Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

It would be a shame if this thread got locked - if you must bicker use PMs.......

 

I'm not bickering. If I was bickering you would know about it. 🙂

 

But I know the moderators on here are always itching to lock topics at the drop of a hat, so I will say no mo

[mvrnut]

On 20/09/2022 at 14:50, James Harrison said:

Curved points, a 'Y' and a three-way point would be welcome, there is, after all, only a fairly limited number of things a common or garden LH or RH point can do.  Small radius points would be welcome but to my mind a three-way point is preferable. 

Also a short crossing would be very useful, especially in yards.

Cheers,

Chris

[Pacific231G]

On 20/09/2022 at 18:55, Jeff Smith said:

Not sure what radius a Peco small point is but SMP supplies a very simple to build 36" BH kit......

Hi Jeff

A few days late but Peco's small points are nominally two foot radius and their medium radius points are nominally three foot radius though both have the same crossing angle.

Curiously, though the minimum radius of the medium Peco points apparently is less than thirty six inches, the SMP point is actually slightly shorter. I understand that the extra length is because Peco incorporate a transition curve into their diverging closure rail but those who've analysed them more closely may be able to confirm this.  

This is a scan of both of them with a nominal three foot radius pre Streamline Pecoway point below for comparison.

The SMP point is copper clad but the geometry is the same as their plastic based kit. 

I'd be interested to know how the sleepering of the Pecoway point (to BRMSB specs) compares with that of their new bullhead points.

I can't help thinking that a small radius point with 00 scale sleeper spacing is going to look very small radius indeed so i'm not sure how useful it will be for those seeking better looking trackwork for 00.

 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

On 20/09/2022 at 14:36, martin_wynne said:

Of course not. But nor do they look good on bullhead track which looks unlike anything the prototype ran on. My guess is that those buying them who care about track will be building finescale bullhead track for them to run on. The kits and parts are all there now and increasing -- Peco not needed.

 

 

Hi Martin

you've said probably correctly that Peco track, including bullhead, looks nothing like the prototype but, apart from the absurdly sharp crossings and curves that most of us are forced to use , the use of loose heeled switches, and the heavy spring mechanism at the tiebar I'm wondering what are the main features that makes it look wrong both for plain track and pointwork ?  I'm not denying what you say but trying to get a handle on just what is wrong with their (and other) RTL track and pointwork.  

Edited September 25, 2022 by Pacific231G

[gr.king]

Whether it looks "nothing like the prototype" depends, in my opinion, on how obsessively one studies ultra-details. I consider that the key visible features of the new pointwork are a vast improvement over anything ready-to-use that has gone before. It has scale bullhead rail, it has chairs, and the timbers are of a believable size and spaced at much more nearly satisfactory intervals. If some of the finer features are less faithful to the real thing, perhaps in order to make the points possible to manufacture on a cost-effective basis, robust in use, and compatible to a degree with the earlier track system, then I'm not worried. The general look of the things from a stand-off viewing distance is fine.

I don't see the plain Peco bullhead track as any visible advance on SMP or C&L, in fact I would rather that Peco had not extended the interval between sleepers quite so much in either the plain track or (particularly) the large radius points. It is difficult to use the Peco points in conjunction with existing SMP plain track for instance, not just because the Peco bases are thicker, but because the sleeper spacings clash so much. Where sleepers should interlace as tracks converge / diverge, it is quite tricky to re-space the sleepers of the plain SMP track to fit in with those of a point without producing something that looks very odd. It would have been far better in my view if Peco had settled for spacing the timbers "in proportion to the gauge" (i.e. HO if you like, not the old Streamline / Setrack ridiculously crowded sleepering, but to British steam era standards), rather than apparently going for 4mm scale along the track and 3.5mm scale across it. I stated the same view at a much earlier stage, but it was immediately drowned out by those who wanted technically correct relationships to rail crossings etc. and true scale along the track, even if it starts to look out-of-proportion to the narrower gauge.

