Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[tomparryharry]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Folks!

 

It may have been that you've mis-read my post. My original question was flattening the point radius to 12 feet, not 12 inches.. The aesthetic is to create a flowing curve, not a corkscrew...

 

Sorry if my typing has given you a funny turn... Pun fully intended.

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian.

[Andy 53B]

Hi Folks,

 

has anyone tried to hack the points to reduce the track centres?

 

I'd rather try with the PDF templates from Peco first to get the cuts correct, rather than the real thing, but it would appear the templates haven't been uploaded to the Peco website yet,

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[sp1]

Hi Folks,

 

has anyone tried to hack the points to reduce the track centres?

 

I'd rather try with the PDF templates from Peco first to get the cuts correct, rather than the real thing, but it would appear the templates haven't been uploaded to the Peco website yet,

 

Thanks

 

Andy

Aren’t they exactly the same as the Code 75 Streamline Flatbottom? I seem to recall reading that someone had done a straight swap.

[Guest]

Aren’t they exactly the same as the Code 75 Streamline Flatbottom? I seem to recall reading that someone had done a straight swap.

 

Yes, buried somewhere in one of the many Peco threads, it was stated that a new Bullhead point is dimensionally a straight swap for an existing large radius Code 75 flatbottom point. In that case, the existing Peco template for the flatbottom point can be used when planning for bullhead. If the templates match, that could be a reason for no new templates on the Peco website?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Folks,

 

has anyone tried to hack the points to reduce the track centres?

 

I'd rather try with the PDF templates from Peco first to get the cuts correct, rather than the real thing, but it would appear the templates haven't been uploaded to the Peco website yet,

 

Thanks

 

Andy

yes, earlier on this thread

[gr.king]

Hi Folks!

 

It may have been that you've mis-read my post. My original question was flattening the point radius to 12 feet, not 12 inches.. The aesthetic is to create a flowing curve, not a corkscrew...

 

Sorry if my typing has given you a funny turn... Pun fully intended.

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian.

 

 

Sorry, the way I typed my original answer has created a double misunderstanding. My fault.

 

I intended to refer separately to seeing no problem with a flatter curve of say 12 foot radius, and then to the alternative possibility of even being able to tighten the outer curve to less than 8 feet.

 

 

Getting well ahead of anything I've actually tried, it may be that if you cut selected webs and start playing about with changes to the bonding, including the cutting of rail gaps in the previously conventional places away from the crossing knuckles, curving to a much tighter degree would be possible. By trimming the "inner" rail at the new cut and sliding it, the tie-bar and blades could again perhaps be "squared up".

Edited November 30, 2017 by gr.king

[Andy 53B]

Yes, buried somewhere in one of the many Peco threads, it was stated that a new Bullhead point is dimensionally a straight swap for an existing large radius Code 75 flatbottom point. In that case, the existing Peco template for the flatbottom point can be used when planning for bullhead. If the templates match, that could be a reason for no new templates on the Peco website?

I haven't bought any yet, on Christmas list, but are the timbers the same on the BH as on the FB?

[gr.king]

Very definitely not. I think that is one of the major reasons for the new track and one of its key features.

[Guest]

I haven't bought any yet, on Christmas list, but are the timbers the same on the BH as on the FB?

 

No, the physical footprint of the point is the same, that's all.

[Andy 53B]

I thought so, which was really the main reason for trying to work the best cuts on bits of paper rather than the real thing!!!

 

I might actually try and scan the actual points and then play with these first, thanks for the info

[rob D2]

I’ve asked me bird for 2 points and 5 yards of track....

 

No idea what sort of plank it’ll be , but it has stimulated my interest

[Backtor]

Guys/Gals

 

Really interested in starting a project with these new style track, but I was just wondering if you can use the Bullhead with the Code 75? Or do they not fit together nicely? And has anyone tried it, obviously the new points are massive in comparison to the smaller radius points that you can get in Code 75, and with only having a relatively small space to try and play with, wondered if that would be a feasible option. If not do peco have any plans for the smaller radius turn outs in the not so distant future? As i'm itching to start a 00 project

 

Thanks,

Cameron

[Gilbert]

I think Chris Nevard has done a layout using the new track and old code 75 points but I stand to be corrected..

[Chamby]

I think Peco really need someone to kick their kennel regarding their website. It’s appalling.

 

The sort of basic questions being asked in this forum, such as “can I join Code 75 bullhead track to the flat bottomed streamline rail” Should be on their list of FAQ’s by now. I would expect a raft of FAQ’s to help their customers get to understand this significant new development in their range.

 

The templates for the new points should be available as .pdf now. I know they are the same dimensions as the flat bottomed streamline.... but not everyone realises this. Peco have seen fit to publish templates of flat bottomed code 75 AND code 100 points which have the same basic layout, so why not add the new points with a different sleeper configuration?

