DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[chris p bacon]

However, Richard is producing 4ft-1.5in gauge pointwork. 

 Pulls pin from grenade......

[Edwardian]

TAKE COVER!!!!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Hi Joseph,

 

For 4ft-8.5in gauge, yes.

 

However, Richard is producing 4ft-1.5in gauge pointwork. The narrower gauge means shorter lead lengths. Exactly how the prototype components should be used / adjusted / rescaled for this purpose is a constant source of discussion, and it affects the actual lengths.

 

If he goes for 4ft-0.6in gauge (16.2mm) the lengths are fractionally shorter still.

 

In any event, Richard has also said that he used the term "B7" purely for illustrative purposes, and it has been reported that the product will actually be based on pre-grouping Midland Railway designs.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

I would prefer to say that he is producing a model B7 at 16.5mm gauge. We do know the dimensions for that because it is the same as HO and various manufacturers already do them.

 

Could be wrong but I think Richard said the opposite. He is looking to produce a B7 but used a Midland Rly design as an illustrative model.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Joseph_Pestell

[martin_wynne]

Could be wrong but I think Richard said the opposite. He is looking to produce a B7 but used a Midland Rly design as an illustrative model.

 

Perhaps we need to wait for some clarity on this point?

 

In this reply: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110254-dcc-concepts-oo-gauge-bullhead-turnouts/&do=findComment&comment=2276375

 

Richard said that he used the term B7 because he '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'.

 

Which suggested to me that it will be similar to, but something other than a B7. We do know that it will be 1:7 from his recent posts, and it would make sense to use shorter pre-group geometry for the switch as a space-saving measure.

 

(a B switch is Natural with a 1:8 crossing at 4ft-8.5in gauge, and with 1:8.5 at 4ft-1.5in gauge. So for a 1:7 turnout in 4ft-1.5in gauge there would be a useful length saving by using a switch shorter than a B, and still remain Natural.)

 

He will be understandably reluctant to give too many details until the final product is ready for release.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited April 26, 2016 by martin_wynne

[Dominion]

........

 

Sequence:   We have to accept that space will always be an issue for most customers so we are taking a middle position that we hope satisfies most too. We feel that the "mid" choices are first - so appx equivalent to B7 or similar in points, followed by outside slip and catch point (1 blade). Then probably a #5 equivalent pair and diamonds for the #7 and # 5's. The rest, including larger points and outside slip to follow if my sanity holds up :-). 3-way and double slips will be a challenge, but are fortunately rare enough on a realistic model to be much later and anyway... also less of an issue.

 

......

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts

 

Very helpful, thanks Richard. Why an outside slip early in the sequence or was that a typo as you also mention outside slips later in the sequence ?

I thought inside slips were much more common in UK formations, and that outside slips were much less common ?  

Regards, Tom

[martin_wynne]

Why an outside slip early in the sequence or was that a typo

 

That was almost certainly a typo.

 

A 1:7 outside slip would be extremely long. Inside slips are much more common than outside slips, and 1:7 is a common size for them.

 

For 1:5 an inside slip would have a very sharp radius, and that's where an outside slip typically comes into play.

 

Martin.

[Vistisen]

I would prefer to say that he is producing a model B7 at 16.5mm gauge. We do know the dimensions for that because it is the same as HO and various manufacturers already do them.

 

Could be wrong but I think Richard said the opposite. He is looking to produce a B7 but used a Midland Rly design as an illustrative model.

Nope sorry Joseph, I have a great deal of respect for you and can't wait to see your project come to fruition, I hope to be one of your customers. But this is exactly the problem in a nut shell. I know and accept that any 'OO' gauge point is a compromise simply because it is OO, Just because there are others that make a 'B7' ( which I'm sure Martin at one point wrote somewhere on this forum technically does not really exist as a nomenclature for a point), that does not mean that they will all be the same compromise. Therefore I stand by my original statement that we need to know DCC concepts' dimensions, just as in the (hopefully short) future I will be asking you the same thing

[martin_wynne]

Therefore I stand by my original statement that we need to know DCC concepts' dimensions

 

See: http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266&view=findpost&p=456490

 

  "Yes, when we finish we will of course provide details to the track planning people - but that has to wait until we approve final tooling in case of tiny adjustments."

 

Generally Richard Johnson posts more frequently on that forum than RMweb.

 

Martin.

[2750Papyrus]

See: http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266&view=findpost&p=456490

 

  "Yes, when we finish we will of course provide details to the track planning people - but that has to wait until we approve final tooling in case of tiny adjustments."

 

Generally Richard Johnson posts more frequently on that forum than RMweb.

 

Martin.

