Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Izzy]

On 28/06/2022 at 13:04, Kirby Uncoupler said:

I used to think these were centred over the tiebar, but more and more photos have shown them to be off-centre, giving greater protection for traffic running towards the frog.

 

I don't know if this applies to all designs of FPL's that have been used in the UK but those I fit to my layouts are based around the exLNER economical FPL type which has the locking bits mainly situated to one side of the tie-bar. So a cover would be offset as you have discovered, and quite long in this particular case.

 

Here's one on my 2mm Priory Road layout to show what I mean.

 

 

Bob

 

 

 

[PMP]

46 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Try brushing 2-part fibreglass resin around the chairs and sleepers at board joints when using plastic track parts. Sets very solid, and all gets hidden under the ballast.

 

 

Martin.

It’s not the sleepers to baseboard that’s a problem, those are strong enough. It’s the physical chair to sleeper bond that’s the problem, specifically if the end of the rail gets knocked with track cleaning, the sheer force could likely be enough dislodge the rail/chairs, hence trying drill and pin. The blade would cross the board at the slide chair locations too compounding the issue. For the design there isn’t enough space to pull the catch further away from the heel of the points. I like @Stationmaster’s concept but I think it unlikely it might have been used on this prototype. Whilst I like the idea of the catch point there, pragmatism may mean leaving it off.

Edited June 29, 2022 by PMP
Spellin

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Wouldn't the easiest solution for PMP's layout trap point requirement, be to cut out a short section of the Peco Bullhead, and following Mike's suggestion, install a wide-of-gauge trap, custom made up from C&L parts? You don't see many of those in 4mm modelling. An exclusive!

    I like to think of points protecting running lines from other tracks as "trap" points, and be interlocked with the local operation, as distinct from "catch" points, which are found facing back on inclines, and sprung open, to catch and deliberately derail any breakaway wagons.

    I've often wondered what the hard and fast rule is, concerning trap points on bi-directional passenger pointwork in stations? Surely a run-off of plain track is desirable, rather than the immediate derailing with passengers on board?      BK

[Kirby Uncoupler]

2 minutes ago, PMP said:

 For the design there isn’t enough space to pull the catch further away from the heel of the points. I like @Stationmaster’s concept but I think it unlikely it might have been used on this prototype. Whilst I like the idea of the catch point there, pragmatism may mean leaving it off.

 

It's not a catch point, IT'S A TRAP POINT!!!! 😀  

Cos it can be opened and closed, as part of the interlocking with the signal box. Catch points are not connected to signal boxes, and are independently sprung in the open position on uni-directional track, often in quite remote locations, to prevent runaways downhill. When wrong line working is in operation, the catch points have to be levered shut and padlocked. Catch points and trap points can look similar, but they function differently.     BK

[martin_wynne]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

It's not a catch point, IT'S A TRAP POINT!!!! 

 

Yes it is.

 

"Trap point" describes the function. The physical object on the ground is a set of catch points.

 

"Trap points" can also be implemented as full turnouts, slips, etc., sometimes leading to spurs or sand drags. They are not always done using derailing catch points.

 

Sprung or weighted run-back catch points on gradients are long gone.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

35 minutes ago, PMP said:

It’s the physical chair to sleeper bond that’s the problem

 

Brushing resin round the chair will lock it to the sleeper. The usual grotty track paint will cover it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

I think the last roll-back catch points went in the 1980s, when BR finally got rid of unbraked wagons on trunk routes. I remember hearing of them being removed on the WCML in the late 70s, prior to the running of the APTs. Any residue unbraked traffic was then sent via the Settle & Carlisle line. It was after these old-style freights finally finished, that the S&C came under serious threat of closure.

 

Interesting Fact:        I used to know the now railway author David Maidment, when he was General Manager of LMR in the 1980s. He told me, that if they were going to be forced to close the S&C, he was going to get the tunnels on the Cumbrian Coast line enlarged to accept the 75ft Mk3 carriages, so they still had a diversion option for Anglo-Scottish passenger trains. As far as I know, this was never done, since Michael Portillo (DoT) persuaded Maggie that the S&C was worth keeping. It has since flourished as a freight artery. So there's a nice happy ending to the story.😀   

    Cheers, Brian.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

 

It's not a catch point, IT'S A TRAP POINT!!!! 😀  

Cos it can be opened and closed, as part of the interlocking with the signal box. Catch points are not connected to signal boxes, and are independently sprung in the open position on uni-directional track, often in quite remote locations, to prevent runaways downhill. When wrong line working is in operation, the catch points have to be levered shut and padlocked. Catch points and trap points can look similar, but they function differently.     BK

Actually you could have slotted catch points where a lever in the signal box would be used to close the switch rail(s) to allow a wrong direction movement to be made through a catch point (known on the GWR as 'slotted joints'  or 'spring slotted joints' - yes, joints, not points).

