Flaxfield
Western Thunderer
Hi Jay,
No, I haven't as yet. I've decided to try the Bullhead points, despite having had some issues previously.
What exactly is going on with your examples?
R
Last edited:
Tales from The Room of Doom. Dipping a toe in various bucolic backwaters.
- Thread starter Flaxfield
- Start date
Hi Jay,
No, I haven't as yet. I've decided to try the Bullhead points, despite having had some issues previously.
What exactly is going on with your examples?
R
JayDean
Member
I’ve used one of the PECO code 75 bullhead rail, unifrog points on the Minninglow board. When set to turn into the siding some stock is derailing at the frog. I’ve yet to measure gauge to check consistency yet. I remembered you mentioned a similar issue a while back.
I’ve run a lot of different stock and locomotives through the bullhead points without any derailments. If I have to adjust any wheelsets I use a back to back dimension of 14.5mm
Flaxfield
Western Thunderer
Morning Jay,
Yep, that's the same issues as I had with the medium radius points, and I know Gilbert of the parish had similar issues. As far as I know, the large radius are unaffected. PECO were contacted and whilst their position was that of the points being to the correct spec, there was some acceptance that there were some inconsistencies put down to the fact that the Bullhead range is assembled by hand.
My understanding was that some scrutiny had been given to the assembly of the points some of which were found to be too narrow through the curved section. This seemed to be put down to the area where there chairs are moulded on one side only, allowing the rails to move in. I know of at least one modeller who has taken to gluing the rail into position against these chairs.
That said, the main culprits seemed to be wagons from Rapido whose back to backs were significantly wider than spec ( 14.8 in some instances ) and when combined with a narrowing curved section through the points promoted derailment.
The Rapido wheels can be pushed in as they run on a shouldered axle, designed ( ironically) to ensure that when fully pushed in, the gauge is maintained. Speaking with Rapido last year, they fed this back to the factory concerned. I have bought Alan Gibson wheels to replace some of mine with but again, I'm aware of those who have taken a file to the Rapido axles to dress back a few issues thereby ensuring the wheels sit correctly and in turm restoring the gauge.
It does seem that the issue is not entirely due to dodgy back to backs though. I understand that PECO were to add a Y point to the Bullhead range ahead of Christmas but this has been delayed due to them being unhappy with some aspects of the final product. Small radius points are also imminent and were expected to be available about now and would certainly be welcomed by me, as would the Y point so here's hoping that what ever is delaying their respective releases is resolved.
Another issue I experienced was that certain locos were 'sensitive' to the gauge through the frogs and this was put down to wheel profiles rather than back to backs. New Rails/Dapol Terriers were particularly troublesome. Some short wheelbase base locos also struggled with the uni-frogs if these were unpowered, unlike the equivalent electrofrog points which these same locos sailed through. In some cases, the positioning of the plastic insulated sections corresponded, rather unhelpfully I thought, with the centre and rear drivers or centre and front drivers.
Rob.
Last edited:
Gilbert
Western Thunderer
To add to Rob's narrative - I took a sample of a medium turnout along to a weekend at Missenden in the Autumn (when Rob and I were in contact) for discussion with some modellers who have a lot more track knowledge than me and one of them even said he could see the narrowing on the curved route before he measured it...which he then did and he was correct of course. The other culprit appear to be the PI Victory - I know of one layout where the points have been rebuilt for that reason. But....I must conform that PECO have been very open to this discussion and I can't fault their customer support. I have however replaced a few axles on Rapido stock with Gibsons because even with the B2Bs corrected they were not quite right.
More info - I have built a British Finescale A5 - and it is very good - and I'm not a track builder.
ChrisH
More info - I have built a British Finescale A5 - and it is very good - and I'm not a track builder.
ChrisH
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
Hi Chris - it's not just the Pi Victory that has trouble (in my case on OO-SF track), but also the Accurascale Manor. I know (from Accurascale) that both were made in the same factory. Both feature a 14.5mm b-2-b, but with noticeably thicker flanges.
I also know (from Accurascale again) that not all their forthcoming locos are made in that same factory, I was given to understand that the J69 is made in a different factory, for example, so hopefully that will have a wheel profile more like a Dapol steam loco or a Bachmann pannier etc.
