Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[dasatcopthorne]

I thought they were already around.

 

D.

[Gilbert]

On 30/07/2022 at 11:15, dasatcopthorne said:

I thought they were already around.

 

D.

Has anyone seen any??

C

[Nile]

Not available yet, in production, so soon.

[martin_wynne]

On 28/07/2022 at 16:11, Gilbert said:

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

Chris

 

Today's Railway Modeller, September 2022, p.670, says they have been delivered to retailers. RRP is £29.

 

Martin.

[gr.king]

If I'm seeing the correct images, correctly, then the medium radius items seem to have at least escaped the less realistic-looking, un-necessary (in my opinion) extra-wide spacing of the timbers near the crossing, which afflicts the large radius type that I've used. If only they were proper electrofrog too they'd be a winner, very suitable as replacements for some of my older hand-built items.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

If I'm seeing the correct images, correctly, then the medium radius items seem to have at least escaped the less realistic-looking, un-necessary (in my opinion) extra-wide spacing of the timbers near the crossing, which afflicts the large radius type that I've used. If only they were proper electrofrog too they'd be a winner, very suitable as replacements for some of my older hand-built items.

They’ll be Unifrog, so they are ‘electrofrog’. All you have to do is connect the wire from the crossing V to whatever polarity switch you’re using, and it’s done. If you want them as insulated frog, leave the crossing wire unconnected.

[gr.king]

8 minutes ago, PMP said:

They’ll be Unifrog, so they are ‘electrofrog’. All you have to do is connect the wire from the crossing V to whatever polarity switch you’re using, and it’s done. If you want them as insulated frog, leave the crossing wire unconnected.

Not really.  I meant proper traditional self-isolating electrofrog with rail breaks well away from the potential shorting zone around the crossing to suit without the slightest doubt the full current (and recent) range of "serious" mainstream RTR models, without any need to change / remove wheels or hack chassis units around to allow wheels to behave differently. As has been stated previously, it is not realistic to expect those with large numbers of relatively new, cherished, locos to abandon or modify them to suit an un-necessary change in electrical standards for track, and expensive track for the more discerning modeller does not need to include options to accommodate the "can't wire / can't be bothered" basic dead-frog trainset user.

[Harlequin]

29 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Not really.  I meant proper traditional self-isolating electrofrog with rail breaks well away from the potential shorting zone around the crossing to suit without the slightest doubt the full current (and recent) range of "serious" mainstream RTR models, without any need to change / remove wheels or hack chassis units around to allow wheels to behave differently. As has been stated previously, it is not realistic to expect those with large numbers of relatively new, cherished, locos to abandon or modify them to suit an un-necessary change in electrical standards for track, and expensive track for the more discerning modeller does not need to include options to accommodate the "can't wire / can't be bothered" basic dead-frog trainset user.

When you describe Unifrog as un-necessary you seem to be ignoring much of discussion about the rationale behind them earlier in this thread.

 

Can you back up your statement that large numbers of relatively new locos will need to be abandoned or modified to use the Bullhead crossings and turnouts with facts and figures? I feel that might be a grossly misleading thing to say.

[gr.king]

I didn't say that they would all have to be abandoned or modified, but the evidence is that they might. Nor am I ignoring any previous "rationale", which I simply don't accept as valid. Previous comments on here have included the unreasonable assertion that unifrog is an unequivocally  "good thing" (which it clearly isn't) and that if anybody has problems running even  the very latest mainstream "serious" models on it then it is the models that are wrong and need sorting out or replacing - no matter how many of them there, no matter how excellent they might be in other ways, no matter how much they cost and no matter how perfectly satisfactorily they may have behaved until Peco changed electrical arrangements un-necessarily. The truth as many see it is that whilst Peco, a quarter century overdue, have finally started producing some reasonably realistic-looking British style OO bullhead track they have made it a potential poisoned chalice for well-established traditional modellers (with many carefully accumulated and maintained locos) by inventing a new non-standard electrical arrangement not necessarily compatible with major manufacturers' justifiably popular "finescale" serious loco models of the last 15 years or so.

