Jump to content
Following a software upgrade the Classifieds section is out of action. I'm working to resolve this. ×
 

Building points using Peco code 75 Bullhead


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Gday all!

I am about to begin the adventure of my 2nd layout. I had to sadly dismantle my first one when we moved house. This time I am using the Peco bullhead code 75. The points will be made with the help of  templates generated by Templot.  I really want to start making my own points as I was never satisfied with the locked geometry. I ended up butchering many turnouts to work to the point of wondering if I should  learn to make them. I understand the concept of soldering rails to PC board but I have noticed that if one was to do this with the code 75 rail, then the rails on the points become lower than the rails on the flex track. That is due to the rails being suspended by the chairs and not sitting directly on the sleepers like they do on say, code 100 track. The PCB sleepers would have to be thicker and probably look a little odd. How are other modellers getting around this problem? Or does it just not stand out that much??

Sorry if this has been covered before.

Cheers!

Ben

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

The PCB sleepers would have to be thicker and probably look a little odd. How are other modellers getting around this problem? Or does it just not stand out that much??

 

It's not really noticeable in practice. It helps if you put plastic chairs on the rails after that are simply cosmetic.  Ballasting then makes it even less noticeable. There's some pics of my track here  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/93421-sheepcroft-em/&tab=comments#comment-1692441

 

I'm sure those more experienced than me will add more comments

 

Stu

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

Gday all!

I am about to begin the adventure of my 2nd layout. I had to sadly dismantle my first one when we moved house. This time I am using the Peco bullhead code 75. The points will be made with the help of  templates generated by Templot.  I really want to start making my own points as I was never satisfied with the locked geometry. I ended up butchering many turnouts to work to the point of wondering if I should  learn to make them. I understand the concept of soldering rails to PC board but I have noticed that if one was to do this with the code 75 rail, then the rails on the points become lower than the rails on the flex track. That is due to the rails being suspended by the chairs and not sitting directly on the sleepers like they do on say, code 100 track. The PCB sleepers would have to be thicker and probably look a little odd. How are other modellers getting around this problem? Or does it just not stand out that much??

Sorry if this has been covered before.

Cheers!

Ben

 

Probably a better place for advice is the handbuilt track forum, I will ask for a move for you

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Peco code 75 rail is not a true bullhead rail as its still slightly flatbottom, I guess to assist the manufacturing process. Still its as good as anything else.

 

If soldering the rail direct to copperclad timbers/sleepers as you said there is a height difference, even if the copperclad timbers are the same thickness the rail is held appx 0.5 mm above the timber. As the plastic chairs (C&L/Exactoscale) slide on to the rail, cut in half they will not fit properly unless you go to the bother of fitting 0.5mm thick spacers. I have seen the inside part of the chair successfully fitted to the outside of the rail

 

There is another method which I describe as the composite method, using copperclad timbers sparingly at strategic places, using 0.5mm spacers either from metal shim or thin PCB strip, the remainder of the timbers being plastic or ply of the same thickness as the ply. Plastic chairs cut in half can be glued to the copperclad timbers after soldering, as can the chairs for the plastic/ply timbers, or these can be slid on whole on to the rail before soldering

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cut my point building teeth with making turnouts for the club layout.  These were soldered to PCB.  This was nearly 20 years ago and the club layout was code 100 so flat bottomed rail was used.  There was no noticeable height difference but FB rail rests on the timbers I think.

 

When I started in 0 gauge I bought a turnout kit from from C&L (before the ownership change).  It was kind of expensive but it did show me the way and included rail, chairs, timbers and gauges.  There was a pre-manufactured crossing and planed blades.  Also instructions.  After that I made the rest of the turnouts fairly inexpensively by buying in components separately.  I constructed the crossings and planed the blades myself.

 

Perhaps you might benefit from buying in just one turnout kit to get your hand in.

 

https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/

 

John

Edited by brossard
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other alternative is the Finetracks "British Finescale) rand of 4mm scale kits

 

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

 

In 00 gauge like the others B7 turnouts are available in a very easy buildable form, further turnouts and crossings are planned as in the N gauge/2mm ranges

 

These match up with the New C&L and Peco 4mm scale flexitracks . Given the price of copperclad these days these kits are extremely good value and look stunning

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

The other alternative is the Finetracks "British Finescale) rand of 4mm scale kits

 

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

 

In 00 gauge like the others B7 turnouts are available in a very easy buildable form, further turnouts and crossings are planned as in the N gauge/2mm ranges

 

These match up with the New C&L and Peco 4mm scale flexitracks . Given the price of copperclad these days these kits are extremely good value and look stunning

 

A couple of wrinkles with that John.

 

First, it appears to me that Ben wants to construct non standard geometry turnouts and there is just one turnout in the link, a B7.  I don't know how that relates to Peco geometry.

 

Second is the kit price, far more than a Peco turnout.  I suspect that might be because the crossing is pre manufactured and blades planed.  By doing that work yourself, you save a load of money.

 

However, that said, it might be good to buy a kit just to see what you get and to build it.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brossard said:

 

A couple of wrinkles with that John.

