DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[Nick Holliday]

I was very interested to see, in the latest Hornby Magazine, that DCC Concepts were introducing a range of RTR bullhead rail points in OO gauge.  However, my excitement was rather dulled when I looked closer at the photograph of the completed turnout, and spotted what I believe is a fundamental error.  The check rails extend one sleeper beyond the ends of the wing rails of the crossing.  In every photo of the real thing, except where circumstances such as other turnouts close by, interlaced sleepers or extreme curvature, the check rails end on the same timber as the wing rails. 

 

I note that the piece mentions that it is based upon MR drawings which were published by Slaters – these self-same drawings featured in Bob Essery’s series on track in MRJ from Issue 22 onwards, and, at the time, over twenty years ago, I pointed out this error, in a subsequent feedback article, and no-one made any comment either way.  However, at least Bob Essery seems to have taken the fact on board, as his superb ScaleSeven trackwork for Dewsbury is correct in this regard.  I fear that DCC Concepts, wanting to keep this under wraps, didn’t want to reveal their CAD design to the public, and didn’t receive the necessary feedback.  They also ignored the old adage of about not working to drawings without reference to photographs!

 

The oldpway.info website has lots of examples of pre-grouping pointwork, although not Midland, which confirm my observations.  Clear photos of Midland turnouts are a bit harder to find, but there are several in the Foxline book, Midland Railway Portrait, that show what I mean, dating from 1879 to 1922.

 

It is interesting that the same mistake has occurred in the 2mm scale turnout that featured in the recent MRJ.  In that case, as my letter in the current issue notes, it is impossible to say, without seeing the unmade kit in the flesh, whether the error is as a result of the design, instructions or a slip by the builder.  Whatever the cause, the 2MM Society have chosen to use this example for their initial advertising, so they obviously don’t consider anything is awry.

 

On RMweb I have also raised a similar topic regarding the Watercress Line’s current permanent way, which also seems to be based upon the same MR/Slaters drawings, and I received a lot of support from members.

[gordon s]

I haven't seen the article you refer to, but did see the one in BRM which features DCC Concepts turnout kit rather than a RTR product.  If it is the same one, then I agree the check rails are shown too long, but wonder if this is an error on the part of the builder, rather than an error in a RTR product.

 

http://www.dccconcepts.com/vamr/brm-magazine-dccconcepts-legacy-point-kit

 

Their turnout drawings on their site appear correct, which support the idea that it was an error on behalf of the builder and not a generic error on a RTR product.

 

http://www.dccconcepts.com/vamr/legacy-track-template-turnout-b6

Edited April 14, 2016 by gordon s

[Nick Holliday]

Looking at the BRM article the mistake is entirely down to the builder as the etched chairs are correct but he has extended the check rail well past the last one.  However, that has nothing to do with the Hornby Magazine announcement. It is very definitely trumpeted as RTR and with moulded chairs clearly visible in the accompanying photo it has little to do with the kits produced so far, which hare of soldered construction.

[JimF51]

A bit surprising that news like that, and now out to all via Hornby magazine, is not on the website?

 

Jim

[2mm Andy]

 

It is interesting that the same mistake has occurred in the 2mm scale turnout that featured in the recent MRJ.  In that case, as my letter in the current issue notes, it is impossible to say, without seeing the unmade kit in the flesh, whether the error is as a result of the design, instructions or a slip by the builder.  Whatever the cause, the 2MM Society have chosen to use this example for their initial advertising, so they obviously don’t consider anything is awry.

 

 

Nick,

 

I can confirm that the error with the 2mm turnout as featured in the MRJ article is not a fault of the kit. It seems that the builder made a mistake in building it, which he subsequently corrected. Unfortunately the wrong photos were then used in the article and the press release that appeared in a subsequent MRJ. I believe that the author has contacted MRJ and a correction will hopefully be appearing in a subsequent issue.

 

Apologies to all for the slightly off-topic posting.

 

Regards,

 

Andy Hanson

Chairman, 2mm Scale Association

Edited April 14, 2016 by 2mm Andy

[Grovenor]

 

these self-same drawings featured in Bob Essery’s series on track in MRJ from Issue 22 onwards, and, at the time, over twenty years ago, I pointed out this error, in a subsequent feedback article, and no-one made any comment either way.

