Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[faa77]

So Peco can give EM track realistic default sleeper colour, but not OO........ smart.

[Bucoops]

So Peco can give EM track realistic default sleeper colour, but not OO........ smart.

 

edit. misread as realistic sleeper layout not colour. Ignore.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Bucoops

[martin_wynne]

edit. misread as realistic sleeper layout not colour. Ignore.

 

There is nothing unrealistic about the equalized timbering in the 00 turnouts.

 

The problem is that folks have forgotten what a full bullhead railway looked like. Both timbering styles were used extensively, according to site requirements and traffic flows.

 

Martin.

[iak]

There is nothing unrealistic about the equalized timbering in the 00 turnouts.

 

The problem is that folks have forgotten what a full bullhead railway looked like. Both timbering styles were used extensively, according to site requirements and traffic flows.

 

Martin.

The message will get through eventually Martin...

[JohnR]

Surely, when Peco look at that EM turnout they must see that they missed a trick with the new OO bullhead? With proper geometry and track spacing, it just looks way better.

 

The point of the OO bullhead was that it DID have the same geometry - the idea people people could replace existing streamline points with the new bullhead ones. 

[hayfield]

There is nothing unrealistic about the equalized timbering in the 00 turnouts.

 

The problem is that folks have forgotten what a full bullhead railway looked like. Both timbering styles were used extensively, according to site requirements and traffic flows.

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin I do accept this but what we see on preserved lines and in our memory affects how we see things. Modelling is an illusion and sometimes what looks right is possibly wrong. For me whether its prototypically right or wrong in certain turnout and crossing formations equalised looks right, but single straight turnouts square on to the main road looks correct,  memory and eye playing tricks or just being a slave to what has gone on before

[Joseph_Pestell]

The point of the OO bullhead was that it DID have the same geometry - the idea people people could replace existing streamline points with the new bullhead ones. 

 

Yes, I get that. But I can't see that a lot of people would do that. So not worth the compromised appearance.

[PaulG]

The attached photo may be of interest. The two points at the top right of the photo are standard PECO Bullhead points, but the two forming the crossover at the bottom of the photo have been cut, as I use about 26mm as distance between running lines. Easy to adjust, just cut the sleepers up to the frog and apply slight pressure to flatten radius and remove a couple of sleepers. I'm sure the purists are having a fit, but all my stock which a mixture of hand built and RTR run through the crossover with no problem and certainly in excess of the 20MPH speed limit!

Edited November 6, 2018 by PaulG

[martin_wynne]

Martin I do accept this but what we see on preserved lines and in our memory affects how we see things. Modelling is an illusion and sometimes what looks right is possibly wrong. For me whether its prototypically right or wrong in certain turnout and crossing formations equalised looks right, but single straight turnouts square on to the main road looks correct,  memory and eye playing tricks or just being a slave to what has gone on before

 

Hi John,

 

Obviously folks model whatever they like and are happy with. But there is a difference between that and suggesting that something is wrong.

 

Here are some words from David Smith's (a p.w. engineer) book on GWR track:

 

© David Smith & GWSG

 

Switching from GWR to NER, here is the NER drawing for a 1:8 turnout:

 

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

I and I assume others are not suggesting the equalised timbering is prototypically wrong, and there will be plenty of documentary evidence to back it up. What I and others are saying is that to most of up it looks wrong (even though it could be right). In a different reply I backed it up with two photos from Bodmin General station with the crossover from the platform comprising of two turnouts with equalised turnouts and at the end of the platform a turnout (to the shed) being square on to the straight road

 

The other factor is previous conditioning with most if not all previous ready to run turnouts being square on to the straight road, this in its self is not saying its right but what the eye is used to seeing, perhaps like the new Dr Who we will get used to equalised timbering

[martin_wynne]

I and I assume others are not suggesting the equalised timbering is prototypically wrong, and there will be plenty of documentary evidence to back it up. What I and others are saying is that to most of up it looks wrong (even though it could be right). In a different reply I backed it up with two photos from Bodmin General station with the crossover from the platform comprising of two turnouts with equalised turnouts and at the end of the platform a turnout (to the shed) being square on to the straight road

 

The other factor is previous conditioning with most if not all previous ready to run turnouts being square on to the straight road, this in its self is not saying its right but what the eye is used to seeing, perhaps like the new Dr Who we will get used to equalised timbering

 

Hi John,

 

I hear what you are saying, but maybe it is time for a bit of re-education?

 

Not all previous ready-to-run turnouts have square-on timbering. The Peco bullhead turnouts in 0 gauge have always been equalised, and I can't remember reading a single complaint about that.

 

It makes sense in a model turnout for another reason -- it helps to disguise the unprototypical sharpness of the radius when short turnouts are used in running lines.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Chamby]

The equalised timbering doesn't bother me at all.  