I don't have many Rapido wagons but on the ones that I do have, the flanges are rather thick.
With a back to back of 14.5mm the wheel sets barely fit between the rails.
When a slight gauge narrowing is encountered the wheels ride up.
On the Peco bullhead medium radius points the flanges of my GWR Toad hit the point of the frog on the curved route.
I had to reduced the back to back to under 14.5mm by removing some of the plastic top hat bush.
Then it went through with no trouble.
I don't know why these flanges have to be so thick.
Replacing the wheels as Rob has suggested would be a better solution.
At the toe end of the points I resorted to a bit of bending of the blades with small pliers.
This increased the gauge a bit but then I carefully filed the top of the inside of the blades to increase it a bit more.
That was only an option because I had been forewarned of this problem and the points have not yet been laid.
My Rails Terriers are also troublesome. They don't seem to have any side play on the centre wheels and will stick on curves.
The Hornby Terriers are much better in this respect.
Rodney
With a back to back of 14.5mm the wheel sets barely fit between the rails.
When a slight gauge narrowing is encountered the wheels ride up.
On the Peco bullhead medium radius points the flanges of my GWR Toad hit the point of the frog on the curved route.
I had to reduced the back to back to under 14.5mm by removing some of the plastic top hat bush.
Then it went through with no trouble.
I don't know why these flanges have to be so thick.
Replacing the wheels as Rob has suggested would be a better solution.
At the toe end of the points I resorted to a bit of bending of the blades with small pliers.
This increased the gauge a bit but then I carefully filed the top of the inside of the blades to increase it a bit more.
That was only an option because I had been forewarned of this problem and the points have not yet been laid.
My Rails Terriers are also troublesome. They don't seem to have any side play on the centre wheels and will stick on curves.
The Hornby Terriers are much better in this respect.
Rodney
There’s some very helpful information in there. Thank you.
I would like, for reasons of appearance, to use Peco bullhead for the scenic part of Rowan Colliery.
But I would need:
Small radius turnouts
Y-turnouts
Track of the correct gauge that did not cause derailments
From what you say, all those issues may soon get resolved. I will still have to use code 100 track for some of the scenic area as I need to use a three-way point (to save space). I hope I can use vegetation/coal dust/etc to conceal the height of the rails. But your comments suggest the code 75 bullhead option may be available. Thank you.
Rob R
Western Thunderer
Unfortunately, no. It’s about 2” longer than the Code 100 3-way and that two inches makes a big difference. But thanks for asking.
JayDean
Member
Rob & Chris - thanks for information!
Without wanting to misdirect Rob’s thread much further, after some measurements I can confirm the gauge of the point slightly narrows causing any wheels with a ‘thick’ flange to ride up and derail.
This seems to be limited to RTR stock - fortunately the majority of mine is kit built with either Alan Gibson or Romford wheels. I think for any further C&HPR modules I build, I’m going to have a crack at the Finetrax points. Chris’ comment gives me some faith in this route!
Jay
Without wanting to misdirect Rob’s thread much further, after some measurements I can confirm the gauge of the point slightly narrows causing any wheels with a ‘thick’ flange to ride up and derail.
This seems to be limited to RTR stock - fortunately the majority of mine is kit built with either Alan Gibson or Romford wheels. I think for any further C&HPR modules I build, I’m going to have a crack at the Finetrax points. Chris’ comment gives me some faith in this route!
Jay
Gilbert
Western Thunderer
Flaxfield
Western Thunderer
Evening all,
Great stuff regarding the Bullhead points. I still have misgivings about them but I will be using them on Y Ddôl. I say 'them'...........but........before elaborating further, I noticed something last night.....
So, this view is of the smaller, original 80cm long shelf, except it's not 80cm....it's ahem.....cough.....59cm long.
How on earth I thought it was 80cm I have no idea. It was only when contemplating adding a 30cm x 26cm shelf to act as a 'fiddle stick ' that I thought that doesn't look like 110cm and upon comparing it, the penny dropped.
Far from being a disaster, I was enthused by the idea of producing a working layout in such a limited space. I mean, the actual measurements are irrelevant as I originally thought it was doable when I thought it was 80cm so why wouldn't it be once I knew it was only 59cm ?