 

Beware - when I clicked on this link, my virus checker detected an attack!

[RBAGE]

Whatever turnout anyone produces will be a compromise. Even hand built points by Norman Solomon aren't correct in every detail.

 

The point is (pun intended) that what we might expect will be a huge leap forward and is likely to be better than most people can hand and mean you can finish your layout much quicker than you expected and to a better standard than mass produced RTR had offered in the past. Also at a reasonable price (we're promised).

 

What is absolutely unnecessary is to dissect every detail, unless it will contribute to the end product, even before we know what it is. 

 

The timing is unfortunate for me as I'm about to lay track and will have to make my own turnouts. I doubt that they will look as good or be as reliable as that to be offered by Richard, but for heavens sake, wait and see.

 

Bob  

[Ben Alder]

I look round there from time to time - its quite safe to visit!

[Richard Johnson]

*** Its interesting to see the comments. Thank you.

 

If we leave out the "inside or outside" issue and consider (my own) modelling preferences -  To me a single slip is an excellent choice as most station related point-work minimised facing points on running lines - and long Back-in sidings were common / main line passing loops were comparatively rare pre WW2 as far as I am concerned as an MR/LMS Modeller - this continued most places for a very large part of the steam era. Therefore to me points + slip rather than diamond is the logical sequence.

 

Inside or outside is just a decision issue related to it but I do like the look of an outside slip :-). We could possibly do both of course?

 

I DO know how hard slips can be in OO... The K crossing gaps in shallower slips become seriously tight in OO if you are not careful - I have a couple I built not long ago and they ended up at 0.8mm at the K because there was simply NO room for more the way I built them. Impossible for Hornby and Bachmann RTR as their ex factory BTB often varies by more than that!

 

-----------------------------

 

Re the track centres, its a good question. The modeller in me says "just cut to suit" but I know I have to think deeper than that.

 

We are not creating a lego or set-track type relationship so I can think of it as simply a decision and a small drawing change. My own though process says keep it close to prototype, but that will mean transitions + expanded centres on curves.

 

What do YOU think or want?

 

Richard

[mightbe]

Single slip is the obvious choice--right after (or with) matching turnouts. They're easily the most common "special" formation in my estimation, often used (like you said) to give trailing access.

 

Inside makes the most sense to me--because they're far more common in the UK. An outside slip is noticeably unusual, in other words.

 

I personally like the 'cut to suit' approach to spacing--50 mm out of the box (and cut as the modeller wishes) seems sensible enough. (especially given that the timbering won't be quite right for mainline crossovers anyway, unless you're going to offer them as their own discrete units)

 

Quentin

[2750Papyrus]

I look round there from time to time - its quite safe to visit!

 

Have gone back into this link this morning with no problems. 

 

I've not had the message displayed by my virus checker before but will note details if it recurs.

[martin_wynne]

I DO know how hard slips can be in OO... The K crossing gaps in shallower slips become seriously tight in OO if you are not careful - I have a couple I built not long ago and they ended up at 0.8mm at the K because there was simply NO room for more the way I built them. Impossible for Hornby and Bachmann RTR as their ex factory BTB often varies by more than that!

 

Hi Richard,

 

If you are looking at slips and diamonds flatter than about 1:5.5 for 00 RTR models I would strongly recommend doing them as movable K-crossings (switch diamonds). This eliminates all the problems with K-crossing flangeway gaps, mis-tracking, finding space for check rails, etc., is 10 times easier and simpler to build in 00, and runs perfectly for all wheels. Plus of course you sell 2 extra point motors.

 

A turnout and inside single slip is the classic trailing access to goods yards, refuge sidings and loops. This is Monsal Dale on the Midland Railway:

 

In bullhead days:

 

image linked from: http://i942.photobucket.com/albums/ad265/leefitzgerald/1997-7397_DY_36_zpsbeciqlhq.jpg

 

Later flat-bottom days (inclined FB, pre-Pandrol):

 

image linked from: http://i942.photobucket.com/albums/ad265/leefitzgerald/013-view%20up%20towards%20signal%20box%20and%20goods%20siding_zps7vnumia8.jpg

 

A common size for this would be 1:7.5 -- that's because 1:8 is the flattest angle allowed for fixed K-crossings and then only if all 4 diamond legs are straight. Using 1:7.5 allows the formation to be laid in a curved running line without breaking the rules.

 

See also: http://scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4629

 

p.s. there is no way an outside slip would fit in the available space in the above example. Here is a more typical location for an outside slip, on a shorter crossing angle -- often an irregular diamond, as here (Shrewsbury):

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited April 27, 2016 by martin_wynne

[Richard Johnson]

*** Thank you Martin - really useful pragmatic advice.... and helpful photos too.

 

Richard

[Dominion]

Single slip is the obvious choice--right after (or with) matching turnouts. They're easily the most common "special" formation in my estimation, often used (like you said) to give trailing access.

