Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Harlequin]

28 minutes ago, gr.king said:

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...

I have done it a few times using a slitting disc held in a right angle adaptor in a Dremel. That gives the disc enough depth of cut and allows you to hold the body in a comfortable position away from the baseboard where you can, in theory, make perfectly vertical cuts.

 

The last time I did this I clamped a timber guide across the tracks and attempted to cut along it. The end result was that the cuts were not exactly over the baseboard Join but within a mil or so, which was good enough. That’s what I meant about being careful.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Harlequin

[Darius43]

Using a cutting disc in a Dremel (or similar) runs the risk of the heat in the rails, caused by the cutting, melting the nearby plastic track chairs.  I had this happen when using this technique to crop the switch rods of under baseboard point motors.  You need to be quick with the disc and not linger.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[Jeff Smith]

Yes, you have to be quick and even with the thinnest disc all to easy to widen the gap!

[cctransuk]

11 hours ago, Darius43 said:

Using a cutting disc in a Dremel (or similar) runs the risk of the heat in the rails, caused by the cutting, melting the nearby plastic track chairs.  I had this happen when using this technique to crop the switch rods of under baseboard point motors.  You need to be quick with the disc and not linger.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

 

When I finally got to the point of building my garage conversion layout, age dictated that each of the ten baseboards would be hinged to the wall - underboard wiring of fixed boards was out of the question!

 

Thus each board can we clipped in an upright position for wiring and maintenance. The penalty, of course, is that each of the fifty-four tracks that cross baseboard joints had to be cut, and rigidly fixed in order to ensure alignment.

 

This was achieved with the thinnest of cutting discs in a 12v minidrill. Practice meant that I could complete the cut without generating excess heat, but an old- fashioned stationary spring clip, clamped onto the rail, would make a good heatsink.

 

Brass panel pins were driven into the baseboard adjacent to each cut rail and soldered to it.

 

Dire predictions were made about such a large number of open butt joints , frequent misalignments causing derailments were, apparently, inevitable.

 

I am pleased to say that none of this has transpired; relative movement between rail ends is virtually unknown, and if a joint becomes slightly 'clunky' in the vertical plane, a light tap with a pin hammer, or a little leverage with a spatula used in the manner of a crowbar, restores perfect alignment.

 

I can honestly say that the few derailments that I experience are entirely due to incorrectly set turnouts or incorrectly located couplers; (ie. buffer-locking).

 

...... and the many rail-joints produce wonderful clickety-clack sound effects.

 

John Isherwood.

[dasatcopthorne]

On 30/06/2022 at 14:31, Gilbert said:

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

 

The problem here is that 'some' wheels touch the adjacent wing rail when passing through the crossing.

 

There is a very simple mod that Peco could carry out. That is NOT the power it.

 

Simples

 

Dave.

[PMP]

On 05/07/2022 at 18:40, gr.king said:

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?

Yup I use a military modelling tool, this one, sent to me by @TheEngineShed

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/jlc-libor-kope-ek-p002-universal-razor-blade-saw--1099647
 

I keep a couple of blades in stock, and use it specifically for cutting pieces like this, and things like control surfaces on model aircraft.

1/72 Airfix Mosquito, not sure about blade life but no noticeable degradation whilst cutting the tracks for Shelfie 3 with BH Code 75, or Shelfie 4 with FB Code 83. The kit was cut using the same blade after having made multiple rail cuts across both layouts. You can get different shaped  blades for them to work at different angles. I’ve found this tool by far the easiest way to accurately cut tracks across baseboard joints and isolation sections.

 

edit: angle of dangle of the saw is normally around 45 degrees. The blades are sharp enough to not catch the rails, and you can (with care), cut two rails simultaneously at a shallower angle. The real benefit is this blade is so thin it passes between the baseboard joint.

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by PMP
Add Last para

[PMP]

On 06/07/2022 at 18:05, dasatcopthorne said:

 

The problem here is that 'some' wheels touch the adjacent wing rail when passing through the crossing.

 

There is a very simple mod that Peco could carry out. That is NOT the power it.

 

Simples

 

Dave.