[frobisher]

16 minutes ago, gr.king said:

by inventing a new non-standard electrical arrangement

 

What was the previous standard, and which body set it..?

[Harlequin]

13 hours ago, gr.king said:

I didn't say that they would all have to be abandoned or modified, but the evidence is that they might. Nor am I ignoring any previous "rationale", which I simply don't accept as valid. Previous comments on here have included the unreasonable assertion that unifrog is an unequivocally  "good thing" (which it clearly isn't) and that if anybody has problems running even  the very latest mainstream "serious" models on it then it is the models that are wrong and need sorting out or replacing - no matter how many of them there, no matter how excellent they might be in other ways, no matter how much they cost and no matter how perfectly satisfactorily they may have behaved until Peco changed electrical arrangements un-necessarily. The truth as many see it is that whilst Peco, a quarter century overdue, have finally started producing some reasonably realistic-looking British style OO bullhead track they have made it a potential poisoned chalice for well-established traditional modellers (with many carefully accumulated and maintained locos) by inventing a new non-standard electrical arrangement not necessarily compatible with major manufacturers' justifiably popular "finescale" serious loco models of the last 15 years or so.

 

This argument depends on the numbers of locos that might have problems through these turnouts.

 

If the numbers are large then you can argue that Peco have made a mistake but if the numbers are small (and especially if those locos have characteristics that are outside the "norm") then it is reasonable to say that the locos are at fault.

 

You are implying that there may be a large number of locos with problems through these turnouts but where's the evidence? What are the numbers? Are the locos that cause problems close to the norm or outliers with one or more of the features that might make them more prone to causing shorts?

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Harlequin

[PMP]

I’ve not yet finished editing a video, however I borrowed some of the locomotive types that have been commented on a causing ‘problems’ with these point and crossings/slips. They are all out of the box, no modifications done and operating on DCC. None have given any problems, here’s a video the Hornby 31, 

 

It runs without any issues. I’ve tried in DCC a Hornby L1, no problems. The only fault that has occurred is with a Hornby A4. That’s down to one axle, the b2b’s being too tight, and even then it’s utterly random as to whether the short occurs, I’d estimate a 90% + probability that it doesn’t occur.
 

There’s nothing wrong with these points/crossings/slips, but there’s everything wrong with the lack of consistency of b2b’s across RTR manufacturers, and some of the wheel profiles. I set my b2b’s at 14.5mm if I need to adjust them and have had no problems.

 

The only caveat to the above is I’ve not yet tried the medium radius points. But not having any issues with over seventy different locomotives and countless stock indicates it’s individual locomotives/stock with the problem, and not the track.

 

NB of the seventy types, I’ve tried multiples of several of them, so the test isn’t purely 70 individual models. Eg Heljan Hymek is x4 examples.

Edited August 11, 2022 by PMP
Add last para

[cctransuk]

9 hours ago, gr.king said:

I didn't say that they would all have to be abandoned or modified, but the evidence is that they might. Nor am I ignoring any previous "rationale", which I simply don't accept as valid. Previous comments on here have included the unreasonable assertion that unifrog is an unequivocally  "good thing" (which it clearly isn't) and that if anybody has problems running even  the very latest mainstream "serious" models on it then it is the models that are wrong and need sorting out or replacing - no matter how many of them there, no matter how excellent they might be in other ways, no matter how much they cost and no matter how perfectly satisfactorily they may have behaved until Peco changed electrical arrangements un-necessarily. The truth as many see it is that whilst Peco, a quarter century overdue, have finally started producing some reasonably realistic-looking British style OO bullhead track they have made it a potential poisoned chalice for well-established traditional modellers (with many carefully accumulated and maintained locos) by inventing a new non-standard electrical arrangement not necessarily compatible with major manufacturers' justifiably popular "finescale" serious loco models of the last 15 years or so.

