway..."

[Kiwi]

Apologies, it was the 71000 idiot I was after. I do hope you are not offended?

Phil

Thanks Phil. I was puzzled, but all good now. You’re a gent.

[Mallard60022]

Thanks Phil. I was puzzled, but all good now. You’re a gent.

Much appreciated.

P

[gr.king]

The buckets of ice cold rain have just stopped falling here, so I may get as far as the shed today to retrieve a piece of board upon which I can fix those new Peco points in a distinctly curved formation for test purposes. Now don't get too excited please, but I'll try to post results.

[Chamby]

Had a scary moment with these points when I test ran my new Duchess over the new bullhead turnouts last night.  

 

Elsewhere on these forums there has been much debate about the visual aesthetics of the fixed trailing bogie that Hornby now regularly use on their Pacific locomotives, in that the rear end swings out unprototypically on tighter radius curves.  So I thought I would test run my latest acquisition over these turnouts and was alarmed to see how much they swung over the rails at either end of the unifrog that carries the opposite polarity.  Whilst the locomotive does not have electrical pick-up from the trailing bogie wheels, there is the problem that these wheels are flat faced and rather wide, creating the potential to create an electrical bridge between the adjacent rails of opposite polarity.  See pics below:

 

 

 

Fortunately with the locomotives I have tried so far, the trailing bogie dangles around in mid-air about half a millimetre above the rails so an electrical contact is not made.  But clearly there may be exceptions and this highlights a requirement for very careful track-laying, making sure that both the turnout and at least a locomotives length of track either side of it are laid perfectly flat.

 

The overhang is exacerbated when the turnout has been curved slightly, but it is still noticeable on unbent bullhead turnouts.

 

There may be implications here for the design of the unifrog if Peco proceed to develop shorter turnouts, or curved ones with tighter radii.  They may require a longer 'dead frog'.

 

I must stress that so far I have not had a short on the limited example that I have laid, but I do wonder....

 

Phil.

 

[gr.king]

Might be wise to put clear lacquer on the tyres of those trailing wheels, since they are non-functional.

 

Perhaps this illustrates the trouble that can be caused by creating a bonding arrangement apparently intended only to truly suit the "can't wire / won't wire" DCC "quick build / instant gratification" enthusiast?

[Pacific231G]

"Unwise, to carp and criticise"

 

Mr Gilbert's libretto is still appropriate even after a century or more.

 

My first photo shows how "standard" aspects of turnouts were never standard in real life.

 

LSW 1920 approx - Track Maintenance - Torrington.jpg

 

 

in my second photo, it can be seen that for the early part of its life, the detail of turnouts was largely covered with ballast.

 

Class 330 Beyer Saddle Tank.jpg

 

 

Finally, I have attempted to show that the alignment of timbers (not sleepers) was always subject to individual circumstances.

 

LSW 1891 Pattern Common Crossing - 1 in 6 & 1 in 12.jpg

 

Details of LSW turnouts is covered as best I could in a series of drawings produced for the SWC some years back.

I say "as best I could" deliberately. As yet, no one has proved these drawings to be wrong.

 

Scottest

Thanks for this Scottest. 

 I have a diagram for a "standard" #8 turnout from 1940 with equalised timbering, but that's a British miltary drawing for FB from 1940*, so I thought it worth looking at examples of current timbering from known bullhead trackwork in Great Britain. Fortunately, in many locations, Google Earth is detailed enough to reveal the timbering. Most of the locations were preserved railways but a few were not. 

From this I can say quite definitively that the answer to the question of whether real bullhead points use perpendicular or equalised timbering is a resounding "Yes!"

I also found that, particularly in crossovers, the answer is sometimes "both" as I found a couple of crossovers where the timbers for the individual turnouts were perpendicular through the frogs but the long timbers supporting all six rails between the two frogs were equalised. 

 

It does seem to me that modellers often seek answers to questions of the form "What is the correct.........?" whereas the engineers who built our railways were generally answering questions of the form "What is the best/most appropriate..........in this situation?"

 

For mass production, Peco have to settle on a small range of pointwork to represent a vast range of possibilities so inevitably will come up with generic designs that look reasonably good in most combinations but may not be optimal in any one of them. In representing the overall look of bullhead track, which is distinctively different from that of FB, I'd see Peco's new range as a very significant development. For those who want to go beyond that overall impression, C&L and others will sell you almost everything you need and for what they don't there's always the file and soldering iron.

 

*A bit OT but the miltary approach is perhaps interesting as, just like a mass production modelling firm, the range of different components needed, for supply reasons, to be kept as small as possible.Not having to transport chairs and faster construction with fewer complications for pointwork were the major reasons given for using FB even though BH was still the standard in Britain and much of India.  They didn't expect engineers in the field to have to design turnouts though they did need to understand the design principles, so they made a lot of use of a few standard designs. Crossing frogs were no 6 no.8 and no. 12  with no. 8 being used in the great majority of situations. Straight crossings were preferred as they could be used for both left and right hand turnouts which again reduced the stocks needing to be held in supply depots. A significant departure from civilian practice was that "Crossing sleepers (sic), although usually 12in by 6in in civil practice, need not be of greater cross-section than ordinary sleepers" (i.e 10in by 5in) Sleepers on plain standard gauge track were normally 8ft 6ins long though sometimes 8ft  even though  9ft had been traditional on Britain's railways.  

I assume that Military railways in Britain such as Bicester and expecially the training railways at Longmoor followed military rather than civilian practice but never noticed them looking in any way odd compared with any other railways in Britain.  

