well filled baps The Sheep Chronicles. The adventures of a Sheep, the Works Forecat and the Works Apprentice, George.

[Gilbert]

4 minutes ago, RodneyS said:

I measured the back to backs and they were 14.6 - 14.70mm.   I decided to reduce this but that is easier said than done as the axles are shouldered so the wheels cannot just be pushed in.

I've both filed the plastic bushes and replaced a few wheel sets. There is something about the profile that is not quite right for the Peco BH turnouts...

[Captain Kernow]

14 minutes ago, RodneyS said:

Both blades bulge out and reduce the gauge to about 16.20mm.    This shouldn't matter too much except for the fact that flanges on modern stock are much thicker than they used to be.

 

The problem seems to be that the flanges on recent models are so thick.

The Beattie well tank, the Hattons P and the Rails Terrier are all about 0.90 - 1.00mm thick.

The Hornby Terrier and a loco with Romford wheels are about 0.70mm.  This is more in line with the old BRMSB standards.

16.2mm is, of course, the gauge of OO-SF.

 

I have found that the flanges on the Accurascale Manor are particularly fat and I know that they won't go through OO-SF trackwork (not just points, plain line as well).

 

Some Heljan diesels are the same (my Hymek and Class 33 had to have new wheels in order to run OK).

 

Other RTR seems OK with 16.2mm, such as everything recent I have by Dapol.

 

[Donw]

It sounds like back to the old days when RTR 00 were such a mixed lot of wheels that the best thing was to replace them all I used MAYGIB ones and if you were replacing them all you may as well go for EM or P4. I went EM.

That said I think Peco should really avoid the gauge narrowing through a turnout.  Have any one had a comment back?

 

Don

[SteveyDee68]

The message I am getting from this discussion of back to back issues, flange widths and gauge narrowing with PECO bullhead points is “Avoid PECO bullhead track until they sort their points out and publicly announce such revisions”

 

Even better is if they recall all previously produced points as “faulty” otherwise I can see a situation where model shops are forced into selling old stock and the buyer won’t know if it is a “dodgy” point or “fixed” one!

 

Steve S

[Captain Kernow]

2 hours ago, SteveyDee68 said:

The message I am getting from this discussion of back to back issues, flange widths and gauge narrowing with PECO bullhead points is “Avoid PECO bullhead track until they sort their points out and publicly announce such revisions”

I'm not sure that the same reservations apply to the plain bullhead flexible track, though?

 

[wiggoforgold]

On 20/07/2024 at 11:37, SteveyDee68 said:

The message I am getting from this discussion of back to back issues, flange widths and gauge narrowing with PECO bullhead points is “Avoid PECO bullhead track until they sort their points out and publicly announce such revisions”

 

Even better is if they recall all previously produced points as “faulty” otherwise I can see a situation where model shops are forced into selling old stock and the buyer won’t know if it is a “dodgy” point or “fixed” one!

 

Steve S

Steve - I think you are being over cautious - they have worked fine for me, both large and medium radius including ones I have curved. I will happily use them again.

Alex

[Mike_Walker]

I agree, I've used both the medium radius on Helland Wharf and the large radius on my large loft layout without any issues.  I have three Beattie Well Tanks and all will run through both types down to a crawl as anyone who was at Chatham over the weekend will have seen.  None of my other locos or stock have issues with these points either.

 

I don't own any Rapido stock but I understand there is an issue with some of their products where the insulating bush in the wheels is too thick in the shoulder which when it comes up against the shouldered axle throws the B-to-B out.

[Gilbert]

26 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

I don't own any Rapido stock but I understand there is an issue with some of their products where the insulating bush in the wheels is too thick in the shoulder which when it comes up against the shouldered axle throws the B-to-B out.

This is true - my understanding that they designed the axles with a rolling pin design to be foolproof as far as B2B s are concerned - unless the plastic bushes are too thick!

I've been either filing the bushes down are just replacing the wheels with something slightly finer.

I've had one or two issues which I've shared with Peco and the gauge on the points can be a little inconsistent - but may well be OK unless wheels with an unusual  profile or an incorrect B2B are used. The PI Victory wheels do seem to fall into that category. In my experience it is confined to the medium turnouts.

I'm also someone who has noticed the odd short resulting from the narrow clearances on the unifrog rails - but only on a few locos such as Hornby 31s. The short is so momentary that it is only apparent with DCC sound - which shuts down.

I shall be perservering with the Peco BH points but I do hope they are quietly noting these issues....

