Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Oldddudders]

Good to see that old arguments never die, they just draw breath. 

[Chamby]

#528

 

My head hurts...

[Chris116]

#528

My head hurts...

Lie down and take some tablets!

[TEAMYAKIMA]

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.  

 

Phil.

 

Do Hornby not supply flanged wheels as an alternative?

[Oldddudders]

Do Hornby not supply flanged wheels as an alternative?

 

Which are a fat lot of good if the bogie doesn't pivot. You end up with a slightly long-wheelbase 4-8-0.

[TEAMYAKIMA]

Which are a fat lot of good if the bogie doesn't pivot. You end up with a slightly long-wheelbase 4-8-0.

 

It was a very simple non controversial question - I do not model OO, I do not model British and so I don't know the answer. Do Hornby provide an alternative set of wheels with flanges?

[Pint of Adnams]

Do Pacific231G and Martin Wynne not get the point of Mod4s post (#521) or do they think that it doesn't apply to them???

[martin_wynne]

Do Pacific231G and Martin Wynne not get the point of Mod4s post (#521) or do they think that it doesn't apply to them???

 

Questions were asked about the equalized timbering on the Peco turnouts (the subject of this topic).

 

We answered them. Mod4 didn't.

 

This is a forum.

 

Martin.

[Oldddudders]

 

This is a forum.

 

 

 

In which some seem to be permanently againstum.

[Tony_S]

It was a very simple non controversial question - I do not model OO, I do not model British and so I don't know the answer. Do Hornby provide an alternative set of wheels with flanges?

Yes

[gr.king]

Returning to the practical value of the actual product:

 

Viability of manually curved points, test report

 

 

Without cutting any of the supporting webs I fixed a RH and LH example of the new bullhead pints, toe to toe, on a flat sheet of 9mm plywood. Five selected timbers in each point were drilled and a miniature screw inserted to hold the points in place, with the previously straight road through each point forcibly formed into a smooth curve of approximately eight feet radius - maintaining that curve through the crossing too rather than leaving the crossing straight, simply to see whether the slightly deformed crossing would still do its job properly. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 8' radius through the straighter road makes the curve through the other road tighten to something like a 2' 9" radius. I did not want to alter any bonding at this stage, nor power the dead section through the crossing, nor trim any rail ends of the points themselves, nor solder anything directly to the points since I haven't yet decided exactly how I will finally use the points. In order to join the uneven R & L rail ends of the curved points toe to toe and accommodate a power feed I therefore introduced a very short oddment of flexible track between them. It is so short that it really wouldn't do on a layout - it would be a nightmare trying to keep the short and minimally supported lengths of rail straight and level given that things inevitably try to move on a layout when temperature changes and all sorts of other influences are brought to bear, but the short piece has done its job in this temporary application. I've used Peco SL-310 rail joiners intended for N/OO9, because I had some and because they fit, in a fashion, after some careful nipping up with pliers, but they are not ideal for joining the Peco point rails to the rail in the SMP flexible track that I also used in the test piece. As I believe has already been mentioned elsewhere, possibly by M. Wynne for one, the Peco rail section seems a little different to other code 75 bullhead interpretations, hence the rail joiners connecting one form to the other have to be adjusted to a tapered shape and even then they won't sit neat and level across the joint, gripping both rail ends correctly. Despite that, the test has worked but a different rail joining arrangement may be needed for long term use on a layout.

 

Here are some images showing the general layout of the test piece, the use of the tiny screws to fix the track in place, slips of card under the SMP track to level up the rail tops, the rail ends and point blade tips "out of parallel" but the tie bars (skewed) still working correctly, and that awful bit of fill-in track between the point toes. Some attempted final views along the line attempt to show that the curves flow nicely, without a threepenny bit effect.

 

 

 

I've run numerous items of stock through the points, in both directions, both ways round, and with the blades set in every possible combination of positions. Post 2004 Hornby wheels, 1990s Bachmann wheels, Markits wheels with RP25 flanges, Gibson wheels and the very finely flanged wheels of a Heljan O2 loco have all coped perfectly well with the abused geometry of the points. They are all set to compatible gauges of course. The locos I've tried have ranged from a modest J6 0-6-0 through a K2 2-6-0 up to a selection of pacifics, a 2-8-0, my P1 and P2 2-8-2s, and even a 4-8-2 with the same overhanging, fixed, flangeless rear carrying wheels as are present on many Hornby pacifics. There were simply no problems. A short rake of mixed four-wheel and bogie goods vehicles was propelled through in all directions without snags, as were a couple of bogie coaches.

 

Compared to building points individually and spending time fine-tuning the crossings, check rails and blades to get eventual trouble-free performance, the new Peco items are a piece of cake - and the cosmetic advantages of neatly moulded chairs and grained sleepers are very attractive.

