Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[PMP]

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.

 

 

 

Rather than pin the track I've glued both Peco and C&L track to the woodlands scenic underlay using superglue. This holds it firmly in place, allowing the foam to do its damping and sound insulation thing, and it can be removed and replaced relatively easily if required.

[Ben Alder]

This recent discussion has been interesting, as I plan laying a couple as replacements just to see how it goes. With my existing Code 75 points I made them semi floating  using Peco underlay and veneer pins to hold them laterally to absorb the force of a CD operated point motor.The design of these new ones mean this is not an option and I am mulling over attaching them with Copydex to C&L 5mm foam and sprinkling ballast over while wet as I did with the 75's. Two questions; is the C&L 5mm foam similar in texture to the WS one, and how do you prevent sideways movement of the points, presuming you use the somewhat brutal punch of the CD and a traditional point motor....

[hayfield]

Ben

 

I have no idea about the WS underlay, but have used the C&L 3 mm closed cell foam and unless your switch blades are exceptionally stiff there should be no issues, in fact I would guess for solenoid operation it would act as a damper. If it does move when the point motor throws it it will go back to shape.

 

The best way of laying the track is ct cut out the shape required (don't bend strips round curves.). Coat the baseboard and the underlay with either Copydex or any other latex glue, allow to dry then lay the closed cell foam in place, the glue will work as an impact clue.

 

Next apply neat glue to the track, put in place and allow to dry

 

Finally with ballast, use a 50/50 mix of glue and water and apply to ballasted area with an eye dropper after misting the area with water.

[47137]

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

On my last project I laid SMP track (thin-sleepered) on Woodland Scenics roadbed and ballasted part of the track with PVA and WS ballast using the Gordon S (of Eastwood Town) method. I cannot hear any difference between the ballasted and unballasted sections, but speeds are low. The layer of ballast is quite thin. It's very quiet.

 

On my present project I have a Peco BH turnout and SMP track, also on WS road bed and I'll hope to take the same approach to ballasting where I want a granular ballast. However I may need to do two "coats" with the thicker sleepers on the turnout. I'd like to try the modelling clay approach described a few posts above for a siding.

 

For the track laying itself, I use slightly dilute PVA to stick the WS roadbed to the layout, and dabs of Evo-Stik Timebond on every other sleeper to fix the track to the roadbed.

 

- Richard.

Edited December 21, 2017 by 47137

[hayfield]

Now the initial dust has settled I am extremely pleased with both the take up of this new track system and its acceptance (no moans) of the style of the timbers or the price

 

Going back 2/3 years ago those who were complaining about the lack of any 4 mm scale 00 gauge track from a main stream supplier, were constantly being castigated by the RTR track zealots, the thought of having the correct size timbers/sleepers was unnecessary, and it was an easy but time consuming job to re-space the sleeper spacing. As for the complete new design of off set timber placement, if anyone suggested that they would have been strung up from the nearest water column. As for premium prices ? modellers would boycott such an affront to cheap bulk track supplies

 

Fast forward to the present, bullhead track being bought in bulk, then as it happens turnouts appearing relatively quickly with a radical new sleeper design at a premium price. The fact that there are few if any dissenting voices is a warm relief but with posts like #602 where great care and consideration is being taken over track laying is proof enough that track is becoming as important as every other sphere in railway modelling. A big thumbs up for Peco for listening and acting on consumer requests, also great to see modellers supporting this new range and voting with their wallets 

[PMP]

This recent discussion has been interesting, as I plan laying a couple as replacements just to see how it goes. With my existing Code 75 points I made them semi floating  using Peco underlay and veneer pins to hold them laterally to absorb the force of a CD operated point motor.The design of these new ones mean this is not an option and I am mulling over attaching them with Copydex to C&L 5mm foam and sprinkling ballast over while wet as I did with the 75's. Two questions; is the C&L 5mm foam similar in texture to the WS one, and how do you prevent sideways movement of the points, presuming you use the somewhat brutal punch of the CD and a traditional point motor....

 

On Shelfie1 I superglued the Peco CD75 points to WS underlay, and used standard PECO PL10E motors with them.  https://albionyard.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/superquick-track/ The motors are fixed (in the normal way), using the PECO mounting plate to the underside of the baseboard and I've had no subsequent movements, well, not of the track anyway...