 

The critical thing with a any 'safety point'  (to use the old fashioned term) is to understand its function hence the crucial need to differentiate a trap point from a catch point although some in engineering functions used to have the very confusing habit of calling them both by the same name.  as already noted catch points are no longer used on Britain's national network but trap points (although not nowadays on passenger lines other than in very exceptional circumstances) still exist in abundance.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Brushing resin round the chair will lock it to the sleeper. The usual grotty track paint will cover it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

I’ll see if I know anyone with some to try, everything else has failed so far the plastic Peco used being very ‘slippery’ :-(

Edited June 29, 2022 by PMP

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

hence the crucial need to differentiate a trap point from a catch point

 

One is a purpose / function / concept / idea. The other is a physical component. "For the trap from the goods loop an ordinary derailing catch point was used, but a full sand-drag spur would have been better."

 

although some in engineering functions used to have the very confusing habit of calling them both by the same name.

 

That's because "Catch Point" is what the thing is called on the p.w. engineering drawings. See chapter 6 "Catch Points" in David Smith's book on GWR Switch & Crossing Practice. A whole chapter on the several GWR designs of "Catch Point".

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

It's rather like separating the definitions of "conservation" and "preservation", both terms are very close.

For the record, i'd say "conservation" is keeping something in it's original condition without any alteration, and "preservation" is keeping something in it's near original condition, but allowing limited alteration, but i'm not a pedant, I wouldn't lose sleep over either term being used.

   Back to the points, I still think it's simpler and neater to refer to "catch points", as those that were sprung and worked independently in normal service, purely for catching rolling-back runaways on gradients, and could be miles away from any signal box. "Trap points" are those under the control of a signal box, as part of an interlocking system. Is that better?    BK

Edited June 29, 2022 by Kirby Uncoupler
Added words

[martin_wynne]

25 minutes ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

Back to the points, I still think it's simpler and neater to refer to "catch points", as those that were sprung and worked independently in normal service, purely for catching rolling-back runaways on gradients, and could be miles away from any signal box. "Trap points" are those under the control of a signal box, as part of an interlocking system. Is that better?    BK

 

It depends whether you are a signaller or a p.w. worker.

 

The signaller sees two separate operating functions.

 

A p.w. worker sees the same thing for both, so it's called the same thing. When fitted with a spring or weighted lever, a set of catch points can act as an anti-runback device. When fitted with rodding and detection from the signal box, a set of catch points can serve as safety trap points. But it's important to remember that trap points can take several other forms too, such as a full turnout, or sometimes a slip, leading to a short spur or sand-drag or other retarder. So just saying "trap points" doesn't describe any particular physical device, only its signalling function.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

But it's important to remember that trap points can take several other forms too, such as a full turnout, or sometimes a slip, leading to a short spur or sand-drag or other retarder. So just saying "trap points" doesn't describe any particular physical device, only its signalling function.

 

By coincidence, i'll be using one of my Peco Bullhead double slips as a twin trap point, on the new layout i'm currently building, there's only 10ft to the buffer stop in one direction. My period is 1950s/60s, photographic evidence shows that in pre-nat days it was a single slip and separate trap point, track layouts do evolve in subtle ways.

    I model in OO and 18.83, why(?), because like many modellers, I have a good collection of OO RTR, and i'll never convert the whole lot to 18.83, life's too short.    BK

[Covkid]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

One is a purpose / function / concept / idea. The other is a physical component. "For the trap from the goods loop an ordinary derailing catch point was used, but a full sand-drag spur would have been better."

 

That's because "Catch Point" is what the thing is called on the p.w. engineering drawings. See chapter 6 "Catch Points" in David Smith's book on GWR Switch & Crossing Practice. A whole chapter on the several GWR designs of "Catch Point".

 

cheers,

Martin.

 

Reminds me of an incident in the early 1980s when a driver was working a freight from Gloucester to Bescot with a class 31.  He stopped at Bromsgrove for the class 37 bankers to come behind him, then started the ascent.  The driver was suffering anxiety and depression at the time, and these days would not have been driving, but back then things were different. For some reason he closed the power handle on the class 31 and the train came to stand, then because he hadn't applied any kind of brake in his state of mind the weight of the train overpowered the bankers and started pushing them backwards, with neither loco power or brakes could hold the train, and the 37s ended up pushed onto the sand drags where they finally arrested the train. 

 

You have confused me now over whether they were traps or catches but I think they were halfway up the Lickey bank.  