The wing rails on the frog are ‘dead’ out of the packet. To energise the wing rails (section inside white outline), and point and splice rails, you need to operate the frog wired up ‘live’. 

 Is my recollection of the Hornby full fat 31 that the middle wheelset each bogie is unpowered, and has quite a bit of lateral movement correct? And breaking news, I’ve just been offered a hgh spec 31 to test :)

Edited July 12, 2022 by PMP
Add pic

[gr.king]

The real problem is that broad-tread wheels, especially flangeless ones under the ends of locos that swing wide on curved track, can make opposite-pole contact on the permanently energised closure rails near the "knuckles" of the crossing, and the permanently energised diverging rails just beyond the ultra-short "unifrog". The dodge of trying to manufacture a point that can be used with the frog dead is the cause of the trouble. A longer electrical "frog" section between the rail breaks (both ways), that has to be provided with a switched supply, is the only thorough solution, as in well established Electrofrog design, but with bonded switch rails too..

[Super-Sloth]

I use a super fine 50mm cutting disc in my dremmel. You have to be careful to make sure you move the whole tool downwards rather than through an arc, but it’s the best thing I have found for the job. 

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

The real problem is that broad-tread wheels, especially flangeless ones under the ends of locos that swing wide on curved track, can make opposite-pole contact on the permanently energised closure rails near the "knuckles" of the crossing, and the permanently energised diverging rails just beyond the ultra-short "unifrog". The dodge of trying to manufacture a point that can be used with the frog dead is the cause of the trouble. A longer electrical "frog" section between the rail breaks (both ways), that has to be provided with a switched supply, is the only thorough solution, as in well established Electrofrog design, but with bonded switch rails too..

Well summarised.  
 

I was disappointed to see that the new slips have the same issues with proximity of opposite polarity rails.

 

I don’t think that the bullhead trackage system was a good candidate for unifrog anyway.  It is most likely to be used by more discerning modellers seeking prototypical sleeper spacing and reliable operation… who are more likely to want the frog to be live.  There surely won’t be many folk choosing the dead frog option with these turnouts?  In my humble opinion, the modified design as specified by EMGS for their 18.2mm gauge version, is how these points would have been best configured in OO.

 

But the cost of going back and changing mouldings etc. now would be prohibitive for Peco, and it would be a public acknowledgement of a design flaw, so they will probably stay what they are… a bit of a ‘curate’s egg’.  At least the majority of people using this trackage system are likely to have sufficient modelling skill to modify them as required.

[Gilbert]

9 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Well summarised.  
 

I was disappointed to see that the new slips have the same issues with proximity of opposite polarity rails.

 

I saw prototypes of the medium points which looked as if they'd addressed it - but maybe not. I've ditched my 31s anyway sadly - I could not find replacement wheels anywhere..

ChrisH

[Harlequin]

2 hours ago, gr.king said:

The real problem is that broad-tread wheels, especially flangeless ones under the ends of locos that swing wide on curved track, can make opposite-pole contact on the permanently energised closure rails near the "knuckles" of the crossing, and the permanently energised diverging rails just beyond the ultra-short "unifrog". The dodge of trying to manufacture a point that can be used with the frog dead is the cause of the trouble. A longer electrical "frog" section between the rail breaks (both ways), that has to be provided with a switched supply, is the only thorough solution, as in well established Electrofrog design, but with bonded switch rails too..

 

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

Well summarised.  
 

I was disappointed to see that the new slips have the same issues with proximity of opposite polarity rails.

 

I don’t think that the bullhead trackage system was a good candidate for unifrog anyway.  It is most likely to be used by more discerning modellers seeking prototypical sleeper spacing and reliable operation… who are more likely to want the frog to be live.  There surely won’t be many folk choosing the dead frog option with these turnouts?  In my humble opinion, the modified design as specified by EMGS for their 18.2mm gauge version, is how these points would have been best configured in OO.

 

But the cost of going back and changing mouldings etc. now would be prohibitive for Peco, and it would be a public acknowledgement of a design flaw, so they will probably stay what they are… a bit of a ‘curate’s egg’.  At least the majority of people using this trackage system are likely to have sufficient modelling skill to modify them as required.