[darren01]

Ben

 

I have no idea about the WS underlay, but have used the C&L 3 mm closed cell foam and unless your switch blades are exceptionally stiff there should be no issues, in fact I would guess for solenoid operation it would act as a damper. If it does move when the point motor throws it it will go back to shape.

 

The best way of laying the track is ct cut out the shape required (don't bend strips round curves.). Coat the baseboard and the underlay with either Copydex or any other latex glue, allow to dry then lay the closed cell foam in place, the glue will work as an impact clue.

 

Next apply neat glue to the track, put in place and allow to dry

 

Finally with ballast, use a 50/50 mix of glue and water and apply to ballasted area with an eye dropper after misting the area with water.

Have a look at under floor rolls, you can get in 2mm/3mm/and 4mm in a big roll, lot better than paying for a 1 meter bit C+L sell, got my one which is the same as C+L for £19.99 for a 12 meter roll.

[hayfield]

Apparently Millets do camping mats, which are much the same

[Pacific231G]

Does anyone know how far the rail is raised from the sleepers by the chairs with Peco's new BH track? . In other words, with FB rail effectively sitting on top of the sleepers the railhead for code 75 rail should be 0.075inches above the tops of the sleepers but in theory chaired track would put the rail slightly above that.

 

The reason for this query is to figure out whether the Kadee uncoupling magnets designed for code 83 FB track which sit on top of the sleepers would be at the correct height (0.015 inches proud of the railhead)  when used with code 75 bullhead track.

Using Code 83 magnets with code 75 FB track puts the magnet slightly higher than it should be, though I don't know whether that makes any real diffence, but it would be interesting to know.

[Nile]

I make it 2.5mm (top of sleeper to top of rail).[edit]

I have a vague memory of a proper diagram being posted long ago, probably in one of the locked topics.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Nile

[martin_wynne]

Does anyone know how far the rail is raised from the sleepers by the chairs with Peco's new BH track?

 

Scaling from Peco's artwork it is 0.50mm. The exact prototype equivalent would be 0.58mm (1.3/4" chair base):

 

 

Martin.

[autocoach]

Does anyone know how far the rail is raised from the sleepers by the chairs with Peco's new BH track? . In other words, with FB rail effectively sitting on top of the sleepers the railhead for code 75 rail should be 0.075inches above the tops of the sleepers but in theory chaired track would put the rail slightly above that.

 

The reason for this query is to figure out whether the Kadee uncoupling magnets designed for code 83 FB track which sit on top of the sleepers would be at the correct height (0.015 inches proud of the railhead)  when used with code 75 bullhead track.

Using Code 83 magnets with code 75 FB track puts the magnet slightly higher than it should be, though I don't know whether that makes any real diffence, but it would be interesting to know.

Kadee website says "Ready to mount on top of ties with Code 83 rail. Cut out ties if mounting Code 70, 55 or 40 rail." Code 75 is not a commonly used rail height in US modeling.

Edited December 21, 2017 by autocoach

[Jeff Smith]

The Bachmann (USA) magnets are powerful and designed to go under the track. I installed them under ME code 70 track and the Kadees operated successfully. The upper face of the magnet would have been nearly 5mm below rail top.

[Pacific231G]

Scaling from Peco's artwork it is 0.50mm. The exact prototype equivalent would be 0.58mm (1.3/4" chair base):

 

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin, that's interesting and if the rail section really is 0.075 inch (Code 75) and my maths is right that makes the height of the railhead above the sleepers 0.095 inch (equivalent to code 95) which would make the above track magnets designed for code 100 closer.

 

Code 75 IS unusual for H0 track made specifically for the American market but I understand that Peco sell quite a lot of code 75 Streamline there despite the availability of their 83line track. There must therefore be fairly widespread experience of using Kadee's products with it.

 

Jeff; Ideally of course you would use hidden under-track magnets but that requires being absolutely sure of their final positioning at the track-laying stage. My own current layout has a total of five magnets; of those one has moved and the fifth was a late addition, both in the light of operational experience 

Three of them are disguised within a level crossing and the other two as part of a barrow crossing. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Think 'Hayfield' has hit many nails with his post & without requoting bits there will always be people who want to build their own and people who want to stick to setrack so they dont have to cut it. 