 

First, it appears to me that Ben wants to construct non standard geometry turnouts and there is just one turnout in the link, a B7.  I don't know how that relates to Peco geometry.

 

Second is the kit price, far more than a Peco turnout.  I suspect that might be because the crossing is pre manufactured and blades planed.  By doing that work yourself, you save a load of money.

 

However, that said, it might be good to buy a kit just to see what you get and to build it.

 

John

 

Firstly in railway terms Peco turnouts are not standard geometry. I do take your point that the OP wants non standard geometry. These kits are to B7 larger than Peco's large radius point, however they do lend themselves to being built into curved turnouts as well as the standard straight version. I think the Peco's bullhead turnout is much nearer the kit price or am I thinking about the EM gauge one they make for the EMGS

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Firstly in railway terms Peco turnouts are not standard geometry. I do take your point that the OP wants non standard geometry. These kits are to B7 larger than Peco's large radius point, however they do lend themselves to being built into curved turnouts as well as the standard straight version. I think the Peco's bullhead turnout is much nearer the kit price or am I thinking about the EM gauge one they make for the EMGS

 

True about Peco geometry, although I think I would argue they are standard in terms of 00 modelling.  I was looking at FB turnouts so I stand corrected about Peco BH turnouts, they are quite expensive, more than the kit and about twice the price of the BH. 

 

Anyway I hope this discussion helps Ben figure out how to proceed with his turnout building.

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

I understand the concept of soldering rails to PC board but I have noticed that if one was to do this with the code 75 rail, then the rails on the points become lower than the rails on the flex track.

 

Hi Ben,

 

Bullhead chairs have a base 1.3/4" thick (which scales to 0.6mm in 4mm/ft scale, for 00). The rail is lifted by this distance above the timbers, and this "daylight" between the rail and the ballast is a very characteristic feature of bullhead track.

 

To use bullhead rail without chairs, you therefore need something to raise the rail by this much above the timbers. One way to do that with copper-clad timbers is to use Vero pins.

 

The timbers need to be drilled 1mm dia. holes on the rail centre-line. Templot can print a drilling template for that:

2_220711_090000000.png

The Vero pins are a push fit, having ribs under the head, so can be soldered in one go when fixing the rails. They are ready tinned brass for easy soldering. They need trimming underneath afterwards -- if you use a softish workboard such as MDF, you can drill down into it through the copper-clad and leave the pins full depth during construction. Trim the pins after prising the finished unit from the workboard.

 

2_020948_350000000.jpg

Vero pins available here (and elsewhere):

http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/terminal-posts/6319596/

Drawing of Vero pin here:

 

 https://docs.rs-online.com/3fc2/0900766b80e578ba.pdf


See here for examples of Vero pins in use (with copper-clad):

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69145-attention-00-sf-track-builders/page-4#entry1793752

 

IMG_1.jpg

 

When you have the track built and working to your satisfaction, plastic chairs can be cut in half and glued around the pin heads to finish the appearance. If you plan to do this use a minimum of solder, possibly using solder cream.

 

Alternatively you can use a large fillet of solder to represent the chair.

 

regards,

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
typo
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Gday all!

I was a little overwhelmed by all the responses and great ideas and tried to reply and quote everyone but it got way too messy. So thanks all!!

I think I will need to get space between the sleepers and the rails to complete the look. Id love to get some brass chairs but I am on the other side of the planet and nearly no one does bullhead parts here so I might try soldering small brass plates to the PCB sleepers and use a lower temp solder to secure the rails in the hope that the plates wont move during installation of the rails. Kind of like the pin method and the etch method except that once done I will need to fix on some plastic chairs to finish the look. I might be able to cut them off the Peco flex sleepers.

The Templot template with pin locations might help me placing those plates.

Will report back once I have tried it.

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

Gday all!

 

I think I will need to get space between the sleepers and the rails to complete the look.

 

Id love to get some brass chairs but I am on the other side of the planet and nearly no one does bullhead parts here so I might try soldering small brass plates to the PCB sleepers and use a lower temp solder to secure the rails in the hope that the plates wont move during installation of the rails.

 

Will report back once I have tried it.

Cheers!

 

Can you buy 0.5mm double sided copperclad strip, if so get some and cut a few 3mm wide strips, there is no need to use these on every timber if you are going to use plastic chairs

 

Tin the 0.5 PCB strip both sides before cutting the risers, as this makes soldering them to both the timbers and rail so much easier. If possible cut the risers to the width of the rail. Just use these risers in strategic places otherwise every 4/5 timbers. This sounds much worse than it is, any excess material from the rail sides can be ground back with a slitting disc

 

Chairs can easily be bought, C&L ship internationally, so do I believe the EMGS or P4 stores for Exactoscale chairs. Sadly postage does take a few weeks to arrive.

