Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[gr.king]

Perhaps they cannot bring themselves to break away completely from the traditional way that track pieces join up in toy train sets?

 

Slightly closer timber spacing, as I advocated, just a bit more nearly in proportion to the gauge and not ridiculously close as in the original Peco OO/HO code 100 code 75 systems might also have allowed the crossing noses to sit on supporting timbers instead of having fresh air beneath them.....

 

Still, if we don't get too pedantic one bent timber at the end isn't difficult to remove, especially if you intend to have more closely spaced parallel tracks. Even if you don't want to trim the rail a new straight timber and possibly a very small number of moulded chairs won't be too time consuming to fit.

[JohnR]

I see Medium radius points are promised for 2020!

[Roy Langridge]

22 hours ago, JohnR said:

I see Medium radius points are promised for 2020!

 

“Expected”,  not promised. 

 

Roy

[JohnR]

3 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

“Expected”,  not promised. 

 

Roy

 

Touche!

[RBAGE]

1 hour ago, JohnR said:

 

Touche!

Three che!

[D.Platt]

I was told at the GCR model exhibition that the double and single slips would be in the shops August/September how long can I hold my breath for 

[gr.king]

More than two or three minutes definitely inadvisable unless you regularly do free diving.......

[MarkSG]

Has anybody used these with a slow-acting point motor (eg, Tortoise, Cobalt, Conrad)?

 

Normally, for slow-acting point motors, you're supposed to remove the locking spring. But, as someone mentioned in this thread quite some time ago, the fact that these points have bending point blades rather than hinged blades, the rails themselves are likely to be "springy", and without a locking spring will probably tend to self-centre. So unless the point motor holds it very firmly in place, you could end up with loose blades that risk derailments.

 

Also, I can't see any easy way to remove or replace the locking spring on these points from above. On the older style flat-bottom points, you can remove or replace the spring in situ, after the point has been fixed to the baseboard. But, looking at them, it seems to me that the only way to remove the spring from these is from underneath. Which means it needs to be done before fixing to the track.

 

I don't want to do that, for two reasons. One is that I haven't bought the point motors yet, but I do have some left-over solenoids from an earlier project. So I was planning to use those in the build phase, and then maybe replace them with slow-acting motors later, when budget permits (having splurged a fair wedge on the points, and a DCC controller and some chips (which is a different story), I do need to stagger my expenditure somewhat!). That's obviously not possible if the spring can't be removed from above. And, secondly, if the springiness of the blades does prove troublesome, I'd want to use solenoids anyway as they'll be more reliable (if less prototypical) in this context. But if I'm stuck with whatever choice I make before fixing the track in place, I can't do that if I start with slow-acting motors.

 

So - does anyone have any practical experience with these, particularly with slow-acting point motors?

 

 

[TonyW]

I have installed Cobalts on three so far, they stay switched OK without the springs.

 

I removed the springs after the points had been fixed, the spring can be removed from above with length of bent wire or paper clip.  However, you will loose the spring, it will fly over your shoulder and disappear in to the far reaches of the railway room.

 

For the next set I install, I will leave the spring in initially and see if the motor has enough oomph to switch it over.

 

Tony

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by TonyW

[Chamby]

I have installed 24 of the turnouts so far, all powered by digital Cobalts.  I have removed the over-centre springs from the first few turnouts, they work fine... later ones I have left the spring in, they work fine as well.  The Cobalts have no problem throwing them.

 

One advantage of leaving the spring in is that you can hear a confirmatory ‘click’ when the point throws, this gives confidence that the point has fully thrown over.  I find this reassuring when operating the turnouts that are sited further away from my control panel.  The down-side however is that you lose the slow action.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Welcome to Kings Cross Garden Centre.

[MarkSG]

3 minutes ago, Chamby said:

One advantage of leaving the spring in is that you can hear a confirmatory ‘click’ when the point throws, this gives confidence that the point has fully thrown over.  I find this reassuring when operating the turnouts that are sited further away from my control panel.  The down-side however is that you lose the slow action.

 

If you're going to do that, though, then what's the benefit of using a slow-action motor? I appreciate that you still get the DCC functionality with the Cobalt Digital motors, but you could achieve that at lower cost by using solenoids and the DCD-ADS (or similar) control unit.

 

I think what I'm going to do, though, in light of the replies, is put in solenoids to begin with (since I have an analogue CDU for them that's also spare from a previous project), and then consider going all digital, with slow-acting motors, later. That way, I can focus on getting the track in place relatively quickly so I can move on to the scenery (which is what I enjoy more). and then revisit the point motors later if I feel like a change of emphasis for a while. 

[rob D2]

Same experience.

removed springs before installation, cobalt DCC move them fine and keep them in place fine.