Chris

[Barclay]

On 18/07/2024 at 13:23, NHY 581 said:

 

Hi Graham. I used to model in 1/35th in my teens but I honestly don't have the urge to do any modelling of any sort at present. I'm not going to force it. I tried this with what was Lambsdown. It no longer works for me to model like that. 

 

Rob

 

 

The mojo does desert us from time to time - I had the same thing for much of last year, and you're absolutely right, trying to force yourself to do something will not improve matters. For me, it just came back one day, and I'm sure it will with you, too.

[Donw]

12 hours ago, Gilbert said:

This is true - my understanding that they designed the axles with a rolling pin design to be foolproof as far as B2B s are concerned - unless the plastic bushes are too thick!

I've been either filing the bushes down are just replacing the wheels with something slightly finer.

I've had one or two issues which I've shared with Peco and the gauge on the points can be a little inconsistent - but may well be OK unless wheels with an unusual  profile or an incorrect B2B are used. The PI Victory wheels do seem to fall into that category. In my experience it is confined to the medium turnouts.

I'm also someone who has noticed the odd short resulting from the narrow clearances on the unifrog rails - but only on a few locos such as Hornby 31s. The short is so momentary that it is only apparent with DCC sound - which shuts down.

I shall be perservering with the Peco BH points but I do hope they are quietly noting these issues....

Chris

 

Where is the short occuring. If it is the back of the wheels touching the open blade then I would adapt the turnouts to bond the blades to the stock rails and have them electrically separate from the crossing. My understanding is that Peco have facilitated this. If it is the crossing area I would ensure the whole of the crossing is one switched area  possibly using a frog juicer to stop any problems.

 

Don

[Gilbert]

8 hours ago, Donw said:

 

Where is the short occuring. If it is the back of the wheels touching the open blade then I would adapt the turnouts to bond the blades to the stock rails and have them electrically separate from the crossing. My understanding is that Peco have facilitated this. If it is the crossing area I would ensure the whole of the crossing is one switched area  possibly using a frog juicer to stop any problems.

 

Don

My personal view is that unfortunately some (a very small number in my experience) wheels are simply so "sloppy" that they bridge the rails of different polarities either entering or leaving the frog.

The same can result from incorrect back to backs as well but this is normally easily remedied at least on rolling stock.

FWIW I do wire and switch my frogs and I believe the Unifrogs are already electrically bonded switch to stock. This is courtesy of Tony's Trains (USA):

 

Chris

Edited July 25 by Gilbert

[NHY 581]

Morning all, 

 

I have been experimenting with Peco

Bullhead medium radius points and plain track. Due to the temporary lash up nature of the ensemble, power was confined  to track, none to frogs.
Running was interesting. I have already been chatting elsewhere about the issues some have had with these points but the summary of my experiences this far is this........

There is gauge narrowing through the curved section of the point. Others more qualified than me measured and established it's 16.2, which I understand to be consistent with 00/FS.

I, like others, have a nice selection of wagons by Rapido. They're lovely, state of the art ( Darling ) and I intend to use them, a lot. However, the B2B vary up to 14.8 for reasons detailed above.  Combine this with narrow pointage and as I saw during my test sesh it makes for interesting progress through the points.

Locos..........I want to use short wheelbase locos. For testing purposes, I used a Hattons P Class, actually a couple and a Dapol Rails Terrier. Neither type coped well through the frogs. The P class stuttered but got through. The Terrier just stopped and sulked. The Terrier lacked side play on the driven axle ( in this case beneath the cab ) so reversing through the frog just didn't happen. Forwards there was an improvement but only marginally. Be mindful that these locos run excellently on normal Peco FB code 75 electrofrog pointwork. 

Other locos were tried. A Hornby J 15 was fine though the tender was a bit tight going through. I think this was due to the tender chassis base plate being a tad tight thus reducing side play and the centre axle being a bit tight.

Bachmann USA tank sailed through as did a Bachmann 1F and Jinty.

A Dapol B4, normally a benchmark for good running wasn't particularly happy, neither was a new Hawthorn Leslie but both types stuttered through.

I didn't do any measuring of loco B2B but I think the main issue was that of varying wheel profiles/ flange thickness. The Terrier certainly  looked chunkier to the eye than say the J15. 

