Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[jamespetts]

That is very helpful, thank you both.

 

For my own purposes, the E4 is relevant but the Bulleid pacifics not as my layout in its Southern guise will be set in 1935. I should therefore be most interested in Robert's re-tested E4.

 

Mark - I am interested to note that the method that you describe fixes the problem; do I understand correctly that your method is:

(1) replacing the wheels with Alan Gibson wheels; and

(2) adding lateral springing to the pony trucks (with phosphor bronze stuck to the backs of the cylinders as suggested by Robert)?

 

Perhaps for more general purposes (as no doubt this thread is of interest to people other than me for deciding whether it is necessary to modify the Peco points or preferable to modify the locomotives), it would be helpful if we could start drawing up a list of locomotives that exhibit these problems and the known fixes.

 

So far, we have:

 

* Hornby L1 (no fix tested/known);

* Hornby P2 (no fix tested/known);

* Hornby 8F (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Hornby Stanier 4P (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Hornby Fowler 4P (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Bachmann E4 (no fix known, but back to back measurements were an issue);

* Hornby rebuilt Merchant Navy (fixed by using flanged pony wheel); and

* Hornby rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain (only some examples affected; fixed by using flanged pony wheel).

 

Is this correct/complete so far?

Edited April 2, 2019 by jamespetts
Addition

[mark axlecounter]

The gibbo wheels look a lot better than Hornby's.

But as for lateral I use some spring wire bent to a side ways U then glue one side on the pony unit and the other side is pushed agenised the chassis. I'm not near the locos or I would show you what I have done.

 

Mark

[RFS]

30 minutes ago, jamespetts said:

That is very helpful, thank you both.

 

For my own purposes, the E4 is relevant but the Bulleid pacifics not as my layout in its Southern guise will be set in 1935. I should therefore be most interested in Robert's re-tested E4.

 

Mark - I am interested to note that the method that you describe fixes the problem; do I understand correctly that your method is:

(1) replacing the wheels with Alan Gibson wheels; and

(2) adding lateral springing to the pony trucks (with phosphor bronze stuck to the backs of the cylinders as suggested by Robert)?

 

Perhaps for more general purposes (as no doubt this thread is of interest to people other than me for deciding whether it is necessary to modify the Peco points or preferable to modify the locomotives), it would be helpful if we could start drawing up a list of locomotives that exhibit these problems and the known fixes.

 

So far, we have:

 

* Hornby L1 (no fix tested/known);

* Hornby P2 (no fix tested/known);

* Hornby 8F (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Hornby Stanier 4P (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Hornby Fowler 4P (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Bachmann E4 (no fix known, but back to back measurements were an issue);

* Hornby rebuilt Merchant Navy (fixed by using flanged pony wheel); and

* Hornby rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain (only some examples affected; fixed by using flanged pony wheel).

 

Is this correct/complete so far?

 

It's the new, unrebuilt Merchant Navy that has the fixed flangeless rear pony truck. Rebuilt MNs (and unrebuilt WC/BB) have a "normal" pony truck. I tested by unrebuilt Clan Line and couldn't produce a problem. Its flangeless wheel does seem thinner than earlier ones though. 

[RFS]

 

I've retested the Bachmann E4 now that its pony truck back-to-back has been corrected from 13.7 to 14.5 and it no longer shorts on the Peco bullhead point.  It also now runs better on my code 75 trackwork. It used to clatter a bit through some turnouts and occasionally the pony truck would derail, which I put down to its rather loose fitting.  But it doesn't do that anymore.  I've fitted my Hornby Bulleid Pacifics (the ones with the fixed flangeless rear pony truck) with the flanged one from the accessory pack and now these are OK too.

 

I've also tested Bachmann's Standard 4MT tank and 9F (for its long wheelbase) and both are OK.  

 

The only loco I still have a problem with is my early China-built 34067 Tangmere which started life with 14.2mm back-to-back.  Correcting that is the solution I believe, so I'm considering going ahead and using the points as is when I get to that stage. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by RFS

[jamespetts]

That is very helpful, thank you. I suspect that modifying locomotives, if possible with a reasonable amount of effort, is likely to be preferable to modifying the points, so this is very useful information.

