Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[tomparryharry]

'Twas just a short time ago, when Triang Super 4 "In all 4 radii" were the next big thing! And! Electric point motors to boot! Not to mention Royal Mail catching the mailbags. You don't get that in real life! (Seriously, you don't get that in real life any more: Royal Mail stopped all that nonsense a fair while ago).

 

I could drive my Minic Austin A40 onto the train, and I could go to Manchester, or if I was really unlucky, Doncaster. Where are you now, eh?

 

You kids today, don't know you're born. You'll all be wanting scale looking track next. In our day, Triang knocked off the middle driving flange to help with the war effort. Did it stop us?

 

Bah! I'm off to put the giraffe back on the circus freight car....

 

And they call US for living in the past....

 

Mr Angry from Uxbridge.

[gr.king]

I'd agree that a 2foot radius point in code 75 bullhead with an attempt at scale timber spacing would probably be a futile gesture.

 

I imagine I'll be too busy this week (getting ready for demonstrating how to make a big mess with resin at the Warley NEC show) to have much hope of completing my running trails through distinctly curved examples of these latest points, but a couple of things I noticed about them I forgot to mention yesterday are:

 

1. The greater sleeper thickness compared to SMP Scaleway is nicely neutralised by nothing more difficult to obtain than the kind of card found on the back of most pads of paper.

 

2. If you really must, you can even counter-curve the points enough to make a RH stand in for a LH, or vice versa, although the skewed timbers look a bit odd when that is done. Nonetheless, the tie bar and switch blades still do what they should.

[hayfield]

Back on target........Why did Mainline etc enter the RTR market producing scale models? Because Hornby wasn't.  Why did Hornby start producing scale models. Because everyone else was. Peco is now at that crossroads IMV.  Who was buying C+L and SMP bullhead flexible track to put with their handbuilt points? Traditional scale modellers. So why did Peco produce bullhead flexible track?  To persuade scale modellers to put money in Peco's moneybox. So what is the next move? To dissuade modellers from building points. So unless Peco produces larger radius points, they will never break into the scale modellers market. And if they dont', someone else will!  There is nothing to gain from chasing Mr. Spacestarved with bullhead 2' radius points......He gave up on realistic track years ago.

Coachman

 

Quite an interesting theory, which I guess is quite near the point so to say, I take a bit of a difference on why they have decided to go down the 00 scale route. They have for years lived with the likes of SMP and C&L without worrying too much, so why change now?

 

Personally I think it was the intervention of the proposed DCC Concepts range that finally sparked them into action, I guess it has been on their list of "to do's"  for some time but they saw more profit in introducing other products to the market. I also think they will expand the range as they see a profitable market in modellers replacing their existing H0 scale track

 

There may also be a boost to the number who start to build their own track, plus those wishing to kit bash needing components to do so. It has also been mentioned about super detailing the existing turnouts. Interesting times ahead

[Russ (mines a pint)]

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Russ (mines a pint)

[Mallard60022]

 

 

 

Best post I've seen so far.

A.York.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Best post I've seen so far.

A.York.

Dunno what happened there I was gonna get back to it but was involved with sorting a deal for motorcycle parts at the same time - 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1117&forum_id=1&highlight=peco+large+radiust

 

the essentials were that the Peco large radius geometry is roughly the size of an A6/A7 size point 

- these being the smallest you would find on any goods yard - except perhaps industrial locations 

B switches are the passenger line points and in upwards of B8 

 

we are looking at more prototypical track and perhaps a shift in layout planning to less full of  track crammed layouts - no bad thing in my way of thinking?

Edited November 19, 2017 by Russ (mines a pint)

[Mallard60022]

Dunno what happened there I was gonna get back to it but was involved with sorting a deal for motorcycle parts at the same time - 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1117&forum_id=1&highlight=peco+large+radiust

 

the essentials were that the Peco large radius geometry is roughly the size of an A6/A7 size point 

- these being the smallest you would find on any goods yard - except perhaps industrial locations 

B switches are the passenger line points and in upwards of B8 

 

we are looking at more prototypical track and perhaps a shift in layout planning to less full of  track crammed layouts - no bad thing in my way of thinking?