I'm therefore in a bit of a quandary. Do I persevere with the Bullhead points for any future projects, lay and wire them properly but with the chance I may not obtain the running I want ( mindful that to do this may well require the re-wheeling of any Rapido wagons used thereon ) or do I revert to Code 75 Streamline points, laid and wired as per as I know all the above locos run well through them. However, given the reason I want to adopt Bullhead points is for a more finescale approach/appearance, this is a backward step and actully one I want to avoid. Therefore, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I should now use British Finescale kit built points on anything in the future, in light of the above. However, given the space constraints I normally work under, I really  want to stay with proprietary ready to lay points at this stage as I question if I'm proficient enough to make my own pointage but then perhaps the only way to know is to have a go.....and the main reason for this 'test piece was to make sure I understand fitting point motors, powering frogs adding droppers etc etc, not the evolving  trackwork issues which should have been the most straightforward aspect of all of this. 

 

Rob

 

[Donw]

I presume from that that because they want to same turnout to be useable as a 'dead' frog turnout the two point rails are rather close.  There would seem to be incompatability problems between some wheels and the turnouts. There is little one can do about that other than replacing such wheels or using other turnouts (build your own?).

 

Don

[St Enodoc]

3 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

Morning all, 

 

I have been experimenting with Peco

Bullhead medium radius points and plain track. Due to the temporary lash up nature of the ensemble, power was confined  to track, none to frogs.
Running was interesting. I have already been chatting elsewhere about the issues some have had with these points but the summary of my experiences this far is this........

There is gauge narrowing through the curved section of the point. Others more qualified than me measured and established it's 16.2, which I understand to be consistent with 00/FS.

I, like others, have a nice selection of wagons by Rapido. They're lovely, state of the art ( Darling ) and I intend to use them, a lot. However, the B2B vary up to 14.8 for reasons detailed above.  Combine this with narrow pointage and as I saw during my test sesh it makes for interesting progress through the points.

Locos..........I want to use short wheelbase locos. For testing purposes, I used a Hattons P Class, actually a couple and a Dapol Rails Terrier. Neither type coped well through the frogs. The P class stuttered but got through. The Terrier just stopped and sulked. The Terrier lacked side play on the driven axle ( in this case beneath the cab ) so reversing through the frog just didn't happen. Forwards there was an improvement but only marginally. Be mindful that these locos run excellently on normal Peco FB code 75 electrofrog pointwork. 

Other locos were tried. A Hornby J 15 was fine though the tender was a bit tight going through. I think this was due to the tender chassis base plate being a tad tight thus reducing side play and the centre axle being a bit tight.

Bachmann USA tank sailed through as did a Bachmann 1F and Jinty.

A Dapol B4, normally a benchmark for good running wasn't particularly happy, neither was a new Hawthorn Leslie but both types stuttered through.

I didn't do any measuring of loco B2B but I think the main issue was that of varying wheel profiles/ flange thickness. The Terrier certainly  looked chunkier to the eye than say the J15. 

I'm therefore in a bit of a quandary. Do I persevere with the Bullhead points for any future projects, lay and wire them properly but with the chance I may not obtain the running I want ( mindful that to do this may well require the re-wheeling of any Rapido wagons used thereon ) or do I revert to Code 75 Streamline points, laid and wired as per as I know all the above locos run well through them. However, given the reason I want to adopt Bullhead points is for a more finescale approach/appearance, this is a backward step and actully one I want to avoid. Therefore, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I should now use British Finescale kit built points on anything in the future, in light of the above. However, given the space constraints I normally work under, I really  want to stay with proprietary ready to lay points at this stage as I question if I'm proficient enough to make my own pointage but then perhaps the only way to know is to have a go.....and the main reason for this 'test piece was to make sure I understand fitting point motors, powering frogs adding droppers etc etc, not the evolving  trackwork issues which should have been the most straightforward aspect of all of this. 

 

Rob

 

Why not try a British Finescale point kit as a test piece? I've no skin in this game but they seem to have been well received.

 

 

[Gilbert]

One point to note is that with unmodified electrofrog points which do not have a feed there is power to the frog whereas if you don't feed the unifrog it will be a dead frog. This explains the performance differences with short wheel base locos..

 

[Donw]

You have my sympathy Rob. Building turnouts from components does take time. I believe the British finescale kits are much quicker, but there is a bit of a fiddle fitting the tiebars.  Short wheelbase locos which suffer from problems with dead frogs can be cured with stay alives., but are probably the least easy to find the room for them.

Don

[woodenhead]

I am inclined to suggest giving British Finescale points a go.

 

Having watched videos of the N gauge ones being made they look very straightforward and bridge the gap between ready to plonk and full self built track.

 

But they are not self latching like a Peco, so you will need something to keep them where they need to be.