 

Their whole website needs an overhaul IMHO. I trawled through nine pages of 00/HO products all lumped together searching in vain for anything to do with the new trackage system. They just don’t seem to have anything about it.

 

This is not a big ask, it’s just updating your website. Come on Peco, you can do better than this for your customers... and your own business!

[Ben Alder]

Guys/Gals

 

Really interested in starting a project with these new style track, but I was just wondering if you can use the Bullhead with the Code 75? Or do they not fit together nicely? And has anyone tried it, obviously the new points are massive in comparison to the smaller radius points that you can get in Code 75, and with only having a relatively small space to try and play with, wondered if that would be a feasible option. If not do peco have any plans for the smaller radius turn outs in the not so distant future? As i'm itching to start a 00 project

 

Thanks,

Cameron

 

 

I have used Code 75 points with C&L track for years so there shoukld be no problem mixing the two although you will probably have to use a FB joiner that may need crimped on the BH to make a good contact. The BH points are more or less the same overall length as the existing curved points and not that much longer than the medium radius ones. It is only against the small ones that the differences are glariing. It does seem a possibility that a medium version will appear but I would say go ahead with what is here and try a creation but keep it simple and not overcrowded, where the flowing lines of the point can be appreciated. Nothing is lost and plenty gained from building and the experience will be useful in any future projects.

[PMP]

Guys/Gals

 

Really interested in starting a project with these new style track, but I was just wondering if you can use the Bullhead with the Code 75? Or do they not fit together nicely? And has anyone tried it,

Thanks,

Cameron

Yep, here's a mix of Peco CD75 points mixed with the new BH track and regular CD75 streamline, the pointwork is large radius set track and the large 'Y' points. Baseboard footprint 6ft x 18inches. 

https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/wordless-wednesday-not-shelfie2-the-state-of-the-nation-pt2/

 

No problems mixing it, the rail height is the same between the two ranges, and Chris Nevard has also mixed CD75 points with the new BH track http://nevardmedia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/point-of-no-return.html

 

Peco are extending the range but haven't yet indicated what's next in crossings/slips or pointwork. I'll have a fiver on it not being shorter radius points

[gr.king]

I note that the information card in the packet with the points suggests that for joining the new bullhead to the established flat-bottom code 75 the SL-110 rail joiners should be used. I've always thought that these look pretty huge even compared to the broad-footed FB rail, their length exaggerating the size, and I suspect they'll be even more of an eyesore in company with code 75 BH.

I realise that the new dedicated BH joiners with suggestions of bolt detail are available and are a mere 5mm long, and they should, with careful use, suit Peco-to-Peco code 75 BH rail joints.

After noting the discrepancy in rail section I found when joining SMP to Peco 75 BH, and the difficulty in making the "reasonably discreet" 9mm long SL-310 N-gauge rail joiners do a proper job (whereas they always work a treat for me if joining SMP to SMP) I've been thinking about other types of rail joiner I've used in the past. I remembered some of a similar size from many years ago, that did more than simply grip the foot of the rail, as the various Peco FB types do, and which actually extended a little up the sides of the main rail web. After a while, my local stockist ran out and (in pre-internet days) I simply switched to the nearest alternative that he had, the cruder Peco ones. Having now looked at the mighty internet I believe the type I used to use were the Minitrix 66525 connectors. They don't appear to currently be widely stocked in the UK and delivery from Germany seems to hugely overpriced, but if I can get some at reasonable cost at some time, I think these, gently tweaked with pliers, may do a better job of aligning and gripping joints between dissimilar makes of code 75 BH rail

Edited November 30, 2017 by gr.king

[Chamby]

I can’t vouch for SMP trackwork, but the Peco Bullhead joiners SL-114 do work with C&L bullhead rail as well. Sometimes they need a gentle easing open with a miniature flat headed screwdriver to fit, but they do the job.

[St Enodoc]

I note that the information card in the packet with the points suggests that for joining the new bullhead to the established flat-bottom code 75 the SL-110 rail joiners should be used. I've always thought that these look pretty huge even compared to the broad-footed FB rail, their length exaggerating the size, and I suspect they'll be even more of an eyesore in company with code 75 BH.

I realise that the new dedicated BH joiners with suggestions of bolt detail are available and are a mere 5mm long, and they should, with careful use, suit Peco-to-Peco code 75 BH rail joints.

After noting the discrepancy in rail section I found when joining SMP to Peco 75 BH, and the difficulty in making the "reasonably discreet" 9mm long SL-310 N-gauge rail joiners do a proper job (whereas they always work a treat for me if joining SMP to SMP) I've been thinking about other types of rail joiner I've used in the past. I remembered some of a similar size from many years ago, that did more than simply grip the foot of the rail, as the various Peco FB types do, and which actually extended a little up the sides of the main rail web. After a while, my local stockist ran out and (in pre-internet days) I simply switched to the nearest alternative that he had, the cruder Peco ones. Having now looked at the mighty internet I believe the type I used to use were the Minitrix 66525 connectors. They don't appear to currently be widely stocked in the UK and delivery from Germany seems to hugely overpriced, but if I can get some at reasonable cost at some time, I think these, gently tweaked with pliers, may do a better job of aligning and gripping joints between dissimilar makes of code 75 BH rail

I agree regarding Minitrix. I bought hundreds years ago - fortunately!

