Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Backtor]

Thanks for all the help with the questions, at least I can start ordering some track now!

 

Many Thanks,

Cameron

[The Stationmaster]

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!

 

Why get a new template?  OK so it's nice to have but as the footprint is exactly the same as the existing Code 75 large radius why not simply do what I did - a tiny bit of lateral thinking.  I downloaded the existing large radius templates and used them, and the new bullhead points matched them exactly once I'd got some to lay over the template - what could be simpler?

[The Stationmaster]

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

 

If what the chap I spoke to on their stand at the Warley Show is to be believed (and why shouldn't I believe him?) their bullhead rail attention is now directed to diamond crossings and slips.  (Which overall strikes me as a far more logical course than first looking at the smaller radius/shorter points.)

[Chamby]

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

  

Why get a new template?  OK so it's nice to have but as the footprint is exactly the same as the existing Code 75 large radius why not simply do what I did - a tiny bit of lateral thinking.  I downloaded the existing large radius templates and used them, and the new bullhead points matched them exactly once I'd got some to lay over the template - what could be simpler?

 

Stationmaster, that is exactly what I did too. But Andy 53B makes a valid observation about the impact of sleeper position and rail cutting, and you have to admit that it is bizarre that Peco haven’t updated their website with any details about the new points. Especially since they felt it relevant to publish .pdf plans for both Code 75 and Code 100 points which have identical geometry and sleeper formation, so why not the bullhead points too?

 

Phil

[BG John]

Once you've bought one, can't you put it on a scanner and print your own templates?

[LNER4479]

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,

Code 75 and new bullhead track existing in harmony (as subsequently seen in action at Warley)

 

I used standard code 75 joiners to attach the two together. Bit of an effort to get the joiner onto the bullhead but thereafter straightforward, big plus of course being that the sleeper thickness is consistent. At risk of pointing out the obvious:

 

Peco bullhead bottom left joins on to a Code 75 trap point; Peco bullhead ahead of the Ivatt 4MT joins on to a Code 75 Long Radius Left Hand; Peco bullhead bottom right joins (out of shot) onto Code 75 Med Rad Left Hand. No running problems encountered whatsoever.

 

Mainlines laid with code 75 to reflect flat bottom track with closer spaced sleepers in widespread use by mid-late 1960's; bullhead reserved for sidings. The contrast in styles works well (well, I think so!)

Edited December 1, 2017 by LNER4479

[Chamby]

Code 75 and new bullhead track existing in harmony (as subsequently seen in action at Warley)

 

IMG_9916.jpg

I used standard code 75 joiners to attach the two together. Bit of an effort to get the joiner onto the bullhead but thereafter straightforward, big plus of course being that the sleeper thickness is consistent. At risk of pointing out the obvious:

 

Peco bullhead bottom left joins on to a Code 75 trap point; Peco bullhead ahead of the Ivatt 4MT joins on to a Code 75 Long Radius Left Hand; Peco bullhead bottom right joins (out of shot) onto Code 75 Med Rad Left Hand. No running problems encountered whatsoever.

 

Mainlines laid with code 75 to reflect flat bottom track with closer spaced sleepers in widespread use by mid-late 1960's; bullhead reserved for sidings. The contrast in styles works well (well, I think so!)

 

 

Is that foam ballast I spy on the running lines?  

[55020]

So when are Peco going to produce finescale bullhead track with concrete sleepers??     

[LNER4479]

Is that foam ballast I spy on the running lines?  

Yup.

[Pint of Adnams]

  

 

Stationmaster, that is exactly what I did too. But Andy 53B makes a valid observation about the impact of sleeper position and rail cutting, and you have to admit that it is bizarre that Peco haven’t updated their website with any details about the new points. Especially since they felt it relevant to publish .pdf plans for both Code 75 and Code 100 points which have identical geometry and sleeper formation, so why not the bullhead points too?

 

Phil

Elsewhere (Parkside by Peco thread) I posted that Peco are working up the new website and so one might hope that so much that is currently missing - the last updates date back the best part of a year save for the Parkside holding page - might well appear with the new website in the near future. In the meantime the basic geometry of the code 75 template works, just that the timbers are in the wrong places.

[The Stationmaster]

So when are Peco going to produce finescale bullhead track with concrete sleepers??     

 

That could be quite useful but I suspect lots of people wouldn't know the extent to which it was used 'back in the day' and oddly (from what I saw) most of it on the WR was on secondary and branch lines so it could be of real use to many modellers.

 

The real difficult one would be concrete pot sleepers but I doubt we;ll ever see that on an r-t-p basis and will just have to use 3-D printed pots and metal or plasticard strip for the steelwork.

[31A]

That could be quite useful but I suspect lots of people wouldn't know the extent to which it was used 'back in the day' and oddly (from what I saw) most of it on the WR was on secondary and branch lines so it could be of real use to many modellers.

 

The real difficult one would be concrete pot sleepers but I doubt we;ll ever see that on an r-t-p basis and will just have to use 3-D printed pots and metal or plasticard strip for the steelwork.

 

 

Although they do make 'Bibloc' track for the Continental market, which is similar in principle.

[martin_wynne]

That could be quite useful but I suspect lots of people wouldn't know the extent to which it was used 'back in the day' and oddly (from what I saw) most of it on the WR was on secondary and branch lines so it could be of real use to many modellers..

 

Chaired bullhead on concrete sleepers, on the now-closed Hartlebury - Bewdley section of the SVR in 1968.

 

1. GWR through bolts:

 

 

 

2. BR(W) chair screws:

 

 

Martin.

