PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[flyingsignalman]

On being forced to use code 75 flat for things like 3 way, and slips, at least for the foreseeable future, It may help to transition the track change a good foot away from the point, to the flat bottom section, and grade the sleeper spacing (cutting the web) from the bullhead size spacing to the point sleeper spacing in code 75 flatbottom. It should make the look a bit less jarring to the eye.

I will stick to the C&L for the plain points in the meantime.

 

Stephen

Writing this from memory; I remember seeing a photo of Llanuwchlyn on the Ruabon to Barmouth line (in BR days) where a trailing point had been relaid in FB and everything else was bullhead.

 

(EDIT: - Photo 125 in "Scenes from the past, Nr9, The Llangollen line fron Ruabon to Barmouth" 1990 edition shows the arrangement. The down line trailing point and the crossing in the up line leading to the goods yard is in FB. The photo is dated Ca 1963. It looks like one rail length either side of the point is in FB too.)

Edited December 17, 2016 by flyingsignalman

[MikeTrice]

A few more t'other way round.

 

 

 

 

 

Trying to get a good view of the rail profile proved tricky so I have simply scanned it!

Edited December 17, 2016 by MikeTrice

[martin_wynne]

Writing this from memory; I remember seeing a photo of Llanuwchlyn on the Ruabon to Barmouth line (in BR days) where a trailing point had been relaid in FB and everything else was bullhead.

 

The prototype mixes bullhead and flat-bottom pretty indiscriminately.

 

Not much choice when doing spot renewals along a line. You can't replace everything in one go without a massive upheaval and cost.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Trying to get a good view of the rail profile proved tricky so I have simply scanned it!

end.jpg

 

Thanks Mike.

 

A much better foot profile than was previously expected and shown in their original artwork. The new fishplates/joiners will be interesting.

 

Martin.

[Ramblin Rich]

Those latest pics seem to show a slight inclination of the track, which I didn't think was going to be featured on the Peco product. Or is it because it's a short section...?

Must say, I do like the look of this, especially just toned down as above; the modified inner jaws don't look bad and the availability plus ease of use / soldering I think will score for Peco.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Ramblin Rich

[gismorail]

Many thanks for taking those pics Mike makes a big difference spraying with primer paint and once it has been ballasted and weathered I reckon it's a win win situation for us ' average modellers with no engineering experience' .... One thing is for sure one knows the trains will run well on Peco trackwork,  

[martin_wynne]

Those latest pics seem to show a slight inclination of the track, which I didn't think was going to be featured on the Peco product.

 

Because of the higher chair/key on the outside of the rail than the reduced inner jaw, keeping the rail vertical is difficult. That was one reason for the expected thin rail foot. Of course the prototype is inclined inwards, so it is not the end of the world. But if actually designed to be inclined, the track becomes less flexible on sharp curves.

 

The problem is that for production reasons the web thickness of model rail is always significantly overscale. This means that designing the chair to grip the rail securely while remaining free enough to be easily flexible is tricky.

 

Martin.

Edited December 18, 2016 by martin_wynne

[Pacific231G]

Hi Mike,

 

That's disappointingly underscale - should be 0.92mm. A 15% error, even narrower than SMP rail which is known to be underscale width.

 

It means that if the rail is used for handbuilt track it will be too loose in the track gauges for accurate work. Which is a shame because Peco rail has a reputation for being straight and kink/twist-free (unlike some others).

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

You're probably well aware of this resource but I found a useful table of rail dimensions compiled by the S scale society here http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm

It includes over sixty types of bullhead and almost three hundred and fifty types of flat bottom as well as bridge rail and crane track. It's particularly useful for some of us as it includes non British rail (India, Australian, NZ and French for bullhead)  both bullhead

 

The scale dimensions are naturally for S scale but the table can easily be inserted into a spreadsheet and recalculated for other scales (which I've just done for OO and H0)

Edited December 18, 2016 by Pacific231G

[bertiedog]

Oh dear, Oh dear, the rail Peco rail section will be loose in an existing gauge, we will have to call it Gaugegate.......but wait....... a few minutes with a vernier/ steel rule/ measuring stick, and a piece of wood and Voila!!!!! a new gauge that fits, and works, all is well again.....

 

Just kidding, but gauging the rail is a minor issue when a new gauge can be made and tested in a few minutes, and that's for folks who have not got a lathe or workshop.

 

Of slightly more importance is the rail section may be loose in the C&L chairs, but I always gauge carefully and finally put a drop of superglue on each chair to seal the rail into the chair. This is done with a gauge in place, so the rail is upright when sealed in and in gauge exactly.

Edited December 18, 2016 by bertiedog

[AndyID]

With the new Peco track now in the shops, we have the bizarre situation that there are now 5 (yes FIVE) makes of code 75 chaired bullhead 00 flexi-track, but not a single matching RTL turnout.

