PECO Announces Bullhead Track for OO

[martin_wynne]

Only time will tell with use of this product and the flaws will either be proven or disproved!

 

Or corrected. One of the significant advantages of Peco doing their own toolmaking.

[Signaller69]

Or corrected. One of the significant advantages of Peco doing their own toolmaking.

Presumably Peco's introduction of Unifrog into the existing code 83 range was due to this ability to modify tooling. Hopefully if there are any flaws with the Unifrog design in that application they will have been picked up by now.

[martin_wynne]

Presumably Peco's introduction of Unifrog into the existing code 83 range was due to this ability to modify tooling. Hopefully if there are any flaws with the Unifrog design in that application they will have been picked up by now.

 

The plastic knuckle section on the Code 83 Unifrog appears to be significantly longer:

 

 

Image from this post: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121872-unifrog/&do=findComment&comment=2687188

 

Martin.

[Coryton]

Sounds like they have copied the Code 83 tiebar then. Peco should produce a surface mounted motor to suit a hole. I prefer them because they they go with a quiet click compared with the loud thud of the solenoids.

 

Surely more sense to sell the surface mounted motors with something to go through both holes to link them together rather than carry two different types?

 

In any case a short loop of wire ought to do the trick.

 

I use bits of wire to mount some of my surface mounted point motors further from the point than they are designed for. The hole in the bar on the motor is easier to deal with than the little protrusion on the points tie bar, which the wire loop can come off.

[bertiedog]

The larger plastic area will be needed as the gauge and standards near match, pity the plastic is there at all, and the gap moved further up the blades.

Stephen

[gr.king]

Unifrog simply uses the same wiring scheme that builders of handbuilt pointwork have used for decades:

 

 

3. the vee rails beyond the crossing are connected to the opposite stock rails. For DC operation a section break may be wanted and would normally be connected through a section switch on the control panel.

 

Martin.

Not so. None of my hand built points have ever had the vee rails beyond the crossing permanently bonded to the opposite stock rails. I have built the points as live frog, self switching, and plenty of other builders have done the same. Few, if any that I have seen of the traditional analogue modellers who have been around for most of those decades, have gone for permanent bonding of the rails beyond the crossing in the way that makes both exit roads permanently live.

[Ron Solly]

Not so. None of my hand built points have ever had the vee rails beyond the crossing permanently bonded to the opposite stock rails. I have built the points as live frog, self switching, and plenty of other builders have done the same. Few, if any that I have seen of the traditional analogue modellers who have been around for most of those decades, have gone for permanent bonding of the rails beyond the crossing in the way that makes both exit roads permanently live.

But as Martin said

 

For DC operation a section break may be wanted and would normally be connected through a section switch on the control panel.

 

exit tracks could then be permanently powered and not rely on the turnout to switch power off tracks but left to the operator via the switches.

 

There are many ways of wiring a layout- some simple and others more complex  - each way is correct for that owner....

[martin_wynne]

Not so. None of my hand built points have ever had the vee rails beyond the crossing permanently bonded to the opposite stock rails. I have built the points as live frog, self switching, and plenty of other builders have done the same. Few, if any that I have seen of the traditional analogue modellers who have been around for most of those decades, have gone for permanent bonding of the rails beyond the crossing in the way that makes both exit roads permanently live.

 

You obviously inhabit a different part of the hobby from me. Here the electrical switching is kept entirely separate from the mechanical operation of the points. Polarity switching of the crossings is via relays, and traction feed to the tracks beyond is controlled from the panel, via the interlocking.

 

 

The other members of the team would have questioned my sanity if I said that to isolate a locomotive you must set the points against it, instead of switching it off on the panel. In some cases there are several sets of points ganged together on the same lever. It would make a nightmare.

 

Martin.

[Ron Solly]

You obviously inhabit a different part of the hobby from me. Here the electrical switching is kept entirely separate from the mechanical operation of the points. Polarity switching of the crossings is via relays, and traction feed to the tracks beyond is controlled from the panel, via the interlocking.

 

 

The other members of the team would have questioned my sanity if I said that to isolate a locomotive you must set the points against it, instead of switching it off on the panel. In some cases there are several sets of points ganged together on the same lever. It would make a nightmare.

 

Martin.

and I agree with you Martin on this practice.

[mightbe]

[Adavoyle Junction photo]

 

Martin.

 

Martin, I've seen this (superb) photo many times but it never stuck out to me before; why hadn't the check and wing rails been painted?

 

Quentin

Edited October 15, 2017 by mightbe

[hayfield]

You obviously inhabit a different part of the hobby from me. Here the electrical switching is kept entirely separate from the mechanical operation of the points. Polarity switching of the crossings is via relays, and traction feed to the tracks beyond is controlled from the panel, via the interlocking.