Edited September 27, 2022 by gr.king
Clarification

[David Stannard]

Well I finally got my hand on some today, I have a single slip that I got before, I will be slowly adding to the collection as more variants become available, then I will be ready for when I have the time and space to commit myself to the layout that I want to build.

[unravelled]

Apologies if this has already  been covered in this topic, but I'm trying to reduce the track centres for a crossover. Before I do anything expensive, I'd like some opinions on whether my thoughts are OK. Even though the large radius point are curved throughout, a pair used as a crossover can be trimmed equally to reduce track centres. My problem is that I want to make a crossover using a large radius and a single slip. Because the slip is straight at all ends, I can't trim the point, as that would mismatch the angles. So I am left with trimming the single slip. It looks as if I can trim the slip by two timbers, bringing the rail joiner close to the slip's checkrails.

 

Picture as bought. 51mm track centres

 

 

 

Picture with intended modification, about 47mm (2 timbers overlapped)

 

 

While this is half way to the minimum 43(ish)mm, is this the best I can do?  I suppose I could overlap another sleeper by trimming the point, and accept a slight angle mismatch at the join. Otherwise  I might  have to introduce a slight  joggle into one track to get down to the centres I want. Or build the platforms further apart which might throw other things out.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

[martin_wynne]

52 minutes ago, unravelled said:

While this is half way to the minimum 43(ish)mm

 

Hi Dave,

 

The prototype minimum is 44.67mm, say 45mm in the real world.

 

p.s. your photo is showing 48mm, not 47mm (gauge-face to gauge-face).

 

If you cut away one side of the chairs on the slip, you could probably flex the rails a fraction to match the exit angle and radius on a trimmed-back turnout. Replace with C&L half-chairs.

 

It would be best to remove one timber from each - the daft Peco bent timber. It doesn't matter if you end up with the remaining timbers at closer spacing than normal.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited March 22, 2023 by martin_wynne
p.s. added

[Dominion]

You can certainly do what you are proposing in the photo. You can probably do one more as the curvature difference will be small. It could be taken up by slightly increasing the curvature further back in the turn out or in the slip exit by removing a little material with a saw cut in the triangle between the diverging tracks. It may not be necessary though. 
If you do leave the turnout at full rail length it will look better if you remove the 2 angled stubby Timbers at the end and replace with a straight one angled to match the slip. 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Dominion
Clarifying referring to photo

[unravelled]

7 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Dave,

 

The prototype minimum is 44.67mm, say 45mm in the real world.

 

p.s. your photo is showing 48mm, not 47mm (gauge-face to gauge-face).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

I knew I should have looked it up. I think I forgot to add the rail head width when adding up. 

AlthoughI zoomed out for the photo there might be some parallax issues on the picture. I think I managed 47 using  paper templates, but 48 might be a more realistic target.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[unravelled]

13 minutes ago, Dominion said:

You can certainly do what you are proposing. You can probably do one more as the curvature difference will be small. It could be taken up by slightly increasing the curvature further back in the turn out or in the slip exit by removing a little material with a saw cut in the triangle between the diverging tracks. It may not be necessary though. 
If you do leave the turnout at full rail length it will look better if you remove the 2 angled stubby Timbers at the end and replace with a straight one angled to match the slip. 

Thanks, tweaking the timbering is planned. I think some playing round with templates  will be required before any pointwork is harmed.

 

Dave

[Goodnight Sweetheart]

Apologies if this is the wrong thread or it’s been covered before. I have nine of the medium radius turnouts laid as supplied out of the packaging with metal fishplates on all ends. Seven of the turnouts, including a double slip work absolutely fine but the last two short when my locos pass over the frog. Weirdly I’ve had my Accurascale  92 run through okay heal to toe, but then stall cut out toe to heal….my Bachmann 37 just doesn’t want to pass through in any direction sorting out on the frog.

