Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[The Outcast]

Curved points would be my pick - much more useful for the layout I've got planned.

Edited September 27, 2023 by The Outcast

[gr.king]

Are curved points or a Y really necessary?  The large radius bullhead point can be flexed to produce a curved point, 9ft + 3ft radii approx being the limit before the skewed tie bar becomes a problem. It can also be flexed the other way to produce a Y.  I imagine the medium radius point can also be persuaded to curve, possibly giving something more useful for a compact layout.  Flexing of the large radius point doesn't even require any cutting of the moulded base, especially if the track is then fixed down, which I presume almost everybody expects to do with this sort of track.

[Harlequin]

11 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Are curved points or a Y really necessary?  The large radius bullhead point can be flexed to produce a curved point, 9ft + 3ft radii approx being the limit before the skewed tie bar becomes a problem. It can also be flexed the other way to produce a Y.  I imagine the medium radius point can also be persuaded to curve, possibly giving something more useful for a compact layout.  Flexing of the large radius point doesn't even require any cutting of the moulded base, especially if the track is then fixed down, which I presume almost everybody expects to do with this sort of track.

 

Many people don't want to go to those lengths and there's always the danger of those kinds of mods introducing new problems.

 

It's also much easier for track planning software to work with fixed-geometry parts.

 

I agree that the curved turnout is probably the next most useful one because it helps when fitting plans into constrained spaces.

 

(I wonder if Peco will ever release the larger radius bullhead turnouts that they've talked about? They move so s-l-o-w-l-y.)

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Harlequin

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Harlequin said:

 

They move so s-l-o-w-l-y.

 

 

Quite so - my layout was conceived and built well after the introduction of the bullhead track; but I had to use flat-bottomed because quite a few essential components weren't, and still aren't, available.

 

Any new track range must be exactly that - a range! It will never develop it's potential sales until all elements are available.

 

The trouble is, Peco know that, if we don't use the new stuff, we'll buy the old stuff.

 

CJI.

[meil]

On 26/09/2022 at 00:45, Pacific231G said:

Hi Martin

you've said probably correctly that Peco track, including bullhead, looks nothing like the prototype but, apart from the absurdly sharp crossings and curves that most of us are forced to use , the use of loose heeled switches, and the heavy spring mechanism at the tiebar I'm wondering what are the main features that makes it look wrong both for plain track and pointwork ?  I'm not denying what you say but trying to get a handle on just what is wrong with their (and other) RTL track and pointwork.  

The most obvious feature (applicable to all PECO points) is the way the point blade ends dangle about in mid-air as opposed to being supported as real point blade ends are.

It's that feature that always shouts out toy train to me.

Edited September 27, 2023 by meil

[E100]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Quite so - my layout was conceived and built well after the introduction of the bullhead track; but I had to use flat-bottomed because quite a few essential components weren't, and still aren't, available.

 

Any new track range must be exactly that - a range! It will never develop it's potential sales until all elements are available.

 

The trouble is, Peco know that, if we don't use the new stuff, we'll buy the old stuff.

 

CJI.

 

It's a very good point (pardon the pun) that adding in these additional items will drive sales of the more mundane elements that are already there. For example, if you absolutely must use a curved point in one or two locations then it opens up the possibility of buying many more LH/RH points and plain track.

 

I would hope that the current range is now sufficient to generate reasonable sales numbers for them to have the confidence to expand this out fully.

[Wheatley]

4 hours ago, gr.king said:

Are curved points or a Y really necessary?  The large radius bullhead point can be flexed to produce a curved point, 9ft + 3ft radii approx being the limit before the skewed tie bar becomes a problem. It can also be flexed the other way to produce a Y.  I imagine the medium radius point can also be persuaded to curve, possibly giving something more useful for a compact layout.  Flexing of the large radius point doesn't even require any cutting of the moulded base, especially if the track is then fixed down, which I presume almost everybody expects to do with this sort of track.

 

Yes, because although they can be flexed a bit, you can't curve them to exactly the same configuration as a curved point, and I'd quite like to switch out the four curved points on my layout to match the bullhead ones I used on the rest of it :-) 

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

 

Yes, because although they can be flexed a bit, you can't curve them to exactly the same configuration as a curved point, and I'd quite like to switch out the four curved points on my layout to match the bullhead ones I used on the rest of it :-) 

This type of situation is evidently why Peco kept the same questionable geometry......

[AGR Model Store]

Could anyone give me any help or push me in the right direction about making a crossover in bullhead ?

 

I'm thinking about using a  short crossing ( code 75 range ) to save on space, but do I need to power the frogs on the crossing ?