[H2O]

On ‎31‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 21:11, Chamby said:

 

Hi Tony.  

 

Unfortunately I had already laid most of the unifrog points before I realised the scale of the issue, so I had to alter them in situ.  The following photo's show how it was done:

 

 

(1) above, shows the underside of the turnout where the switch rails are bonded to the stock rail.  These two bonds both need to be cut.  If you have already laid the track, like I had....

 

 

(2) drill a hole through the top of the sleepers to reveal the bonds underneath.  Break them... I used a small screwdriver and just pushed down until they gave way.

 

 

(3) shows the next steps.  The holes in the sleepers are repaired with hot-glue-gun glue, then trimmed flat.  The rails are cut with a slitting disc, to create new electrical breaks further away from the frog.  Droppers are soldered to the severed rail (left hand side of the break above) and wired into the frog... both rails are connected this way.  Another pair of droppers are added to the blade rail (to the right of the cut above) and wired directly into the bus wires, essentially replacing the bonds that were cut, but re-siting them further down the blade rail.

 

 

(4) shows the finished article.  The paint is still wet where I painted over the glue-gun plugs.  When dry, the only obvious difference is the extra cut in the rails... painting the soldered droppers the same colour as the rails, and replacing the ballast makes them all but disappear visually.

 

You can do the same modification with the rails on the far side of the frog as well, if necessary... if you also get shorting problems where the frog's check rails extend beyond the insulated rail break.  I find this can happen at some locations, but not others.  You don't need to cut the rails though, just add insulating joiners when connecting to the next section of track.

 

It's a faff, but it fixes the problem and still looks good.  It would have been a much more customer friendly product if PECO had just made it electro-frog in the first place!  I am not surprised that the EMGS haven't specified unifrog for their version...

 

Good luck with your own conversions,

 

Phil.

Hi Phil,

 

Thanks for your excellent step by step idiot proof(?) guide. As perhaps one of those(!) could I ask if the blade rails can be slit in line with the toe end of the check rails (about 2.5 sleepers away from the nose). This would mean the built in electical connections can be kept, or would that still leave the converted 'electrofrog' point vulnerable to electrical shorts?

 

Many thanks

[Chamby]

53 minutes ago, H2O said:

Hi Phil,

 

Thanks for your excellent step by step idiot proof(?) guide. As perhaps one of those(!) could I ask if the blade rails can be slit in line with the toe end of the check rails (about 2.5 sleepers away from the nose). This would mean the built in electical connections can be kept, or would that still leave the converted 'electrofrog' point vulnerable to electrical shorts?

 

Many thanks

 

Yes this may work, but I decided against it because I didn’t want to risk damaging the turnouts, especially with them already laid.  I played safe and gave each cut section of rail at least three chairs to both support it, and keep it ‘true’ re: alignment.

 

Remember that you will still have to solder new droppers to the cut sections of rail, wiring them into the frog.  A short section of rail held in place by just one plastic chair would be very prone to movement, when exposed to the heat of a soldering iron!

 

Phil

[TrevorP1]

On 31/03/2019 at 08:41, Chamby said:

 

The shorting issue... welcome to the unifrog.  As well as checking the back-to-backs, you’ll have difficulties with ‘double pivot’ pony trucks, and those wide, flangeless trailing bogie wheels that Hornby are so fond of, and some longer wheelbase locomotives when taking the curved road.  I have ended up modifying all my unifrog points, relocating all the electrical breaks further away from the frog (at both ends).  If you have a large roster of motive power that you don’t want to extensively modify, or you want to run guest stock on your layout, this is the only way to eradicate it.  

 

And it is much easier to modify the turnout before it is laid!

 

I've just begun to experience this having just laid five Peco Bullhead points. Many thanks for your explanation if the fix. I shall do this on the remaining one I have to lay and when I can summon the motivation I will most likely do the others in situ.