There are loads in between ease of use and appearance - not to mention skills/time etc.
- There are people like me who have built 10 points to get 3 working ones just to get better sleeper spacing - with no chairs  
If the people who always used peco ( ie. flexi - not set-track) think this is worth the extra outlay they have an absolute winner. 
- to my mind the difference in price is a better trade off than what we have seen throughout the rest of the RTR - loco's , but particularly passenger stock many of the new coach prices being in the £30 - £50 range wow! glad I'm freight-only  

Can we have mass produced working scale couplings next ? - COAT - DOOR - GONE hahaha

Edited December 22, 2017 by Russ (mines a pint)

[gr.king]

I wonder whether that Peco artwork is a true scale representation. My highly fallible naked eye sees the head and the foot of Peco's rail as being of very similar proportions to one another, not quite what the artwork suggests.

[hayfield]

Scaling from Peco's artwork it is 0.50mm. The exact prototype equivalent would be 0.58mm (1.3/4" chair base):

 

 

Martin.

 

 

This makes the C&L and Exactoscale ranges a perfect match for the Peco turnouts and flexi track with sleepers & timbers being 1.6 mm thick and chairs holding the rail 0.5 mm above the sleepers & timbers, ideal for both kit bashing and scratch building

[hayfield]

Think 'Hayfield' has hit many nails with his post & without requoting bits there will always be people who want to build their own and people who want to stick to setrack so they dont have to cut it. 

 

There are loads in between ease of use and appearance - not to mention skills/time etc.

- There are people like me who have built 10 points to get 3 working ones just to get better sleeper spacing - with no chairs  

If the people who always used peco ( ie. flexi - not set-track) think this is worth the extra outlay they have an absolute winner. 

- to my mind the difference in price is a better trade off than what we have seen throughout the rest of the RTR - loco's , but particularly passenger stock many of the new coach prices being in the £30 - £50 range wow! glad I'm freight-only  

 

Can we have mass produced working scale couplings next ? - COAT - DOOR - GONE hahaha

 

 

Russ

 

I can remember my first hand built turnouts, made from SMP kits. using only the flat bar gauges included in the kits, following the instructions and using the enclosed paper plan and holding the rails with panel pins. Needless to say built lop sided, out of gauge and worked awfully.

 

Fast forward to now, extremely accurate and detailed plans of every shape and size available using Templot, both our understanding of how plastic chairs and sleepers & timbers work along with the excellent Exactoscale range of additional special chairs, coupled with the availability of decent gauges and the online tuition and advice. There is little excuse if the will is there not to both have a go at building turnouts and crossings and successfully build a reliable working model.

 

OK there are a very small number who cannot make anything, then there are the time poor, followed by those who do not enjoy doing it, which is fine. But the joy I have seen with some who after a limited amount of tuition got from making a working turnouts, then see them go on and build something they could not have bought off the shelf has been very rewarding

[tender]

This makes the C&L and Exactoscale ranges a perfect match for the Peco turnouts and flexi track with sleepers & timbers being 1.6 mm thick and chairs holding the rail 0.5 mm above the sleepers & timbers, ideal for both kit bashing and scratch building

 

But not so good for soldered rail on copperclad. I need to build a diamond crossing to go with the bullhead turnouts for my new layout. I've had a modicum of success with building a soldered copper clad turnout but have yet to try a chaired one. Don't know whether starting with a diamond crossing is good or bad idea.

[Scottest]

With apologies for the poor quality reproduction, but the attached contemporary data may be of interest if not of much value!

 

 

[hayfield]

But not so good for soldered rail on copperclad. I need to build a diamond crossing to go with the bullhead turnouts for my new layout. I've had a modicum of success with building a soldered copper clad turnout but have yet to try a chaired one. Don't know whether starting with a diamond crossing is good or bad idea.

 

 

Tender

 

A diamond crossing is a very good start, as there are no moving parts, the tips for a successful crossing is 

 

1   A good plan, Templot is ideal

2   Take your time filing up the Vees and fitting them

3   Again take time fitting the stock rails, use a long steel rule to ensure that the stockrail at one end lines up with the Vee at the other end

4   The gauge in the middle will be slightly more than 16.5, as the central bends are curved, not a sharp angle

5   Just take your time making and fitting the rest of the rails, if you are unhappy with a part make a new one

 

Some may prefer to solder, others can easily use the Exactoscale range as two packs of E4CH 503A (obtuse crossing chairs) and some E4CH403A (0.8 mm Checkrail Chairs) will make life a lot easier, the latter will have to be modified slightly. This route will reduce the amount of soldering which puts off many 

[Jeff Smith]

Soldered/copper-clad is suitable for flat-bottom construction but not too easy to accomplish for chaired BH track. The Brook-Smith punched ply sleepers with brass rivets solved the problem of getting the rail the correct height above the sleepers but involved the tedium of fitting individual chair halves. Using ply or plastic sleepers and plastic chairs threaded onto the rail and then stuck onto the sleepers is by far the easiest route for those wanting to match the existing Peco BH turnouts. Ready made Vees are available to make life easy.

