Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Mallard60022]

Of course, they are surprised.

 

If they had believed us, they would have made them ages ago.

Maybe not? A changein attitude of the 'Seniors' in the Company has probably made a difference. Maybe fresh blood? There has been a flurry of investment and expansion at Peco and that is good news.There are one or two products that it would be good if they also took them on when the present owner(s) retire/finish.

Phil 

[martin_wynne]

With 60 years of sales figures, Railway Modeller circulation figures, and a close involvement with their dealer network, no-one knows more about the UK model railway market than Peco.

 

Their recent acquisition of the Parkside range is surely significant. Maybe they have detected a drift to the "craft" end of the hobby?

 

A good indication of where they think they are going will be the arrival, or not, of foam ballast inlay for the new track. Place your bets.

 

Martin.

[Joseph_Pestell]

With 60 years of sales figures, Railway Modeller circulation figures, and a close involvement with their dealer network, no-one knows more about the UK model railway market than Peco.

 

Their recent acquisition of the Parkside range is surely significant. Maybe they have detected a drift to the "craft" end of the hobby?

 

A good indication of where they think they are going will be the arrival, or not, of foam ballast inlay for the new track. Place your bets.

 

Martin.

 

Up to a point. You can't know how well something sells that you don't make.

[bertiedog]

Well, the types covered by the first release are now in use on the Middlechurch Marsh layout, L/R , Y, and two radius's curved points custom laid to the planned scenery. and all from one basic type. The unifrog works well, but demands switching for sidings, (DC), although the lot is set to take my Lenz DCC as well.

I would not dream of knocking the use of foam ballast, many users find it trouble free compared to solid ballast.

Stephen.

[Vistisen]

With 60 years of sales figures, Railway Modeller circulation figures, and a close involvement with their dealer network, no-one knows more about the UK model railway market than Peco.

 

Their recent acquisition of the Parkside range is surely significant. Maybe they have detected a drift to the "craft" end of the hobby?

 

A good indication of where they think they are going will be the arrival, or not, of foam ballast inlay for the new track. Place your bets.

 

Martin.

 

If it looked like this I would not mind.

 

https://www.marklin-users.net/forum/posts/t33093-K-track-laying#

[Jeff Smith]

Do people stick ballast on top of foam ballast?

[martin_wynne]

I would not dream of knocking the use of foam ballast, many users find it trouble free compared to solid ballast.

 

I'm not knocking it either. But being trouble-free isn't the prime objective of everyone. Looking like the real thing is the first requirement of a model for many.

 

Each to his own. But which are Peco aiming for?

 

Martin.

[Ben Alder]

Do people stick ballast on top of foam ballast?

I used Peco foam ballast on my Code 75 points along with Tracklay and ballast for the plain track and brushed a layer of Copydexon the foam, embedded the point and sprinkled ballast on it, shaking off rhe excess once dry. With this it is hard to tell that it is foam.

However, Peco have apparently discontinued foam underlays for their existing Streamline point ranges, which makes one wonder what their future thoughts on this sort of thing are. Perhaps someone at Warley tomorrow could raise the matter with Peco.....

[Guest]

Doesn't (didn't?) foam ballast have a reputation for disintegrating over time? If true (and I really don't know as I've never used it) it hardly sounds like a trouble-free solution, at least in the long term.

[hayfield]

I'm not knocking it either. But being trouble-free isn't the prime objective of everyone. Looking like the real thing is the first requirement of a model for many.

 

Each to his own. But which are Peco aiming for?

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin

 

I think you may have already answered your own question in earlier post(s). The proportions are to 4 mm scale which have been altered to suite 00 gauge, the design is both generic to period and region and to their own existing geometry. It does actually cover two types of modellers, those wishing for a plug and play, and those who are happy to do minor modifications. You have also suggested it could be kit bashed further for bigger rebuilds.

 

Whilst its now not relay acceptable to the majority for a LMS train to pull a rake of SR coaches, at least now we can have a train made up of GWR or SR stock on bullhead track, all be it leaning towards to LNER/BR design. The great thing is its not both H0 scale and flatbottom rail, more importantly by Peco changing to 00/4 mm scale mainstream 00 gauge modellers seem now to both accept what went on in the past was wrong and wanting more

 

Peco by listening to modellers seem to have found a new market in bumper track sales in this trading quarter, which if the range is extended will continue for many months

[PaulRhB]

Their recent acquisition of the Parkside range is surely significant. Maybe they have detected a drift to the "craft" end of the hobby?