It seems reasonable that the majority of people using this new, more expensive and closer-to-prototype track system will be more likely to run stock that doesn't have large flat treaded wheels, or heaven-forbid, flangeless wheels. If that was part of the reasoning that helped Peco make the bullhead products simpler, more reliable and more suitable for DCC control (growing in popularity) then I think they've made the right decisions.

 

Peco know what they're doing. They have gradually improved the Streamline products over the years, as rolling stock standards have improved, and I see this as just another step along that same path. As with any change, it will unfortunately adversely affect a minority of customers but should be of general benefit to most.

 

Potential problem: Some old stock might not be immediately compatible with the new system but that doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed - rather that the old stock needs to be adjusted, upgraded or retired.

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by Harlequin

[Gilbert]

I agree with all of the above but the Hornby 31 is a decent model..on what seem like tank tracks...

I was delighted when I got the BH laid on Penmaenbach and simply connected two wires for DCC (yes really)

Chris H

[rob D2]

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

The real problem is that broad-tread wheels, especially flangeless ones under the ends of locos that swing wide on curved track, can make opposite-pole contact on the permanently energised closure rails near the "knuckles" of the crossing, and the permanently energised diverging rails just beyond the ultra-short "unifrog". The dodge of trying to manufacture a point that can be used with the frog dead is the cause of the trouble. A longer electrical "frog" section between the rail breaks (both ways), that has to be provided with a switched supply, is the only thorough solution, as in well established Electrofrog design, but with bonded switch rails too..

Good summary. Now I’ve disassemble the bullhead plank, next one ( if there is one ) will revert to code 75 electrofrogs . Progress ?

[PMP]

17 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Potential problem: Some old stock might not be immediately compatible with the new system but that doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed - rather that the old stock needs to be adjusted, upgraded or retired.

 

I think this is absolutely on the money.

This afternoon I’ve been loaned an unmodified DC R2526 Rex L/E class 31. No problems whatsoever with it, either direction over the course of a couple of hours.

Tomorrow I’m going to borrow some DCC stock to test of types I’ve not yet tried. I hope to match those with DC variants in a week or so’s time. I also hope to include DC kit built models and see what results I get.
The number of passes without problems I’ve had indicates it’s a wheel problem, both alignment and b2b, with the individual locomotives, rather than an issue with the track design.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Gilbert said:

I saw prototypes of the medium points which looked as if they'd addressed it - but maybe not. I've ditched my 31s anyway sadly - I could not find replacement wheels anywhere..

ChrisH

 

11 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

I agree with all of the above but the Hornby 31 is a decent model..on what seem like tank tracks...

I was delighted when I got the BH laid on Penmaenbach and simply connected two wires for DCC (yes really)

Chris H

 

It's a shame the Hornby 31 wheels are so wide. I picked up a mazak rot one a while back to re-chassis a railroad one and found it a simple job to re-machine the wheels (skim a bit of the back & front) to run on P4. If you could have found someone to just skim the front faces that would have been an easy cure to this issue with these new unifrog points. I'm sure I've read comments somewhere that those working in 'N' have had similar issues with the latest N gauge unifrog points so it's not restricted just to the OO bullhead ones. I'm glad that I have only ever handbuilt my track whatever the scale/gauge I've worked in, well since the late '60's anyway, so any problems/issues are of my own making!

 

Bob

 

 

 

[ThaneofFife]

Sorry this might be in the wrong thread but have Peco launched any new concrete flat bottom code 75 track as i think maybe ive missed a,meeting or is it still the same 102F finescale track? Hoping for sleeper length and spacing to be of similar prortions to their super looking bullhead track......is it a thing?

Also thought that long radius concrete turnouts were on the cards......

[PMP]

18 minutes ago, ThaneofFife said:

Sorry this might be in the wrong thread but have Peco launched any new concrete flat bottom code 75 track as i think maybe ive missed a,meeting or is it still the same 102F finescale track? Hoping for sleeper length and spacing to be of similar prortions to their super looking bullhead track......is it a thing?