 

With one exception (a Hall) my Bachmann locos are fine as are Dapol and the KMRC Warship. Ironically it was a coach that alerted me to the problem. Sadly it's dear old Hornby again and their 14.2 back to back with loads of slop. The main problem is steam locomotive driving wheels. Tweaking the B to B on rolling stock is no problem but RTR quartering doesn't take kindly to too much movement.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎02‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 17:09, jamespetts said:

* Hornby L1 (no fix tested/known);

* Hornby P2 (no fix tested/known);

* Hornby 8F (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Hornby Stanier 4P (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Hornby Fowler 4P (fixed by Alan Gibson wheels and lateral springing);

* Bachmann E4 (no fix known, but back to back measurements were an issue);

* Hornby rebuilt Merchant Navy (fixed by using flanged pony wheel); and

* Hornby rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain (only some examples affected; fixed by using flanged pony wheel).

 

Is this correct/complete so far?

Perhaps better to generalise as three distinct problem sets. All these problems are already well known and searches on the relevant models will probably turn up discussion on each.

 

Hornby 'double pivot' pony truck. To those listed above add O1 (and probably 28xx, 42xx, 72xx, would owners confirm?). While better wheelsets help, the far superior fix is a single pivot truck for correct mechanical function and ease of springing, (and where the appearance of the cast Hornby truck is very poor, it is well worth using kit options). The longest loco I have done the single pivot truck mod on is the O1, and it works on set track.

 

Bachmann 'radial' truck. In addition to the E4 also to be found on the 56xx, and possibly further models. Really easy fix for larger radius use, stop the pivoting action by cementing two small pieces of plastic card to the keeper plate , one each side to block the pivot action. The coned tyre then behaves nicely, as coned tyres do, definitely works down to 24" radius on the 56xx.

 

Hornby flangeless trailing truck for wide firebox locos. I believe that's all their current pacifics and the P2. Three solutions: simple, remove the flangeless abomination. Or install the flanged wheelset if radius allows, carving the interior of the truck to allow movement, or install a properly pivoting internal truck of your own design with a flanged wheelset.

Flanged can be made to work down to 30" radius on pacifics if sufficient internal modification is applied, not tried on a  P2.

[jamespetts]

This is very useful - thank you.

[TrevorP1]

A little more experience to add to this.

 

I'm nearing the point where I will have both up and down lines useable through Grampound Road so I've began to look at some reliable stock for playing test trains. Into the mix came a new Hornby Toad - the one labeled 'Par' . The wheels were nowhere near 14.5 back to back so I eased these out and still shorts occurred. I happened to have some Gibson spoked wheels ready for a kit, so I popped these in and all problems solved. Whichever route and coupled to whatever, 100% success .

 

Looking at the backs of the Hornby wheels with a straight edge they have a very slight convex profile making a mockery of any attempted back to back measurement.

 

I'm thinking now do I want to go to the time/trouble/risk of damaging already laid pointwork for the sake of, what appears to be, one manufacturer's dodgy standards? The Hornby Grange chassis isn't very bright in the first place so although I have 3 I could over time probably find/build suitable replacements . My long term 10XX County project needs a chassis anyway. For the rest of my planned needs I can avoid Hornby locos altogether.

 

Several cans of worms duly opened... 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

41 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

...began to look at some reliable stock for playing test trains...

Actually it is the least reliable / most track sensitive stock from what you plan to operate, that you want for test purposes.

 

52 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

...I'm thinking now do I want to go to the time/trouble/risk of damaging already laid pointwork for the sake of, what appears to be, one manufacturer's dodgy standards? ... 

The can of worms - in my opinion - is that OO RTR only has to 'work' on UK set track. It's just so loose. What does 'work' mean in this context? Stays on the rails of a set track layout nine circuits out of ten at a scale 150 mph ? It's just a happy accident if it also works on some other manufacturer's alternative design of track.

 

My experience is as yours: a fair proportion of RTR OO need adjustment to perform at what I consider a decent level of reliability, see my post from yesterday about three up. Not completely satisfactory, but then again a lot easier than building it all for myself...

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, TrevorP1 said:

A little more experience to add to this.

 

I'm nearing the point where I will have both up and down lines useable through Grampound Road so I've began to look at some reliable stock for playing test trains. Into the mix came a new Hornby Toad - the one labeled 'Par' . The wheels were nowhere near 14.5 back to back so I eased these out and still shorts occurred. I happened to have some Gibson spoked wheels ready for a kit, so I popped these in and all problems solved. Whichever route and coupled to whatever, 100% success .