Edited December 2, 2017 by martin_wynne

[The Bigbee Line]

There was a lot of concrete sleepered bullhead on the Ashford - Hastings line. The hammer blow at the joints lead to the end sleepers being replaced by wood. The 60’ rails were also welded into 120’s. A lot ended up in Sidings.

[Mike Storey]

Elsewhere (Parkside by Peco thread) I posted that Peco are working up the new website and so one might hope that so much that is currently missing - the last updates date back the best part of a year save for the Parkside holding page - might well appear with the new website in the near future. In the meantime the basic geometry of the code 75 template works, just that the timbers are in the wrong places.

 

That is good news. Their website is rarely useful, apart from the templates. The coding method for their track range even less so. Their "search" facility is practically useless.

 

Good job their actual products are so flaming good!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

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.

They have included a flanged wheelset in all the pacifics I have purchased. With a little hacking about to maximise sideplay I have fitted these flanged wheelsets and that limits the loco to a plain track minimum radius of about 30", and the Peco medium radius point. (They derail on Peco slips and small radius points, substitution radius of 24".)

 

I do a lot of viewing at track level, and lack of a flange, let alone a stationary wheelset with the tyre off the rail jars. The apologists for Hornby's bodge should remember that it would reduce costs to resume making all six or more coupled locos as functionally four coupled with flangeless wheels between: no need to hinge rods at all, there's a useful saving. Why should leading truck wheels have flanges either, they are not functionally required, and the frame can be cast integral with the chassis block? It's a slippery slope...

[Michaelsutton1u]

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 

Cheers guys.

[Chamby]

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 

Cheers guys.

I use a craft knife to slightly widen the gap between the ‘jaws’ of the fishplates, this makes them easier to slide on. I also find it best to hold the fishplates with a small pair of long nosed pliers when sliding them on.

 

One other thing you will find with the bullhead track, if you are using track fixing pins and a softer track bed such as woodland scenics foam, is that the rails can very easily pop out of the chairs whilst being pinned. I find it best to drill a 0.5mm pilot hole in the sleeper, and slightly countersink this hole before using pins to fix. A quick coat of sleeper grime and the pin then becomes almost invisible.

[Jeff Smith]

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 

Cheers guys.

It helps to use a small file to sharpen (taper) the rail web and lower part so that entry into the fishplate is eased. And if it is freshly cut rail to ensure there are no burrs.

[Bernard Lamb]

I've just bought my first box of 25 lengths of the Bullhead SL108F, Lovely track to the eye, I've had a go at trying to fit the Bullhead Fishplates, but do find it fiddly, could anyone recommend any tips of doing it easily, with out the track bending when the rails are trying to be connected? 

 

Cheers guys.

I would suggest sliding the fish plates on to one end of a prepared length of track while holding it at chest height and in good light.

Then as mentioned by Chamby ease out the gap. I do this just for the first mm or so to give a lead in. Any further then they can be too loose and fail electrically. I know you should use dropper wires and connect all joins in rails but I persist in being lazy. Then put the length of track into position, ensure that the four rail ends are in perfect alignment and slide the joiners across onto the fixed rails. Repeat as required. You will soon get the hang of it. I am working with SMP track and it works fine for me. Nor had a problem with other makes of track either including home made from rail and chairs.

Bernard

[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

Just to add to this, I've now measured up the rails in my SMP flexible track and the Peco points using the most suitable calliper I have. Allowing for a possible zero-error on the calliper, it appears that the main vertical web is around 0.4mm thick in the SMP rail and at least 0.55mm thick in the Peco rail. I think this emphasizes the likelihood that a rail-joiner / fishplate that grips only around the rail foot without any extension up the sides of the web (the basic Peco FB pattern) is likely to leave the head of the slimmer SMP rail with the ability to move from side to side if it is not otherwise braced. Obviously, the SMP rail is only likely to be loose enough to do that if a very short piece of flexible track with insufficient numbers of supporting chairs is in use, but the need to avoid this situation is something to remember.

Edited December 15, 2017 by gr.king

[Gilbert]

I was interested in what underlay people are using under their Peco BH track - I've got track and boards now and was going to use Woodland Scenics HO black foam trackbed although I wondered if cork may be a firmer foundation for the more delicate BH track- any thoughts?

Thanks in advance

Chris

Edited December 20, 2017 by Gilbert

[Guest]

I was interested in what underlay peple are using under their Peco BH track...

 

Good question. I've also got hold of 3 RH and 1 LH bullhead points ready for a small layout. I have always used 4mm cork floor tiles, but I have an unopened trade pack of the Woodland Scenics foam sheets (same as roadbed), and I'm unsure what I'll use. I'm led to believe it's just a matter of personal preference, as if you ballast using PVA, you're pretty much negating any sound-deadening qualities of the underlay.

The bullhead points may be a tad more delicate than Streamline, but I'm not sure that would have any bearing on my choice. Certainly interested to hear what others have done though.

[PMP]

Woodland Scenics underlay, WS ballast fixed with water diluted PVA and Johnson’s acrylic floor varnish.

 

Ballast and shoulders filled with DAS modelling clay, painted with Halfords and Tamiya acrylic spray cans.

No problems with it at all.

[Chamby]

I’ve used the woodland scenics foam ballast. If you are pinning your track, I suggest that you drill pilot holes in the sleepers first, using a firm surface, before placing it on the foam.

 

The bullhead track chairs can be pushed off the rail if you exert too much downward pressure on the sleepers when the track is mounted on the foam base, so it just requires a little extra care compared to the flat bottomed rail. The pilot hole reduces the pressure placed on the sleeper when pinning.