Also thought that long radius concrete turnouts were on the cards......

They’ve not launched an equivalent range of flat bottom track matching the new bullhead for sleepers/spacing etc. 
I recall that the long radius were mentioned at some point, but as ‘I don’t do’ concrete flat bottom, I’ve not followed any development of it.

[gr.king]

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

It seems reasonable that the majority of people using this new, more expensive and closer-to-prototype track system will be more likely to run stock that doesn't have large flat treaded wheels, or heaven-forbid, flangeless wheels. If that was part of the reasoning that helped Peco make the bullhead products simpler, more reliable and more suitable for DCC control (growing in popularity) then I think they've made the right decisions.

 

Peco know what they're doing. They have gradually improved the Streamline products over the years, as rolling stock standards have improved, and I see this as just another step along that same path. As with any change, it will unfortunately adversely affect a minority of customers but should be of general benefit to most.

 

Potential problem: Some old stock might not be immediately compatible with the new system but that doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed - rather that the old stock needs to be adjusted, upgraded or retired.

 

Wrong analysis. Broad tread / flangeless wheels are not just a feature of old stock due for retirement, they feature even on current, quite newly introduced models, and with prices for new models becoming quite ridiculous the retirement of swathes of "non-compliant" but otherwise satisfactorily behaved models is a non-starter of an idea for those with a substantial number, carefully amassed over the years, on a limited budget. Those with "offending" wheels are not all easy to modify either, as has been noted, so modification of substantial numbers of models isn't a viable answer . Peco have most definitely gone the wrong way, in knowing disregard of what the major UK market rolling stock providers (Hornby and Bachmann) are doing.

[Gilbert]

8 hours ago, PMP said:

I think this is absolutely on the money.

This afternoon I’ve been loaned an unmodified DC R2526 Rex L/E class 31. No problems whatsoever with it, either direction over the course of a couple of hours.

Tomorrow I’m going to borrow some DCC stock to test of types I’ve not yet tried. I hope to match those with DC variants in a week or so’s time. I also hope to include DC kit built models and see what results I get.
The number of passes without problems I’ve had indicates it’s a wheel problem, both alignment and b2b, with the individual locomotives, rather than an issue with the track design.

My 31 problems arose with sound fitted versions on DCC where the slightest short led to a tiny stop and restart. I had checked and adjusted B2Bs. Ironically the 31 would probably have been fine in "dead frog" mode but I have mainly small locos so needed to wire up the frogs . I have no issue with the track - I have two layouts with it now and plan a third when the medium points arrive. Despite reservations the layouts really did work with just two wires clipped to the track - although I did subsequently wire up as normal with numerous droppers and connections.

Chris

[Chamby]

The basic problem lies with conflicting standards between manufacturers of course.  Some Current models from Hornby in particular have crabbing front pony trucks, wide flangeless trailing wheels and wide treads that exceed the tolerances requires to successfully traverse the unifrog without shorting. 

 

Hornby will of course argue that these product features are designed to facilitate the negotiation of unprototically tight curves required on model railways, they are well established and we’re all extant well before the Unifrog was introduced.  Meanwhile, Peco claims to have a universal trackage system but it is clear that they have moved away from this this with the unifrog... Peco’s new design introduced tighter tolerances that doesn’t accommodate some current RTR product features.  

 

So it isn’t all Peco’s fault, in fact the sloppy standards lie with the RTR manufacturers... but I still question Peco’s thinking behind implementing unifrog on the bullhead trackage system, which is clearly not a product intended for ‘train set’ customers.  Why abandon the excellent, proven electrofrog design, that doesn't cause any of these problems, all for the sake of adding a dead frog option to a trackage system aimed at modellers who mostly don’t want it anyway?  I think they ended up with a product that has tried to be more clever than it needed to be, with unexpected consequences.

 

But at least we have a work-around, and it is also pushing me further towards having a go at building my own turnouts, which is no bad thing!

[Harlequin]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

The basic problem lies with conflicting standards between manufacturers of course.  Some Current models from Hornby in particular have crabbing front pony trucks, wide flangeless trailing wheels and wide treads that exceed the tolerances requires to successfully traverse the unifrog without shorting. 