.

I don't think so they've had Ratio in the stable for some time now, Wills was added fairly recently and they've had the old Stephen Poole Ng kits and things like the Merit range for years. I think it's more they pick up certain useful ranges when they are available at the right price so they don't get lost. Peco is about business but they are also very aware of what the wider hobby needs and answer to the family rather than the vagaries of random shareholders so can be a bit more eclectic.

[No Decorum]

Doesn't (didn't?) foam ballast have a reputation for disintegrating over time? If true (and I really don't know as I've never used it) it hardly sounds like a trouble-free solution, at least in the long term.

I wouldn’t use it. I had a Peco foam servicing cradle which I bought many years ago. It turned into a horrible gooey mess. Cheap and easy to replace but I would hate to face the same thing under track.

[Mallard60022]

I wouldn’t use it. I had a Peco foam servicing cradle which I bought many years ago. It turned into a horrible gooey mess. Cheap and easy to replace but I would hate to face the same thing under track.

Ok for you youngsters to say this and probably a good choice. However, my foam ballast, which provides a lovely smooth and quiet ytrack bed, will outlive me by some years.

Phil

[Clive Mortimore]

Ok for you youngsters to say this and probably a good choice. However, my foam ballast, which provides a lovely smooth and quiet ytrack bed, will outlive me by some years.

Phil

Hi Phil

 

I do like an optimist

 

Seriously now. When I worked in a model shop I think I spent more time picking up the point underlay in its bags that had been knocked off the display stand than I did selling the stuff. It wasn't Peco's best seller.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[Mallard60022]

Hi Phil

 

I do like an optimist

 

Seriously now. When I worked in a model shop I think I spent more time picking up the point underlay in its bags that had been knocked off the display stand than I did selling the stuff. I wasn't Peco's best seller.

Hey Morti, did you get to stroke a new Pecoboo Point? If so, was it lovely?

Phil

[Clive Mortimore]

Hey Morti, did you get to stroke a new Pecoboo Point? If so, was it lovely?

Phil

Hi Phil

 

I never, I was too busy at Warley showing the masses how to make your humble GER line EMU. I hope those who did get to fondle them will buy some and make lovely layouts for us to enjoy viewing at future NEC shows. 

[71000]

I don't know how to say this, but it appears someone at Peco has made a few mistakes with these new Bullhead points !

 

The sleepers on these points appear to be both wrongly angled, not even parallel, and spaced too far apart. And there could be an electrical issue with the "Unifrog" especially on the medium and small radius versions. Indeed these new points look more like narrow gauge crazy track. Having just seen a photo plan view of a Large radius Righthand point on the Kernow models website !!!! 

 

The "Unifrog" idea is not new, and has been seen on other manufacturers points in the past. And in the past it often failed as it allowed the wheel backs to touch the opposite rail (and therefore cause a momentary short) as the wheels approached the "unifrog". Depending on the control system being used, whether 16v AC (DCC) or 12v DC this won't do your electrical equipment any good. Metal wheels on coaches and wagons will likely cause repeated momentary shorts (jerking of the train) and the worse case scenario, burn out of parts of the controller......... 

 

How it is on real life Bullhead points:

On Left or Righthand points the sleepers should be at 90 degrees to the straight track. Not as seen on these points angled halfway between the straight and curved tracks.

 

The gap between sleepers on Bullhead mainline points in early BR days (1953) should be, according to old BR documents & plans in my library, 14 and one eighth of an inch apart. That's 4.72mm in OO scale.

 

As sleepers on Bullhead points were 10 inches wide (3.34mm in OO scale) and I can't say what the Peco sleeper is, but it may be too narrow as well as being spaced too far apart. Whatever it is, it looks totally wrong, even absurd.

 

As Peco's website do not show a single solitary Bullhead track item, I am guessing, but I suspect Peco have used the same size sleeper at roughly the same spacing as on their Bullhead flexi track. I say roughly, because the sleepers on these points DON'T appear to be parallel. 

Point sleepers on mainline track were wider than on plain track, and the point sleepers spaced closer together. As they had to take a much heavier pounding.   