[Barclay]

I would say have a go at building your own track, this thread is evidence that you more than have the necessary skills. 

 

As to the points, I do find all this confusing - I last used Peco track in the 1980's and with their standard 'electrofrog' points there was never any bother - why did they change the design? Now people seem to need frog juicers and all sorts. If they were wired up in the same way as hand built points, i.e. the gap between frog assembly and closure rails is perhaps 1/2 inch further down, and the frog/crossing assembly is either one polarity or the other, in its entirety,  then there is never an opportunity for a short. What am I missing?

[NHY 581]

51 minutes ago, NHY 581 said:

Therefore, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I should now use British Finescale kit built points on anything in the future, in light of the above. However, given the space constraints I normally work under, I really  want to stay with proprietary ready to lay points at this stage as I question if I'm proficient enough to make my own pointage but then perhaps the only way to know is to have a go.....and the main reason for this 'test piece was to make sure I understand fitting point motors, powering frogs adding droppers etc etc, not the evolving  trackwork issues which should have been the most straightforward aspect of all of this. 

 

Rob

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Why not try a British Finescale point kit as a test piece? I've no skin in this game but they seem to have been well received.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I am inclined to suggest giving British Finescale points a go.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty much there, chaps. as mentioned in my earlier post. 

 

Or I simply say sod British 4mm,  go European HO ( which has been brewing for a long time ) just to stick with Code 75 electrofrog pointwork......... I already have a start in both Czech and Italian Railways............( Czech is most likely ) 

 

I'm trying to control the frustration I'm feeling right now. I'm determined to have a no rush approach to any new 4mm projects so I may just have a complete stop on everything until this is resolved......one way or the other. 

 

Rob

Edited July 25 by NHY 581

[Tim Dubya]

Building points is easy, the hardest part is starting 👍

 

My first was a C&L B6 kit back in the Brian Lewis days.  I had a few problems which were sorted out via email, although Brian did offer to show me if I popped around but this wasn't necessary once it 'clicked' in my brain box.

 

Even those I've made from scratch after, work... which surprised me the most.

 

Have a play at the very least.

 

Edited July 25 by Tim Dubya
Coffee

[Gilbert]

US HO with Peco track  and Kadees - once you've done that it rather colours your view of other scales and track systems...it's great fun to play trains...reliable and consistent...

Chris

Edited July 25 by Gilbert

[Nick C]

I'd also suggest giving British Finescale a try - you won't have any trouble building them, there's virtually no skill required, just take your time to make sure the rails are all cut to the correct lengths. Wayne is very helpful too, if you have any issues. 

 

I used OO-SF B7s on my big layout, but I think if you're using shorter A5s it might be better to stick with standard OO to allow a bit more 'give' for the more rigid locos?

[Captain Kernow]

3 minutes ago, Nick C said:

I'd also suggest giving British Finescale a try - you won't have any trouble building them, there's virtually no skill required, just take your time to make sure the rails are all cut to the correct lengths. Wayne is very helpful too, if you have any issues. 

 

I used OO-SF B7s on my big layout, but I think if you're using shorter A5s it might be better to stick with standard OO to allow a bit more 'give' for the more rigid locos?

Definitely, definitely avoid OO-SF if using a mix of RTR locos. Rob knows my reasoning for this...

 

[RodneyS]

It's funny how things vary.  My BR Rails Terrier runs through my one Peco bullhead point with no problem.

The flanges are visibly thicker than the Hornby ones but the Rails one does have side play on all the wheels.  

 

I used to build my own points from flat bottom rail and copper clad sleepers.  The first one or two were a bit dodgy but after that I could build a point in an evening.

It was the desire just to buy something, whack it down and have a play that made me want to buy the Peco points.  

 

I would say just have a go at the kit.  I'm sure you will find it easy.

 

Have you considered the code 75 points which you know work well combined with the bullhead track ?

I believe they are compatible in height.

I'm sure that, given your skill with ballasting and weathering, the difference would not be noticeable.

 

I will be buying two more Peco bullhead points.  The 'tweaking' didn't take long and I know what to do now.  Having been inspired by this thread for a long time my own 'sheepish' layout might even happen.

Rodney

 

 

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, RodneyS said:

I used to build my own points from flat bottom rail and copper clad sleepers.  The first one or two were a bit dodgy but after that I could build a point in an evening.

Absolutely. When I was demonstrating copperclad point-building at shows, the usual comment was "I couldn't do that" or similar. My response was always "Have a go. Your first one will be rubbish. Your second one will work but might not look too good. Your third will be fine and you'll never look back".