 

Hornby will of course argue that these product features are designed to facilitate the negotiation of unprototically tight curves required on model railways, they are well established and we’re all extant well before the Unifrog was introduced.  Meanwhile, Peco claims to have a universal trackage system but it is clear that they have moved away from this this with the unifrog... Peco’s new design introduced tighter tolerances that doesn’t accommodate some current RTR product features.  

 

So it isn’t all Peco’s fault, in fact the sloppy standards lie with the RTR manufacturers...

 

Agree.

 

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

 

but I still question Peco’s thinking behind implementing unifrog on the bullhead trackage system, which is clearly not a product intended for ‘train set’ customers.  Why abandon the excellent, proven electrofrog design, that doesn't cause any of these problems, all for the sake of adding a dead frog option to a trackage system aimed at modellers who mostly don’t want it anyway?  I think they ended up with a product that has tried to be more clever than it needed to be, with unexpected consequences.

 

This question can be answered in four parts:

1. Electrofrog turnouts are problematic for the many customers who feel the need to modify them to make them more reliable before they are installed. This is tedious, off-putting if you're not comfortable soldering and runs  the risk of damaging the turnouts. Furthermore some older Electrofrog parts don't have the isolation gaps in the rails and link underneath to allow the "standard" modification to be done. You have to cut the rails in those parts, which can be very fiddly. Unifrog requires no modification in most cases.
2. By building the isolation of the frog into the Unifrog turnout there's no need for ugly plastic isolating joiners on the exits, making the system more visually realistic (hence why Peco only make metal joiners for bullhead). Edit: It also eliminates the perennial question from newbies, "Where do I need insulating joiners in my track plan?" Answer with Unifrog: "Nowhere" (in most cases).
3. The Unifrog dead frogs are tiny compared to the length of rails that have to be switched in Electrofrog, meaning that in many more cases modellers will be able to get away with not switching them at all.
4. The non-switching Unifrog turnouts make life slightly easier for DCC users by keeping both exit routes live all the time, as explained by @Gilbert. That is only a marginal improvement admittedly, because most of us would still give the exit routes their own power feeds.

 

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

But at least we have a work-around, and it is also pushing me further towards having a go at building my own turnouts, which is no bad thing!

 

Finetrax are providing a very usable middle ground now with their OO bullhead code 75 kits...

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Harlequin

[martin_wynne]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

This question can be answered in four parts:

 

5. It is cheaper to produce. Only one product to to tooled up, manufactured, stocked, and distributed instead of two (electrofrog and insulfrog). Peco is a commercial operation, the primary object is to make a profit.

 

Martin.

[PMP]

5 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

So it isn’t all Peco’s fault, in fact the sloppy standards lie with the RTR manufacturers... but I still question Peco’s thinking behind implementing unifrog on the bullhead trackage system, which is clearly not a product intended for ‘train set’ customers.  Why abandon the excellent, proven electrofrog design, that doesn't cause any of these problems, all for the sake of adding a dead frog option to a trackage system aimed at modellers who mostly don’t want it anyway?  I think they ended up with a product that has tried to be more clever than it needed to be, with unexpected consequences.

 

As @martin wynne has said the commercial logic (and the looks), is sound. The problem is arising with very few types, so Peco haven’t made an error, the product is fine. The issue lies with the ‘poor’ wheel standards from manufacturers. It’s not the first time that ‘modellers’ have had to adapt their stock for Peco track, the same thing occurred with Cd75 streamline  points introduction the 1980’s.

@GilbertLast night I tried waggling the 31 bogies going through the knuckles and wing rails, no short and that’s with a ‘problem’ type. therefore there isn’t a coning issue with the 31 wheels, it firmly points towards a b2b problem on individual examples.

 

So I’m even more convinced it’s nothing to do with points, but it’ll mean if you find you have a problem locomotive, it’ll be up to you as the owner/modeller to resolve it by sorting the wheels. 
 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by PMP
Spellin coning, not coming

[Gilbert]

Does anyone have an update on an availability date for the medium points?

Chris