Chamby

The hand-assembled nature of these points may mean that there will be more variability between points than the flat bottom ones. BUT nobody has reported any shorting yet, despite observations about the potential for it, so hopefully this won’t be a significant issue. I have had one problem with a frog rail shorting out, but that was my fault as I had soldered it to a copper clad sleeper at the baseboard join and it had raised the rail very slightly compared to the insulfrog. Not had this problem with FB points before, but the problem was solved with a little careful filing. If bending the points, We will have to be mindful that the frog geometry isn’t changed. Given the tight tolerances re: insulation gaps, Peco will probably regard any shorting experienced with bended points as being outside of the design parameters and therefore outside of their guarantee too. Phil

If you want a perfect match, you will be better gently removing the full five digit number and re-applying the whole number afresh using the new transfers. Just replacing the one digit is likely to give you a slight mis-match in tone with the originals. I have learned this the hard way with other loco’s, with both Fox and HMRS transfers. You probably won’t notice any difference compared to the tender lettering, it’s the numbers right next to each other that show it up. Phil

C&L type of rail joiner pictured here: they do fit the Peco track, and are insulating. Again you can see the slightly different gauge between C&L track and the Peco point, I work around this by flaring the rails slightly near the join. I'm currently using up some of the C&L track I already have: as others have shown, if you use Peco flexitrack, the gauge is consistent with their points. Phil

Try the C&L ones, they are finer than the metal Peco joiners, fiddly little things but they work very well. Phil

It is good to have something a bit different on the side, we all need a bit of light relief from the main project at times.

Just had an email this evening that my back order is being despatched, so it looks like Peco are resupplying already. Phil

If Peco are’t making more profit on an item selling for £26 plus, compared to one selling at £12 then they deserve to go bust. They should make more profit per unit even if they work to the same % margins. And their bean-counters will have factored amortised start up costs into the equation too. Phil

I don’t think Peco will be concerned about cannibalising FB sales. The new BH points and track carry a price premium and improved profit, so they will be happy to migrate a chunk of their business. I think they will gain new sales too... some people will be tempted to start a small project using the new points, something that they probably wouldn’t have done otherwise. The ‘average enthusiast’ on a budget will still use FB on their 8x4, and I will too, in my fiddle yard. I reckon it will be C&L and SMP who will see the biggest impact within the more advanced modelling community, I imagine they will sell fewer B6 points but maybe in the short term more of the other stuff that Peco aren’t making yet. I am grateful to DCC for giving Devon a poke! And it is their Cobalt Digital point motors that will sit under my nice new Peco BH, after all - I took delivery of a dozen this week. Phil.

Sadly, I wish P4 was just about track gauge. Its all those axles, clearances and chassis rebuilds that's the turnoff!

I've only measured the gauge with a pretty basic plastic rule: Peco looks fractionally under 16.5mm, C&L a little more over... but you'd need a micrometer to get an accurate reading. When joining the two, flaring the Peco rails very slightly at the join ensures a smooth connection and stock runs through this no problem. I think you're right, the chairs look pretty much the same dimensionally, the sleeper width is different and this is prototypical. The Peco chairs are a crisper moulding though, my photo doesn't do them justice. Phil

Has anyone else noticed a difference in gauge between the new Peco bullhead points and C&L finescale track? I post this simply as an observation, without comment regarding either brand, as without a micrometer it is hard to determine whose gauge is the more accurate. I first noticed this when joining the two tracks, when the C&L track gauges that I use had to be push-fitted with a bit of a 'click' into the Peco point. Upon closer inspection it transpires that Peco's point is constructed to a very slightly narrower gauge than C&L's flexitrack, see below. Phil.

The 48” tracksetta confirms that the radius is about that, but deviates from a snug fit around the frog. Phil

Even if you had this information it would be meaningless. There are so many overheads that may or may not be included in the overall cost base, from HR to IT to marketing to finance to premises to distribution... to say nothing of internal or cross-divisional transfer pricing... all of which are discretionally large, small or negligible depending on how the business is run. So you would never be comparing like with like, as different companies will account for all of these things differently. Phil