 

As it happens I do not need Peco's new points (as I build my own, as seen on my layout Basingstoke, in Modelling real locations) but I am interested in seeing a picture of their Bullhead flexi-track, as that may prove useful if I can find a good plan photo.... 

 

 

 

The Duke 71000        

[martin_wynne]

 

How it is on real life Bullhead points:

On Left or Righthand points the sleepers should be at 90 degrees to the straight track. Not as seen on these points angled halfway between the straight and curved tracks.

 

The gap between sleepers on Bullhead mainline points in early BR days (1953) should be, according to old BR documents & plans in my library, 14 and one eighth of an inch apart. That's 4.72mm in OO scale.

 

As sleepers on Bullhead points were 10 inches wide (3.34mm in OO scale)

 

Rather a lot of errors in your post I'm afraid.

 

The bearers under pointwork are called timbers, not sleepers. They are 12 inches wide. Plain track sleepers are 10 inches wide.

 

The typical centre-to-centre spacing of timbers is 28 inches to 30 inches, with closer spacings of 24 inches or 25 inches where there are rail joints (fishplates). The spacing is not constant.

 

Timbers can be square-on (parallel), or skewed (equalized). It depends on the railway company, the period, and the density of traffic over each route. Timbers in diamond-crossings and slips are always skewed (equalized), and turnouts connected to them are often equalized to match.

 

The Peco turnouts have widely-spaced equalized timbers, typical of early pre-group (pre 1923) pointwork. They cannot be a true representation of prototype bullhead pointwork because of the need to match the existing Peco geometry, and the fact that they are 16.5mm gauge.

 

Sorry to correct you like this, but it is important on web sites such as this that misinformation is not propagated further.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited November 27, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Echo]

I don't know how to say this, but it appears someone at Peco has made a few mistakes with these new Bullhead points !

 

The sleepers on these points appear to be both wrongly angled, not even parallel, and spaced too far apart. And there could be an electrical issue with the "Unifrog" especially on the medium and small radius versions. Indeed these new points look more like narrow gauge crazy track. Having just seen a photo plan view of a Large radius Righthand point on the Kernow models website !!!!

 

The "Unifrog" idea is not new, and has been seen on other manufacturers points in the past. And in the past it often failed as it allowed the wheel backs to touch the opposite rail (and therefore cause a momentary short) as the wheels approached the "unifrog". Depending on the control system being used, whether 16v AC (DCC) or 12v DC this won't do your electrical equipment any good. Metal wheels on coaches and wagons will likely cause repeated momentary shorts (jerking of the train) and the worse case scenario, burn out of parts of the controller......... 

 

How it is on real life Bullhead points:

On Left or Righthand points the sleepers should be at 90 degrees to the straight track. Not as seen on these points angled halfway between the straight and curved tracks.

 

The gap between sleepers on Bullhead mainline points in early BR days (1953) should be, according to old BR documents & plans in my library, 14 and one eighth of an inch apart. That's 4.72mm in OO scale.

 

As sleepers on Bullhead points were 10 inches wide (3.34mm in OO scale) and I can't say what the Peco sleeper is, but it may be too narrow as well as being spaced too far apart. Whatever it is, it looks totally wrong, even absurd.

 

As Peco's website do not show a single solitary Bullhead track item, I am guessing, but I suspect Peco have used the same size sleeper at roughly the same spacing as on their Bullhead flexi track. I say roughly, because the sleepers on these points DON'T appear to be parallel. 

Point sleepers on mainline track were wider than on plain track, and the point sleepers spaced closer together. As they had to take a much heavier pounding.   

 

As it happens I do not need Peco's new points (as I build my own, as seen on my layout Basingstoke, in Modelling real locations) but I am interested in seeing a picture of their Bullhead flexi-track, as that may prove useful if I can find a good plan photo.... 

 

 

 

The Duke 71000        

If you read back through the many comments in this topic I think you will find answers to your criticisms.

 

For starters, many examples of turnouts with angled timbers really did exist. It allowed thinner timbers to be used. Drawings and photos exist. Right angled timbers were used too, of course, but not exclusively as you wrongly suggest. The only timbers that are wrong are the very end two, which are not really required in most situations and can easily be removed.

 

The unifrog is unlikely to cause short circuits as there is a small piece of plastic at the knuckles. Provided the wheels are coned (which they should be) there won't be any shorts.