[Junctionmad]

In which some seem to be permanently againstum.

 

I fail to see why people get so agitated  if someone either posts a specific  piece of prototype data or even a bit of a rant like against equalised timbering , why do people get all upset. I mean if the points are good enough for you why are defending them against others who may feel they are not good enough for them. I mean its a discussion forum not a confirmation bias forum.

 

those that like this product , great off you go and buys loads, those that have reservations , great , make your own , etc etc 

 

i am constantly reminded  of 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Junctionmad

[tomparryharry]

Returning to the practical value of the actual product:

 

Viability of manually curved points, test report

 

 

Without cutting any of the supporting webs I fixed a RH and LH example of the new bullhead pints, toe to toe, on a flat sheet of 9mm plywood. Five selected timbers in each point were drilled and a miniature screw inserted to hold the points in place, with the previously straight road through each point forcibly formed into a smooth curve of approximately eight feet radius - maintaining that curve through the crossing too rather than leaving the crossing straight, simply to see whether the slightly deformed crossing would still do its job properly. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 8' radius through the straighter road makes the curve through the other road tighten to something like a 2' 9" radius. I did not want to alter any bonding at this stage, nor power the dead section through the crossing, nor trim any rail ends of the points themselves, nor solder anything directly to the points since I haven't yet decided exactly how I will finally use the points. In order to join the uneven R & L rail ends of the curved points toe to toe and accommodate a power feed I therefore introduced a very short oddment of flexible track between them. It is so short that it really wouldn't do on a layout - it would be a nightmare trying to keep the short and minimally supported lengths of rail straight and level given that things inevitably try to move on a layout when temperature changes and all sorts of other influences are brought to bear, but the short piece has done its job in this temporary application. I've used Peco SL-310 rail joiners intended for N/OO9, because I had some and because they fit, in a fashion, after some careful nipping up with pliers, but they are not ideal for joining the Peco point rails to the rail in the SMP flexible track that I also used in the test piece. As I believe has already been mentioned elsewhere, possibly by M. Wynne for one, the Peco rail section seems a little different to other code 75 bullhead interpretations, hence the rail joiners connecting one form to the other have to be adjusted to a tapered shape and even then they won't sit neat and level across the joint, gripping both rail ends correctly. Despite that, the test has worked but a different rail joining arrangement may be needed for long term use on a layout.

 

Here are some images showing the general layout of the test piece, the use of the tiny screws to fix the track in place, slips of card under the SMP track to level up the rail tops, the rail ends and point blade tips "out of parallel" but the tie bars (skewed) still working correctly, and that awful bit of fill-in track between the point toes. Some attempted final views along the line attempt to show that the curves flow nicely, without a threepenny bit effect.

 

STA70836.JPGSTA70844.JPGSTA70846.JPGSTA70847.JPGSTA70848.JPG

 

STA70850.JPGSTA70851.JPGSTA70853.JPG

 

I've run numerous items of stock through the points, in both directions, both ways round, and with the blades set in every possible combination of positions. Post 2004 Hornby wheels, 1990s Bachmann wheels, Markits wheels with RP25 flanges, Gibson wheels and the very finely flanged wheels of a Heljan O2 loco have all coped perfectly well with the abused geometry of the points. They are all set to compatible gauges of course. The locos I've tried have ranged from a modest J6 0-6-0 through a K2 2-6-0 up to a selection of pacifics, a 2-8-0, my P1 and P2 2-8-2s, and even a 4-8-2 with the same overhanging, fixed, flangeless rear carrying wheels as are present on many Hornby pacifics. There were simply no problems. A short rake of mixed four-wheel and bogie goods vehicles was propelled through in all directions without snags, as were a couple of bogie coaches.

 

Compared to building points individually and spending time fine-tuning the crossings, check rails and blades to get eventual trouble-free performance, the new Peco items are a piece of cake - and the cosmetic advantages of neatly moulded chairs and grained sleepers are very attractive.

 

That's an really interesting post, and bears out what has been said thus far. Can I ask an additional question?

 

I notice that you're making an approximate 8' radius curve. Is there a perceived problem with making the curve 'flatter', say a 12'  radius curve?

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian.

[Junctionmad]

Compared to building points individually and spending time fine-tuning the crossings, check rails and blades to get eventual trouble-free performance, the new Peco items are a piece of cake

I don't think you can make any comparison between a rtr point and a proper hand built point. The big advantage of constructing your own points is the ability to replicate the prototypes geometry , something that simply can't be achieved by a fixed geometry set track system. It would be bizarre to replicate PECO geometry on a hand built pointwork layout for example. The fidelity of the point is not a major driving factor in hand built points , witness the many using copperclad and JBS methods( rivets ) . Arguably a soldered copperclad point looks nothing like the real thing either !