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

One is a purpose / function / concept / idea. The other is a physical component. "For the trap from the goods loop an ordinary derailing catch point was used, but a full sand-drag spur would have been better."

 

 

 

 

That's because "Catch Point" is what the thing is called on the p.w. engineering drawings. See chapter 6 "Catch Points" in David Smith's book on GWR Switch & Crossing Practice. A whole chapter on the several GWR designs of "Catch Point".

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

However I am talking as a railway operator not as an engineer - and if we mixed up the terms there we'd be in a right old state of ambiguously dangerous confusion.  Fortunately we weren't confused  and the ones on the Lickey were catch points and noted as such in the Sectional Appendix. being dulyidentified by the relevant code letter.

Edited June 29, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

 

By coincidence, i'll be using one of my Peco Bullhead double slips as a twin trap point, on the new layout i'm currently building, there's only 10ft to the buffer stop in one direction. My period is 1950s/60s, photographic evidence shows that in pre-nat days it was a single slip and separate trap point, track layouts do evolve in subtle ways.

    I model in OO and 18.83, why(?), because like many modellers, I have a good collection of OO RTR, and i'll never convert the whole lot to 18.83, life's too short.    BK

There is real one at Didcot although basically it is only two thirds of a double slip with two sets of switches at end and only one set at the other end as the trap position doesn't lead to a spur.  it was incidentally a double slip in bullhead days but back then it originally had lines running in all four directions until one of them was removed in 1965 and then that simply became a trap setting.

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

It depends whether you are a signaller or a p.w. worker.

 

The signaller sees two separate operating functions.

 

A p.w. worker sees the same thing for both, so it's called the same thing. When fitted with a spring or weighted lever, a set of catch points can act as an anti-runback device. When fitted with rodding and detection from the signal box, a set of catch points can serve as safety trap points. But it's important to remember that trap points can take several other forms too, such as a full turnout, or sometimes a slip, leading to a short spur or sand-drag or other retarder. So just saying "trap points" doesn't describe any particular physical device, only its signalling function.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Actually it depends whether you are a member of any operating job, not just a Signalman/ler.  And when it comes to Groundsman jobs as they used to be called any PW staff called into assist had to know and understand the difference between the two.  The only PW staff I knew of who called then by the generic catch point term were in drawing offices.  Signal engineering folk - for very obvious reasons - usually knew the difference.   Sorry but I did the job on an everyday basis in order to earn my living and  it was a lot more than messing about with theory and semantics I've read in a book.

[martin_wynne]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The only PW staff I knew of who called them by the generic catch point term were in drawing offices.  Signal engineering folk - for very obvious reasons - usually knew the difference.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Indeed. But this is a topic about model railways. This entire web site is about model railways. When building a model railway, are we p.w. engineers or signal engineers? 🙂

 

Everyone building a model railway should know the different uses for a set of catch points. This discussion began because someone said the component needed to trap the loco spur was not a catch point, when very clearly it is:

 

 https://peco-uk.com/products/catch-turnout-left-hand

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[PMP]

2 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Indeed. But this is a topic about model railways. 

 

Hmm, well put, many people forget that. It’s funny the piece of track that started this, it matters not if it’s called trap or catch. It’s just a toy train.

https://albionyard.com/2022/03/22/transformation-tuesday-relax/

 

The catch points on my layout are cosmetic, non functioning and who cares if they’re there or not? I don’t, and it’s my train set. My train set will be unusual because it features some catch points, how many layouts do we see with none whatsoever, and they get praised/awards etc etc, they’re clearly not  very important to people making model railways. Anyone who wants to know why this layouts designed as it is will be able to read about it on my blog/magazines, or see it online/YouTube or at a show.

 

I have found a catch/trap point (SECR I think) that’s interesting to use as a prototype template, even though it’s wrong region era. On a pilot road, facing a 3 way, and less space to derail a train in than is on my layout. So that will do if I can get round the glue/sleeper thing. I tried some car body filler as a glue last night, no improvement, so if I do this, drill and pin looks like the best way forward in this case.

Edited June 30, 2022 by PMP
Addition

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Well someone has obviously been spending hours flicking through track photos . . . . . 😀

 

I'm letting the cat out of the bag, by announcing that my OO effort using Peco Bullhead, will be a model of BR/WR Kingswear in the 1950s/60s. Kingswear was possibly the king of branch line termini, with big locos and big trains, and when later rationalized still handling 13/14 coach trains on Saturdays, before becoming the Torbay Steam Railway. Perhaps it should be regarded as a two-then-one platform main line termini in the sticks?

