PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[Ron Solly]

November RM also has the article about Unifrog.  I may have to purchase it when that issue gets to Australia.

[robmanchester]

Hello,

 

Maybe if each of the subscribers to Railway Modeller posts just one line from the review of the new points  turnouts we could have the whole article on here ( in bits of course ) by noon tomorrow

 

Sorry Andy Y. couldn't resist. When the track hits the shops Youtube will be full of reviews. Patience.

 

Rob

 

( Is this the longest ever topic on RMweb ? )

 

 

[Limpley Stoker]

I shall miss this forum when the points have arrived - I have learnt so much. Hopefully there is more to dissect with crossovers and 3 way points!

Edited October 14, 2017 by Limpley Stoker

[KeithHC]

Re point motor use Peco PL-10E via PL-9 under baseboard.

 

As most others I would also like to see more types produced. Medium radius plus crossings and slips. But also could we see some FB to the same type of specification both on wooden and concrete sleepers including points etc.

 

Keith, saving his pennies(pounds)............... 

[Bernard Lamb]

Hi Bernard

 

The review states that they are designed not to have the same fitting as the older points, this is to improve the appearance at the toe of the switch, and it does.   What the article suggest is modellers buy the PL10E with the extended pin and a PL9 mounting plate, along with a Pl13 switch to make the unifrog an electrofrog. 

Very interesting Clive. Thanks.

That does mean more expense and thus an even bigger increase in costs over the current cod 75 FB system.

Bernard

[coachmann]

After a bit of 'remodeling', I expect it will be possible to use one of the surface mounted motors as well. Working beneath baseboards is a real Jessie.

[Pint of Adnams]

After a bit of 'remodeling', I expect it will be possible to use one of the surface mounted motors as well. Working beneath baseboards is a real Jessie.

In place of the present moulded spigot on the ends of the tie bar there is a hole - so still a means of making a mechanical connection but the durability of the small cross section of plastic surrounding the hole will only be known after sustained use.

[coachmann]

In place of the present moulded spigot on the ends of the tie bar there is a hole - so still a means of making a mechanical connection but the durability of the small cross section of plastic surrounding the hole will only be known after sustained use.

Sounds like they have copied the Code 83 tiebar then. Peco should produce a surface mounted motor to suit a hole. I prefer them because they they go with a quiet click compared with the loud thud of the solenoids.

[Tim Dubya]

Use decent motors such as my dear friend the good old Tortoise®.

HTH

[hayfield]

November RM also has the article about Unifrog.  I may have to purchase it when that issue gets to Australia.

 

 

Have you read this thread about the uni frog?

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121872-unifrog/page-3&do=findComment&comment=2886795

 

One of the latest entries has a photo of the ubderside of the common crossing (uni frog)

[Ron Solly]

Yes thanks, I have read that thread.

[martin_wynne]

Yes thanks, I have read that thread.

 

Unifrog simply uses the same wiring scheme that builders of handbuilt pointwork have used for decades:

 

1. the switch blades (points) and closure rails are connected to the adjacent stock rails.

 

2. the entire crossing assembly (frog) is isolated and fed through a polarity switch linked to the operation of the points (blades). Or in this case it can simply left dead, and hope loco pickups will bridge it.

 

3. the vee rails beyond the crossing are connected to the opposite stock rails. For DC operation a section break may be wanted and would normally be connected through a section switch on the control panel.

 

Note that the new turnouts have flexible switches instead of loose-heel (pivoted) switches. This means that there is a greater risk of wheel backs touching the open switch blade. The old flawed method of switching the crossing polarity using blade contact could lead to short-circuits, and Peco have wisely abandoned it.

 

Here is Peco's diagram (showing loose-heel switches, not these new turnouts):

 

© Peco

 

 

Martin.

Edited October 14, 2017 by martin_wynne

[bertiedog]

In general the Unifrog does all types of common wiring to a point, but it is a pity that, out of the box, it is a dead frog point...many modellers have poor grasp of wiring anyway, and are now faced with another different approach. This may be no trouble to experienced modellers, cured in moments by wiring up the frog, but to add isolation to a siding adds more steps, not helped by having to chose the right point motor with suitable switching.

 

Easy, a lot say, use " ACME" (insert brand....), point motor, all right, but it complicates things further, another set of instructions, and very significantly raises the costs of the point motors needed. the overall cost of the point and with an imported slo motion motor, they can top £45 give or take shops discounts.

 

The RM review mentioned short wheelbase locos, and the dead frog as bought has already caused some comment with club members, that the new points were not suitable for small locos, some of which comments are very miss guided, as it just needs the re-connection of the frog via switching to cure it.