 

as for " a piece of cake " I can build a simple C7 point in about two hours , once I've got all the bits to hand !!

 

Personally with the exception of maybe slips, I never find the need to fettle hand built points and in my case 00-SF gives better running then any rtr point ( this is my opinion and it's not an area of debate for me ) of course I use rtr track work where it makes sense , fiddle yards and the like etc. And by property switching the whole frog, I have no issues with shorts or rims of wheels touching anything

 

But I know many many fine modellers that will be delighted with the new points , as well as I know many modellers who will wonder what all the fuss is about and remain quite happily with existing PECO FB streamline etc.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Pacific231G]

Do Pacific231G and Martin Wynne not get the point of Mod4s post (#521) or do they think that it doesn't apply to them???

Someone stated that the skewed timbering on Peco's new BH turnout was completely unprototypical for post-grouping. I didn't think that was true and did a bit of delving which I shared. Having seen both the track and now the new turnout in the flesh I  also expressed an opinion that  Peco's BH range, though necessarily generic, is a very positive development. I did add something about a real world application of a very limited range of pointwork which struck me as having some parallels with RTL but that was a footnote and I italicised it to clearly identify it as such.

 

I'm not really sure what it is that you're objecting to. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Pacific231G

[TEAMYAKIMA]

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:

 

IMG_1850.JPG

 

IMG_1853.JPG

 

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.

I have been told that Hornby provide alternative flanged wheels...would they not solve any potential problems? Unless you use setrack points in a fiddle yard would this not work?

[hayfield]

Returning to the practical value of the actual product:

 

Viability of manually curved points, test report

 

 

Without cutting any of the supporting webs I fixed a RH and LH example of the new bullhead pints, toe to toe, on a flat sheet of 9mm plywood. Five selected timbers in each point were drilled and a miniature screw inserted to hold the points in place, with the previously straight road through each point forcibly formed into a smooth curve of approximately eight feet radius - maintaining that curve through the crossing too rather than leaving the crossing straight, simply to see whether the slightly deformed crossing would still do its job properly. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 8' radius through the straighter road makes the curve through the other road tighten to something like a 2' 9" radius. I did not want to alter any bonding at this stage, nor power the dead section through the crossing, nor trim any rail ends of the points themselves, nor solder anything directly to the points since I haven't yet decided exactly how I will finally use the points. In order to join the uneven R & L rail ends of the curved points toe to toe and accommodate a power feed I therefore introduced a very short oddment of flexible track between them. It is so short that it really wouldn't do on a layout - it would be a nightmare trying to keep the short and minimally supported lengths of rail straight and level given that things inevitably try to move on a layout when temperature changes and all sorts of other influences are brought to bear, but the short piece has done its job in this temporary application. I've used Peco SL-310 rail joiners intended for N/OO9, because I had some and because they fit, in a fashion, after some careful nipping up with pliers, but they are not ideal for joining the Peco point rails to the rail in the SMP flexible track that I also used in the test piece. As I believe has already been mentioned elsewhere, possibly by M. Wynne for one, the Peco rail section seems a little different to other code 75 bullhead interpretations, hence the rail joiners connecting one form to the other have to be adjusted to a tapered shape and even then they won't sit neat and level across the joint, gripping both rail ends correctly. Despite that, the test has worked but a different rail joining arrangement may be needed for long term use on a layout.

 

Here are some images showing the general layout of the test piece, the use of the tiny screws to fix the track in place, slips of card under the SMP track to level up the rail tops, the rail ends and point blade tips "out of parallel" but the tie bars (skewed) still working correctly, and that awful bit of fill-in track between the point toes. Some attempted final views along the line attempt to show that the curves flow nicely, without a threepenny bit effect.

 

STA70836.JPGSTA70844.JPGSTA70846.JPGSTA70847.JPGSTA70848.JPG

 

STA70850.JPGSTA70851.JPGSTA70853.JPG

 

I've run numerous items of stock through the points, in both directions, both ways round, and with the blades set in every possible combination of positions. Post 2004 Hornby wheels, 1990s Bachmann wheels, Markits wheels with RP25 flanges, Gibson wheels and the very finely flanged wheels of a Heljan O2 loco have all coped perfectly well with the abused geometry of the points. They are all set to compatible gauges of course. The locos I've tried have ranged from a modest J6 0-6-0 through a K2 2-6-0 up to a selection of pacifics, a 2-8-0, my P1 and P2 2-8-2s, and even a 4-8-2 with the same overhanging, fixed, flangeless rear carrying wheels as are present on many Hornby pacifics. There were simply no problems. A short rake of mixed four-wheel and bogie goods vehicles was propelled through in all directions without snags, as were a couple of bogie coaches.