 

I will go back through my track building thread to see if I can find this composite method, very easy to do, much harder to explain

Edited by hayfield
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go to my page 11 towards the end (1st April 2015) then carrying on from page 12 you will see the process in photos (press arrow for 2015)

 

Scroll down to 1st April, the method is for an easy to build common crossing, but it clearly shows the principals of this method of working and the benefits of using risers, whether they be Vero pins on ply timbers  or metal shim/plasticard 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to complicate matters too much but I have built turnouts with minimal soldering (the vee (not common crossing) and a few bonding wires) plastic chairs on to plastic timbers is very strong and stays in gauge, providing you use a minimum thickness of plastic timbers/sleepers of 1.5 mm, which resists the timbers curling as the solvent dries. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
42 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Not to complicate matters too much but I have built turnouts with minimal soldering (the vee (not common crossing) and a few bonding wires) plastic chairs on to plastic timbers is very strong and stays in gauge, providing you use a minimum thickness of plastic timbers/sleepers of 1.5 mm, which resists the timbers curling as the solvent dries. 

I am going to try and get away with doing the main structural sleepers in PCB material and superficial ones just like you have mentioned if I can get the bits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not necessarily the gauge but the size of turnouts you are using, 00 is a very forgiving gauge as there is in built gauge widening to enable RTR turnouts and crossings

 

I would say a minimum of A5 turnouts, but against RTR set track this is quite generous. But it also depends on the locos themselves as to their own flexibility built into the chassis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Im working on my plan and the ones I have been drawing on Templot are greater than 7.  I discovered the late Gordon's thread and his beautiful work and I don't know why he was tapering the tracks in or out to 16.2 when building turnouts.

 

One of the goals of my new layout is to be able to keep all the bits where a pacific violently kicks is ass out hidden from view so all the visible turnouts will need to be a bit on the longer side and and have nice flow to them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

I discovered the late Gordon's thread and his beautiful work and I don't know why he was tapering the tracks in or out to 16.2 when building turnouts.

 

Hi,

 

00-SF standard (16.2mm gauge, 1mm flangeway) is used mainly for three reasons:

 

1. narrow kit wheels such as Romford/Markits and Alan Gibson can be run on the same tracks as RTR models without dropping into the crossing gaps with a bump.

 

2. the narrower flangeway gap is closer to scale and looks more realistic than the standard 00 flangeway gap.

 

3. vehicles run more steadily on straight and gently-curved 16.2mm tracks, especially when being propelled (pushed). On sharper curves, gauge-widening is applied to bring the gauge back to 16.5mm.

 

Most users of 00-SF use 16.2mm gauge all the way through their pointwork. Some modellers such as Gordon prefer to apply it to the V-crossing area only, and use 16.5mm elsewhere.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

00-SF standard (16.2mm gauge, 1mm flangeway) is used mainly for three reasons:

 

1. narrow kit wheels such as Romford/Markits and Alan Gibson can be run on the same tracks as RTR models without dropping into the crossing gaps with a bump.

 

2. the narrower flangeway gap is closer to scale and looks more realistic than the standard 00 flangeway gap.

 

3. vehicles run more steadily on straight and gently-curved 16.2mm tracks, especially when being propelled (pushed). On sharper curves, gauge-widening is applied to bring the gauge back to 16.5mm.

 

Most users of 00-SF use 16.2mm gauge all the way through their pointwork. Some modellers such as Gordon prefer to apply it to the V-crossing area only, and use 16.5mm elsewhere.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin.

I was drawing in Templot using 16.5 DOGAF as it seemed as good as any of the choices to my beginner mind.

If I am running Locos like A1s, A4s, P1s and P2s and I now have a blank canvas what would you recommend? the OO-SF? I dont mind re drawing everything as I am finding Templot useful for the late night tranquility. It took a while to get into it but one day something just 'clicked' hahaa get it. And now it is almost an addiction!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

using 16.5 DOGAF

@Captain_Mumbles

 

Hi,

 

Don't use the dreaded DOGAF unless you know what you are doing and have good reason. All your RTR models would need to have their wheel back-to-back settings adjusted.

 

The two sensible options are 00-BF and 00-SF. Both use the same 15.2mm check gauge and accept unmodified RTR wheels. 00-BF has a wider tolerance on the back-to-back setting for older models, but won't accept kit wheels. it is RTR only.

 

All this has been discussed and argued about incessantly on RMweb for the past 15 years, so I won't type it all over again, look back through some of the topics.

 

Glad you are now into Templot. :)  Don't forget it has its own forum at https://85a.uk/templot/club/

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

@Captain_Mumbles

 

Hi,

 

Don't use the dreaded DOGAF unless you know what you are doing and have good reason. All your RTR models would need to have their wheel back-to-back settings adjusted.

 

The two sensible options are 00-BF and 00-SF. Both use the same 15.2mm check gauge and accept unmodified RTR wheels. 00-BF has a wider tolerance on the back-to-back setting for older models, but won't accept kit wheels. it is RTR only.

 

All this has been discussed and argued about incessantly on RMweb for the past 15 years, so I won't type it all over again, look back through some of the topics.

 

Glad you are now into Templot. :)  Don't forget it has its own forum at https://85a.uk/templot/club/

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

15 years!!!

 

Oh sh1t!!!!!!!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...