Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Kirby Uncoupler]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

 

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.

 

I think i've built more large layouts (e.g. Marton Central on RMweb) than you have PMP, and yes, i've had to cut points like that as a last resort, but it is to be avoided where possible, which is the stage that project Kingswear is at now. Your baseboard ends have to be rigidly held together, and track fixed rigidly too (so foam underlay has to be cut away here), or you can resort to sliding fishplates on each rail, which is also a nuisance. Bear-in-mind that when things expand and contract, you have two angles of deflection.

      Who was it that built your Bawdsey layout for you? Less of the point-scoring please.   BK

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Whilst being faithful to the 1950s track layout, the spacing of the pointwork has worked out well, avoiding the baseboard joins, but one snag is the continuous curvature, the station throat requires curved points. Hopefully Peco will eventually add the E(11)86 and E(11)87 style curved points to their range, but with no announcement yet, these could be a year or two away (and perhaps depend on how well the existing Bullhead range sells?), so fingers crossed. In the meantime, I have three options: (a) Re-shape some Bullhead large radius to fit (they are similar), or (b) substitute Peco curved flat-bottom points for the time being, or (c) make up some DIY bullhead points using C&L parts, based on the Peco dimensions, rather than B6,B7,B8 drawings, etc.

      I rather favour the latter option, since I already have the GWR chairs in stock, as an option, and because they can easily be removed on the card, I could build more as time permits, and swap over some more, making things interchangeable, and re-use the Peco on a different project, at least the Peco will get the ball rolling😀. Come to think of it, i've got some spare Ratio GW track in 18.83 stashed away somewhere(?), cut with a guillotine and re-gauged, might do nicely for the sidings?😀

                                                   Cheers, Brian.

[Harlequin]

Just now, Kirby Uncoupler said:

Whilst being faithful to the 1950s track layout, the spacing of the pointwork has worked out well, avoiding the baseboard joins, but one snag is the continuous curvature, the station throat requires curved points. Hopefully Peco will eventually add the E(11)86 and E(11)87 style curved points to their range, but with no announcement yet, these could be a year or two away (and perhaps depend on how well the existing Bullhead range sells?), so fingers crossed. In the meantime, I have three options: (a) Re-shape some Bullhead large radius to fit (they are similar), or (b) substitute Peco curved flat-bottom points for the time being, or (c) make up some DIY bullhead points using C&L parts, based on the Peco dimensions, rather than B6,B7,B8 drawings, etc.

      I rather favour the latter option, since I already have the GWR chairs in stock, as an option, and because they can easily be removed on the card, I could build more as time permits, and swap over some more, making things interchangeable, and re-use the Peco on a different project, at least the Peco will get the ball rolling😀. Come to think of it, i've got some spare Ratio GW track in 18.83 stashed away somewhere(?), cut with a guillotine and re-gauged, might do nicely for the sidings?😀

                                                   Cheers, Brian.

 

Have a look at the new Finetrax range of OO kits. They use Code 75 Bullhead rail and can be made to curve but they sometimes need some adaptation to marry up with Streamline geometry, depending on how they are connected.

 

See: https://www.britishfinescale.com/category-s/1851.htm

 

and here on RMweb:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/160234-using-the-easy-assembly-finetrax-pointwork-kits-in-00-and-em/

 

[martin_wynne]

6 minutes ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

Whilst being faithful to the 1950s track layout, the spacing of the pointwork has worked out well, avoiding the baseboard joins, but one snag is the continuous curvature, the station throat requires curved points. Hopefully Peco will eventually add the E(11)86 and E(11)87 style curved points to their range, but with no announcement yet, these could be a year or two away (and perhaps depend on how well the existing Bullhead range sells?), so fingers crossed. In the meantime, I have three options: (a) Re-shape some Bullhead large radius to fit (they are similar), or (b) substitute Peco curved flat-bottom points for the time being, or (c) make up some DIY bullhead points using C&L parts, based on the Peco dimensions, rather than B6,B7,B8 drawings, etc.

      I rather favour the latter option, since I already have the GWR chairs in stock, as an option, and because they can easily be removed on the card, I could build more as time permits, and swap over some more, making things interchangeable, and re-use the Peco on a different project, at least the Peco will get the ball rolling😀. Come to think of it, i've got some spare Ratio GW track in 18.83 stashed away somewhere(?), cut with a guillotine and re-gauged, might do nicely for the sidings?😀

                                                   Cheers, Brian.

 

Or try the Finetrax bullhead turnout kits, which can be assembled curved:

 

 https://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-00-b7.htm

 

Martin.