Just had a look at Bob's articles in MRJ 22 and 23 and I don't see any drawing with the error you mention, could you specify which drawing on which page?

Regards

Edited April 14, 2016 by Grovenor

[Nick Holliday]

Just had a look at Bob's articles in MRJ 22 and 23 and I don't see any drawing with the error you mention, could you specify which drawing on which page?

Regards

Sorry, I have just searched my loft and found my stash of MRJ but unfortunately I must have removed the relevant issues t on time for reference and I have no idea where they may be now. The articles and follow ups covered a number of issues, up to 25, so the drawing might be there. I apologise if I have got it wrong, it was twenty years ago and there have been several similar articles before and since, so the drawing may have accompanied one of those instead. Nonetheless the HM article describes them as being built to Midland drawings, so perhaps I didn't imagine them.

[Grovenor]

Sorry, I have just searched my loft and found my stash of MRJ but unfortunately I must have removed the relevant issues t on time for reference and I have no idea where they may be now. The articles and follow ups covered a number of issues, up to 25,

I found a 2 part article in issues 22 and 23 with a follow up in 26, the first two contain a number of drawings but I can't see any such as you describe. The follow up is text and photos only and is mainly composed of readers contributions including yours.

In what I think must be your contribution there is no mention of check rails being longer than the wing rails but rather that both are over long on a single slip drawing in MRJ22 that is attributed to Slaters, reproduced rather small and does not look to be well drawn..

so the drawing might be there. I apologise if I have got it wrong, it was twenty years ago and there have been several similar articles before and since, so the drawing may have accompanied one of those instead.

Fig 32 in MRJ23 does claim to be copyright Slaters and has normal check rail positioning and drawn a bit better than the single slip.

Nonetheless the HM article describes them as being built to Midland drawings, so perhaps I didn't imagine them.

It seems an odd idea in the first place to use pre-group company drawings to design a general purpose rtr point which hopes for a wide appeal.

Regards

Edited April 14, 2016 by Grovenor

[Richard Johnson]

*** Have fun with the discussion guys.... but please don't try to make an analysis of the meaning of life from a couple of press "holiday snaps".

 

(1) The samples you saw used T1 tooling for the base of the turnout (Yes, we have actually cut metal / have some initial trial plastic for the B7 turnouit bases) and were put together in a few days by hand for the meeting. They most certainlywere not perfect but were "Much more perfect" than any RTR turnout using bullhead rail that has ever existed so far.

 

We were quite clear about that in the meeting that saw them presented but this sort of thing never hits the press properly.

 

(2) The final turnouts will be done to prototype drawings ONLY.

 

ALL major details like check rails will match those drawings. You wil be free to criticise as I know some will, but the simple fact is that they WILL be pretty well right. It just may not be to your preference. We accept that.

 

(3) They will be created with the minimum compromise required for smooth running of out-of-the-box RTR with minimum adjustment.

 

This will require some tweaks unique to hobby use but we cannot help that. We think that looking right matters a LOT and that looking right + running quality = happy customers = trumps one-upmanship every time. 

 

So....

 

Please just let us get on with it for the good of the 4mm scale-OO part of the hobby and the average modeller that just wants something that much nicer to run their trains on.

 

We have enough to do without the distractions :-) :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts.

[Richard Johnson]

Nick, I do not know where this bit of total fantasy came from, but that is NOT the case. The drawings we are using took an age to find BUT they are 100% ORIGINAL from the drawing office of the railways. We would nver use drawings published or interpreted by any 3rd party for any project.

 

There is no relvance to anything or anything of useful benefit to be gleaned from what was photographed and said other than that we are totally committed to this project.

 

<Snip>  (from Nicks comment)

 

I note that the piece mentions that it is based upon MR drawings which were published by Slaters 

 

<SNIP>

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

[Richard Johnson]

***Re the posting surprised it isn't on our website,

 

It is simply because we are re-building the back end of it totally to cope with multi-currency and other things and will not greatly change content until that project is finsihed.  