..............................far too serios Russ. Parts? Heritage machine?

Phil

[Joseph_Pestell]

This talk of getting laid could so easily go wrong........

Fortunately, SWMBO does not look at RMWeb...

[Joseph_Pestell]

Back on target........Why did Mainline etc enter the RTR market producing scale models? Because Hornby wasn't.  Why did Hornby start producing scale models. Because everyone else was. Peco is now at that crossroads IMV.  Who was buying C+L and SMP bullhead flexible track to put with their handbuilt points? Traditional scale modellers. So why did Peco produce bullhead flexible track?  To persuade scale modellers to put money in Peco's moneybox. So what is the next move? To dissuade modellers from building points. So unless Peco produces larger radius points, they will never break into the scale modellers market. And if they dont', someone else will!  There is nothing to gain from chasing Mr. Spacestarved with bullhead 2' radius points......He gave up on realistic track years ago.

I agree that 2' radius turnouts would not be useful. But I think the 3' radius would be useful to provide a contrast between running lines and goods yards etc.

 

Of course, both are hopelessly wrong in terms of true scale, but they produce an acceptable compromise.

[coachmann]

I agree that 2' radius turnouts would not be useful. But I think the 3' radius would be useful to provide a contrast between running lines and goods yards etc.

 

Of course, both are hopelessly wrong in terms of true scale, but they produce an acceptable compromise.

In some ways I agree, but the divergence on Code 100/75 points is so acute that it makes things look worse for trains passing over them. Code 83 points use a lesser angle (#6 on the medium radius turnout) and I know from experience that trains looked far better when diverging from the straight. I used Code 83 #6 points (4' radius I think) to form a double junction on my original Greenfield Junction to provide a prototypical shallow divergence. Everyone has their own personal views on the subject of radius, but i am just trying to point out that one can have largish radius on a small turnout so long as the angle of divergence is shallow. The knock-on effect of course is the diamond crossings are rather long, but of course this makes for better double and single slips of 4' radius rather than the existing 2' radius.

Edited November 20, 2017 by coachmann

[70b]

No British Railway had a 'pathological fear of facing points' because what they were actually doing was complying with the law of the land as evidenced in the Board of Trade (latterly Dept of Transport) Requirements which for many years made it clear that the use of facing points was to be avoided on passenger lines except where such use was unavoidable, for example in the approaches to a terminus, junction, or major station.  So facing points simply weren't used - and of course they weren't much use anyway to access sidings off a running line.

 

 

I've been pondering this a while, and apologies for going back up the thread a bit, I've decided in the light of this that I don't understand what defines a facing point and so I'd be grateful for being put right. On the ECML as I travel up and down there are goods loops, and station loops, both with points at each end, the 125s and electrics and whatever all go through these at 100+ when staying on the main and since the slowing trains go forwards into the loop to the station platform (eg at Retford and Peterborough, there are others) and forwards back onto the main it seems to me that logically one or other end must be a 'facing point'. So which end, and if not why is this not an fp, and what is it called instead, and if its the case they are fp's on the main at full speed which era did those strictures against facing points discussed above stop being true, and why? Confused.

[coachmann]

Todays railway is a different kettle of fish from the 'steam era' system and facing points are now used all over the country, often as ladders to avoid slips, diamonds and conventional double junctions. But of course there have always been facing point into passenger loops at stations and lay-byes in which to sideline slow moving freights. All facing points have to be fully protected with locking bars. On some railways, slow moving freights had to reverse into lay-byes because the railway wished to avoid facing points.

Edited November 20, 2017 by coachmann

[Anglian]

If you study the Midland you'll come across lots of lay-bys (or is it lie-bye – I've seen both terms used). As Larry states these are accessed by a trailing point and often with a second point as type of trap point to further protect the main running line. 

 

On a model railway such a feature can add operational interest, especially one with working signals as slow goods trains pick their way through the formation in reverse to wait for a clear road once a faster train or one that has priority passes.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...one can have largish radius on a small turnout so long as the angle of divergence is shallow. The knock-on effect of course is the diamond crossings are rather long, but of course this makes for better double and single slips of 4' radius rather than the existing 2' radius.