 

I can only speak from personal experience but, having recently built a 5.0 x 2.4 m. layout using exclusively Peco Unifrog components; (appropriately modified to eliminate the need for rail-to-rail electrical contact); I have experienced zero problems with wheel shorting or derailments.

 

That, on a layout with no less than ten inter-baseboard joints, each crossed by multiple tracks, and no physical cross-joint connection whatsoever.

 

I have a fairly even mixture of kit-built and RTR locos numbering in excess of a hundred - including a Hornby 31- and none of them causes shorting on points.

 

On that basis, Peco are doing something right, IMHO. (Though they could have introduced the bullhead range a couple of years earlier, so that I didn't have to us flat-bottomed)!😉

 

CJI.

[Chamby]

I think it is clear by now, that some of us have encountered issues with these turnouts, and others haven’t. 

 

 Fair enough...

[The Stationmaster]

27 minutes ago, Chamby said:

I think it is clear by now, that some of us have encountered issues with these turnouts, and others haven’t. 

 

 Fair enough...

Which inevitably leads to a very simple question - why are some having issues while others are not?   It  also seems to me that there can only be a very limited range of reasons why people are having problems - so a very short list of things to check.

 

1. Are Peco's manufacturing standards not being applied consistently?   I would find that odd but it is one of the questions which has to be asked   Or,

2. Is it due to variations in track laying skills and failure to first ensure that the base onto which the track is being laid is level/true and will not move, bend or buckle in subsequent use?   Or,

3. Is it down to the locos and rolling stock being run on track which track which has correctly manufactured and has been correctly laid?

 

It is I suppose also possible that the manner in which a layout has been wired and the way in which feeds etc area arranged might also be a possible problem but that seems unlikely especially if the pointwork is wired 'as supplied'

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Which inevitably leads to a very simple question - why are some having issues while others are not?   It  also seems to me that there can only be a very limited range of reasons why people are having problems - so a very short list of things to check.

 

1. Are Peco's manufacturing standards not being applied consistently?   I would find that odd but it is one of the questions which has to be asked   Or,

2. Is it due to variations in track laying skills and failure to first ensure that the base onto which the track is being laid is level/true and will not move, bend or buckle in subsequent use?   Or,

3. Is it down to the locos and rolling stock being run on track which track which has correctly manufactured and has been correctly laid?

 

It is I suppose also possible that the manner in which a layout has been wired and the way in which feeds etc area arranged might also be a possible problem but that seems unlikely especially if the pointwork is wired 'as supplied'

and 
4. Loco back to back measurements being inconsistent. 
 

That seems to be the issue in some cases so is the tolerance tighter on Peco vs the stock makers?

 

As I understand it the issue is within the  red square? A close back to back results in the back of the wheel traversing rail 3 shorts to rail 2, ( or back on rail 2 shorts to 3), just before the two insulation breaks on the edge of the box?

if you get consistent shorts either altering the back to back or taking a slitting disc an carefully shaving back the two inner faces of the > where 2 & 3 are closest should ease the gauge enough without affecting tracking.
 

 

You could even use a smear of epoxy to isolate the inner face, not the top, for a mm or two?

 

I had to do this on LGB points as my Accucraft Caledonia and W&L Countess shorted due to their long rigid wheelbase sometimes bridging the LGB ‘frog’. The angle they hit the point at on the diverging route was determined by the weight of train or springing of the following wagons coupling! If the spring was stiff it pushed the loco out clear, if the load was heavy and the coupling free floating it pulled to the inside and shorted about 50% of the time. I used varnish initially, which wore off eventually and later a smear of epoxy to solve it. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by PaulRhB

[martin_wynne]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

3. Is it down to the locos and rolling stock being run on track which track which has correctly manufactured and has been correctly laid?

 

Hi Mike,

 

You left out:

 

4. Is there a significant variation in the quality of RTR models?

 

I suspect this is the most significant factor. It is no good saying "my Hornby 31 works fine" if someone else's Hornby 31 is not identical to it. The only true test would be to run the exact same Hornby 31 on both layouts.