 

Looking at the backs of the Hornby wheels with a straight edge they have a very slight convex profile making a mockery of any attempted back to back measurement.

 

I'm thinking now do I want to go to the time/trouble/risk of damaging already laid pointwork for the sake of, what appears to be, one manufacturer's dodgy standards? The Hornby Grange chassis isn't very bright in the first place so although I have 3 I could over time probably find/build suitable replacements . My long term 10XX County project needs a chassis anyway. For the rest of my planned needs I can avoid Hornby locos altogether.

 

Several cans of worms duly opened... 

 

It really is a chicken and egg situation... do you modify the turnouts, or the locomotives and rolling stock?  Either would appear to work, so we have choices.

 

I opted to change the trackwork, for three reasons:

 

Firstly, although it is tedious to have to do it, it is not difficult to do... probably easier than modifying pony trucks etc.  

 

Secondly, it is a one-off requirement at the layout building stage... job done!  With modifying the stock, it will keep cropping up with new purchases.

 

Thirdly, I have a number of friends who visit and like to bring stuff to run on my layout... so changing the track rather than rolling stock is a more universal solution.

 

I may end up converting the double-pivot pony trucks anyway because they just look so wrong.  But each person’s circumstances and preferences will be different, at least we have both options available to us!  I remain surprised though that the final unifrog design got through Peco’s QC, when their electrofrog worked so well.  It’s not as if the bullhead points are a product intended for novices, is it?

 

Phil

[TrevorP1]

Can't argue with most of what you say 34 & Chamby, except that I took the view that I should test my track work with something that I knew to be reliable and as near to accepted standards as it could be.  

 

One reason that I chose not to modify is that the link which needs to be broken is where I have chosen to solder dropper wires - not insurmountable but more work and a higher risk of damage.

 

As far a visiting locos, I have two 'model railway mates'. One is into garden railways and the other is analogue so guest locos are unlikely.

 

It is indeed a personal choice. I have no problem with putting a decent set of wheels under rolling stock as need be. As super insulated as my 'railway shed' is, maybe in the dark winter days I might prefer to be indoors honing my chassis building/modifying skills for the Granges.

 

As 34 inferred perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at Hornby locos having seen trains flying round industrial curves at HS1 speeds on the 'Engine Shed' blog. However, I'd find it interesting to know how Peco tested the pointwork in the first place. Thankfully I have no need of double slips or diamond crossings...

 

Lastly the 42XX is a double pivot.

[Roy Langridge]

I have three large radius bullhead points on my shunting layout and have used several RTR locos on it and the only issue I have had, and it is very minor, is with a Bachmann Deltic fitted with a Loksound v4. This loco very momentarily shorts the DCC system as it crosses the frog, however, it is so short that the system and sound don't trip. Other than that, they have been perfect.

 

To list what I know I have run across them:

• Bachmann: 03, 37, 47, 55, USA Tank
• Hornby: 08, 56, W4 Peckett
• Heljan: 33
• DJ: J94/Austerity
• Dapol: B4
• SLW: 24
• Kernow: D600

I think there was more, but I can't recall. So, in short ideal for diesels and tank engines :-)

 

Roy

Edited May 2, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[RBAGE]

On 31/03/2019 at 21:11, Chamby said:

 

Hi Tony.  

 

Unfortunately I had already laid most of the unifrog points before I realised the scale of the issue, so I had to alter them in situ.  The following photo's show how it was done:

 

 

(1) above, shows the underside of the turnout where the switch rails are bonded to the stock rail.  These two bonds both need to be cut.  If you have already laid the track, like I had....

 

 

(2) drill a hole through the top of the sleepers to reveal the bonds underneath.  Break them... I used a small screwdriver and just pushed down until they gave way.

 

 

(3) shows the next steps.  The holes in the sleepers are repaired with hot-glue-gun glue, then trimmed flat.  The rails are cut with a slitting disc, to create new electrical breaks further away from the frog.  Droppers are soldered to the severed rail (left hand side of the break above) and wired into the frog... both rails are connected this way.  Another pair of droppers are added to the blade rail (to the right of the cut above) and wired directly into the bus wires, essentially replacing the bonds that were cut, but re-siting them further down the blade rail.