...we are looking at more prototypical track and perhaps a shift in layout planning to less full of  track crammed layouts - no bad thing in my way of thinking?

These two sum it up for me, in terms of the direction I feel Peco should move. They have adequately covered the 'cramped layout, get that pointwork in' option with existing products. Now switch to something different, better appearance by closer to protoype features in this range. First step, drop the shibboleth of constant crossing angle, as was done in code 83...

 

We have had the superior RTR OO models for near twenty years, despite the 'hairshirt brigade' long claiming this was impossible in the UK market.

Now the matching better OO 'Ready to Lay' track is definitely here (and as one who has consistently advocated for this, I could trawl the old threads and quote the naysaying hairshirt brigade on this topic) let's encourage movement in the better product direction.  This will not suit the entire customer base, still pining after obsolete product, but it is what progress is about. Some old stuff necessarily gets left behind.

[Joseph_Pestell]

In some ways I agree, but the divergence on Code 100/75 points is so acute that it makes things look worse for trains passing over them. Code 83 points use a lesser angle (#6 on the medium radius turnout) and I know from experience that trains looked far better when diverging from the straight. I used Code 83 #6 points (4' radius I think) to form a double junction on my original Greenfield Junction to provide a prototypical shallow divergence. Everyone has their own personal views on the subject of radius, but i am just trying to point out that one can have largish radius on a small turnout so long as the angle of divergence is shallow. The knock-on effect of course is the diamond crossings are rather long, but of course this makes for better double and single slips of 4' radius rather than the existing 2' radius.

Larry,

If you look back at my posts on the various threads, you will see that I too would have preferred that Peco had opted for a #6 as the starting point for this range. But I accept that they have, for whatever reason, preferred to stick with the 12 degree geometry, and am making suggestions now purely in this context. Those who want greater realism will wait for the DCCC product or others.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[tomparryharry]

Facing points are usually securely locked, such that the point blades cannot be moved when the train is travelling along the line. These have such things as 'positive detection' which the point moves to its intended direction, and is then locked. Usually, the lock is then locked itself, which allows things like signals to be used. The signal itself is usually the final act, one action covering the earlier one.  The plain rail of a point is usually the 'straight ahead' route (this is on model railways: Railway practice is sometimes different). The curved point of the rail is called the 'divergence'. The higher the line speed, usually the longer of the divergence. Tie bars will keep the railway line in gauge, from the plain (stock) rail, to the diverging (or moving) portion. Once again, the higher the line speed, the more controls there are, to keep all of the moving parts in their correct space.  

 

All of this is safety critical. Movement in real life by so much as a couple of millimetres should render the entire point unserviceable, as it requires safety built upon safety. Trains entering a point will normally slow down, as the sideways load puts a thrust pressure on the possibly weakest part of the point. It's not unusual to have a multitude of tie bars, all in place to keep it all locked and safe. Although you might need only the one tie bar & motor to move the point blade, the next 3-4 bars will all possibly all be detected, so the switches will let the signalman know that the point has moved, and is locked. 

 

Some of the high-speed crossovers are nearly a mile in length: It takes that distance to sustain traffic which is now travelling at 3 times the speed we are used to. If you think of a 50 mph facing point, now its rated at 150mph....

 

There are some posters on here who will gladly explain it in a much better phrase than I can.

 

HTH,

Ian.

[Pacific231G]

Back on target........Why did Mainline etc enter the RTR market producing scale models? Because Hornby wasn't.  Why did Hornby start producing scale models. Because everyone else was. Peco is now at that crossroads IMV.  Who was buying C+L and SMP bullhead flexible track to put with their handbuilt points? Traditional scale modellers. So why did Peco produce bullhead flexible track?  To persuade scale modellers to put money in Peco's moneybox. So what is the next move? To dissuade modellers from building points. So unless Peco produces larger radius points, they will never break into the scale modellers market. And if they dont', someone else will!  There is nothing to gain from chasing Mr. Spacestarved with bullhead 2' radius points......He gave up on realistic track years ago.