 

There are two completely different possible shorting conditions:

 

1. wheel backs touching the end of the opposite closure rail at the knuckle. The clearance is very tight, ideally the plastic infill would be longer. It is fixable by smearing a thin film of epoxy on the sides of the closure rails at that spot.

 

2. wide flat wheels without a coning angle bridging the two vee rails just beyond the vee. That's fixed by drilling out the existing connections to them, and connecting both those rails to the vee wire, and fitting insulating rail joiners at the end of them.

 

No doubt Peco will be taking note. When the tools are worn and need update or repair they will likely make some revisions. They won't say so, because that would mean admitting that their original design was less than perfect.

 

Martin.

[Chamby]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Which inevitably leads to a very simple question - why are some having issues while others are not?   It  also seems to me that there can only be a very limited range of reasons why people are having problems - so a very short list of things to check.

 

1. Are Peco's manufacturing standards not being applied consistently?   I would find that odd but it is one of the questions which has to be asked   Or,

2. Is it due to variations in track laying skills and failure to first ensure that the base onto which the track is being laid is level/true and will not move, bend or buckle in subsequent use?   Or,

3. Is it down to the locos and rolling stock being run on track which track which has correctly manufactured and has been correctly laid?

 

It is I suppose also possible that the manner in which a layout has been wired and the way in which feeds etc area arranged might also be a possible problem but that seems unlikely especially if the pointwork is wired 'as supplied'

 

Like @martin_wynne, I would add variability between comparable items of rolling stock.  

 

For example, I have multiple Hornby Pacific locomotives, running with flangeless trailing wheels.  When taking the curved road on a unifrog turnout, some never trip out, some do occasionally, and two always do.  

 

Investigation narrowed this down to two factors:  the locomotive length... on longer ones the rear end hangs out more, making a short more likely.  And secondly there is a variability of the ride height of the flangeless wheels - some ride on the rails, some hang well above, and some marginally so.   Wheels in contact with the rail head, and hanging out further will cause a short.  

 

Similarly with ‘crabbing’ pony trucks on the L1, the extent of the ‘crabbing’ and prevalence of shorting is variable between examples.  It is also more likely on turnouts where the ‘crabbing’ is already set up, owing to a curve in advance of the turnout.

 

So the problem in my view does arise more from the stock, than the turnout per se... however it is PECO that has designed these unifrog turnouts and introduced new tolerances that weren’t there before and don’t now accommodate RTR manufacturers (albeit sloppy) current standards.  Which rather contradicts their prior claim to have a ‘universal’ trackage system.

 

In my case, the practical solution is to modify the turnouts rather than the rolling stock, fixing the problem permanently rather than retaining the potential for future issues with each new or visiting stock.  And once modified, the turnouts do work admirably, every time, and look good.

 

[PaulRhB]

I suppose the only manufacturer fix would be to move the isolation to the green marks, but then that means the rail has to be bent more precisely than the current design where the only bend is in the catch rail. I guess this was an engineering solution for tolerances. 
The flangeless wheels could be varnished with clear gloss to solve the wide (flat?) tread shorting too?

Indeed if they are flat a slight cone might solve a lot of the problems but that’s going to require a lathe and dropping the wheelset out. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by PaulRhB

[Harlequin]

20 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Like @martin_wynne, I would add variability between comparable items of rolling stock.  

 

For example, I have multiple Hornby Pacific locomotives, running with flangeless trailing wheels.  When taking the curved road on a unifrog turnout, some never trip out, some do occasionally, and two always do.  

 

Investigation narrowed this down to two factors:  the locomotive length... on longer ones the rear end hangs out more, making a short more likely.  And secondly there is a variability of the ride height of the flangeless wheels - some ride on the rails, some hang well above, and some marginally so.   Wheels in contact with the rail head, and hanging out further will cause a short.  