 

 

(4) shows the finished article.  The paint is still wet where I painted over the glue-gun plugs.  When dry, the only obvious difference is the extra cut in the rails... painting the soldered droppers the same colour as the rails, and replacing the ballast makes them all but disappear visually.

 

You can do the same modification with the rails on the far side of the frog as well, if necessary... if you also get shorting problems where the frog's check rails extend beyond the insulated rail break.  I find this can happen at some locations, but not others.  You don't need to cut the rails though, just add insulating joiners when connecting to the next section of track.

 

It's a faff, but it fixes the problem and still looks good.  It would have been a much more customer friendly product if PECO had just made it electro-frog in the first place!  I am not surprised that the EMGS haven't specified unifrog for their version...

 

Good luck with your own conversions,

 

Phil.

Hello Phil,

Thanks for the explanation. I have quite a few already laid but not ballasted so I hope I'll be able to lift then so I can work underneath.

Do you suppose PECO will take heed of this issue and put in a fix?

 

Does anyone have an update on the arrival of crossings? Presumably work will be required on these to make then model railway friendly.

Bob

[James Harrison]

I was told 'sometime in the Autumn' for crossings and slips at the GCR model event a few weeks ago. 

[Gilbert]

On 02/05/2019 at 16:24, Roy Langridge said:

I have three large radius bullhead points on my shunting layout and have used several RTR locos on it and the only issue I have had, and it is very minor, is with a Bachmann Deltic fitted with a Loksound v4. This loco very momentarily shorts the DCC system as it crosses the frog, however, it is so short that the system and sound don't trip. Other than that, they have been perfect.

 

To list what I know I have run across them:

• Bachmann: 03, 37, 47, 55, USA Tank
• Hornby: 08, 56, W4 Peckett
• Heljan: 33
• DJ: J94/Austerity
• Dapol: B4
• SLW: 24
• Kernow: D600

I think there was more, but I can't recall. So, in short ideal for diesels and tank engines :-)

 

Roy

I have  had no problems using a similar roster. Currently very pleased with my track.

Chris

[RBAGE]

2 hours ago, James Harrison said:

I was told 'sometime in the Autumn' for crossings and slips at the GCR model event a few weeks ago. 

Thanks for the info. I suppose trying to make the ones I already laid work will have to be done before I need worry about crossings.

[D.Platt]

August /September the Peco stand said to me , I’ll believe it when I see it , the double slip looked very good.

[jamespetts]

12 hours ago, D.Platt said:

August /September the Peco stand said to me , I’ll believe it when I see it , the double slip looked very good.

 

Did you get to see something any more advanced than the un-coloured mock-ups that were at the NEC last year?

[Guest]

On 08/11/2017 at 17:58, The Bigbee Line said:

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..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yours code 55 are not impressive.

There is missing details like spikes and details to put rail on the sleepers.

[Guest]

On 22/11/2017 at 14:11, Godfrey Glyn said:

Going back to the discussion on whether PECO should invest in the development of a set of 'super-long BH points' I dug out some long Tillig points and laid them out to see how they compare to these new PECO ones. In the photograph below from left to right:

 

Tillig 85327 9.4deg 361mm

Tillig 85354 12 deg 284 mm

PECO SL-U1189 Large Radius 258 mm

Tillig 85346 6.34 deg 388 mm

 

It would be interesting to know how these very long Tillig points sell, anyone here on RMWeb tried them? They were some of the (many) things I bought which went into the 'may use one day box' and still remain there!

 

All the best 

Godfrey

Tillig elite sleepers are more likely European than English style of the prototype.

But Peco bullhead are size 1:76.

If Tillig was in same scale like Peco, the sleepers would look difference.

[St Enodoc]

9 minutes ago, Anders63 said:

Yours code 55 are not impressive.

There is missing details like spikes and details to put rail on the sleepers.

Show us yours please.

[Guest]

Just now, St Enodoc said:

Show us yours please.

I don´t use code 55 and american tracks.

I was just only pointed out the short comings.