 

If Peco wanted to get back into the relatively small market of those who build their own pointwork (remember that IS where they started)  I'd have thought that producing a modern equivalent of individulay would be the way to go though AFAIK even that only offered a single frog. The sort of modeller who does their track planning with Templot is hardly going to use ready to lay points, however realistic they are as individual units, except in the fiddle yard.

 

You may be right about 2 ft radius points  which the wider sleeper spacing can only make look even worse but the 3ft radius "medium" points would be worthwhile for a lot of layout builders including me. However, I saw and greatly admired Chris Nevard's new pair of industrial layouts Brew Street and Fountain Colliery  at Wycrail a couple of weeks ago. He's used a number of Peco small radius code 75 points with their new bullhead track, and the overall effect looked pretty realistic to me.

 

 

I actually thought these were medium radius points till I counted the sleepers.

 

For what it's worth. To my eyes at least, when used on a well modelled layout in 00 or H0, small radius (2ft nominal) points look like the sort of thing you'd see around indusirial locations with small shunting locos only, medium radius look about right for goods yards, loco release crossovers and branch line stations while the large radius points look about right for main line junctions. That's purely impressionistic of course but while I know that the equivalent of Peco's large radius points might be found in an industrial yard I think we see the real world in a different way than we do models of it. 

 

I have now seen and handled one of the new bullhead points, a friend brought one to a meeting yesterday, and I have to say that I was well impressed by it. I'm looking forward to seeing how they look on layouts.    

[Bernard Lamb]

 

we are looking at more prototypical track and perhaps a shift in layout planning to less full of  track crammed layouts - no bad thing in my way of thinking?

Something like a true scale model of Deadwater comes to mind.

Bernard

[unravelled]

Apologies if this isn't an appropriate question for this thread, but do people think that Peco's decision to continue with their familiar geometry leaves room for another manufacturer, (or Peco themselves) to offer a range with lower angle of divergence? My feeling is that Peco's decision to continue with their tried and trusted geometry was a sensible one, but that there might still be room for something else.

 

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[hayfield]

Apologies if this isn't an appropriate question for this thread, but do people think that Peco's decision to continue with their familiar geometry leaves room for another manufacturer, (or Peco themselves) to offer a range with lower angle of divergence? My feeling is that Peco's decision to continue with their tried and trusted geometry was a sensible one, but that there might still be room for something else.

 

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

Dave

 

Whatever the size they introduced would be wrong for some modellers. Their existing geometry though not perfect for some works well and means the turnouts can directly replace existing H0 turnouts of the same size, this way they include those with the existing track system. In my opinion the mere fact that they are in this market certainly protects most of their existing customer base and at the same time greatly reduces the potential market for an opposing company

 

Strange that 2 years ago many were commenting that the existing (H0) range was perfectly acceptable for 00 (4 mm scale) and there was no need for another range and that if it were in a different price range no one would buy it. Fast forward 2 years and most agree its a great step forward and whilst its twice the price its selling out

 

The greatest result is that far more modellers are now taking a greater interest in their track, even discussing if facing crossovers should be on a model, perhaps there will be room for a second company producing a product using a geometry nearer the prototype 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Apologies if this isn't an appropriate question for this thread, but do people think that Peco's decision to continue with their familiar geometry leaves room for another manufacturer, (or Peco themselves) to offer a range with lower angle of divergence?...

 Richard Johnson's DCC Concepts operation was I think ahead of Peco in announcing a 'Better OO' bullhead track range to include points, under the 'Legacy' brand. The intention as I understood it, was to use prototype geometry for the points. No 'ready to lay' product to see as yet however.

 

I feel that the threat of the emergence of a UK based competitor was almost certainly what dislodged Peco from their entrenched 'no improvement necessary' position, to get us this far. And assuming the DCC Concepts product emerges and wins market acceptance, it would be surprising if Peco didn't respond yet again. When someone threatens to eat your lunch - even if it is only one of the sandwiches and the cake you really like - taking steps to limit the incursion is what you do...

