DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[bertiedog]

The outer rail does alter a bit. but not as much as the inner, it must be the chair moulding and the way it gives under strain. The outer r ail is already leaning inwards, and I can't really see where the pressure is to straighten it upwards. The inner rail does move from pressure from the rail on the chair jaw.

All of this is very slight and matters little in practice.

Stephen.

Edited August 18, 2016 by bertiedog

[bertiedog]

I am well aware of the geometry of bending an inclined plate strip, but rail is a more complex shape, and there are balancing stretch and compression effects before a degree of bend forces the inclination to alter,due to one force overcoming  the other, resulting in the incline reducing  towards zero The inner rail appears to try to straighten as expected, the outer less so.

I have curved it to 15 inch and both straighten up as expected, and geometry suggests. but more on the inner than outer rail.

This degree of gauge widening is far short of true gauge widening to ease corners, especially as the gauge is below 16.5 to start with,

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

I do have another concern about the stainless steel used, it is far harder than nickel silver, and as it grips better, is more abrasive to the tyres of locos. In P4 steel this does not matter, most wheels are steel as well, good grip and durability.

But most commercial 00 RTR is plated metal, brass or mazak, or sintered metal, and we all know the plating wears through.

My point is that the stainless track may shorten the life of the plating quite a bit. Nickel may be softer, but kinder on the wheels,

It is a very dim and distant memory indeed, but I seem to remember this very point was made by Mr Pritchard in a discussion about track at the NMRA London convention in 1971 that he attended. He said that stainless wore the chrome plate wheels on Japanese brass locos, and rejected a suggestion to market stainless track in the States.

 

Stephen

Edited August 19, 2016 by bertiedog

[AndyID]

I do have another concern about the stainless steel used, it is far harder than nickel silver, and as it grips better, is more abrasive to the tyres of locos. In P4 steel this does not matter, most wheels are steel as well, good grip and durability.

But most commercial 00 RTR is plated metal, brass or mazak, or sintered metal, and we all know the plating wears through.

My point is that the stainless track may shorten the life of the plating quite a bit. nickel may be softer, but kinder on the wheels,

It is a very dim and distant memory indeed, but I seem to remember this very point was made by Mr Pritchard in a discussion about track at the NMRA London convention in 1971 that he attended. He said that stainless wore the chrome plate wheels on Japanese brass locos, and rejected a suggestion to market stainless track in the States.

 

Stephen

 

It's also possible the increase in friction might contribute to derailments on tight curves, but it would take a lot of effort to find out if it makes the slightest bit of difference

 

BTW, before anyone brings it up, the differential action of coned wheels only works at scale prototype radii. Even on 00 gauge three foot radius curves the tires have to slip on the rail.

[bertiedog]

It's also possible the increase in friction might contribute to derailments on tight curves, but it would take a lot of effort to find out if it makes the slightest bit of difference

 

BTW, before anyone brings it up, the differential action of coned wheels only works at scale prototype radii. Even on 00 gauge three foot radius curves the tires have to slip on the rail.

And of course it is about 1.25% short of 16.5 giving less movement for the coned tyres to work.......I am taking this too seriously!!!!!all this detail is nothing to do with day to day running. All I will say is I like N/S rail, Peco are offering it soon, and maybe DCC should offer it as an alternative, but I think in the end the laurels will go to the point makers who match the bullhead track, vital, vital, vital! Most 16.5 mm modellers want RTR from the box, a market Peco thrive on.

[AndyID]

all this detail is nothing to do with day to day running.

 

 

 

Are you sure? Some of us have hidden reversing/storage loops with rather tight radius curves on our layouts. The increased friction could be a factor in that case.

[hayfield]

Hi Chris,

 

SMP Scaleway has thin sleepers and underscale rail width. It has been on the market for over 40 years and a remarkable survivor.

 

C&L flexible has thick sleepers for deep ballasting with exposed sleeper ends where wanted for sidings. Also inclined rail, but hardly noticeable.

 

Whether there is sufficient market to support all four is moot. Almost certainly not until some RTR pointwork arrives, and then the one which matches it will win.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

 

Just to make it clear about C&L flexitrack, it is thin, the same as SMP. C&L do do track with thicker sleepers which in fact is the Exactoscale Fastrack bases (webbing has to be cut for curving).