 

In order of introduction:

 

SMP Scaleway  (45 years)

 

C&L thin-base  (30 years)

 

Exactoscale (now C&L thick-base)  (20 years)

 

DCC Concepts  (4 months)

 

Peco  (1 week)

 

Peco and DCC Concepts are welcome to print this post and pin it up in their toolroom.

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martin,

 

For completeness, there are two rather different versions of SMP. I think the re-tooled version became available around 1980.

 

Original version on the left.

 

Andy

 

[bertiedog]

Lets go mad, and reveal the tools required to make super accurate track gauges, a dark secret guarded down the ages....oh stop this nonsense,........ just get a few minor tools and make the gauges,

 

tip ....the nails go in the edge of the ply, and you need four to make a two rail gauge and six for a flangeway gauge. Start at one end driving in firmly one nail and filing the inner face flat, drive in a second nail leaving a tight gap, and file the gap to take the rail section, then repeat the process on the other side, measuring and testing as you go. Ply is stable enough for gauges, we used it on scientific instrument manufacture for temporary special gauges, drill a pilot hole for the nail though, to ease staining the layers of the ply. Solid pine or any wood bar balsa will also work fine!

Cost ? many modellers have the items already, but at most £20 from Ebay. A steel rule should be added, but again most people have them. Dimensions, try the NMRA or any DOGA list or post on RM web for help!

 

Stephen

Edited December 18, 2016 by bertiedog

[martin_wynne]

Just kidding, but gauging the rail is a minor issue when a new gauge can be made and tested in a few minutes

 

Far and away the most important gauge is the 15.2mm check gauge, and I'm not convinced making one is 2-minute task:

 

 

The good news is that C&L have now listed it as awaiting fresh supplies -- its disappearance from their web site was worrying.

 

The easy solution of course is to use C&L rail rather than Peco or SMP. With the advantage that it is available in white nickel-silver (hi-ni alloy).

 

Martin.

Edited December 18, 2016 by martin_wynne

[Mikkel]

Vital statistics are as follows.

 

Sleeper length: 31.6mm

Sleeper width: 3.4mm

Sleeper thickness: 1.68mm

Rail height: 1.93mm

Rail head width: 0.78mm

Rail foot width: 0.79

Overall height (base to top of rail): 3.95mm

Sleeper centres: 9.375mm

 

I'm venturing on to thin ice here, but the 31.6 mm sleeper length seems interesting for pre-grouping GWR modellers who are after a visual representation of 9ft sleepers but accept the compromise of 16.5 mm gauge track. Here's an old quote from Buffalo (who sadly doesn't seem to be on here anymore). I should emphasize that he was talking about my pragmatic approach to GWR track, not necessarily his own:

 

Starting from the prototype measurements, the ratio of sleeper length to gauge is about 1.91 for 9' sleepers and 1.81 for 8'6". Applying these to 16.5mm gauge, we get sleeper lengths of about 31.5mm and 29.8mm respectively. These sizes would give us track that is proportionally correct so hopefully would be more likely to 'look correct', even if it is not to scale.

 

Interestingly, Peco code 75 track has 29.5mm sleepers which are close, though fractionally undersize, to the 8'6" ratio. This surprised me as, before measuring them, I'd always imagined them to be much shorter in proportion to the gauge.

 

Edited to add "pre-grouping"!

Edited December 18, 2016 by Mikkel

[Guest bri.s]

Far and away the most important gauge is the 15.2mm check gauge, and I'm not convinced making one is 2-minute task:

 

 

The good news is that C&L have now listed it as awaiting fresh supplies -- its disappearance from their web site was worrying.

 

The easy solution of course is to use C&L rail rather than Peco or SMP. With the advantage that it is available in white nickel-silver (hi-ni alloy).

 

Martin.

I enquiried about these last week(or week before ) ,the person that makes them had Been away ,he's back but he's lots to do ,it's just a waiting game now

hopefully they'll have them soon I'm awaiting some of the checkrail gauges myself so I can start trackbuilding

 

Brian

[TomE]

IMG_0237.JPG

 

Trying to get a good view of the rail profile proved tricky so I have simply scanned it!

end.jpg

 

looks like that rail on the right threaded in upside down?

 

Tom. 

[gismorail]

looks like that rail on the right threaded in upside down?

 

Tom. 

Well spotted I think you right there Tom 

Perhaps it's spot the deliberate mistake.....

[Stephen Freeman]

looks like that rail on the right threaded in upside down?

 

Tom. 

To me the profile looks wrong (for UK usuage as 95lb rail) - no difference between top and bottom. Obviously makes it easier to assemble for PECO but means it probably won't fit any other chair.

[martin_wynne]

I'm venturing on to thin ice here, but the 31.6 mm sleeper length seems interesting for pre-grouping GWR modellers who are after a visual representation of 9ft sleepers but accept the compromise of 16.5 mm gauge track.

 

Hi Mikkel,

 

If you scale the sleepers to match the 00 gauge, you end up with H0 scale track. Which is exactly what Peco have been doing for 60 years, and exactly what was NOT wanted for the new track.

