Peco Bullhead Points: in the flesh

[Chamby]

9 hours ago, meatloaf said:

First impressions were the flexi is very delicate. 

 

I then tried to connect 2 bits of the flex using the fishplates. Took me ages to even get the fishplates on. There smaller than n scale fishplates. 

 

The fishplates are easy enough to use, but you need to open them up a bit first.  I push a Stanley knife blade down into the top slot, this seems to open them up just the right amount to slip on easily but still grip the rail.  Hold the fishplates in a small pair of taper-nose pliers when pushing them onto the rail.

 

Agree with others comments above about ‘fragility’:  yes it is finer than ‘bullet proof’ Code 100 but there’s absolutely no problem if it is handled with reasonable care.  I used four boxes of the stuff and didn’t lose or break any.  The track is strong and durable once laid and ballasted.

 

if you want fine-looking trackwork that looks the part, it’s great.  If you want something more chunky that can take some abuse, or kids are going to be running their stuff on it, then stick with code 100.  It depends on your modelling priorities.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Chamby
Spelling

[Cor-onGRT4]

On this Warley local model show from 27/28-11-2021

there is an Peco stand with showing all new Bullhead points/ slips.

 

at about 35:58

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csi1QAkkL44

[SJR]

Just received advice from Hattons.

1 x Peco Large Radius Left Hand Bullhead  Turnout dispatched.

[LDM34046]

Has anyone worked out a definitive fix for the issues with the Uni-frogs shorting out of the back to back measurements aren’t correct?

 

I know there was a comprehensive guide a few pages back but unfortunately all the photos got lost.

I’m just about to make a start laying all the trackwork and want to know if there’s any modifications I need to make to the points prior to fixing them down.

[cctransuk]

42 minutes ago, LDM34046 said:

Has anyone worked out a definitive fix for the issues with the Uni-frogs shorting out of the back to back measurements aren’t correct?

 

I know there was a comprehensive guide a few pages back but unfortunately all the photos got lost.

I’m just about to make a start laying all the trackwork and want to know if there’s any modifications I need to make to the points prior to fixing them down.

 

Yep  - sort out the incorrect B2Bs. 😁

 

CJI.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, LDM34046 said:

Has anyone worked out a definitive fix for the issues with the Uni-frogs shorting out of the back to back measurements aren’t correct?

 

In my experience there’s nothing wrong with these points, or the slips/crossings. There were a couple of reports that three (as I recall) types shorted. Hornby 31, HJ 01 and Hornby L1. I’ve run over 70 different locomotive models through these without any shorts occurring (including an 01).
I’ve run countless items of stock through them too (the points in particular) with no problems. If I have any b2b problems with RTR stock I set them to 14.5mm. As @cctransuksays, set your back to back’s correctly and you’re unlikely to have any issues. 

[Gilbert]

2 hours ago, LDM34046 said:

Has anyone worked out a definitive fix for the issues with the Uni-frogs shorting out of the back to back measurements aren’t correct?

 

I know there was a comprehensive guide a few pages back but unfortunately all the photos got lost.

I’m just about to make a start laying all the trackwork and want to know if there’s any modifications I need to make to the points prior to fixing them down.

I sold my Hornby 31s. Even with various modifications with varnish performance was unreliable and particularly noticeable with DCC sound...it was not just B2Bs it was the width of tread and the sideplay...

Edited June 22, 2022 by Gilbert

[Chamby]

It very much depends upon the locomotive fleet that you are running.  As already stated, the Hornby L1 front pony causes issues with its crabbing pony truck, but is OK if you run the loco bunker first!   If you have any Pacific loco’s with flangeless trailing bogie wheels, if these wheels touch the railhead, they will usually short out at the frog - especially when the back end swings out whilst taking the curved road.  Fitting flanged wheels can fix things.  

 

The turnout modification basically replicates PECO’s electro frog design re: rail breaks.  I have re-instated the photo’s I took of my own workaround earlier, posted on page 46 of this thread:

 

 

I have also acquired a single slip recently but have not laid it yet...  looks like it has the same frog format, so will likely suffer the same problem, but the workaround does not look so straightforward.   🤔

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Chamby
Inserted link to previous post with lost photo's now re-installed.

[rob D2]

I’ve three Hornby class 31s which caused it and I’ve tried a few solutions - varnish on the rails to increase the frog size slightly so the wheels can’t bridge the gap, and also with the 31s painting the back of the wheels to take it away that end.

 

It seems to have worked for 99% of the time. There’s a couple of wagons that occasionally do it too

[gr.king]

I've just been through the whole thought process again myself, ran some tests, concluded that alteration to electrofrog form would be the safest bet, and modified a small batch of the points accordingly. If my work actually was un-necessary, it's too late to worry about it now.