 

As Martin says, early turnouts and plain track had wider spacings between sleepers/timbers than we are used to today.

 

Having bought some, I can assure you they actually do look quite good - better than the photos. Not completely realistic perhaps, but much better than anything we have had before RTR and convincing enough for most people. With just a little bit of work they look even better as some of us have demonstrated.

[The Stationmaster]

Ok for you youngsters to say this and probably a good choice. However, my foam ballast, which provides a lovely smooth and quiet ytrack bed, will outlive me by some years.

Phil

 

Mine definitely didn't - in fact I'd outlived it by a mere 25 years when I went back to dismantle the layout on which I'd used it and it simply fell to pieces as I extracted the track. Maybe it's made of different stuff nowadays but in my experience it does not last and that includes 'stock' held for the future in the original packaging.

 

Anyway back to bullhead developments and according to the chap i spoke to on the Peco stand at Warley they are already working on crossings and slips to go with the points.  Not only did initial sales do well (they had just over 1,000 points on order by late October which is why release was delayed as they wished to meet all retail orders at the time of release) but they are receiving repeat orders.  So well done Peco and well done those of us who are buying this new product from them.

[71000]

If you read back through the many comments in this topic I think you will find answers to your criticisms.

 

For starters, many examples of turnouts with angled timbers really did exist. It allowed thinner timbers to be used. Drawings and photos exist. Right angled timbers were used too, of course, but not exclusively as you wrongly suggest. The only timbers that are wrong are the very end two, which are not really required in most situations and can easily be removed.

 

The unifrog is unlikely to cause short circuits as there is a small piece of plastic at the knuckles. Provided the wheels are coned (which they should be) there won't be any shorts.

 

As Martin says, early turnouts and plain track had wider spacings between sleepers/timbers than we are used to today.

 

Having bought some, I can assure you they actually do look quite good - better than the photos. Not completely realistic perhaps, but much better than anything we have had before RTR and convincing enough for most people. With just a little bit of work they look even better as some of us have demonstrated.

 

Rather a lot of errors in your post I'm afraid.

 

The bearers under pointwork are called timbers, not sleepers. They are 12 inches wide. Plain track sleepers are 10 inches wide.

 

The typical centre-to-centre spacing of timbers is 28 inches to 30 inches, with closer spacings of 24 inches or 25 inches where there are rail joints (fishplates). The spacing is not constant.

 

Timbers can be square-on (parallel), or skewed (equalized). It depends on the railway company, the period, and the density of traffic over each route. Timbers in diamond-crossings and slips are always skewed (equalized), and turnouts connected to them are often equalized to match.

 

The Peco turnouts have widely-spaced equalized timbers, typical of early pre-group (pre 1923) pointwork. They cannot be a true representation of prototype bullhead pointwork because of the need to match the existing Peco geometry, and the fact that they are 16.5mm gauge.

 

Sorry to correct you like this, but it is important on web sites such as this that misinformation is not propagated further.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Martin, 

I don't know who you are, but the measurements I quoted I took from an original Institute of Civil Engineers paper, published in 1953. Further it seems that these measurements (although adopted by BR at the time), were most likely taken from the GWR. The meaurements you have quoted are more typical of those applying to flat bottom rail track from the late 1950's early 1960's. 

 

Also I am fully aware of how track was laid, having been on many BR engineering possessions as far back as the 1970's.  However I was not going to use terms such as Timbers or baulks, as this would most likely cause confusion on this website. 

 

So I will re-iterate what I said. On Left and Righthanded points the sleepers were at 90 degrees to the straight track. They did NOT splice the difference between the straight and curved routes (as on a diamond). Even on a diamond they did not have the odd unequal lengths seen on one side of the Large Radius Righthanded point.  They certainly were never skewed - not parallel - too each other. Which is what is seen with the Peco point I have just looked at on the Kernow website. So unless someone at Kernow has been interfering with the product before posting their picture, I maintain that the Peco point I have seen is totally un-natural.

 

Further the era this trackwork is supposed to be aimed at cannot possibly be pre-grouping, unless Peco are intentionally trying to commit financial suicide. Logically it has to suit the era of the Big Four and up to the 1960's.  

 

As too the "Unifrog" I do not think that was a good idea from an electrical point of view. However it may have eased the design problem with this new track in view of the fact that the sleepers ARE too far apart. As 26 sleepers on a 258mm long (Large radius) point is too few, both realistically and visually on the model.  