 

It is prototypical for some locations but not for others, and it is unreasonable to expect PECO/stockists to manufacture/stock both.  When laid, and with trains running, do I find myself dwelling on the sleeper orientation?  Not a jot.  It looks great. 

 

And if it is that big an issue, why not just build your own from C&L components?  No-one is forcing people to use these turnouts.

 

Phil

Edited November 6, 2018 by Chamby

[Joseph_Pestell]

I and I assume others are not suggesting the equalised timbering is prototypically wrong, and there will be plenty of documentary evidence to back it up. What I and others are saying is that to most of up it looks wrong (even though it could be right). In a different reply I backed it up with two photos from Bodmin General station with the crossover from the platform comprising of two turnouts with equalised turnouts and at the end of the platform a turnout (to the shed) being square on to the straight road

 

The other factor is previous conditioning with most if not all previous ready to run turnouts being square on to the straight road, this in its self is not saying its right but what the eye is used to seeing, perhaps like the new Dr Who we will get used to equalised timbering

 

I didn't know that Jodie Whittaker had taken a view on equalised sleepering.

[RBAGE]

The equalised timbering doesn't bother me at all.  

 

It is prototypical for some locations but not for others, and it is unreasonable to expect PECO/stockists to manufacture/stock both.  When laid, and with trains running, do I find myself dwelling on the sleeper orientation?  Not a jot.  It looks great. 

 

And if it is that big an issue, why not just build your own from C&L components?  No-one is forcing people to use these turnouts.

 

Phil

"No-one is forcing people to use these turnouts". 

How many times must we listen to that valuable contribution?

[Pete the Elaner]

"No-one is forcing people to use these turnouts". 

How many times must we listen to that valuable contribution?

I guess as many times as we hear people saying that "they are no good for my layout because a tiny detail is wrong".

[The Ghost of IKB]

 

Happily, rather unlike the new dr who, peco timbering isnt mind numbingly tedious politically correct drivel.

[hayfield]

Hi John,

 

I hear what you are saying, but maybe it is time for a bit of re-education?

 

Not all previous ready-to-run turnouts have square-on timbering. The Peco bullhead turnouts in 0 gauge have always been equalised, and I can't remember reading a single complaint about that.

 

It makes sense in a model turnout for another reason -- it helps to disguise the unprototypical sharpness of the radius when short turnouts are used in running lines.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Martin

You are probably correct as usual

 

 

And if it is that big an issue, why not just build your own from C&L components?  No-one is forcing people to use these turnouts.

 

Phil

 

Phil

 

I do but use the Exactoscale components as they supply the special chairs in addition to the more usual ones

 

 

I guess as many times as we hear people saying that "they are no good for my layout because a tiny detail is wrong".

 

The tiny big bit of wrong detailing is the last long timber which has been cut in half with one half fitted at the wrong angle, think of the uproar if a manufacture cut out one of the double chimneys of an express loco!! but its OK to do it on a turnout because its a piece of track. The orientation of the timbers is correct for some situations, but not all or even the majority that's what is being said

[PJ10]

Evening all,

 

I'm in the process of planning a new layout and have a number of plans drawn up using Peco code 75. However I have to admit that the bullhead track and points are a considerable improvement over code 75 flatbottom, visually at least. My period of interest is the Scotland lowlands in the mid 80s. Could I justifiably use the bullhead points and match them with a suitable plain track such as Exactoscale FastTrack? Or would this be stretching things little too far - when were the majority of bullhead points and crossings replaced with flatbottom rail? Also if I did go down the bullhead points route what would be the best plain flatbottom track option - both wooden and concrete sleepers.

 

Many thanks

 

PJ10

Edited November 7, 2018 by PJ10

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

 

 

The tiny big bit of wrong detailing is the last long timber which has been cut in half with one half fitted at the wrong angle, think of the uproar if a manufacture cut out one of the double chimneys of an express loco!! but its OK to do it on a turnout because its a piece of track. The orientation of the timbers is correct for some situations, but not all or even the majority that's what is being said

 

Voltaire wrote something along the lines of "perfect is the enemy of good".

Considering where we were a couple of years ago I reckon the progress has been amazing.

Bernard 

[hayfield]

Voltaire wrote something along the lines of "perfect is the enemy of good".

Considering where we were a couple of years ago I reckon the progress has been amazing.

Bernard 

 

 

Bernard

 

What will be interesting is when the EMGS turnouts become available, putting the gauge issue aside you will then be able to see what can be done by Peco to replicate an item.

 

Yes we are in a far better situation than 2 years ago, the issue I was highlighting was, if one of the RTR manufacturers making compromises in producing a loco, many would be up in arms and few would sell, I see no defence of this point, but at the same time I accept it fits in with those who require a "set track" style of interchangeability and is perhaps the ruling commercial reality.