     Before anybody sends me a finescale email rocket, yes I know that GWR track used different 2-bolt chairs, but Peco sensibly chose the more common 3-bolt chair, but the difference is minimal, and only spotted under close scrutiny, so no big deal, once again I invoke the life's too short clause. In my experience, point-scorers don't tend to get far with their own projects.

     And guess what(?), photographs reveal that the main running line out to and beyond Britannia Halt (by the car ferry), was relaid by BR, with 3-BOLT CHAIRS, presumably in the 1950s, using new BR Standard track panels, before flat-bottom became more widespread. The platform roads and all sidings would still be GWR 2-bolt, I haven't spotted any flat-bottom south of Paignton/Goodrington in BR days.

      My previously mentioned double slip trap requirement, applies to the bay platform, leading to the turntable and rather awkward carriage sidings. By the mid-60s, BR had reduced the whole lot to one-platform with a long run-round loop, in preservation it's good to see the second platform and some sidings have been relaid, and are back in use.

       I've built all the boards, and rather than being hidden away in a loft or a shed, this will be on display down one side of my lounge(!), so that non-railway friends and family can view it too. I think the single-track meandering down one side of the room, will be fairly inobtrusive, whereas a four-track set-up with trains thrashing round and round would be a bit cranky here. It's a walk in job too, so they won't spill their Pimm's, crawling under boards, or locked-in by a lift-up section.

                                                  Cheers, Brian.

 

 

               Cheers, Brian.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Here's a quick piccy of my Kingswear baseboards, all a bit of a mess so far, whilst trying out point and track positions, we don't want points halfway across baseboard joints.  BK

 

 

 

[PMP]

 

There’s no real problem with baseboard joints on points if you plan the location and cut them carefully. It gives far more flexibility in layout design and use of space, particularly if you’re either space restricted or stepping away from formulaic baseboard design.

[dasatcopthorne]

On 25/06/2022 at 10:21, Harlequin said:

 

They may not suit everyone but in general I maintain that they are a Good Thing because, by not attempting any electrical switching:

• Any switching function required is delegated to a properly designed electrical device. It no longer relies on a side-effect of blades touching stock rails out in the open where it can be affected by dust, gunge, cat hair, paint and ballast.
• The turnouts themselves are more reliable because all the rails apart from the very tiny "frog nose" are permanently wired.
• Edit: There's no longer any possibility of point blades and external switches causing momentary shorts if they operate at different speeds.
• For most people's use they will need no modification before installation, unlike the kinds of mods people often do to Electrofrog turnouts to overcome some of the issues raised above.
• It's not difficult to arrange sections of track to be switched in other ways - it's just different from the old familiar practice.

The issues with some rolling stock shorting when passing through Unifrog turnouts really suggests that the stock is at fault more than the turnouts, IMHO. I.e. Out-of-range B2Bs, badly designed crabbing ponies, wider flat-treaded wheels than normal and flangeless wheels that can ride over adjacent rails. That thought is supported by the fact that, having seen the feedback on the Large Radius turnouts, Peco didn't change their basic design concept for the Unifrog crossings and slips.

So I would definitely be looking at my stock before doing anything drastic to the bullhead turnouts, slips and crossings!

 

 

Re the shorting problem.

 

I had no problems until I ran a Hornby Class 31 through. (the Super detailed version. not the Ex-Lima)

 

It shorted.

 

After some investigation I have concluded that the problem is the wheels. The tyres are wide and have extremely little coning. Also the radius between flange and tyre is almost non-existant.

 

Dave.

Edited June 30, 2022 by dasatcopthorne

[Gilbert]

3 minutes ago, dasatcopthorne said:

 

Re the shorting problem.

 

I had now problems until I ran a Hornby Class 31 through. (the Super detailed version. not the Ex-Lima)

 

It shorted.

 

After some investigation I have concluded that the problem is the wheels. The tyres are wide and have extremely little coning. Also the radius between flange and tyre is almost non-existant.

 

Dave.

Sadly you're not the first to experience this - I did have 3 Hornby 31s - not any more - but I do have two layouts with Peco BH track...there are some suggested fixes for the track but none really worked for me.

Chris

[PMP]

2 minutes ago, dasatcopthorne said:

 

Re the shorting problem.

 

I had now problems until I ran a Hornby Class 31 through. (the Super detailed version. not the Ex-Lima)

 

It shorted.

 

After some investigation I have concluded that the problem is the wheels. The tyres are wide and have extremely little coning. Also the radius between flange and tyre is almost non-existant.

 

Dave.

That is one of the few that have been mentioned that has a 'problem' with these points. I've not had the opportunity to test one so far, but don't doubt the result. Is it all wheels or just a particular pairing? For interest Ye olde steamroller wheel fitted lima 31 does go through with no issues.