 

Compared to building points individually and spending time fine-tuning the crossings, check rails and blades to get eventual trouble-free performance, the new Peco items are a piece of cake - and the cosmetic advantages of neatly moulded chairs and grained sleepers are very attractive.

 

 

In this formation the equalised timbering does look very good, one improvement would be to remove the last (angled) timber and replace with a length of plastic timbering and a few plastic chairs. Looks impressive though

[Oldddudders]

Which are a fat lot of good if the bogie doesn't pivot. You end up with a slightly long-wheelbase 4-8-0.

 

 

I have been told that Hornby provide alternative flanged wheels...would they not solve any potential problems? Unless you use setrack points in a fiddle yard would this not work?

As i've already said, you end up with an undesirably long fixed wheelbase. I do not have a LMS Pacific, but do have an airsmoothed  Merchant Navy with the same design of chassis. The wheelbase would be 10cm, which would not be comfy on 2' radius curves, let alone tighter ones.  

[TEAMYAKIMA]

As i've already said, you end up with an undesirably long fixed wheelbase. I do not have a LMS Pacific, but do have an airsmoothed  Merchant Navy with the same design of chassis. The wheelbase would be 10cm, which would not be comfy on 2' radius curves, let alone tighter ones.  

 

Fair enough

[gr.king]

That's an really interesting post, and bears out what has been said thus far. Can I ask an additional question?

 

I notice that you're making an approximate 8' radius curve. Is there a perceived problem with making the curve 'flatter', say a 12'  radius curve?

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian.

No problem that I can see with a flatter curve. The 8' radius was simply the potential requirement for a layout idea that I have on the back burner. If your stock and your sense of aesthetics can tolerate a tighter curvature than I imposed on the inner curve I imagine that might be possible too. Although my tiebars finished up skewed, they weren't rubbing on the adjacent timbers.

 

 

I don't think you can make any comparison between a rtr point and a proper hand built point.

 

Personally with the exception of maybe slips, I never find the need to fettle hand built points and in my case 00-SF gives better running then any rtr point ( this is my opinion and it's not an area of debate for me )

 

But I know many many fine modellers that will be delighted with the new points , as well as I know many modellers who will wonder what all the fuss is about and remain quite happily with existing PECO FB streamline etc.

 

But I have made the comparison.

 

Evidently you are either very well practiced or very talented when it comes to point making if you never need to fettle. Congratulations!

 

Quite correct not to invite a debate on the merits of the various gauges within this thread - especially given that some participants have closed minds on the subject.

 

I'm sure that as you say, these points will suit many fine modellers.

 

 

 one improvement would be to remove the last (angled) timber and replace with a length of plastic timbering and a few plastic chairs.

Fair point, well worth considering in a permanent set up if you want to avoid criticism by the super-scrutineers of track. How obvious will that be when ballast and possibly muck too are applied?

[Jeff Smith]

I wonder if the ability to manipulate this point was a design feature by Peco or whether this benefit is coincidental? Whichever it is, and we'll probably never know, I'm sure there will soon be articles in the model press describing this procedure.....

[martin_wynne]

I wonder if the ability to manipulate this point was a design feature by Peco or whether this benefit is coincidental?

 

It's a consequence of not being able to use insert moulding for bullhead rail. The rails are free to slide through the chairs, within the limits of the bonding connections.

 

If Peco are minded by the sales response to produce similar UK timbering style in their Code 75 flat-bottom range, they would probably revert to insert moulding for them, in which case the turnouts would not be curvable.

 

Martin.

[Ben Alder]

As i've already said, you end up with an undesirably long fixed wheelbase. I do not have a LMS Pacific, but do have an airsmoothed  Merchant Navy with the same design of chassis. The wheelbase would be 10cm, which would not be comfy on 2' radius curves, let alone tighter ones.

 

OT, I know, but the Clan/Brit and the rebuilt WC can easily be altered to make the rear bogie pivot. I have done so on my two and IIR there was a posting showing this recently on here, somewhere.....

 

To be more relevant, I must say this has been a most informative and practical thread for those of us who use Peco pointwork and must thank the posters who are experimenting with the new points. I have a couple I am going to lay as a trial soon, and am most pleased my days of adding cosmetic chairs to Code 75 are at an end!

[BG John]

It's a consequence of not being able to use insert moulding for bullhead rail. The rails are free to slide through the chairs, within the limits of the bonding connections.

 

If Peco are minded by the sales response to produce similar UK timbering style in their Code 75 flat-bottom range, they would probably revert to insert moulding for them, in which case the turnouts would not be curvable.

 

Martin.

Code 100 ones are curvable!

 

[bertiedog]

If anybody has the fixed rear wheel Hornby dodge on the Pacifics, then for no possibility of a short, replace with suitable flangeless plastic wheels......they barely show anyway.

Stephen