 

I have commented many times the orientation of the timbers is stunning when used in both crossovers and formations with crossings, and would also suit curved turnouts, the dislocated last timber is totally wrong as is shortening the ends of sleepers where the plain track joins the turnout (As shown recently in the Railway Modeller on how to lay track)

 

3 years ago the majority were saying there was no market for better looking turnouts and crossings and defending the H0 scale items on offer at the time.  We now have a good product but if it were a loco my view is it would be panned by most, is it up to the standard of the new breed of locos and rolling stock ? if it is then we have a very good product

 

A commonly held point of view is, the best layouts is where all the components are to the same standard!!

[Chamby]

Evening all,

I'm in the process of planning a new layout and have a number of plans drawn up using Peco code 75. However I have to admit that the bullhead track and points are a considerable improvement over code 75 flatbottom, visually at least. My period of interest is the Scotland lowlands in the mid 80s. Could I justifiably use the bullhead points and match them with a suitable plain track such as Exactoscale FastTrack? Or would this be stretching things little too far - when were the majority of bullhead points and crossings replaced with flatbottom rail? Also if I did go down the bullhead points route what would be the best plain flatbottom track option - both wooden and concrete sleepers.

Many thanks

PJ10

I think the answer to your question is ‘it depends’. Bullhead track was still being laid new in the 1950’s although flat bottomed was rapidly becoming the norm. After then, flat bottomed was normally used when the track needed replacing, though if the sleepers and chairs still had plenty of life in them, just the (bullhead) rail would be replaced as this was cheaper and still gave perfectly serviceable track. A similar approach was often taken with pointwork... if the turnouts were in good condition, they would be retained. Inevitably, it was the lighter used lines, such as secondary routes, branch lines, mineral lines and sidings that would have retained the bullhead rail for longer, certainly well into and beyond the mid 80’s in many places. Your best approach for the area you are modelling is to scour photographs of the prototype around that time and scrutinise the trackwork. That’s the only way you will get a definitive answer.

 

As an aside, new bullhead rail is still manufactured and supplied in the UK... some thirty years after the mid-1980’s.

 

Phil

[PJ10]

I think the answer to your question is ‘it depends’. Bullhead track was still being laid new in the 1950’s although flat bottomed was rapidly becoming the norm. After then, flat bottomed was normally used when the track needed replacing, though if the sleepers and chairs still had plenty of life in them, just the (bullhead) rail would be replaced as this was cheaper and still gave perfectly serviceable track. A similar approach was often taken with pointwork... if the turnouts were in good condition, they would be retained. Inevitably, it was the lighter used lines, such as secondary routes, branch lines, mineral lines and sidings that would have retained the bullhead rail for longer, certainly well into and beyond the mid 80’s in many places. Your best approach for the area you are modelling is to scour photographs of the prototype around that time and scrutinise the trackwork. That’s the only way you will get a definitive answer.

 

As an aside, new bullhead rail is still manufactured and supplied in the UK... some thirty years after the mid-1980’s.

 

Phil

 

Thanks Phil,

 

This pretty much confirms my thoughts. I've been looking at photos and its mostly flatbottom. However I have concocted a scenario in my mind to justify the use of the bullhead points but I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with it. All comes down to whether the overall look of the points outweighs the bullhead rail profile. After all at normal viewing distance the sleeper spacing and other improvements will be noticeable, the rail profile less so. A test sample purchase required I think.

 

Thanks again.

 

PJ10

Edited November 7, 2018 by PJ10

[martin_wynne]

All comes down to whether the overall look of the points outweighs the bullhead rail profile. After all at normal viewing distance the sleeper spacing and other improvements will be noticeable, the rail profile less so. A test sample purchase required I think.

 

Bullhead track looks very different from flat-bottom. The rail is carried in chair castings and keys which project up into the rail web. The rail is lifted by the chairs 1.3/4" above the sleeper/ballast surface. Flat-bottom rail fixings engage only the rail foot, and the baseplates are much thinner.

 

However, I think bullhead track is entirely acceptable for your model. Unless you are modelling a specific location, and have photographs of that location at the specified period clearly showing flat-bottom track. Even if the running lines are flat-bottom, it is more likely than not that the goods loops, bay platforms, sidings and yards will still be bullhead.

 

Martin.

[faa77]

Hi All,

Thought I would share an image from my layout showing the Peco Bullhead points now that I have finished ballasting.

Still have to add a bit more detail & may also complete a tade more weathering to the track work to tone it down.

Hope you enjoy.

 

Did you use Peco bullhead for the straight sections too?

Edited November 11, 2018 by faa77

[Going2theDogs]

Did you use Peco bullhead for the straight sections too?

Hi,

Yes I can confirm on the scenic section of my layout I have made use of the new Peco Bullhead track. The fiddle yard which will be out of sight once I have completed the layout uses standard geometry Peco code 100 track.

Regards,

Edited November 12, 2018 by CB Rail