 

Any help would be great, thank you

 

[Dominion]

Is it is scissors crossover you are doing ?

If so the polarity of the Diamond V crossings can always be the same as the polarity of opposite turn out frog on one of the diagonal routes. It seems a bit counter intuitive at first but it doesn’t actually matter which diagonal route you choose the turn out frogs of to power the Diamond frogs.

This works as long as you arrange for neither route to be switchable to the cross over unless the other diagonal is set to straight.

I have arranged for mine to be interlocked so that the point motors will not respond unless the other diagonal is straight, but you don’t have to go to those lengths for the frog polarity setup above to work, you just need to remember to reset the other route to straight if you forget.

Tom

Edited October 4, 2023 by Dominion
Added optional interlocking point

[rob D2]

Bullheads still disagreeing with Hornby diesels and that’s now the 60s as well as the 31s… shorting out on the Vs as the chunky wheels don’t just touch their own rails .

 

none of the Bachmann do it .

 

back to painting the wheel backs a la 31 or varnish in the points to make the insulated V longer but then the 08 may not like it 

[gr.king]

15 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

Bullheads still disagreeing with Hornby diesels and that’s now the 60s as well as the 31s… shorting out on the Vs as the chunky wheels don’t just touch their own rails .

 

none of the Bachmann do it .

 

back to painting the wheel backs a la 31 or varnish in the points to make the insulated V longer but then the 08 may not like it 

Interesting that you find that.  Based on similar earlier reports, I decided to do the necessary work to avoid trouble before laying and ballasting my points. I've changed the gaps and the wiring to get the old conventional electrofrog arrangement, the long, polarity-switched crossing section now extending about three timbers towards the toe from the actual crossing.  I wasn't sure that any of my locos had wide enough wheel treads, fat enough flanges, or sufficient over-throw of flangeless wheels on curves to be at risk of causing shorts, but I certainly did not want to find that I had a problem once all the track was firmly fixed in placed, wired up and ballasted.

Others (possibly with a "lucky" range of locos and limited variations in track geometry?) say they've had no trouble with wheel-induced shorts whatsoever and seem to find my precautions rather surprisingly thorough and pessimistic, if not indeed the actions of a lunatic. I do not regret doing the extra work, for peace of mind.

 

 

[hayfield]

3 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Bullheads still disagreeing with Hornby diesels and that’s now the 60s as well as the 31s… shorting out on the Vs as the chunky wheels don’t just touch their own rails .

 

none of the Bachmann do it .

 

back to painting the wheel backs a la 31 or varnish in the points to make the insulated V longer but then the 08 may not like it 

 

 

Whilst not truly finescale they will affect rolling stock with either thicker flanges or more importantly the wheel back to back measurements are out of gauge. Usually for finescale track the wheel back to backs should be 14.5mm. I would check the back to backs of the locos first

[Gilbert]

1 minute ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Whilst not truly finescale they will affect rolling stock with either thicker flanges or more importantly the wheel back to back measurements are out of gauge. Usually for finescale track the wheel back to backs should be 14.5mm. I would check the back to backs of the locos first

You not wrong but even with the correct B2Bs my Hornby 31s had sufficiently floaty and wide wheels to cause a short which was usually only detectable because a sound fitted loco would cut out - momentary - but there.  I kept the track - I'm on my third layout with Peco BH - and the 31s went to Liverpool....to the late lamented Hattons....

Chris

[Jeff Smith]

If some locos work ok, rather than compromise the track try a set of Gibson replacement wheels.  For a Hornby 31 just over £30.......

[Gilbert]

19 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

If some locos work ok, rather than compromise the track try a set of Gibson replacement wheels.  For a Hornby 31 just over £30.......

I did look into it at the time but being a simple soul I found the axle/wheel arrangements a little complicated .....

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

If some locos work ok, rather than compromise the track try a set of Gibson replacement wheels.  For a Hornby 31 just over £30.......

I don't see modification of the track, to a form that I wanted it to take in the first place, as "compromising" it in any way. On the contrary, I've improved it, especially as I now have self isolating points, perfect for the long-standing normal methods of analogue operation, instead of permanently live sidings that demand a section break and another switch.

[rob D2]

I want to keep using it as I like the way it looks, it’s frustrating as a lot of my planks are 1990 s onwards and the 60s are the kings of the fleet .

[Chamby]

If you modify the loco, then the inherent flaw in the track remains, just waiting for another future purchase or a friends visiting loco to fall foul of it.  
 

If you modify the track, the fix is permanent… yes it is a bit of an inconvenience, but it doesn’t compromise the appearance apart from adding a couple of extra rail breaks, and you won’t have any future problems.