Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Tim Dubya]

I suspect it depends on sales of these TBH.

 

I would imagine they'll go for medium radius points and add crossings next too. Maybe not slips immediately but you never know, here's hoping.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Tim Dubya

[Tim Dubya]

Oh what a charming fellow.

Just as we are approaching the season of goodwill to all men.

Bernard

That season starts after Armistice Day for me...

 

Had the wrong items been of higher value or easier to exchange I wouldn't be such a grumpy old git X

.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Tim Dubya

[Pete the Elaner]

It may not be generally well known but in fact the six foot is only applicable to one pair of straight tracks.  Adding a third track or more, the gap is increased to ten feet.  If a fourth is added, then the pair can then be set to six foot again.  Carriage sidings, the gap is eight foot.

That may be a more modern guideline but 1 look at 4 track section of the WCML between Euston & Roade will prove that this was not always a hard rule.

[Pete the Elaner]

That'll be to accommodate the increased end throw of vehicles, especially coaches, when running around tighter than prototype curves and as I recall forms part of the original modelling standards. All modern OO track fixed geometry elements conform to the same standards, to ensure interchangeability between manufacturers; flexible track components need to follow the same rules for consistency but these do not need to be adhered to by individual modellers using them as they can reduce the over-width gap where their locos and rolling stock are shorter and/or the radii of curves are greater.

I completely agree.

I made my own gauges to narrow this for a fairly straight line. I removed 5mm & the difference was enormous, especially when trains are occupying each line. The issue is indeed on curves because most of us use radii which are far too tight & stock therefore overhangs far too much.

Oddly enough, the Double O Gauge Association have just started to produce gauges for this & also jigs to space sleepers out on standard track. I can't think who came up with those

[Gilbert]

I wouldn't be such a grumpy old git X

.

I believe that is virtually compulsory on this forum...

[Mallard60022]

I love Hattons so much that I send them a Seasons Greetings Card every year (in the hope they will send me some free gifts). Still waiting.

Actually I don't use Hattons so much these days as I'd rather pay a few quid extra and keep some of my smaller suppliers alive. However I have never had a problem with them with any order (bar one decoder they fitted being duff) and the Customer Services line is excellent and far more stimulating than many that advertise in the back pages of our local paper.    

I await my Bulls#ite Points that should arrive today and testing could take place tomorrow.

Ar$£

[Pete the Elaner]

I had 1 on order & have just collected it, so now I have not excuse for not building my new micro-layout.

I think it looks nicer than in any of the photos I have seen & am looking forward to using it.

[Oldddudders]

I believe that is virtually compulsory on this forum...

 

No, no - many of us in the grandstands have a perpetual smile on our face!

[Gilbert]

is there such a thing as Train Anxiety Syndrome....?

[Chris116]

is there such a thing as Train Anxiety Syndrome....?

Yes, caused by TOCs, Unions, Government and Network Rail all trying to score points of each other instead of running a service.

[LNER4479]

That may be a more modern guideline but 1 look at 4 track section of the WCML between Euston & Roade will prove that this was not always a hard rule.

As these are bullhead points then they relate more closely to the traditional steam era than today's railways. Back in the day, the 'six foot' was the minimum quoted on the standard track clearances and dimensions diagram. Modern, high speed lines clearly need greater separation due to increased dynamic effects.

 

125mph is about the maximum speed for six foot separation and it gets uncomfortable at times. More than once has my glass of drink been knocked over by the 'whompf' of us passing another train in the opposite direction also doing 125mph on the ECML, a route constrained to six foot separations in many places due to numerous tunnels and viaducts, etc.

 

WCML was rebuilt in anticipation of 140mph Pendolino running hence greater separation. Additional land was purchased in places (ie additional few feet alongside existing formation) to make this happen.

 

And before anyone mentions it, many ex-GWR routes of course have greater separation on former broad gauge lines which gave them a wider original formation to work with.

Edited November 8, 2017 by LNER4479

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I really do like the look of the bullhead rails, and am now serious thinking about changing my track to this. The only thing that I find slightly concerning is the lack of information regarding what points they plan on making and in what sort of time scale. I had a quick look at Peco's own web page but couldn't really find much.

 

Does anybody have any clues regarding what they are going to produce and when?...

I feel the traditional approach of buying some of the product (= customer, which should get any retailer's attention) and informing said retailer of your requirements of potential future purchases, is the way to go on this.