 

Ive seen a YouTube video where the chap says there have been issues experienced with cut outs the frog but he couldn’t replicate it with his complex set up. Do I have to dud points? Seems strange all the others work fine, the two problem turnouts laid the same as the rest. 
 

Is there a work round, at the moment I’m not using any point motors so there no polarity switching could this solve the problem ?

 

Many thanks 

[Dominion]

The isolation breaks either side of the frog are very close to the frog to allow people to use the points without powering the frog if they don’t want to.

 

Unfortunately several people have experienced either of 2 different kinds of shorts relating to this, depending on loco, wheel profile, wheel back to back settings, direction of travel, and angle of approach.

 

The one I have sometimes had is the back of a wheel touching the opposite closure rail before the frog as things approach from the point blade end of the turn out. I have mostly eliminated that by applying a little clear nail varnish to the inside of the rail (not the top) for a couple of mm next to the insulation break. I have only had to do this on 3 of my Peco Bullhead turnouts. The problem has not occurred  on the rest.

 

The other type people have reported is the outside of the wheel tread touching the opposite rail head in the branching track. I have not experienced that one and don’t have a work around for it. 

 

Suggest you first try to figure out which if either of these 2 problems you may have, and proceed from there. 

Good luck, Tom 

Edited April 8, 2023 by Dominion
Typo

[Chamby]

20 hours ago, Goodnight Sweetheart said:

 

Is there a work round, at the moment I’m not using any point motors so there no polarity switching could this solve the problem ?

 

Many thanks 

 

Yes there is a workaround, documented previously on this thread but unfortunately the associated images were lost in the server move a while back.  I’ll have a look and see if I can recover them.   Essentially my solution is rather more dramatic than @Dominion’s, albeit a more permanent solution, and involves reconfiguring the turnout from a unifrog to an electrofrog configuration by relocating the rail breaks further away from the frog nose.

 

In the meantime try running the 37 slowly over the turnout and look very closely as it runs over the insulated rail breaks inside of the frog.  That should show you exactly where the short is occurring and help you to work on a solution.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

In the meantime try running the 37 slowly over the turnout and look very closely as it runs over the insulated rail breaks inside of the frog.  That should show you exactly where the short is occurring and help you to work on a solution.

Do that in the dark so you'll see any sparks.

[rob D2]

22 hours ago, Dominion said:

The isolation breaks either side of the frog are very close to the frog to allow people to use the points without powering the frog if they don’t want to.

 

Unfortunately several people have experienced either of 2 different kinds of shorts relating to this, depending on loco, wheel profile, wheel back to back settings, direction of travel, and angle of approach.

 

The one I have sometimes had is the back of a wheel touching the opposite closure rail before the frog as things approach from the point blade end of the turn out. I have mostly eliminated that by applying a little clear nail varnish to the inside of the rail (not the top) for a couple of mm next to the insulation break. I have only had to do this on 3 of my Peco Bullhead turnouts. The problem has not occurred  on the rest.

 

The other type people have reported is the outside of the wheel tread touching the opposite rail head in the branching track. I have not experienced that one and don’t have a work around for it. 

 

Suggest you first try to figure out which if either of these 2 problems you may have, and proceed from there. 

Good luck, Tom 

That's great advice .

I had all manner of issues due to these fine tolerances with Hornby 31 chunky wheels , and surprisingly a couple of modern image Hornby and Bachmann wagons .

 

I used clear tamiya varnish as above which partially fixed it , i then saw a video about the Hornby 31 and as suggested i painted all the wheel backs to insulate them.

 

This slightly clunky procedure fixed it . I'm starting another plank with both medium and long bullhead points this time aimed at my BR blue fleet so as a prime part of that is the three Hornby 31s it'll be interesting if any other issues occur 

[Goodnight Sweetheart]

On 08/04/2023 at 12:40, Dominion said:

The isolation breaks either side of the frog are very close to the frog to allow people to use the points without powering the frog if they don’t want to.

 

Unfortunately several people have experienced either of 2 different kinds of shorts relating to this, depending on loco, wheel profile, wheel back to back settings, direction of travel, and angle of approach.