If you ignore the additional crude / simple / visible polarity switching arrangement that I've added to the toe of the point, the re-arrangement of electrical bonds and the position of the cuts for new rail gaps is shown here:

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=146044#p146044

The answer to me own final question, or so I believe, follows here:

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=146049#p146049

And my "best" arrangement for both electrically bonding, and importantly (if you don't want to lose the over-centre springing action of the tie bar) physically anchoring the otherwise loose/sliding switch rails is shown here:

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=146087#p146087

Others are completely free to consider my methods to be rubbish...

 

I didn't know that single slips were available yet, as implied by Chamby. I've just built one on a copperclad base to ensure that I got my required geometry, didn't have to pay a fortune, and that I didn't have to work out how to un-unifrog the thing!

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by gr.king
added info

[Chamby]

This is the new single slip:  similar frog structure as the turnouts.  The conversion will just require a little more thought re: where the new rail breaks can be sited, owing to the position of the blades:

 

[gr.king]

So I see. Top view would suggest that rail breaks could only go just clear of the tips of the blades, although that creates short pieces of closure rail supported by only two chairs. Whether that arrangement is conveniently compatible with the way the thing is fed power, and the way it is bonded beneath, I have no idea.

Can it be bent at all, to curve the "straight" routes and ease the slip curve? Even if it can, I might still be best off with my home-made copperclad effort, as its position very close to a separable board joint would oblige me to cut into the structure of the Peco item at one end, and I'd rather have rail ends near the joint soldered to something very firm...

I note that the check rail hiding behind curved rail in the lower part of the view is still (or again) a plastic moulding.

 

PS: I do like the fact that even if it doesn't appear to put the crossing noses on solid supports, Peco have not in this cases spread out the spacing of the timbers in that area as they did in the plain large radius turnouts. I think that increase in spacing is one thing that spoils their appearance, irrespective of it providing any "technically correct" alignment of timbers with other parts of the structure.

Edited June 23, 2022 by gr.king
added info

[PMP]

8 hours ago, gr.king said:

I've just been through the whole thought process again myself, ran some tests, concluded that alteration to electrofrog form would be the safest bet, and modified a small batch of the points accordingly. If my work actually was un-necessary, it's too late to worry about it now.

 

 I am surprised, though I may be missing something.
 

The points are supplied as ‘dead’ frog (insulfrog in old Peco language). The only thing you need to do to make them live frog (electrofrog) with switchable polarity is to wire the frog to a switch method of your choice. As with the OO/HO streamline 75/100 ranges there’s  a wire already attached to the frog for switching by Peco.

Blade rails and stock rails are electrically bonded by welding at manufacture. The same applies to the crossing (no blades obvs), and both types of slip, (examples of all three in my possession).

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by PMP
Addition

[Gilbert]

1 minute ago, PMP said:

 I am surprised, though I may be missing something. The points are supplied as ‘dead’ frog (insulfrog in old Peco language). The only thing you need to do to make them live frog (electrofrog) with switchable polarity is to wire the frog to a switch method of your choice. Blade rails and stock rails are electrically bonded by welding at manufacture. The same applies to the crossing (no blades obvs), and both types of slip, (examples of all three in my possession).

 

 

I agree - I've been very pleased with the "out of the box" performance on DCC with the frogs wired up (and even without the wiring in play with most locos). My issue was the issues on DCC (especially with sound) resulting from fat wobbly wheels (i.e. Hornby 31 for example) and I think those are the mods some are talking about - although nothing I did resulted in performance with a few locos I could accept...sadly..

[SJR]

I have recently completed a double track junction using Peco Unifrog track. I configured it as dead frog just to see how it worked knowing I could liven the frogs if required.

Have to say the track performs faultlessly and "does what it says on the tin".  I have a selection of locomotives consisting of all the major brands (soon to add Accurascale 😀) and kit built.  These negotiate the formation without issue.  The only locomotive to have a problem (stalls) is the Hattons/DJM Auto Tank.  This says more about the characteristics of this locomotive than the track it runs on.

[PMP]

Here’s a very short film showing the large points, L/R, long crossing, and single slip. 

[gr.king]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

 I am surprised, though I may be missing something.
 

The points are supplied as ‘dead’ frog (insulfrog in old Peco language). The only thing you need to do to make them live frog (electrofrog) with switchable polarity is to wire the frog to a switch method of your choice. As with the OO/HO streamline 75/100 ranges there’s  a wire already attached to the frog for switching by Peco.

Blade rails and stock rails are electrically bonded by welding at manufacture. The same applies to the crossing (no blades obvs), and both types of slip, (examples of all three in my possession).

 

 

Personal preference really.

1. I did not want permanently live exit roads from the turnouts, obliging me to put in section breaks and additional switches in order to keep chipless locos "dead" when shut in a siding.