 

The much better approach is to decide what size sleepers the prototype would have used for 4ft-1.5in gauge track, and then model that at 4mm/ft scale. The answer is 8ft long which would scale to 32mm.

 

Instead Peco have taken the gauge difference (7") and reduced the sleeper length by that amount from 8ft-6in to 7ft-11in, which scales to 31.67mm. It's not likely that any p.w. engineer would ask the timber yard for 7ft-11in sleepers with a straight face.

 

Martin.

[Colin_McLeod]

There are no rivets to count so out come the micrometers.

[martin_wynne]

To me the profile looks wrong (for UK usuage as 95lb rail) - no difference between top and bottom. Obviously makes it easier to assemble for PECO but means it probably won't fit any other chair.

 

It's difficult in the photos, but I think I can see that the foot is more angular than the radiused head (as the head should be for good running). Making the foot more angular would help for stability in the plastic chair.

 

It does at least appear that the rail on the right in the end view is upside down from as intended.

 

For those not familiar with prototype bullhead rail, the head is deeper than the foot (which may seem counter-intuitive at first), to allow for wear:

 

 

Martin.

Edited December 18, 2016 by martin_wynne

[martin_wynne]

There are no rivets to count so out come the micrometers.

 

Some folks prefer to build a model railway using a wooden ruler and a knife & fork. Each to his own, it is a hobby activity.

 

Martin.

[Trog]

It's not likely that any P.W. Engineer would ask the timber yard for 7ft-11in sleepers with a straight face.

 

Martin.

 

Back in the early 1980's BR purchased some cheap but short softwood sleepers that I seem to remember came from Spain, these we were told were 8'-0" long but as Spain would be metric more likely 2.4m or 7'-10 3/4".

 

I think some went into the DC line south of Bushey with Pan11 baseplates if anyone has a fibron tape and a PTS card handy.

[hayfield]

I'm not at all sure about this. Some modellers may have had skills drawn from industry but John Charman was an RAF officer, I think a pilot. He used CCW bullhead track for Charford. I've not been able to find out much about this track but it seems to have been a chaired component product rather than RTL. Others who definitely built their own track included Philip (P.D.) Hancock an academic librarian, Rev. Peter Denny an Anglican vicar, Rev. Edward Beal a Church of Scotland minister, and John Ahern an insurance broker. None of those professions would be likely to foster engineering skills and they all seem to have acquired their skills in building track and other areas from railway modelling rather than bringing them to it.

 

The great thing about our hobby is the very wide range of skills involved, technical, cerebral and artistic. That's far wider than any trade or profession I can think of.

 

 

One of our part time employees is at University studying engineering, said I would have loved to have learnt how to use a metal work lathe. He asked me what a lathe is. No tuition at school and uni is all mathematics in the first year

 

Its no wonder no one can put up a shelf these days, we were taught basic wood and metal work skill from 11 years of age. So much has changed in education over the years, mainly by liberal academics who are simply on another planet. As well as going back to the 3 R's they should be given some life skills as well  (rant over)

Edited December 18, 2016 by hayfield

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Mikkel,

 

If you scale the sleepers to match the 00 gauge, you end up with H0 scale track. Which is exactly what Peco have been doing for 60 years, and exactly what was NOT wanted for the new track.

 

The much better approach is to decide what size sleepers the prototype would have used for 4ft-1.5in gauge track, and then model that at 4mm/ft scale. The answer is 8ft long which would scale to 32mm.

 

Instead Peco have taken the gauge difference (7") and reduced the sleeper length by that amount from 8ft-6in to 7ft-11in, which scales to 31.67mm. It's not likely that any p.w. engineer would ask the timber yard for 7ft-11in sleepers with a straight face.

 

Martin.

But the same bloke has asked the steel works to make him a length of metal that is 5 23/32 inches high.............why didn't he round it up to 5 3/4 inches? In engineering there has and always will be odd dimensions for some reason and the supplier makes the item to their customers requirement.

 

Now had Peco made the sleepers 34mm long (scale 8 ft 6 ins) there would have been a cry about how far they stick out too far making the track look narrow gauge. As you say they appear to have reduced this by a scale 7 inches, thus keeping the distance from the rail to the end of the sleepers so they don't stick out too far. Anyhow with the track painted, ballasted and weathered with a nice maroon liveried AM9 electric multiple unit running on it will you noticed that the sleepers are 0.2mm short either side?

Edited December 18, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[martin_wynne]

But the same bloke has asked the steel works to make him a length of metal that is 5 23/32 inches high.............why didn't he round it up to 5 3/4 inches?

 

Because the object was to round up the weight to 95 pounds per yard.

 

The table of BS rail sizes has a lot of unusual dimensions so that the weight per yard can be in round figures for each one. There is also an 85 pound/yard size of bullhead rail (originally intended for branch lines, but little used).

 

Working conditions in a steel rolling mill are somewhat different from a timber sawmill.

 

Martin.