 

Similarly with ‘crabbing’ pony trucks on the L1, the extent of the ‘crabbing’ and prevalence of shorting is variable between examples.  It is also more likely on turnouts where the ‘crabbing’ is already set up, owing to a curve in advance of the turnout.

 

So the problem in my view does arise more from the stock, than the turnout per se... however it is PECO that has designed these unifrog turnouts and introduced new tolerances that weren’t there before and don’t now accommodate RTR manufacturers (albeit sloppy) current standards.  Which rather contradicts their prior claim to have a ‘universal’ trackage system.

 

In my case, the practical solution is to modify the turnouts rather than the rolling stock, fixing the problem permanently rather than retaining the potential for future issues with each new or visiting stock.  And once modified, the turnouts do work admirably, every time, and look good.

 

 

I don't have an answer for crabbing pony trucks but isn't the fix for flangeless wheels to fit the alternative flanged wheels that are usually supplied with such models? The flangeless wheels are a horrible bodge to allow the locos to traverse R2 radius trainset curves and so it seems incongruous to still be using them with beautiful finescale bullhead track...???

 

I have set up a Y of bullhead track on my dining table incorporating a Large radius Unifrog Left turnout and I've been idly running various locos up and down all afternoon. (It's so hot that the only way to do anything today is idly.) No problems yet but I will try a Pacific with a flangeless rear pony if I can safely extract it from the high shelf it's stored on. 

 

[Graham_Muz]

On 10/08/2022 at 11:28, martin_wynne said:

 

Today's Railway Modeller, September 2022, p.670, says they have been delivered to retailers. RRP is £29.

 

Martin.

 

Except Railway Modeller is slightly ahead of PECO themselves, it was intended to coincide with the release, but, as now advised by PECO, there has been a slight delay in manufacturing and they should actually be available later this month. 

 

I am also waiting for these to arrive for my own latest project...

[sparaxis]

Funnily enough, I've never had a problem with Roco-Line: 

 

(400 locos, more than 1000 pieces of rolling stock)

 

What I have had a problem with is Hornby's very casual approach to wheel profiles. Unlike almost everyone else that uses profiles that more-or-less approximate NMRA or NEM recommendations with nice tapered and rounded flange...Hornby's often has super sharp flanges that manage to climb over any irregularity on the track. To the point that I even had some with a reverse taper.

 

Any issues I have had have always been "bad wheels/bad back to back"

 

[PMP]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

I don't have an answer for crabbing pony trucks but isn't the fix for flangeless wheels to fit the alternative flanged wheels that are usually supplied with such models? The flangeless wheels are a horrible bodge to allow the locos to traverse R2 radius trainset curves and so it seems incongruous to still be using them with beautiful finescale bullhead track...???

 

In my experience testing with A4 and Rebuilt WC Brit/Clan they run through no shorting problem with or without flanges. The slip however does cause the flanged rigid pony trucks some issues because of the length of the rigid wheelbase and sharp radius. Remove the wheelset or replace with flangless and the running is smooth. 
 

Regarding the L1 I’ve tried manually to provoke a short by waggling the pony truck around at the knuckle at all sorts of angles. No shorts. 
 

I’ve not yet managed to bridge the v rails to make a short with any manufacturers wheelsets from either the point or splice rail.

The problem isn’t the points/crossings, it’s b2b’s too tight, allowing the back of a wheel to hit the stock rail. These points have been available for nearly five years, and sort from a few isolated incidences mentioned here, there’s no other commentary I’ve found on the wider web indicating a common issue. We know when an issue occurs motors/livery errors etc the comments flow from site to site. That’s not happening which again indicates a non common occurrence.

[PMP]

4 hours ago, Chamby said:

Which rather contradicts their prior claim to have a ‘universal’ trackage system.

 

To my knowledge Peco has never claimed the bullhead range to be universal. Please provide the source to that claim.

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

To my knowledge Peco has never claimed the bullhead range to be universal. Please provide the source to that claim.

 

Note: I did say prior claim.  Interesting isn’t it, that this has now been dropped.