[Chamby]

3 hours ago, MarkSG said:

 

If you're going to do that, though, then what's the benefit of using a slow-action motor? I appreciate that you still get the DCC functionality with the Cobalt Digital motors, but you could achieve that at lower cost by using solenoids and the DCD-ADS (or similar) control unit.

 

 

There are several benefits of using Cobalt Alpha’s over a solenoid... 

 

1). Built in frog polarity switching in the Cobalt unit.

 

2). Built in change-over switches in the Cobalt unit, easy to use and reliable.

 

3). Control from your digital handset or separate control panel.

 

4). I also have an alpha-mimic display panel set up to show route setting... this only has two wires running between it and the layout, it responds digitally to the point change commands, which I can send either from the handset or a Cobalt Alpha accessory control unit.

 

5). The Cobalt Alpha is much easier to install with all its integral wiring, and probably not much more expensive than buying a solenoid and separate digital control unit.

 

If you’re going to use DCC control, the benefits multiply the more you adopt it fully from the outset.  Hybrid DCC layouts with analogue accessory control miss out on so much of the benefit... not least losing all those unnecessary wires!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Chamby
Auto-spell corruption

[martin_wynne]

On 22/08/2019 at 11:19, D.Platt said:

I was told at the GCR model exhibition that the double and single slips would be in the shops August/September how long can I hold my breath for 

 

Full page advert for them on page 73a of the new Railway Modeller (October 2019).

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by martin_wynne

[gr.king]

Let's hope they are better than certain other "Ace" items.

 

No copyright problems with the reproduction of the advertisement then?

 

 

Well the image of an advert was there above when I made the original remark. Now it has gone......

Edited September 12, 2019 by gr.king
Edited to restore meaning

[Mallard60022]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Full page advert for them on page 73a of the new Railway Modeller (October 2019).

 

They look very good to my eyes Martyn. I suspect they would look pretty good on my 'average' layout and might consider replacing two 'conventional Peco C75 Double Slips (and then two points) on the very visible Yard on my layout (not in any way set in ballast etc. yet? I think the geometry will be very similar?

P

[martin_wynne]

11 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

I think the geometry will be very similar?

 

The geometry is identical. They are direct drop-in replacements.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Mallard60022]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The geometry is identical. They are direct drop-in replacements.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Very helpful thank you Martin.

P

[D.Platt]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Full page advert for them on page 73a of the new Railway Modeller (October 2019).

 

 

Thanks Martin

How refreshing from a manufacturer to deliver a product when promised, it will mean I can continue with my track work , I can make straight points using C&L parts but a double slip I think would be too much for me !

[Merfyn Jones]

3 hours ago, D.Platt said:

 

Thanks Martin

How refreshing from a manufacturer to deliver a product when promised, it will mean I can continue with my track work , I can make straight points using C&L parts but a double slip I think would be too much for me !

 

That made my day.  I suppose if you make enough promises over time then one of them will come true.

 

[MarkSG]

Well, if the slips arrive on the shelves in the next few weeks then one may well find its way onto my layout. I have so far laid one point and twelve inches of track, as the culmination of a burst of energy which saw the construction of a traverser, completion of a couple of kits and a start on the trackwork, followed by an incredibly busy period of work and other commitments which has prevented any further progress. But things will ease off again in October, so hopefully I'll be able to get back on with it.

 

The lack of progress, though, means that the track plan isn't yet set in stone (or, to be more precise, glue and ballast), so there's scope for modification. And there's an obvious position where the use of a double slip, rather than two points back to back, will leave more space for some of the other elements I want to include. I just hope they're not too eye-wateringly expensive when they do go on sale!

[Damo666]

I have one PECO Bullhead point which causes derailments on a Murphy Models loco, so far the other 4 loco's (Hornby & Bachmann diesels) all transverse over it OK, so the suspicion is the Back-to-Back on the Murphy.

 

Thing is, what B2B gauge should I get? There are 14.5mm, 14.75mm & 14.85mm OO Gauges available?

[martin_wynne]

33 minutes ago, Damo666 said:

Thing is, what B2B gauge should I get? There are 14.5mm, 14.75mm & 14.85mm OO Gauges available?

 

The correct back-to-back for the wheels on 00 RTR models  is 14.4 mm -- see: http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

The other back-to-back gauges available are for other types of wheels.

 

A 14.4mm back-to-back gauge is available from: http://www.doubleogauge.com/shop.htm

 

You want the Intermediate version.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

[gr.king]

Some of the decisions on standards made by the DOGA seem very odd and retrograde to me. I feel that most serious users of versions of OO that are better than "toy-market coarse scale" have for decades considered 14.5mm to be the minimum standard. Unless the intention is to run models mostly on old style code 100 or worse, practical experience rather than mathematical theory would suggest to me that 14.5 or more is the setting that will actually give best results.