[hayfield]

Soldered/copper-clad is suitable for flat-bottom construction but not too easy to accomplish for chaired BH track. The Brook-Smith punched ply sleepers with brass rivets solved the problem of getting the rail the correct height above the sleepers but involved the tedium of fitting individual chair halves. Using ply or plastic sleepers and plastic chairs threaded onto the rail and then stuck onto the sleepers is by far the easiest route for those wanting to match the existing Peco BH turnouts. Ready made Vees are available to make life easy.

 

 

Jeff

 

Totally agree with what you have said, just two things to add about plastic chair construction

 

1  The bond between plastic chair and sleeper/timber is far stronger than Ply strip, as the grip between ply and plastic is dependant on the liquid plastic settling in the grain. This could be seen as a bonus as once fully dry the joint can be broken by carefully prying apart with a scalpel blade 

 

2 The chair holds the rail at the correct angle in the chair, it relies on the rail head being able to rotate within the slot in the gauge. If it is too tight then the rail will be held upright, after the gauge is removed the chair will move back into the correct position and reduce the gauge. 

 

It is also wise to allow the solvent to fully evaporate and for the joint to dry, so leaving some jobs to set overnight may be wise.

Use the thicker 1.6 mm sleepers/timbers as they match the height of Peco's track as the thin plastic (not ply) sleepers/timbers tend to curl slightly as the solvent drys out.

[gr.king]

Scaling from Peco's artwork it is 0.50mm. The exact prototype equivalent would be 0.58mm (1.3/4" chair base):

 

 

Martin.

 

 

I wonder whether that Peco artwork is a true scale representation. My highly fallible naked eye sees the head and the foot of Peco's rail as being of very similar proportions to one another, not quite what the artwork suggests.

 

Measuring with a digital Vernier just now, comparing a Peco BH turnout and a piece of plastic base stripped from a modified code 75 FB Peco large radius example, I've found the following, although I wouldn't want to claim that any individual figure is more accurate than "to the nearest 0.05mm" at best:

 

BH rail height 1.9mm, total track height 3.9mm, sleeper / timber thickness 1.65mm. By implication, chair base thickness approx. 0.35mm +/-

 

FB rail height 1.9mm, thickness of sleeper / timber mid-way across, clear of any moulded plates / chairs 1.42mm, thickness of moulded base where rail foot sits 2.1mm.

 

Obviously these suggest a 0.1mm discrepancy in total track heights, which could be entirely due to measuring errors, individual or cumulative.

 

Again, the Peco BH rail examined from the side and from the end appears to have a foot (almost?) as heavy as the head.

 

 

If these figures really matter to some users, perhaps one of those with a more accurate measuring device would care to measure up some track as I have done and give us the results?

[Bernard Lamb]

Measuring with a digital Vernier just now, comparing a Peco BH turnout and a piece of plastic base stripped from a modified code 75 FB Peco large radius example, I've found the following, although I wouldn't want to claim that any individual figure is more accurate than "to the nearest 0.05mm" at best:

 

BH rail height 1.9mm, total track height 3.9mm, sleeper / timber thickness 1.65mm. By implication, chair base thickness approx. 0.35mm +/-

 

FB rail height 1.9mm, thickness of sleeper / timber mid-way across, clear of any moulded plates / chairs 1.42mm, thickness of moulded base where rail foot sits 2.1mm.

 

Obviously these suggest a 0.1mm discrepancy in total track heights, which could be entirely due to measuring errors, individual or cumulative.

 

Again, the Peco BH rail examined from the side and from the end appears to have a foot (almost?) as heavy as the head.

 

 

If these figures really matter to some users, perhaps one of those with a more accurate measuring device would care to measure up some track as I have done and give us the results?

 

But this is RTR 00 not P4 so who cares about the exact dimensions.

As long as it works and is compatible with the other makes that's good enough for me.

Bernard