 

I am afraid to say that many treat the whole subject of point wiring as a black art, when it is not, but it does require knowledge that some instructions do not give, as they are in the business of selling their own items to wire up the points.

 

I am pretty sure most on RM web will have no troubles, but generally, if the product is not to taste, of course the other Peco systems continue, at least for the time being.

 

Stephen

[coachmann]

Unifrog simply uses the same wiring scheme that builders of handbuilt pointwork have used for decades:

 

1. the switch blades (points) and closure rails are connected to the adjacent stock rails.

 

2. the entire crossing assembly (frog) is isolated and fed through a polarity switch linked to the operation of the points (blades). Or in this case it can simply left dead, and hope loco pickups will bridge it.

 

3. the vee rails beyond the crossing are connected to the opposite stock rails. For DC operation a section break may be wanted and would normally be connected through a section switch on the control panel.

 

Note that the new turnouts have flexible switches instead of loose-heel (pivoted) switches. This means that there is a greater risk of wheel backs touching the open switch blade. The old flawed method of switching the crossing polarity using blade contact could lead to short-circuits, and Peco have wisely abandoned it.

 

Here is Peco's diagram (showing loose-heel switches, not these new turnouts):

 

© Peco

 

Martin.

Can I assume from this that one must fit an external polarity switch like a Peco PL13 or whatever if using the new Bullhead points?

[martin_wynne]

Can I assume from this that one must fit an external polarity switch like a Peco PL13 or whatever if using the new Bullhead points?

 

That's up to you. The crossing section has been kept as short as possible, so you can leave it dead if you prefer.

 

Martin.

[Guest]

I probably should ask this over on the Unifrog thread, but chat here does seem to have moved onto the frog... As a self-confessed cheat with minimal electrical ability (and even less interest) I use frog juicers as a "quick fix" with regard to polarity... I'm assuming the wire from the unifrog is still connected to the juicer (as per electrofrog points/crossings), but is the need for insulated rail joiners at the ends of the V removed?

[Nile]

Yes.

[martin_wynne]

At first sight, there does seem to be a risk of wheel-back short circuits at the knuckle.

 

Some adjustment of back-to-backs on older models may be needed:

 

© Peco (my colour)

 

The length of the plastic section may have been made longer on the production turnouts. I doubt Peco would release them without extensive testing.

 

In handbuilt turnouts, that gapping would normally be further back, at the prototype wing front rail-joint. 

 

Martin.

Edited October 14, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Coryton]

Easy, a lot say, use " ACME" (insert brand....), point motor, all right, but it complicates things further, another set of instructions, and very significantly raises the costs of the point motors needed. the overall cost of the point and with an imported slo motion motor, they can top £45 give or take shops discounts.

 

I am pretty sure most on RM web will have no troubles, but generally, if the product is not to taste, of course the other Peco systems continue, at least for the time being.

 

Some use surface mounted point motors - these can also be fitted with polarity switching but that then takes up even more space. Not everybody uses point motors at all.

 

I think there are very good reasons for using unifrogs with these points, but for me, changing regular points to ones that I can only use by adding lots of bits and pieces I don't currently need wouldn't be welcome.

 

This may be a minority view among people on RMWeb - I wonder if it is for Peco's market in general though?

[bertiedog]

This idea applies to the Uni frog as well as all other live frog points that require switching, with point motors or without.

Use Magnetic reed switches that are operated by the tie bar movements.

 

 

Unlike other switches, reed switches are very reliable indeed, and even small micro sized ones can take the current involved.

 

They can be sited as per the diagram, in the ballast along side each point, and connected up as shown to the Uni-frog, or live frog, on any type of point. In the case of Peco and most points, the actual wiring is to join the reed outputs together and use one lead to the frog.

 

The magnets used are 2mmx1mm, glued to the tie bar underneath, or attached with a sleeve of heat shrink tube, dependant on the design of the tie bar. They are neodymium magnets.

 

The exact position of each reed relay is easy to find, put a meter on the switch and set the point over and move the switch till it closes.

 

As the tie bar moves away the switch opens. The position is critical, but once set with the meter it will work.

 

Now after saying this is the method, you can actually design your own, as the switches could be remotely driven, added to a point motor drive, or a lever frame arm.

 

Cost is minimal, about 5 to 10 pence for the switches and 50 magnets for a couple of quid.

 

Stephen

[RFS]

At first sight, there does seem to be a risk of wheel-back short circuits at the knuckle.