 

The significant change isn't something I welcomed as it means a seriously time and money cost in the re-building and will leave many important things not online for a while but that's life.

 

It will eventuall get there... within a useful period before final availability.

 

Richard

[Nick Holliday]

I certainly don’t want to prolong this discussion and I am very keen to see such quality pointwork appear on the market and be successful, but I also don’t want to be painted as the villain of the piece – a trackwork pretender following in Adrian Swain’s shoes, perhaps. The argument is more with the magazine for pre-empting DCC’s formal announcement, and the photo used (I think calling it a holiday snap is rather a cheap personal shot).

I can only apologise that my train of logic was faulty in linking the name Slaters with this situation.  I recall their name being behind a series of 7mm Midland Railway point drawings, which I believed contained errors, when I saw an example somewhere.  I didn’t purchase any of them as they are not my personal interest, so I cannot provide chapter and verse.  I then see this item in a magazine where a similar error has been perpetrated, and a note saying that the point was based on MR drawings.  I put two and two together and obviously made five, but there remained the possibility that Slaters had based their templates on MR drawings which may have been in error.

There is also the string of coincidences – my observations here regarding the current practice on the Watercress Line – the identical error in the recent MRJ article on the 2mm Society kit, as well as this sample, which seemed to be developing an unhappy trend, although I have seen the answer regarding the last two, which was a relief.

Whilst Richard seems to think I am stirring things up, would he prefer me to keep quiet and let him go into production with a flawed product?  I wasn’t exactly nit-picking or questioning his selection of one company’s design over another, and I am certainly not knocking the product which is a tremendous advance on any current RTR offerings, but I wasn’t to know that it was all in hand: a simple acknowledgement of the situation would have sufficed, although I have no idea what a T1 tooling is!

[martin_wynne]

(Yes, we have actually cut metal / have some initial trial plastic for the B7 turnout bases)

 

Some confusion here?

 

"B" switches were introduced as "Standard Railway Equipment" by the REA in 1925.

 

There was no such thing as a "B" switch or a B7 turnout on the Midland Railway.

 

Here's a Midland Railway 15ft switch:

 

 

Full-size scan: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/original/2_191726_470000001.jpg

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Edwardian]

Well done DCC Concepts and more fool those who peek out from their beery heights for not spotting the opportunity sooner

[Ravenser]

We look forward with interest to the results.

 

One way or another, from some source, it looks as if ready made "genuine OO" pointwork will finally  be available in the near future. 

[NHY 581]

*** Have fun with the discussion guys.... but please don't try to make an analysis of the meaning of life from a couple of press "holiday snaps".

 

(1) The samples you saw used T1 tooling for the base of the turnout (Yes, we have actually cut metal / have some initial trial plastic for the B7 turnouit bases) and were put together in a few days by hand for the meeting. They most certainlywere not perfect but were "Much more perfect" than any RTR turnout using bullhead rail that has ever existed so far.

 

We were quite clear about that in the meeting that saw them presented but this sort of thing never hits the press properly.

 

(2) The final turnouts will be done to prototype drawings ONLY.

 

ALL major details like check rails will match those drawings. You wil be free to criticise as I know some will, but the simple fact is that they WILL be pretty well right. It just may not be to your preference. We accept that.

 

(3) They will be created with the minimum compromise required for smooth running of out-of-the-box RTR with minimum adjustment.

 

This will require some tweaks unique to hobby use but we cannot help that. We think that looking right matters a LOT and that looking right + running quality = happy customers = trumps one-upmanship every time.

 

So....

 

Please just let us get on with it for the good of the 4mm scale-OO part of the hobby and the average modeller that just wants something that much nicer to run their trains on.

 

We have enough to do without the distractions :-) :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts.

Without a doubt one of the best posts I have read in a long time.

 

Too often threads such as this descend into a mind numbing mish mash of closet experts trying to out expert each other. If the thread could be converted to make a noise I am sure it would sound like a Mr Bean soundalike competition.

 

Witness the carnage of the PECO Bullfrog thread........

 

Well done.

 

Rob.