 

My vote has gone in on this basis for something larger radius yet, with the suggestion that Peco 'shake loose' from their Streamline points format for future introductions and go in the scale direction they have adopted for the code 83 HO. (This on the basis that the existing code 75 FB is fully compatible in terms of rail to rail connection, and will always be used 'off scene' as it is cheaper: they should significantly differentiate the new BH product from what has gone before, majoring on the superior appearance.)

Edited November 8, 2017 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[£1.38]

Ideally, we need a full range of diamond crossing(s) 3-way, slips and larger radius points to make a decent layout.

 

How to go about building that one piece of track that you need, but PECO will never ever supply though? Commercial chairs like C&L look quite large compared to the Peco bullhead ones. I am just wondering if you could cannibalise the Peco track to make your own, but am probably not brave enough to try.

Edited November 8, 2017 by £1.38

[frobisher]

Ideally, we need a full range of diamond crossing(s) 3-way and larger radius points to make a decent layout.

My gut feeling is that Peco should leave anything below the current "large radius" to the FB range, but should produce any BH slips, crossings etc. to "large radius" (almost all are "medium" or "small"), and perhaps a "larger radius" point with a 6 rather than 12 degree frog angle with an associated crossing. But that's just me.

[Oldddudders]

My gut feeling is that Peco should leave anything below the current "large radius" to the FB range, but should produce any BH slips, crossings etc. to "large radius" (almost all are "medium" or "small"), and perhaps a "larger radius" point with a 6 rather than 12 degree frog angle with an associated crossing. But that's just me.

 

I can see your pojnt (sorry) but as too many of us find out, even with the current Peco ranges, a decently complex station throat can take up a great deal of space lengthwise, perhaps compromising platform length. If slips and crossings are all to become longer, sales of the new range will be limited to those with enough space. The wise heads at Peco having got this far, I doubt they'd want to cater for a potentially smaller market than the FB range serves. 

[Mark Saunders]

My gut feeling is that Peco should leave anything below the current "large radius" to the FB range, but should produce any BH slips, crossings etc. to "large radius" (almost all are "medium" or "small"), and perhaps a "larger radius" point with a 6 rather than 12 degree frog angle with an associated crossing. But that's just me.

 

 

I can see your pojnt (sorry) but as too many of us find out, even with the current Peco ranges, a decently complex station throat can take up a great deal of space lengthwise, perhaps compromising platform length. If slips and crossings are all to become longer, sales of the new range will be limited to those with enough space. The wise heads at Peco having got this far, I doubt they'd want to cater for a potentially smaller market than the FB range serves. 

 

For those of us who do not model mainline there is no real requirement for long/large radius points.

 

The use of mediums and shorts is on my shopping list not large!

 

Mark Saunders

[rob D2]

Those are the sexiest things to ever come out the Peco factory.

 

I wasn't gonna build a new plank for a year but I'm sorely tempted

[Captain Kernow]

They look better than the pre-production example I saw at a show a few months ago. I expect that I'll buy one and find somewhere to use it.

 

I'm not convinced by the 'wood grain' effect though, not on these or on virtually any other type of plastic-sleepered track. When looking at real wooden sleepered track from the equivalent of 'normal viewing distances', they usually appear relatively featureless, although the colouring varies widely, depending on the amount of creosote remaining and the consequential amount of weathering that they've received.

[Guest]

I can see your pojnt (sorry) but as too many of us find out, even with the current Peco ranges, a decently complex station throat can take up a great deal of space lengthwise, perhaps compromising platform length. If slips and crossings are all to become longer, sales of the new range will be limited to those with enough space. The wise heads at Peco having got this far, I doubt they'd want to cater for a potentially smaller market than the FB range serves. 

 

For those of us who do not model mainline there is no real requirement for long/large radius points.

 

The use of mediums and shorts is on my shopping list not large!

 

Those of a club persuasion that have an army of helpers to load their huge layout in and out of a Transit van are probably the ones that need "large radius everything". They're also even more likely to build their own pointwork and probably wouldn't consider using RTR track anyway. Also, I guess those of us who are lucky enough to have room for the one big "home layout of a lifetime" might also be tempted to go large. Us mere mortals that are spacially challenged are more likely to want better looking medium and short radius everything and we'll still be worried about knocking half a carriage length off platform two to fit the station throat pointwork...