 

The Duke 71000  

[bertiedog]

Well, if you consider Peco are in error in the design of model track, note; not an exact museum model, then simply write to them and tell them.......I am sure they will appreciate the feed back and correct the mistakes...............

 

in the meantime, I, and most other users will continue with the product at the current price, before it sky rockets in price to meet the highest museum class display standards.....in various versions for Victorian railway companies, pre grouping post grouping, wartime, BR early and late...and various bolt patterns......

 

In real life, there are compromises, and the Bullhead points design used fits most peoples requirements. We can all find tiny faults, and if you want perfection it is available from P4 suppliers or build your own.

 

Peco is a mass market model production, not a dead scale representation, even before P4 there were several bullhead tracks available for 00 in the post war period, Hamblings marketed a code 75/80, (ref is poor), with cast chairs made by SME, but these failed on straight cost and complexity in point making.

 

The standards of the Peco track is first class. quite stunning for a ready to lay product, and sales show they know what they doing.

 

The pressure on Peco is to expand the range for actual users of the track, not to fiddle with minor details.

 

Stephen.

[Oldddudders]

Martin, 

I don't know who you are

 

The Duke 71000  

Crikey.

[Guest]

As it happens I do not need Peco's new points

 

Peco will surely breathe a sigh of relief, seeing as how they've made such a hash of this new product. We should expect a product recall any day now.

 

Further the era this trackwork is supposed to be aimed at cannot possibly be pre-grouping, unless Peco are intentionally trying to commit financial suicide.

 

Correct. Pre-grouping modellers should use the Code 75 concrete-sleepered flatbottom points for ultimate realism.

 

Apologies for the sarcasm, but it's Monday morning and I haven't had enough coffee yet...

[Kiwi]

I don't know how to say this, but it appears someone at Peco has made a few mistakes with these new Bullhead points !

 

The sleepers on these points appear to be both wrongly angled, not even parallel, and spaced too far apart. And there could be an electrical issue with the "Unifrog" especially on the medium and small radius versions. Indeed these new points look more like narrow gauge crazy track. Having just seen a photo plan view of a Large radius Righthand point on the Kernow models website !!!!

 

The "Unifrog" idea is not new, and has been seen on other manufacturers points in the past. And in the past it often failed as it allowed the wheel backs to touch the opposite rail (and therefore cause a momentary short) as the wheels approached the "unifrog". Depending on the control system being used, whether 16v AC (DCC) or 12v DC this won't do your electrical equipment any good. Metal wheels on coaches and wagons will likely cause repeated momentary shorts (jerking of the train) and the worse case scenario, burn out of parts of the controller.........

 

How it is on real life Bullhead points:

On Left or Righthand points the sleepers should be at 90 degrees to the straight track. Not as seen on these points angled halfway between the straight and curved tracks.

 

The gap between sleepers on Bullhead mainline points in early BR days (1953) should be, according to old BR documents & plans in my library, 14 and one eighth of an inch apart. That's 4.72mm in OO scale.

 

As sleepers on Bullhead points were 10 inches wide (3.34mm in OO scale) and I can't say what the Peco sleeper is, but it may be too narrow as well as being spaced too far apart. Whatever it is, it looks totally wrong, even absurd.

 

As Peco's website do not show a single solitary Bullhead track item, I am guessing, but I suspect Peco have used the same size sleeper at roughly the same spacing as on their Bullhead flexi track. I say roughly, because the sleepers on these points DON'T appear to be parallel.

Point sleepers on mainline track were wider than on plain track, and the point sleepers spaced closer together. As they had to take a much heavier pounding.

 

As it happens I do not need Peco's new points (as I build my own, as seen on my layout Basingstoke, in Modelling real locations) but I am interested in seeing a picture of their Bullhead flexi-track, as that may prove useful if I can find a good plan photo....

 

 

 

The Duke 71000

Responses like “out of touch with the real world of MODEL railways“ immediately spring to mind. Either that or this person is a classic “troll” and we’re all falling for his/her bait.

 

A shame. This thread was doing do well. A really useful discussion about a genuinely popular new development. Guess it'll be locked like its predecessors soon. Why do people like this feel it’s necessary to get involved in a discussion about something that even by their own admission is of no real interest to them? Actually thats pretty much the definition of a “troll”.