[coachmann]

Every layout I have built on this forum has used Peco Code 75 points and either C+L or SMP bullhead flexible track, all joined by standard Peco Code 75 rail joiners. However, Carrog in 00 uses Peco's new bullhead track with Code 75 flat bottom points. Convincing looking track is more about colouring than anything else.....

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121995-carrog-in-00/page-48

Edited December 1, 2017 by coachmann

[hayfield]

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.....

In last months Railway Modeller there is an article where a contributor has made some dual gauge turnouts, in this case N and Z gauges. The turnout is actually where both gauges seperate. the diamond is where one gauge crosses the other, there is also a photo of the next instalment where he makes a single gauge 3 way turnout.

 

He states that building track is not his thing, however he is showing exceptional model making skills in splicing two or more kits together

[Anglian]

Convincing looking track is more about colouring than anything else.....

 

 

 

May I disagree with that statement. If other elements are convincing enough then the colouring adds realism but no matter how well painted some track would never look much like the real thing.

 

With regards to colouring I'm often not convinced that an overall colour is accurate - there seems to be lots of variation on the real thing. As has been said elsewhere recently a lot of the visual plausibility comes down to the viewing angle. For example, the way Chris Nevard shoots many of his images and the way he colours his track is utterly convincing, to me at least.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Anglian

[hayfield]

Every layout I have built on this forum has used Peco Code 75 points and either C+L or SMP bullhead flexible track, all joined by standard Peco Code 75 rail joiners. However, Carrog in 00 uses Peco's new bullhead track with Code 75 flat bottom points. Convincing looking track is more about colouring than anything else.....

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121995-carrog-in-00/page-48

 

Coachman

 

After watching your various layout incarnations, you are quite correct in that track which is well ballasted, painted and weathered does act to hide certain discrepancies. On the other hand well made trackwork can be visually ruined by poorly ballasting, painting and weathering. Most things are as good as their weakest link

 

The next thing is that I think we all see/remember colour differently, this is where artists come into their own, they have the gift at the same time of accentuating something, they are able to tone everything together, a true skill if not a gift

 

Of course looking either square on of from above 00 does look a bit narrow, I guess the trick is to take the eye away from this and good painting does create either an illusion or is it a distraction. To me the correct timbers size and nearer to scale spacing also adds to the illusion, but others may see it differently. Each to their own

[Pacific231G]

May I disagree with that statement. If other elements are convincing enough then the colouring adds realism but no matter how well painted some track would never look much like the real thing.

 

With regards to colouring I'm often not convinced that an overall colour is accurate - there seems to be lots of variation on the real thing. As has been said elsewhere recently a lot of the visual plausibility comes down to the viewing angle. For example, the way Chris Nevard shoots many of his images and the way he colours his track is utterly convincing, to me at least.

It's not just the way he shoots his images. I saw his latest layout using Code 75 FB points and BH track at Wycrail a few weeks ago and it was utterly convincing in the flesh as well as in my own far cruder photos. I think he was also using small radius points which should look far too short but in the context of an industrial yard didn't. (The whole question of longitudinal scale and compression in model railways is rather too a large can of worms to open in this thread).

 

There have by the way been a number of detailed articles in Loco-Revue about turning Code 75 Streamline into "hyper-realistic" H0 track (There will no doubt soon be similar articles in British magazines about doing the same with Peco's new bullhead track for OO) For plain track this was mainly about "distressing" the sleepers and spacing them out for secondary lines and sidings- the original spacing is about right for main lines- but for points, the things that seemed to make the greatest difference were replacing the plastic check rails with rail but above all replacing the rather obvious switch mechanism with a more discrete tie bar.   

Edited December 7, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Chamby]

There is no doubt that good colouring can disguise all sorts of anomalies to the casual observer.  A simple touch of the right colour paint can help quite obvious anomalies to blend in to the overall scene: for example painted wire connections soldered to the rail sides, in track and/or ballast colours as appropriate will camouflage even blobby soldering quite well.  (Yes I agree it is better to solder hidden droppers to the underside of the rails, but most people do seem to lay the track first before wiring up).

 

Code 75 bullhead rail, being of a narrower profile than both Code 75 and 100 FB rail, looks finer before you even start to add any cosmetic enhancement.  I have received many compliments about code 75 bullhead OO track that has just had the sleepers and rails painted, then carefully ballasted.... without any weathering of the ballast.  It just looks more delicate, to a finer standard.  Some people even ask if the trackwork is to EM scale, such is the effect!

 

I think this 'instant finer scale' look, together with the improved sleeper spacing, is the attraction for many people.

 

Phil.