 

Inside makes the most sense to me--because they're far more common in the UK. An outside slip is noticeably unusual, in other words.

 

I personally like the 'cut to suit' approach to spacing--50 mm out of the box (and cut as the modeller wishes) seems sensible enough. (especially given that the timbering won't be quite right for mainline crossovers anyway, unless you're going to offer them as their own discrete units)

 

Quentin

This matches exactly the way I would think about it too.

Tom

[Kelly]

Great to see a new range of better RTR OO track/pointwork coming to market. Best of luck with it.

[martin_wynne]

An interesting reply from Richard Johnson about the new DCC Concepts bullhead track, in which he has declined to confirm that it will be 16.5mm gauge, or rule out the possibility of 16.2mm gauge, or something in between:

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266&view=findpost&p=461737

Bear in mind that DCC Concepts already supply 00-SF (16.2mm) gauges for their Legacy track kits.

16.2mm flexi-track would be a huge leap forward, and eliminate the sometimes bad-tempered discussions we have had on RMweb about where and how handbuilt 00-SF (4-SF) pointwork should be transitioned to 16.5mm flexi-track.

Martin.

[Budgie]

I have a few questions

• Will the track be suitable for outside use in the southern UK?
• Can I get a discount for buying in bulk (100 yards or more)?
• Are you thinking of doing a scissors crossover at some time?

I am thinking of sorting out my garden railway, which will involve replacing all of the trackwork. Edited May 11, 2016 by Budgie

[RBAGE]

I have a few questions

• Will the track be suitable for outside use in the southern UK?
• Can I get a discount for buying in bulk (100 yards or more)?
• Are you thinking of doing a scissors crossover at some time?

I am thinking of sorting out my garden railway, which will involve replacing all of the trackwork.

 

What about up north?

[martin_wynne]

What about up north?

 

The greatest harm comes from UV embrittlement, caused by strong sunlight.

 

It may fare better in the perpetual gloom of the frozen north.

 

Martin.

[Budgie]

The greatest harm comes from UV embrittlement, caused by strong sunlight.

Don't I know it! That's why I'm replacing all the trackwork.

[Richard Johnson]

*** In relation to Gauge, the objective is best possible running for RTR with the best visual appeal overall, especially at the common crossing. As I have said elsewhere there are limits to what I wish to discuss as yet as it is a commercial issue, but good common sense can draw fair conclusions. It will look and run well.

 

As to using it outside... The material is at least as stable as those who claim it is OK - but it simply makes no sense to me to use finescale track in a hostile environment.

 

I'd suspect local forna and accident will be more the issue in most places than light.... however NO brand is stable long term outside as I have proven with tests over many years - UV is certainly less of an issue than where I did the tests but its still an issue nevertheless... as one reply above seems to reconfirm..

 

A discount? I have no idea, you will need to ask your local shop. 

 

No, I will not consider making a scissors crossing.... Sorry.

 

Regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts

[Stephen Freeman]

*** In relation to Gauge, the objective is best possible running for RTR with the best visual appeal overall, especially at the common crossing. As I have said elsewhere there are limits to what I wish to discuss as yet as it is a commercial issue, but good common sense can draw fair conclusions. It will look and run well.

 

As to using it outside... The material is at least as stable as those who claim it is OK - but it simply makes no sense to me to use finescale track in a hostile environment.

 

I'd suspect local forna and accident will be more the issue in most places than light.... however NO brand is stable long term outside as I have proven with tests over many years - UV is certainly less of an issue than where I did the tests but its still an issue nevertheless... as one reply above seems to reconfirm..

 

A discount? I have no idea, you will need to ask your local shop. 

 

No, I will not consider making a scissors crossing.... Sorry.

 

Regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts

I remember many years ago (when I was a teenager) coming to that conclusion (the chairs became brittle the sleepers cracked and rail joiners broke). These days I suspect that UV radiation is much stronger and failure can be expected sooner.  However Tenmille's 16mm scale 32mm gauge track is claimed to be OK, being designed to operate in such an environment of course. You could try a protective varnish but be careful to choose one that won't affect the plastic. In my brief foray outside I found copperclad to be most resistant but that had expansion issues, solved with gaps and ballasting, varnish was used to set the ballast rock-solid. Mind you, all pointwork was located in the garden shed. I have a feeling that the only track system which seemed to be OK outside was GEM but I didn't have much of that (that dates it doesn't it?). Location was Mid-Cheshire.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Stephen Freeman