OK here goes with my first post on this topic which is clearly an emotive subject... Many other threads on this forum refer to how manufacturer behaviour has evolved to have much more emphasis on producing a batch size that sells quickly and maximises their ROI within a short timeframe. Unlike the ‘good old days’ when products would be around for a long time and spares were stocked as well. In effect, most of today’s production is undertaken with a ‘limited edition’ mindset. The current emphasis on ‘just in time’ logistics also means that having spares that are likely to sell very slowly over a protracted period of time does not make economic sense. However, I do believe that modern technology is about to come to the rescue of victims of Mazak Rot or any other long term issues encountered with our model hardware. The M.O.D. Is now producing its own supplies of spare parts for aircraft out in the field of operations, and uses 3D printing technology to produce replacement parts on site, to order and with a short turnaround time. If it can work for our front line fighter jets, then assuming that the start-up costs can be overcome then it can work for our hobby too. I can well imagine an enterprising individual or small company setting up a business that can scan a part and then 3D print you a replacement for next day delivery. Imagine something like Peters Spares with no physical stock but a library of virtual parts that can be produced on demand. Sadly not yet available for the O.P. but maybe not that far away now. Phil

I have no idea why it double-posted either! About four hours apart, too. I only wrote it once...

Here's a photo of how the new points look when installed. Ballasting is work in progress, and the below-board stuff is still to do. The grain on the sleepers shows up really nicely when painted with Railmatch sleeper grime. Plain track is C&L Flexi (thick sleepers) which mates up quite well. Ballast is Woodland Scenics (medium) grey blend. I'm pleased with how they look so far! Phil

Given their forthcoming model of the LNER dynamometer car, I wonder then why Rails haven’t produced this model as City of Bradford with British Railways lettering on the tender? They would have made a fine pairing.

Given their forthcoming model of the LNER dynamometer car, I wonder why Rails haven’t produced this model as City of Bradford with British Railways lettering on the tender? They would have made a fine pairing.

Hi Phil -Yes I use DCC. The fix, if required, would be relatively simple; creating a new gap in the closure rails a bit further away from the frog, and wiring the section closest to the frog, with the frog. This would also require repositioning of the under-sleeper wire bridges between the stock rail and closure rails... which means it would be a modification best made before fixing down the point to the baseboard. But as I have said, I am anticipating something here that hopefully will prove to be wholly unfounded... Another observation, following a trial installation yesterday evening, is that it would have been really helpful if Peco had left a ‘tail’ of wire to the under-sleeper wire bridges connected to each stock rail, in the same way that they have provided us with one to the frog. Given DCC best practice of wiring in a ‘dropper’ to each rail section, this would have provided an in-built and totally hidden wiring to the stock rails, instead of us having to solder on our own. The points are, however, really pleasing to the eye when in situ - a big improvement over FB streamline and much more in keeping with the finer detail we now have on the RTR stock we will be running over them. Phil

In the normal run of things, I wholly agree. Then there are relatively new Hornby loco’s such as the P2 and L1 that have front pony trucks prone to dancing at rather odd angles and generally behaving in a most unprototypical way! I’ll have some of the new points installed and wired up in the next few evenings so will be able to test them to my own satisfaction... if there is a problem it will be a relatively easy fix anyway, just needs a slitting mandrel and a soldering iron...

.... and the P2 - 43,462.

Wasnt the LNER 2-8-0+0-8-2 Garratt recognised as the most powerful UK steam loco? Tractive effort was 72,940 lb/ft compared to the Duchess’s 40,000. Not sure how that equates to hp though so you may be right. And the Garratt certainly wouldn’t win any speed trials! Phil

Thanks John, I think that illustrates my point well. Compared to the Streamline Electrofrog we are all used to, which has the break much closer to the centre of the 4 foot: OK I get that... but I'm hoping it hasn't created another problem instead! Time will tell.

Has anyone tested these points when wired up yet? To my eye, the insulation gap on the wing rails is very close to the intersection, it makes me wonder if some RTR wheels might bridge both wing rails just before the insulation gap, creating a short. The implication being that accurate back-to-back measurements may prove to be more critical with these points than many users of RTR stock and turnouts may be used to! It does make me wonder why the break is so close to the frog, presumably it simplifies construction by avoiding the need for a kink in the wing rail sections. But I am used to placing the insulation break further away from the opposite rail. I am sure that Peco must have tested this configuration extensively, so I am for now assuming it will work as intended with all my RTR stock. But there is that niggling question! Phil.

Except a Gresley one! (Well someone had to say it!)