 

 

The other members of the team would have questioned my sanity if I said that to isolate a locomotive you must set the points against it, instead of switching it off on the panel. In some cases there are several sets of points ganged together on the same lever. It would make a nightmare.

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin

 

When I first built SMP turnouts they had a method of the central piece of metal on the tiebar (being connected to the common crossing by wire) touching one of 2 pieces of wire soldered to the sleeper behind it. And if memory serves me well Marcway insulate the stock rails from the switch rails and common crossing, so the polarity is changed when the tip of the switch rails touch a stock rail. Not saying either is desirable, or have no issues regarding operation etc

[chris p bacon]

You obviously inhabit a different part of the hobby from me. Here the electrical switching is kept entirely separate from the mechanical operation of the points. Polarity switching of the crossings is via relays, and traction feed to the tracks beyond is controlled from the panel, via the interlocking.

 

 

The other members of the team would have questioned my sanity if I said that to isolate a locomotive you must set the points against it, instead of switching it off on the panel. In some cases there are several sets of points ganged together on the same lever. It would make a nightmare.

 

Martin.

 

I'm guessing you went for Peco code 75 for that..........................

[Clive Mortimore]

You obviously inhabit a different part of the hobby from me. Here the electrical switching is kept entirely separate from the mechanical operation of the points. Polarity switching of the crossings is via relays, and traction feed to the tracks beyond is controlled from the panel, via the interlocking.

 

 

The other members of the team would have questioned my sanity if I said that to isolate a locomotive you must set the points against it, instead of switching it off on the panel. In some cases there are several sets of points ganged together on the same lever. It would make a nightmare.

 

Martin.

Having wired up several layouts, my own, club and mates, I have found there are more than a few ways which to energise a live frog and the wiring of both routes from that frog. None of them wrong but only one of them is right for that layout and those operating it.

 

 With my last two layouts I have used Peco insulated frogs, much simpler and with today's diesel models with their all wheel pick up and drive no problem. Even my scratchbuilt 165hp 0-4-0 Barclay doesn't stall on a Peco medium radius inslufrog point.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[gr.king]

You obviously inhabit a different part of the hobby from me.  

Martin.

It's a very large part of the hobby too. That very point demonstrates that the confidently declared "standard according to Martin Wynne" is NOT necessarily the universally accepted "correct" view in the hobby as a whole, nor need it even be the majority view, no matter how many times Martin Wynne tries to tell everybody that his opinion, definition or method is the "standard" one. Electrically isolating hand made points are commonplace, as is the view that OO represents standard gauge reality as opposed to some fictional prototype, and we don't all believe that pointwork constructed without neatly numerical crossing angles or with tighter-than-prototypical curvature is rubbish. This applies no matter how much Martin Wynne and his followers repeat their statements.

 

I'd rather not post contentious replies of this sort, but if false and contentious "universal truths" are asserted, they have to be countered.

[martin_wynne]

It's a very large part of the hobby too. That very point demonstrates that the confidently declared "standard according to Martin Wynne" is NOT necessarily the universally accepted "correct" view in the hobby as a whole, nor need it even be the majority view, no matter how many times Martin Wynne tries to tell everybody that his opinion, definition or method is the "standard" one. Electrically isolating hand made points are commonplace, as is the view that OO represents standard gauge reality as opposed to some fictional prototype, and we don't all believe that pointwork constructed without neatly numerical crossing angles or with tighter-than-prototypical curvature is rubbish. This applies no matter how much Martin Wynne and his followers repeat their statements.

 

I'd rather not post contentious replies of this sort, but if false and contentious "universal truths" are asserted, they have to be countered.

 

Oh for heaven's sake. This is a forum. I post opinions, ideas, daft notions, photos, links, scans, prototype facts, in the hope that folks will find it interesting or entertaining to read. Others do the same. Together we create something worth looking at and reading through in the odd moments in life. Maybe even worth referring back to occasionally. No-one is under the slightest obligation to read anything I write, and entirely free to regard it as the ravings of a lunatic.

 

I try as often as possible to include a photo or link or external reference in my posts. So here is something I've posted before but often come back to.

 

Martin.

 

 

Excerpts from "Paddington to Seagood, the story of a model railway" by Gilbert Thomas. Chapman & Hall, London, 1947

[blueeighties]

 

 

As far as the frog tip is concerned, then there is a simple alternative if there's a problem: remove the bonding between the V-rails and the stock rails, and connect them instead to a polarity switch along with the frog wire.  Plus IRJs on them too.

 

This is a brand new rtr product, I doubt many would want to start making modifications like That, and I would be extremely surprised if they were even necessary. Peco will have comprehensively tested all aspects of the product.

[Guest]

I can't wait to see how many times Martin's latest post is quoted in its entirety. I've had to look at that same picture of Adavoyle 5 times on this page.