Edited November 29, 2017 by Pacific231G

[martin_wynne]

Re equalized v. square timbering. Here's some stuff which I have posted several times before. The nature of RMweb seems to be that you have to go on posting the same stuff over and over again:

________________________________

 

I don't think you should assume that there is a "correct" answer to this. Everything depends on the period but mostly on the individual site conditions and traffic flows.

For the timbering of a station throat no two locations will be the same. Diamond-crossings and slips are always equalized, at least within the middle section, because it is practically impossible to get all the K-crossing rail-fixings in the correct place if the timbers are square-on to one of the roads. Which means that it is easier to arrange the timbering of any connected turnouts if they are also equalized.

For a traditional steam-era bullhead railway, my preference is to start equalized and only change it for say, running line crossovers. Until Templot2 the default in Templot was equalized. The equalized style generally allows fewer long timbers to be needed and less timber shoving.

For modern flat-bottom track you will probably want to start square-on and only change it for diamonds and slips.

The special crossing chairs must fit the rails in the specified positions, and must have a timber under them. This generally limits you for the amount by which the timbers under a V-crossing can be moved forward or back. These will generally be the Y - X - A - B - C timbers*. But you can skew them a bit more or less, and shorten them or lengthen them under an adjacent track, so that a timber comes under the correct crossing chair positions for several V-crossings. Placing short timbers end-to-end, or long timbers side-by-side makes it much more difficult for them to be packed and tamped.

Skewing timbers is called "twist" in Templot's shove timber functions, using the twist mouse action or the cw and acw buttons -- which rotate the selected timber by 1 degree of angle for each click, or each press on the C and A keys.

* bullhead V-crossing chairs:
1:4:                   X - A - B
up to 1:6:             X - A - B - C
1:6.5:             Y - X - A - B - C
up to 1:8.5:       Y - X - A - B - C - D
up to 1:10.5:      Y - X - A - B - C - D - E
1:11:          Z - Y - X - A - B - C - D - E
up to 1:12:    Z - Y - X - A - B - C - D - E - F

(These letters are on the templates as a suffix on the timber number. The A timber is always under the blunt nose of the vee.)

Here's some text that I have posted a few times:

______________________

 

Timbering style is a frequently asked question, because there is no clear answer. Generally speaking, equalized timbering was the norm in the pre-grouping period (before the 1920s), and square-on timbering is the standard now. Between then and now you get both. The change was gradual and varied in pace according to local practice. For much of the post-grouping steam era it would be common to see square-on used for main running lines, with older equalized timbered turnouts predominating in yards, sidings and branch lines.

(Except on the GWR, where there is evidence of the exact opposite! Early turnout drawings show a square-on style, but when the flexible switches were introduced in 1930, the drawings show equalized. In many cases it seems simply that the preference of the local relaying inspector was the deciding factor.)

There are several factors at work here. The main reasons for using a square-on timbering style are:

1. The main road is "stronger" in the sense that it is held to gauge with timbers at right-angles to the rails. This is always desirable for robust track. If timbers are skewed to the rails there is a much greater risk of gauge-spread, especially on curves. So if the main road of a turnout is a running line (and especially if it is on a curve), and the turnout road is a low-speed crossover or branch line, it makes sense to use the square-on arrangement to concentrate strength in the more heavily used road.

On the other hand, if both roads are running lines of similar importance, you would want to have some strength in both roads and an equalized timbering arrangement is then the best option.

2. Where pointwork is prefabricated in the works, dismantled and delivered to site as a kit of parts, with the rail-fixings already attached to the timbers, it is much easier to set out the timbers at the correct specified spacings if the timbers are all parallel to one another and square to the main rails.

3. For modern mechanised maintenance and tamping equipment, it is essential that the timbers are parallel to one another and square-on.

The disadvantage with square-on is that some rails are at a significant angle to the timbers. The chairs or baseplates at the V-crossing must fit the rails at the specified positions. This means that it can be difficult to position square-on timbering to support all the rails in the proper place, and occasionally extra timbers or wider ones have to be used to ensure that no chair screws are too close to the edge of a timber.

Which explains why equalized timbering was used in the first place, in the days when pointwork was laid out and assembled on site by the local gang. It makes it much easier to get all the chairs properly supported, and it doesn't matter too much if an odd timber is an inch out of position. It also means that the two check rails are both in the same position relative to the V-crossing (frog) for traffic on each road. Nowadays check rails are quite long, so that doesn't matter so much.

Diamond-crossings and slips are always equalized, as it is practically impossible to get all the K-crossing rail-fixings in the correct place if the timbers are square-on to one of the roads.

Complex junctions and station throats often require considerable ingenuity in laying out the timbering, to ensure that all rail-fixings are in the correct place on the rails, and properly supported, and that all timbers can be tamped. The timbering design of a complex layout was something of a black art. And with Templot's Shove Timber functions you can learn all about it!

Having decided on square-on or equalized style, you then need to decide between in-line or centralized timber ends. More about that in this group message:

http://groups.yahoo....lot/message/773

There is also a lot of further discussion about timbering in this group sequence:

http://groups.yahoo....s/2053?expand=1

Apart from equalized-incremental and square-on, Templot also has two further timbering styles - equalized constant and angled-on. These are intended for use when you are using superimposed partial templates, as an aid to subsequent timber shoving. (Equalized constant is also used for half-diamonds, of course.) I'm not aware that either of these styles would ever be correct for a single turnout - unless anyone knows otherwise?

 

regards,

Martin.