 

The one I have sometimes had is the back of a wheel touching the opposite closure rail before the frog as things approach from the point blade end of the turn out. I have mostly eliminated that by applying a little clear nail varnish to the inside of the rail (not the top) for a couple of mm next to the insulation break. I have only had to do this on 3 of my Peco Bullhead turnouts. The problem has not occurred  on the rest.

 

The other type people have reported is the outside of the wheel tread touching the opposite rail head in the branching track. I have not experienced that one and don’t have a work around for it. 

 

Suggest you first try to figure out which if either of these 2 problems you may have, and proceed from there. 

Good luck, Tom 

Excellent, thank you I’ll take a very close look and hopefully apply your work around.

[drt7uk]

Does anyone know Triang and Lima models with larger flanges / thicker wheels cope with Peco Bullhead track? 

 

Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, I did search but couldn't see anything. Many thanks 

[jaym481]

I have a Lima HO model that I tried, and the answer is it copes if you're willing to put up with the click of the flanges hitting every chair. I'm not sure about the nong term effect on the chairs it would have. I suspect the OO models of the same era would be much the same.

[unravelled]

This is an update on my earlier post on using the bullhead pointwork in ways that were not intended  by Peco. I haven't reread the whole thread, so I can't be sure if any of this is new information.

To begin, some thoughts about the construction. Most, if not all sections of rail have one or more small  disks spot welded to the foot These seem to have a double purpose, first to lock the rail sections  into the base, and second as something to spot weld the jumper wires to. In a couple of pieces of pointwork I needed to remove the short frog extension sections, to close up the track spacing. After breaking the wire link off, I was able to pull the rail away  from the frog through its chairs. The disk cut its way through the first chair, and I was then able to cut away the disk and completely withdraw the rail, While this did damage the first chair, it still holds the replacement rail in gauge. While I have been pleasantly surprised by the robustness of the bullhead system, I have had a couple of the link wire spot welds fail, needing extra feeds to be addedI have put this down to my heavy handedness

Another modification  I have used in some places is to break the links to a  frog rail extension, isolating it. This saves having an extra insulated rail joiner between the point and an adjacent isolated section.

 

Dave

[James Harrison]

I had a chat with the Peco representatives at the Stafford show yesterday and I asked about whether they had any plans to expand the bullhead range.  I was told that they whilst haven't decided what they're going to do next, curved points, a Y and a three-way are options they're looking at. 

[E100]

22 hours ago, James Harrison said:

I had a chat with the Peco representatives at the Stafford show yesterday and I asked about whether they had any plans to expand the bullhead range.  I was told that they whilst haven't decided what they're going to do next, curved points, a Y and a three-way are options they're looking at. 

 

All of these would be very welcome.

 

I'm noticing the range is appearing more on the exhibition circuit recently.

[SHerr]

On 25/09/2023 at 18:13, James Harrison said:

I had a chat with the Peco representatives at the Stafford show yesterday and I asked about whether they had any plans to expand the bullhead range.  I was told that they whilst haven't decided what they're going to do next, curved points, a Y and a three-way are options they're looking at. 

They don’t need to decide, they just need to do all 3 together!

[Gilbert]

3 hours ago, E100 said:

 

All of these would be very welcome.

 

I'm noticing the range is appearing more on the exhibition circuit recently.

on layouts or on sale (or possibly both)? My 00 layout Penmaenbach will be at Fareham 7/8 Oct and uses the new BH track...(large points only as the medium had not been invented by the time I built it)....but with diesels....

Chris H

[E100]

2 hours ago, Gilbert said:

on layouts or on sale (or possibly both)? My 00 layout Penmaenbach will be at Fareham 7/8 Oct and uses the new BH track...(large points only as the medium had not been invented by the time I built it)....but with diesels....

Chris H

 

On layouts, where I have specifically asked about using peco bullhead track.

 

Also on stands as well.

Edited September 26, 2023 by E100