Rob
Great stuff regarding the Bullhead points. I still have misgivings about them but I will be using them on Y Ddôl. I say 'them'...........but........before elaborating further, I noticed something last night.....
So, this view is of the smaller, original 80cm long shelf, except it's not 80cm....it's ahem.....cough.....59cm long.
How on earth I thought it was 80cm I have no idea. It was only when contemplating adding a 30cm x 26cm shelf to act as a 'fiddle stick ' that I thought that doesn't look like 110cm and upon comparing it, the penny dropped.
Far from being a disaster, I was enthused by the idea of producing a working layout in such a limited space. I mean, the actual measurements are irrelevant as I originally thought it was doable when I thought it was 80cm so why wouldn't it be once I knew it was only 59cm ?
Rob
Last edited:
Flaxfield
Western Thunderer
So, the question that this 'discovery' posed was if I'm okay with a layout shaping up on a 59cm x 26cm plot, what are the possibilities with a 60cm x 40cm board ?
Or do I accept the limitations and challenges of a plot of 26cm width ?
A decision is therefore needed.
Rob
Or do I accept the limitations and challenges of a plot of 26cm width ?
A decision is therefore needed.
Rob
Flaxfield
Western Thunderer
And so a decision has been reached. I'll be staying with the 59 x 26cm shelf.
The whole idea behind this was producing something in a small space, so why change that approach ?
I championed building a simple and small layout on my thread on the other side in an attempt to get people modelling rather than chatting about anything but modelling. In the end, I felt that there was no real interest in that concept, which was another reason why I've lost interest in trying to maintain a thread on RmWeb. This will be the smallest layout I've built to date so what better way to demonstrate my faith in producing a small, simple but usable ( albeit limited ) layout and one which I challenge anyone to say they don't have room for.
But I'm also mindful that this time last year, I was somewhat excited to be building a shunting layout on an IKEA shelf, a layout which ultimately I lost interest in and moved on.
I don't see that happening with this one, but I do need to make some progress with it to avoid a repeat performance ( or lack of it ).
Rob
The whole idea behind this was producing something in a small space, so why change that approach ?
I championed building a simple and small layout on my thread on the other side in an attempt to get people modelling rather than chatting about anything but modelling. In the end, I felt that there was no real interest in that concept, which was another reason why I've lost interest in trying to maintain a thread on RmWeb. This will be the smallest layout I've built to date so what better way to demonstrate my faith in producing a small, simple but usable ( albeit limited ) layout and one which I challenge anyone to say they don't have room for.
But I'm also mindful that this time last year, I was somewhat excited to be building a shunting layout on an IKEA shelf, a layout which ultimately I lost interest in and moved on.
I don't see that happening with this one, but I do need to make some progress with it to avoid a repeat performance ( or lack of it ).
Rob
Lyndhurstman
Western Thunderer
Hi Rob,
This is a very neat idea (whatever the measurements are
) . My only concern is the space between the end of the front siding and the shed doors; there doesn't seem much room for manoeuvre. Would it be practical to shorten the siding a tad? Cheers
Jan
Rob,
Your attempts to get people to "just build something" have worked. Were it not for showing that someone who can build layouts like you, can enjoy just throwing down some track and having a shunt, I wouldn't have built my shunting-plank-cum-blt, and would have continued drawing track plans, building wagon kits, and agonising over getting it right.
It is a shame that your thread on "the other place" became so frequently derailed, as it made following the modelling harder than necessary, but it is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to post a layout thread over there.
Best of luck with the new layout
Joseph
Northroader
Western Thunderer
Great decision, you’re right.
Willl
Western Thunderer
It really does look larger than 59cm - perhaps because the shed is a narrow gauge structure, yet it looks completely natural.
From my perspective, the key difference between the shelf layout you build last year and this one is simplicity. From what I recall that layout had quite a complex track plan on a fairly small shelf. When I built something similar earlier this year, the sheer amount of trackwork meant that the composition always felt 'off', and the layout only fit the specific buildings and plans I had originally intended, so it was really a bit too rigid to keep up with my rapidly changing interests!
Rye Sands was really a response to that, and minimising the amount of track gave a sort of blank canvas which meant I could change my mind as I went along without feeling disillusioned or losing interest.
Will