2. While no shorting was apparent on my brief tests, with several un-modified Hornby Pacifics / Mikados potentially able to use the points, I could see that the unsatisfactory dodge of manufacturing them with flangeless, floppily mounted, broad-tread trailing wheel sets did create the potential for bridging the gaps between the two electrical "poles" if the rail breaks were left in such close proximity to the crossing. Maybe I'm excessively cautious, but I do now know that when the track is permanently laid and ballasted in, too late for convenient alteration, I won't be plagued by annoying momentary short circuits as locos run through the points.

[The Stationmaster]

I too have a preference for live crossings ('frogs' in US speak) in pointwork  with their particular advantage of automatically self - isolating dead end sidings.  But PMP's demonstration of a relatively short wheelbase engine running through dead areas  was impressive even though it doesn't change my mind.

[Jeff Smith]

Live frog points will still isolate sidings as long as the siding is fed from the frog switch.  However with DCC you might want to continuously feed the siding for sound or shunting purposes.

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Live frog points will still isolate sidings as long as the siding is fed from the frog switch.  

That is only necessary if - as with the Unifrog design - there is an insulating piece coming out of the crossing towards the dead end siding.  With the 'pure' Electrofrog design  (and reliable switching for the crossing - aka frog) you simply ensure continuity by using metal rail joiners/supplementary bonding wires when making the connections between the two rails coming out of the heel of the point and the two rails carrying on to form the siding.   (Additionally with Unifrog certain factory included bonds between rails have to be cut and reconfigured.)

 

This arrangement means that both rails in the siding are live at all times but when the point is set against the siding both rails will be at the same polarity so a loco in that siding can't move (nor will there be short because everything is at the same polarity).    Thus you don't need a separate isolating switch for the siding.  

 

Whether that is a safe practice with DCC I haven't got a clue but it works perfectly well with ordinary DC.

[Harlequin]

Unifrog turnouts perform no electrical switching at all. This is a Good Thing generally but if you want a Unifrog turnout to automatically enable/disable a siding like an Electrofrog turnout of old, it doesn't need any major surgery IFF you are already switching power to the frog via an external switch - e.g. a switch built into the point motor.

 

All you need to do is insulate the inner rail of the siding and feed that rail from the same switch connection as the frog itself. The insulating joiner prevents a short between the changing polarity of the siding inner rail and the fixed polarity feed rail from the Unifrog turnout.

 

The inner siding rail will thus change polarity when the turnout route is set and any locos in the siding will either see a potential difference (or DCC signal) across the rails that they can use or none, in which case they will not move.

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Harlequin

[PMP]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

This arrangement means that both rails in the siding are live at all times but when the point is set against the siding both rails will be at the same polarity so a loco in that siding can't move (nor will there be short because everything is at the same polarity).    Thus you don't need a separate isolating switch for the siding.  

 

Whether that is a safe practice with DCC I haven't got a clue but it works perfectly well with ordinary DC.

That’s correct regarding the packet fresh variety. I’ve been speaking to a friend whom has kindly offered some DCC fitted motive power of RTR types I haven’t tried to test on my ‘test bed’ in the next week or so.  All I’ll do is swap the control function and leave the track as currently configured. 

[Ben Alder]

11 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Unifrog turnouts perform no electrical switching at all. This is a Good Thing generally but if you want a Unifrog turnout to automatically enable/disable a siding like an Electrofrog turnout of old, it doesn't need any major surgery IFF you are already switching power to the frog via an external switch - e.g. a switch built into the point motor.

 

All you need to do is insulate the inner rail of the siding and feed that rail from the same switch connection as the frog itself. The insulating joiner prevents a short between the changing polarity of the siding inner rail and the fixed polarity feed rail from the Unifrog turnout.

 

The inner siding rail will thus change polarity when the turnout route is set and any locos in the siding will either see a potential difference (or DCC signal) across the rails that they can use or none, in which case they will not move.

 

 

Succinct and informative, thank you. I have laid some as they come, and they work really well, but I don't like the way locos can run against the point on sidings unlike the electrofrog version - DC, BTW.  I suspect some PW work is going to be undertaken when I get a moment...

[St Enodoc]

14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Whether that is a safe practice with DCC I haven't got a clue

Yes it is.

[PMP]

6 hours ago, Ben Alder said:

 

Succinct and informative, thank you. I have laid some as they come, and they work really well, but I don't like the way locos can run against the point on sidings unlike the electrofrog version - DC, BTW.  I suspect some PW work is going to be undertaken when I get a moment...

@Harlequin’s suggestion is viable for dead end sections, but may not work for a pilot road in DC operation.

On Shelfie three I have a pilot road, A, fed from a crossover B-C. If I didn’t have a separate isolation section for A, every time I used B as a straight route that suggestion would make A live, and any motive power on it move with standard Unifrog’s. So there may still be a need to have a dedicated isolation section where you regularly hold locomotives.

See time lapse for example of what I mean.