I think Peco want maximum sales (and so they should) so providing a range of points that most of us don't have space for might not be a good idea, at least at first. Should it come in the future, terrific, but medium radius might be a bigger sales success for them. If the length of slips and crossings goes up from what is available now in their FB range, I doubt it will suit the average modeller at all well.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Pete 75C

[The Bigbee Line]

I have too many flat bottom turnouts in my current stock that need using up so will try to resist the Bullhead turnouts.  My thought is that the 'medium' would be the next most useful edition with either a single slip or three way to follow.

 

If you need something at all exotic, build it or get someone else to do it.  I had a need for a single turnout for US outline in HO.  It was for a backwoods branch line in the South East US.  I contacted a guy in the states and he built me a No.8 in code 55....  I couldn't make such a good job and it avoids the necessary compromises from Peco code 83.

 

Peco have done well with this point and well done Mr Peco..

 

Here is the Code 55 HO turnout, very impressive..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clive Mark]

My gut feeling is that Peco should leave anything below the current "large radius" to the FB range, but should produce any BH slips, crossings etc. to "large radius" (almost all are "medium" or "small"), and perhaps a "larger radius" point with a 6 rather than 12 degree frog angle with an associated crossing. But that's just me.

 

I agree completely....and lets have more convincing sleepering.

 

I've not done any measuring but perhaps the checkrails on Peco's new point are correct length but only cover four sleepers because the sleepers are too far apart.

 

I have stared at many real bullhead points and it can be difficult to work out the frog angle without getting on to them with a ruler. What I do is count the number of sleepers starting from the tip of the switch rail going up to the tip of the frog.

 

There is no obvious consistency on the real thing. Even siding points will have 28 to 30 plus sleepers from switch tip to the point of the frog. Over the years or even from when they were first put down many years ago the sleepering shows a variance between points which otherwise seem the same in overall dimension. At key parts of the points where structural strength and stability is crucial the sleepers can be more intensely laid close together. But it seems to be ad hoc.

 

I therefore do not expect Peco to produce a rocket science precision copy of the prototype because the prototype never seems to be exactly the same. (Not to mention differences between the old private companies before grouping and nationalisation.)

 

The sleeper spacing on Peco's new Bullhead point does bug me though.

 

I hope for a larger radius point in the future from Peco with more convincing sleepering. I suspect they would sell enough to justify the effort. It would be a big bonus for OO finescale modelling even if they just did straight Left and Right hand turnouts and left more complicated units like slips to be built by hand. The use of lots of ordinary large radius turnouts without any other type of point would enable the building of a very satisfying OO finescale layout.

Edited November 8, 2017 by CLIVE MARK

[Merfyn Jones]

Mine arrived today in the post. Very pleased to be able to handle them and I'm pleased with them. They will certainly please most of our club members when we replace our old code 100 stuff like for like. Just have 2 bullhead single slips to build for the layout to complete the back dating of our club's OO layout. A start was made some time ago with the bullhead Peco track relaying and it looks good, roll on the rest.

[frobisher]

I can see your pojnt (sorry) but as too many of us find out, even with the current Peco ranges, a decently complex station throat can take up a great deal of space lengthwise, perhaps compromising platform length. If slips and crossings are all to become longer, sales of the new range will be limited to those with enough space. The wise heads at Peco having got this far, I doubt they'd want to cater for a potentially smaller market than the FB range serves.

They already are catering for a smaller market with this product; It's about double the price of the existing FB equivalent (and that is off putting for at least a few commentators on these threads - go back and check...) which cuts out the cost conscious. But there's a clear demand, it's just nowhere close to 100% of the existing code 75 market so there is no "potentially" about this smaller market.

 

You need to build the demand for the range, and straight duplication of the existing range cannibalises some existing sales, extending the existing range can only create new sales.

 

Make the new range do stuff the existing range can't first, and then go back and duplicate stuff, maybe.

[frobisher]

I think Peco want maximum sales (and so they should) so providing a range of points that most of us don't have space for might not be a good idea, at least at first. Should it come in the future, terrific, but medium radius might be a bigger sales success for them. If the length of slips and crossings goes up from what is available now in their FB range, I doubt it will suit the average modeller at all well.

If Medium would sell more, why did they lead with Large, hmmm? I think Peco have thought long and hard about what they are doing here.

[£1.38]

Having called them Large Radius though, they will be stuck for a name if they do any bigger ones

 

Ginormous, megalarge?????