Edited April 15, 2016 by nhy581

[Richard Johnson]

*** Hi Martin,

 

Fair comment and of course as usual quite correct, and I am aware of the timing of introduction of REA standards in general terms, but I needed some sort of "near equivalent description" to give a context that the greater masses will perhaps register with in relation to its overall size and usefulness, so chose that. 

 

No confusion in my mind at all though :-)

 

*** Hi Nick,

 

NO, "Holiday snap" wasn't a cheap shot any more than a P4 modeller referring to his train-set as many do. - it was just an attempt to be light hearted.

 

As to the the major issue - any such assumption is goind to lead to 1+1 = 3.675 type errors. Ascribing our efforts to Slaters drawings was a huge leap of your own imagination rather than a minor error.... as is assuming we used one drawing and that the one we chose might coincidentally include "an error by the Midland railway" at that.

 

We have on hand literally hundreds of original drawings, no mean feat as the core of original track archives often seemed better hidden than Atlantis during our search.

 

Remember too that:

 

(1) The target is the 99%, not "we who model in finer details" - and I DO include myself in that last 1% for much of my modelling - so I also agonising over the little things. But - overall, the 1% (including me) are totally irrelevant to the project.

 

(2) We have a long railway history to choose from, things varied ...and what we choose may well not suit everyone :-). It WILL be based on "our reality" though.

 

(3) The "real world need" to accommodate RTR imperfections will most definitely give need for minor tweaks that may offend some. 

 

Now I need to move on to deciding the more important things, like whether to do a matching geometry outside slip or appropriate matching diamonds as the next step in creating a progressively useful range, and when to add the catch point to the range, early or late (That one has reversed modeller and prototype priorities).... much more important than details that few will even give a moments thought to.

 

How about making the thread useful, and defining the RMweb ideal "order of release" for a complete range! No promises but it help - and it will be interesting to read it.

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

 

Some confusion here?

 

"B" switches were introduced as "Standard Railway Equipment" by the REA in 1925.

 

There was no such thing as a "B" switch or a B7 turnout on the Midland Railway.

 

Here's a Midland Railway 15ft switch:

 

 

Full-size scan: http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/original/2_191726_470000001.jpg

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Gilloverland]

Well I for one think this is excellent news, along with PECO's bull head rail announcements.

 

I don't have the time or skill to hand build track so more prototypical track can only be a good thing given how good RTR stock has got in the last few few years. 

 

On the practical side the sleepers look a bit thin, will the rail heights match other manufactures products?

 

On the product front I'd like to see some form of 'medium' turn outs, that give a crossover and maintain the 6' between running lines without taking up too much space on my 'train set'.

[Richard Johnson]

*** The top of the bullhead rail exactly matches the top of the code 75 peco if both are laid on the same surface or trackbed. This can only be achieved with thinner sleepers.

 

Richard

[gismorail]

It is very refreshing to see some common sense being applied to the very thorny subject of model railway track work and it would appear that DCC Concepts are trying to offer a fairly comprehensive range of turnouts which is brilliant news. Good for you and I wish you luck in this new development.

I think that is going to be a VERY interesting thread to follow .............................   

[Stubby47]

Will they be available in EM gauge as well ?

[Richard Johnson]

Unfortunately no, not unless EM increases exponentially in its hobby participation level - This applies equally to both EM and P4 which are simply not economically sensible for this sort of project.

 

Richard

 

Will they be available in EM gauge as well ?

[gismorail]

Unfortunately no, not unless EM increases exponentially in its hobby participation level - This applies equally to both EM and P4 which are simply not economically sensible for this sort of project.

 

Richard

That is a very sensible statement Richard and it's good that you have made the point early on 

[Stubby47]

Unfortunately no, not unless EM increases exponentially in its hobby participation level - This applies equally to both EM and P4 which are simply not economically sensible for this sort of project.

 

Richard

 

Is that situation a chicken & egg one ?

 

Not many model to EM because there is no track, so there is no track as not many model in EM ?

 

As Peco will no doubt bring out points in BH,  offering an EM range might be a whole new market.

[polybear]

 

How about making the thread useful, and defining the RMweb ideal "order of release" for a complete range! No promises but it help - and it will be interesting to read it.

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

A Borchester "Kit in a Box" may prove popular.....