[bgman]

Do we know what Peco plan to add next....?

 

Apparently they're thinking of starting a thread on a well know web site to see how long it will last !

[hayfield]

It's a very large part of the hobby too. That very point demonstrates that the confidently declared "standard according to Martin Wynne" is NOT necessarily the universally accepted "correct" view in the hobby as a whole, nor need it even be the majority view, no matter how many times Martin Wynne tries to tell everybody that his opinion, definition or method is the "standard" one. Electrically isolating hand made points are commonplace, as is the view that OO represents standard gauge reality as opposed to some fictional prototype, and we don't all believe that pointwork constructed without neatly numerical crossing angles or with tighter-than-prototypical curvature is rubbish. This applies no matter how much Martin Wynne and his followers repeat their statements.

 

I'd rather not post contentious replies of this sort, but if false and contentious "universal truths" are asserted, they have to be countered.

 

 

It makes no matter if you build your own turnouts or just plug and play, poor electrical connections or short circuits will cause issues whoever you are

 

With this system, some (not all) may encounter either poor electrical conductivity and or the possibility of short circuits. For me it seems good advice for a simple warning of what may occur. If it helps one person only then its been worthwhile.

 

There are many who excel in this hobby who always recommend additional power feeds rather than rely on push fit rail joiners or better quality switches rather than simple wipers to change polarity. Its advice which you can chose to ignore, but given the range of 00 wheel specifications are and have been available in the 00 gauge RTR market, might just be good advice 

[Barry O]

Rather than hearing about  theoretical potential for failures can we just wait until we can try these out?   If your back to backs are incorrect sort them out using verniers to measure them and ease them to the correct back to back...do the theory drivers reset handbuilt points to "fit" odd bits of stock which has incorrect back to backs? More fool them if they do!

 

Peco should be applauded in trying to update their track rather than pilloried for "potential"  "theoretical" opportunities for it not to work??

 

 

and to think we were using Triang Super 4 (Series 3 or Standard) when I first started 2 rail modelling way back in 1967... after my early years using tin plate 3 rail Hornby Dublo track...

 

Seem like , in the eyes of at least two people commenting on here no matter what Peco offer it will never be good enough.  remember not all people can build pointwork (indeed some can't build plain track panels) so let us just wait for real life trials before any more theoretical "it won't work" please?

 

baz

Edited October 15, 2017 by Barry O

[martin_wynne]

 so let us just wait for real life trials before any more theoretical "it won't work" please?

 

It's extraordinary how folks can read what they want to read in a post, instead of the actual words. No-one anywhere in this topic has said that it won't work.

 

My actual words were: "At first sight, there does seem to be a risk of wheel-back short circuits at the knuckle. Some adjustment of back-to-backs on older models may be needed...We may even find when these first turnouts are actually released, that there is a longer plastic section than shown in the pre-production photo."

 

Martin.

[Barry O]

Martin

 

Read exactly what you have said...it implies that the item may not be fit for purpose. But it's all theoretical....

 

Baz

[Ron Solly]

Outside of the obvious improvement to the appearance of turnouts, IMO the Unifrog is ideal for DCC users. I converted my Code 75 electrofrog turnouts to Unifrog to save having to instal switches on the manual slide rods/levers  I used on one station. My only 0-6-0 has no problems.  Though I tried it with Code 75 3 way asymmetrical SL-E199 and the Pannier did stop - the turnout required more gaps and bonding of existing so the two frogs which require some form of switching were not directly next to each other but with some wired rail - a real PITA!

 

For DC users, maybe an extra switch or two is required & not relying on the setting of the turnout to isolate locos. But each to his/her own...

[Ron Solly]

Martin

 

Read exactly what you have said...it implies that the item may not be fit for purpose. But it's all theoretical....

 

Baz

 

 

Fit for purpose ? One may say that the existing Code 75 are not fit for purpose as they will not allow people with old style Tri-ang or Lima wheels to run through them !

 

I doubt any turnout will not take without some problems, stock with back-to backs that are not within the acceptable "standard"

[Clive Mortimore]

Fit for purpose ? One may say that the existing Code 75 are not fit for purpose as they will not allow people with old style Tri-ang or Lima wheels to run through them !

 

I doubt any turnout will not take without some problems, stock with back-to backs that are not within the acceptable "standard"

Hi Ron

 

Until very recently I was regularly running both Tri-ang and Lima on code 75 track and point work. No problems with them.

 

I will be again when I build my next layout.

 

An odd thing with Lima is the wheels look rubbish, and people say all sorts of things about them but they are reliable. I have ran them on a club layout which had handbuilt and SMP plastic points, code 75 bullhead, my own hand built track code 75 bullhead, Peco code 100 and 75. I cannot readily recall them having any problems. Hornby, Heljan, Bachmann, and Dapol have all given me problems on all types of track.