 

Some adjustment of back-to-backs on older models may be needed:

 

© Peco (my colour)

 

The length of the plastic section may have been made longer on the production turnouts. I doubt Peco would release them without extensive testing.

 

In handbuilt turnouts, that gapping would normally be further back, at the prototype wing front rail-joint. 

 

Martin.

 

The gap looks no different to that on the code 75 double slips.  With these I had a problem with a couple of Hornby locos that were from the early China era where the back-to-back of the wheels was 14.2mm instead of todays 14.5mm.  Once adjusted to 14.5mm the locos have performed flawlessly since.  

 

As far as the frog tip is concerned, then there is a simple alternative if there's a problem: remove the bonding between the V-rails and the stock rails, and connect them instead to a polarity switch along with the frog wire.  Plus IRJs on them too. 

[coachmann]

On previous layouts, I flicked the points over with a finger and still do in my fiddle yard. However, I was pretty well forced to bond the rails and fit switches to a solenoid when a point was located outside of the shed. Flushed with enthusiasm (!) I then did the same with the three indoor points.  But, as track lifting became necessary, as it does on my layouts, I stopped faffing about with wiring the frogs on replacement points although I din't mind fitting the Peco surface-mounted point motors 'cos they're easy. 

 

Having talked with other people with layouts, they had gravitated to Electrofrog points years ago but still flicked their points over.  Now I dont know how common this practice is, but I rather suspect the take up of bullhead points will be affected if people sense they are having to add some electrical trickery or that they are in affect going back to the same problems of Insulfrogs and locos stalling. Locos don't have to be short wheelbase to do this.......The traditional Midland coupled wheel base of  8' X 8' 6" as found on Fowler 2-6-4T's etc landed the outer wheels on plastic sections of Peco slip points.

Edited October 14, 2017 by coachmann

[bertiedog]

At first sight, there does seem to be a risk of wheel-back short circuits at the knuckle.

 

Some adjustment of back-to-backs on older models may be needed:

 

© Peco (my colour)

 

The length of the plastic section may have been made longer on the production turnouts. I doubt Peco would release them without extensive testing.

 

In handbuilt turnouts, that gapping would normally be further back, at the prototype wing front rail-joint. 

 

Martin.

The devil is in the details on this one, if wheels are rp25 or equivalent compliant there's no risk, as long as the flangeways on the guard rails are correct. What troubles me somewhat is some makers taper the wheels back, and with a slightly big  BB it may short for a tiny moment, usually unimportant in DC, but brings DCC to a halt.

They could move the break further away, but it increases the dead section, if used that way, and would be difficult to insert a bent component during manufacture.

I am sure that Peco have tested it, and have DCC in mind for the use with Unifrog, but the clearance must be only a few thou.

Also I wonder about locos with traction tyres, the outer rim could touch if the tyre is worn or compressed, but that is a long shot.

[martin_wynne]

The devil is in the details on this one, if wheels are rp25 or equivalent compliant there's no risk

 

Hmm. If the wheels and track are perfectly matched, when the flange on one side is running hard against the rail head, the back of the wheel on the other side should just kiss the check rail or wing rail. That's what happens on the prototype, and on models set for the optimum running quality. Kissing the wing rail here looks like missing a short-circuit by only a few thou, and not at all if the back-to-back is a bit under the optimum.

 

Normally wheels would run hard against the rail head only on the outside rail of a curve, so for these turnouts the problem won't normally apply, unless a heavy load is being propelled (pushed). But if curved turnouts are introduced, it would apply to normal running on the outer road. It's likely that such turnouts would have a longer plastic section at the knuckle. We may even find when these first turnouts are actually released, that there is a longer plastic section than shown in the pre-production photo.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited October 14, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Mark Saunders]

Hmm. If the wheels and track are perfectly matched, when the flange on one side is running hard against the rail head, the back of the wheel on the other side should just kiss the check rail or wing rail. That's what happens on the prototype, and on models set for the optimum running quality. Kissing the wing rail here looks like missing a short-circuit by only a few thou, and not at all if the back-to-back is a bit under the optimum.

 

Normally wheels would run hard against the rail head only on the outside rail of a curve, so for these turnouts the problem won't normally apply, unless a heavy load is being propelled (pushed). But if curved turnouts are introduced, it would apply to normal running on the outer road. It's likely that such turnouts would have a longer plastic section at the knuckle. We may even find when these first turnouts are actually released, that there is a longer plastic section than shown in the pre-production photo.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Only time will tell with use of this product and the flaws will either be proven or disproved!

 

Mark Saunders