[Gilbert]

34 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Or try the Finetrax bullhead turnout kits, which can be assembled curved:

 

 https://www.britishfinescale.com/product-p/finetrax-00-b7.htm

 

Martin.

I'm sure many people are happy to have a go at building points - I may do so myself with these products - however  some are not "builders" but recognise their old Peco Code 75/100 just does not do the job so we need to do our best to encourage them...

I speak as some one who has become a little bit older with a few "issues" and therefore more aware of actual and potential limitations on my modelling portfolio....

ATB

Chris

Edited June 30, 2022 by Gilbert

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Many Thanks Harlequin and Martin,

     Yes I am aware of the Finetrax product, I was hoping they'd attend ExpoEM, but alas not, so I haven't got hold of any yet. I've been a diehard C&L product fan for donkey's years, in fact going right back to when it was K&L (remember that?). I've tried it all, rail on copperclad, rivets on sleepers with my very own Joe Brook-Smith sleeper punch (a serious bit of heavy duty kit), the downside was having to grind the rivets back after soldering, to get the now cut-in-half chairs to fit, very time consuming. These days with modern glues, I just glue plastic chairs to wood, it seems to last perfectly well?

      Meanwhile try this one, anyone can build this in 30 minutes, how's it done?

 

 

I was going to recommend this to PMP, for his first foray into flat-bottom point construction. Flat-bottom stuff is harder work than bullhead, because you have to grind away that huge bottom flange, when making frogs or point blades. This is the quicker method that I use for OO or EM, no rail cutting and just three spots to solder, this is a rebuilt Peco code 75 curved point, re-using all the rails, frog and point blades from a redundant or broken example. All is remounted on wooden sleeper strip, using Peco pandrol clips. No drawing required, just cut the sleepers over-length and glue them to paper in the required pattern, feed the clips on to the outside stock rail, and glue to all the sleepers/timbers, then work across on both ends and form the frog, add the outside switch rail in line with the frog, then the inside switch rail, and finally the inside stock rail to gauge. Solder the frog nose and a new tiebar using an insulated copperclad sleeper or similar. You will only have to add new check rails, because the originals were brown plastic. Lastly trim the sleepers. The point pictured here, is gauged to 18.83mm with EM fine clearances. Any use to anyone?   

                                                              Cheers, Brian.

[dasatcopthorne]

10 hours ago, PMP said:

 

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.

 

Been there, done it but the T shirt didn't fit.

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by dasatcopthorne

[Kirby Uncoupler]

As Eric Morecambe used to say, "You can't see the join".

  Some serious double screw reinforcement for each rail there. Bang goes the sound insulation! 😀  BK

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Following the recommendations, I have just ordered some point kits from British Finescale, so I can compare the competition with the Peco product. The longer double slip offered by BF, is a major attraction.   BK

[gr.king]

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!

 

 

My mods to the unifrog points do not make them reliant on blade contact. The powered frog is not in itself the problem in Peco Electrofrog points, the potential problem lies in the very basic and fallible, blade-reliant, polarity switching method that Peco chose to incorporate.

I didn't want to buy and fit more switches, which are not in any case guaranteed to be reliable and durable.

I quite agree that if the rolling stock was all as it should be then the bridging, by wide treads or out-of-gauge wheels, of gaps in unifrog points wouldn't be a problem, but if one has a significant number of "offending" locos that would require tricky, risky, costly or time-consuming alteration to make them truly "right", but one has only a few points to modify and a cheap, reliable modification plan that doesn't do them any damage, then it makes much more sense to modify the points so that all existing stock and possible future acquisitions will run without trouble. Flangeless wheels under the back ends of long steam locos, overthrowing on curves, with poor provision for the proper accommodation of flanged substitutes, seems to be an RTR manufacturing practice that may be here to stay...

[Izzy]

6 hours ago, gr.king said:

My mods to the unifrog points do not make them reliant on blade contact. The powered frog is not in itself the problem in Peco Electrofrog points, the potential problem lies in the very basic and fallible, blade-reliant, polarity switching method that Peco chose to incorporate.

I thought with the unifrog points the closure rails/blades were bonded to the stock rails to prevent this issue occurring. 

[gr.king]

In the Unifrog items they are, and they are still bonded to the stock rails in my modified versions, but they are not bonded in the "as supplied" Peco Electrofrog type. From memory, the code 75 FB Electrofrog type include some provision for easy isolation of the blades from the frog and bonding of the blades to the stock rails.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

From memory, the code 75 FB Electrofrog type include some provision for easy isolation of the blades from the frog and bonding of the blades to the stock rails.

 

Correct - blade isolation by snipping bonding wires; blade to stock rail bonding not quite so easy, but can be done by soldering to the appropriate rivets from below.