[hayfield]

 Richard Johnson's DCC Concepts operation was I think ahead of Peco in announcing a 'Better OO' bullhead track range to include points, under the 'Legacy' brand. The intention as I understood it, was to use prototype geometry for the points. No 'ready to lay' product to see as yet however.

 

I feel that the threat of the emergence of a UK based competitor was almost certainly what dislodged Peco from their entrenched 'no improvement necessary' position, to get us this far. And assuming the DCC Concepts product emerges and wins market acceptance, it would be surprising if Peco didn't respond yet again. When someone threatens to eat your lunch - even if it is only one of the sandwiches and the cake you really like - taking steps to limit the incursion is what you do...

 

I do wonder if using prototype geometry is not mainstream enough for Peco, their own customer base likes the simple way their product range easily fits into formations of turnouts and crossings. If a company makes for instance A6 turnouts it is highly likely that if a modeller wanted a crossover then both turnouts would need splicing together (which is what some do to Peco turnouts when they wish to reduce the distance between tracks). The bulk of RTR customers I think would not like this course of action.

 

The magic about Peco's geometry is that it all clicks together easily, which is what is wanted by the bulk of their customers

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The magic about Peco's geometry is that it all clicks together easily, which is what is wanted by the bulk of their customers

 And I am absolutely sure you are right. But this 'bulk requirement' is adequately served by existing product. Different strokes for different folks and all that, Peco can expand their reach, by venturing beyond this concept.

 

Consider this. I have been told that the overwhelming bulk of existing OO layouts are made from set track, and the users are wedded to the simplicities of track pieces that click together and points that self isolate, with no need for additional wiring. Should that bulk requirement have been allowed to preclude the development of RTL live crossing points with only flexible track to connect them? Progress is like that sometimes, much liked simplicity may have to be abandoned as part of the price.

[hayfield]

 And I am absolutely sure you are right. But this 'bulk requirement' is adequately served by existing product. Different strokes for different folks and all that, Peco can expand their reach, by venturing beyond this concept.

 

Consider this. I have been told that the overwhelming bulk of existing OO layouts are made from set track, and the users are wedded to the simplicities of track pieces that click together and points that self isolate, with no need for additional wiring. Should that bulk requirement have been allowed to preclude the development of RTL live crossing points with only flexible track to connect them? Progress is like that sometimes, much liked simplicity may have to be abandoned as part of the price.

 

 

Agree there are many who for what ever reason are quite happy with either set track or code 100 or code 75 in the old H0 formats, and there is nothing wrong with this

 

As someone who builds their own track and dabbles with Templot there are difficulties in making turnout and crossing formations and trying to keep the 6' way reasonably close when using individual items. These are easily overcome with Templot and building your own, but as I have said Peco have made an easy to use system which just clicks together.

 

Agreed having an alternative option using basic crossing angles and switch sizes would give a much greater choice to modellers, but I wonder how big would the customer base be and how large a range would it support. I guess by supplying switches and common crossings separately would save some duplication and may be a cost effective solution in making a greater choice available I think this may be a small market, and far less than those who just want a click together option

 

Time will tell and perhaps newer production methods may be far more cost effective for small runs

[Guest]

I have been told that the overwhelming bulk of existing OO layouts are made from set track...

 

If this is the case (and, as has been said, there's nothing wrong with that at all), then it stands to reason that the number of modellers using Streamline points and flexible track are far fewer. Those handbuilding their own pointwork will be fewer still.

If Peco took a bit of a gamble all those years ago to offer an alternative to Setrack, then I guess it was a bigger gamble still to offer the new bullhead range. One that will surely pay off, judging by comments and sales. I think they've been around long enough to know the market and to know what is a gamble too far.

As much as I may like to replicate a one-off item of pointwork, I know that's not going to happen, unless I pay someone to do it for me. "Better-looking" will have to suffice, as the learning curve of handbuilt pointwork does not particularly appeal. If that ties me to a certain geometry, I can live with that.

Those of us using RMWeb can sometimes forget that we're in a minority. For every modeller here, there are no doubt 99 others who don't participate in forums. Peco need to go after the 99 as well as the 1. That said, I certainly will be interested to see what they announce next.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Pete 75C