 

CJI.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

The following sequence contains photos of serious open point surgery, please look away if squeamish. No points were harmed in the making of these images. If you try this, wear glasses in case the spring comes flying out towards you.

   One of my options, in my desire for quick and easy curved points, was to take a straight large radius bullhead, and bend it like Beckham. I know other members have tweaked and slightly curved some already (Ben?), but the aim here was to press this one into the geometric shape of a regular Peco curved point, so the two are almost interchangeable.

    Luckily the webbing between sleepers/timbers is quite thin on the bullhead points, so it was fairly easy to snip through with a razor saw, on the outer stock rail and the centre switch rails, this photo shows the cut positions, highlighted in white Tippex. The areas around the frog and tiebar are to be avoided, although the frog area could be curved with more intricate cutting.

 

 

One unavoidable consequence of this jiggery-pockery, is the tiebar gets twisted, but this can be limited or even replaced. It all gets quite floppy (the point), and once the desired shape and curve is acquired, all can be secured by supergluing the rails in the chairs. Here it is alongside a regular Peco FB curved point.

 

 

Be warned, when the tiebar was twisted, the centring spring flew out, so wear protection. That spring was long gone, so I inserted a spare, luckily they seem to be the same springs from donkey's years ago. However, the spring mounts have changed, on the FB small, medium, large and 3-way points, the spring could be replaced (and even tensioned) from above, now on the bullhead range, the spring is inserted from below, with a retaining plate, that plugs upwards into the point, and is bent over on top. So like the FB slips, the bullhead springs can only be swapped, when the point is completely removed.

                                                         Cheers, Brian.

 

 

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

My experience of Peco points with the Tortoise type of point motor with spring wire through the tie bar is that the Peco spring needs to be removed anyway!

[gr.king]

If you fix the points down to maintain the shape I've found you can curve the BH versions without cutting any webs.

[PMP]

On 30/06/2022 at 14:54, Kirby Uncoupler said:

 

I think i've built more large layouts (e.g. Marton Central on RMweb) than you have PMP, and yes, i've had to cut points like that as a last resort, but it is to be avoided where possible, which is the stage that project Kingswear is at now. Your baseboard ends have to be rigidly held together, and track fixed rigidly too (so foam underlay has to be cut away here), or you can resort to sliding fishplates on each rail, which is also a nuisance. Bear-in-mind that when things expand and contract, you have two angles of deflection.

       

The size of layouts is irrelevant, regardless whether it’s Heaton Lodge Jnc, or a box file. I said it’s the design and baseboard joints location that’s critical. If the design requires a joint across a point or crossing, you have to cut it.

And as I said careful planning of the cutting and wiring makes it quite straightforward. Use a fine 0.13mm razor saw and you don’t even have to wait for the glue to set. Join your baseboard as normal, lay the track across and cut. No special clamps or sliding fishplates etc required. If you’re using foam underlay at the edges you can secure the rail height with fine brass panel pins or screw heads for the rail end to be soldered to. Then all you need to do is cut and dress the rail end as needed. I did that with Shelfie1’s obtuse join between flying fiddleyard and main board, when using Woodland Scenics foam underlay. On Shelfie2 I simply used PCB ends on WS underlay and cut the rails with a razor saw.

With the bullhead and a decent razor saw the blade is sharp enough that just the lightest of finger pressure cuts through the rail and webbing. Because the blade is so thin, 0.13mm, it ‘falls’ between the baseboard along the joint line.
Simples. 

Once the cut is done dress the rails back with a file to suit. This is mine with the gap for baseboard rails set to 0.5mm, so far over the course of this past winter and this summer so far that gap has been sufficient.

[PMP]

On 30/06/2022 at 14:54, Kirby Uncoupler said:

 

      Who was it that built your Bawdsey layout for you? Less of the point-scoring please.   BK

An interesting lie you’re starting there Brian.
Please explain how Chris Matthewman built a layout for me when we didn’t even know each other.

While you’re  at it you could tell us why if it was built for me it was built in the wrong era, region, and gauge.

 

Presumably he forgot to mention that he’d kindly built the layout I hadn’t asked for, and was watching at Expo EM 2002 for me.  The only time I believe I met him.

 

Odd too he never mentioned building it for me it in the RM article it appeared in, or to any of his operating team, friends or family. Peculiar that if it was built for me it fitted his home office exactly and remarkably was designed to fit into a type of car I didn’t have.
 

You’d have thought if it were built for me we might have covered some of those points in the commissioning of it.

 

https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/96018/page/3

 

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/virtual-exhibition-layouts/bawdsey?postId=cfa38c24-5db0-481f-916c-c1ae56633650

https://bawdsey.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/the-back-story/

 

Fortunately however there’s plenty of written evidence, and online, that Chris built it for himself, and full credit to him has been emphasised in any exhibition or article regarding my period of ownership of ‘Bawdsey’(Nee Strove), by myself and my operating teams.

When you’ve explained the lie of how it was built for me, (good luck with that one), perhaps you could explain the relevance of even mentioning an EM layout, with hand built track, in a thread about Peco OO ready to lay track?

 

Point scorers eh?

 

 

[Kirby Uncoupler]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

The size of layouts is irrelevant, regardless whether it’s Heaton Lodge Jnc, or a box file. I said it’s the design and baseboard joints location that’s critical. If the design requires a joint across a point or crossing, you have to cut it.

And as I said careful planning of the cutting and wiring makes it quite straightforward. 

 

Forgive me, but looking at this piece of your evidence, why are all four rails on the right of the join, higher than the four rails on the left? You've got a step in your tracks there, they really should be dead level, and why all the file marks or rough scratches on all the rail ends? Great system. Answers please.   BK

[cctransuk]

9 hours ago, Kirby Uncoupler said:

 

Forgive me, but looking at this piece of your evidence, why are all four rails on the right of the join, higher than the four rails on the left? You've got a step in your tracks there, they really should be dead level, and why all the file marks or rough scratches on all the rail ends? Great system. Answers please.   BK

 

Since you seem to dislike PMP so much - and vice versa - why not take the personal goading onto PM?

 

CJI.

[Kirby Uncoupler]

Apologies to all members and guest readers of this thread, sorry you've had to sit through this conflict of thoughts and ideas, I assumed it was all done and dusted, but unfortunately it all flared up again last night, with PMP's two posts, he does love an argument. One has to respond to such comments, otherwise one could be viewed as cowardly and wimpish.

   But don't worry, Paul(MP for East Notts) and I have been mates and ex-colleagues from the dearly missed King's Cross Models, for over 40 years now, occasionally a bit of bitchiness breaks out from both sides, but we still love each other. I shall not prolong or respond to any further argument. Paul and I can shake hands electronically, via the internet, or at the next show we attend.

 

Meanwhile, back in Peco point land, i've thought of a cure for the distorted tiebar problem on my curved point conversion, I could cut another gap in the outside switch rail, with a piercing saw, and move the switch rail along. That should level things up nicely. I'll try it later, hot weather permitting?   

               Cheers, Brian.

    

[gr.king]

23 hours ago, PMP said:

The size of layouts is irrelevant, regardless whether it’s Heaton Lodge Jnc, or a box file. I said it’s the design and baseboard joints location that’s critical. If the design requires a joint across a point or crossing, you have to cut it.

And as I said careful planning of the cutting and wiring makes it quite straightforward. Use a fine 0.13mm razor saw and you don’t even have to wait for the glue to set. Join your baseboard as normal, lay the track across and cut. No special clamps or sliding fishplates etc required. If you’re using foam underlay at the edges you can secure the rail height with fine brass panel pins or screw heads for the rail end to be soldered to. Then all you need to do is cut and dress the rail end as needed. I did that with Shelfie1’s obtuse join between flying fiddleyard and main board, when using Woodland Scenics foam underlay. On Shelfie2 I simply used PCB ends on WS underlay and cut the rails with a razor saw.

With the bullhead and a decent razor saw the blade is sharp enough that just the lightest of finger pressure cuts through the rail and webbing. Because the blade is so thin, 0.13mm, it ‘falls’ between the baseboard along the joint line.
Simples. 

As I've blunted razor saws in the past by using them to cut metals, I'm prompted to ask how much cutting of metals such as nickel silver you manage to do with a razor saw before it begins to loose its sharpness? Do you use a particular make or quality of razor saw for such purposes?

Edited July 5, 2022 by gr.king
spelling mistake

[Jeff Smith]

Better by far is a coping saw with blades meant for cutting metal.

[Harlequin]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Better by far is a coping saw with blades meant for cutting metal.

 

Better still, a diamond slitting disc - but that does have to be used quite carefully.

 

[gr.king]

Although they may possess the correct metal-cutting qualities, neither a coping / piercing saw nor a small slitting disc seem to me to be quite so suitable for cutting a long straight line through track already in situ. The ends of the frame of the coping / piercing saw tend to prevent the blade cutting down to flat baseboard level, and unless a disc is significantly larger in diameter than the body of a mini-drill it cannot be presented to the track in such a way as to make a true vertical cut. Hence I'm still interested to know if there's a particularly suitable type of razor saw...