 

My own opinion is that to complete for the mass market Peco serves the thicker bases are much more suited for those who like to pin their track to baseboards and or those who may lift and reuse track in the future

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi,

Here we go again . Let us start at the beginning (well as far back as I can remember anyway).

1) In the beginning (perhaps) there was Peco Individulay, which was punched fibre sleepers with pinned Flatbottom rail (not code 100 or 75 but something inbetween). This had the same thickness (more or less) as todays thin plastic sleepers. At one time they also did a punched brass shape that could be used to simulate a chair.

2) So it was not surprising that EM and P4 should utilise the same sleeper thickness.

3) In the 60s' the "Little Western" system was devised to give the impression of chaired track (basically the rail was soldered to staples in punched sleepers)

4) Peco introduced the first type of Streamline but pointwork took a while to be forthcoming.

5) Kings Cross came out with their system, which in turn disappeared and of course there was Protofour.

6) Other players were GEM and Formoway. GEM was in my opinion superior to both Formoway and PECO but by then almost everyone was using Streamline and came too late.

7) SMP came out with their version of track, in all 3 gauges, which was visually superior to PECO but you were/are still limited to point kits, either basic turnouts with a plastic base and dead frogs or soldered copperclad pointwork.

8) Nothing much changed in the 70s but in the early 80s K&L later renamed C&L appeared on the scene but still using similarily thin sleepers to those SMP used to match up with the plywood timbering used by EM and P4. Obviously cheaper to produce and ballast. Thicker (scale thickness) timbering came later from C&L.

 

There have been a few others of course, who will be known to you.

 

In all this time there has been no attempt to produce any scale code 75 Bullhead ready to play pointwork by the main manufacturers. You may well ask why.

 

Well, for a variety of very good reasons:

 

1) The prototype calls for pointwork to meet the particular needs of a location, a one size fits all approach would not be met with satisfaction from the type of modeller who

would be interested. Despite what some people may think you can't alter the curvature of a turnout without affecting the geometry, in particular of the point blades and stock rails.

2) The use of skinny sleepers/timbering leads to a flimsier construction, which would probably be more difficult to produce on a volume scale.

3) You would be hard pressed to incorporate a version of PECOs over-centre spring action, let alone their electrical connections.

4) The UK market for track is a very small part of the world market and the proportion of the UK market who actually care enough is an even smaller part of that. Most of those that do care, either adopt a DIY approach or get a man in to do it for them. That goes for EM/P4 too.

 

Personally I prefer the scale thickness timbers/sleepers, be they plywood or plastic, whilst needing more ballast is, in my opinion easier to ballast and more robust, you also get more room for your stretcher bars.

 

The rail really looks the part and is not difficult to work (just need a slightly different approach), as for steel rail being hard, I find both ordinary steel rail and the DCC Concepts stainless steel to be of about equal softness and certainly not as hard as Nickel Silver. Indeed, it would have to be to go through the rollers in manufacture. As for the track itself, I haven't had the opportunity to examine a real life sample yet. As for gauge, if it is slightly less than 16.5mm, so what? It works.

 

Well I wish him good luck, I think he'll need it (Hoping I'm proved wrong).

[Paul Cram]

The original K&L timbers were thick with holes on one end and slots on the other set to 18.83 gauge.( the slots allowed widening on curves) and the chairs had moulded pips on the base. It was Alan Gibson who persuaded Len to adopts thin sleepering and do away with the pips so they could be marketed to all 4mm modellers.

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi,

Maybe but the first recollection I have of K&L was a promo either from Len Newman or Alan Gibson to our Club Secretary at the time (Ken Kemp of Jersey Model Railway Club) but I don't remember the P4 aspect perhaps that came very early on. A full detailed history of Model Railway Trackwork would be a hefty tome indeed, not something that can be accomplished on a Forum.

 

The point is that RTP 00 gauge finescale pointwork hasn't happened to date is for very good reasons and I can't see that the world has changed that much in that respect.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Stephen Freeman

[bertiedog]

I trust it is just a miss understanding, but steel (mild) and Stainless steel are far harder then Nickel silver, which is a copper bronze, with nickel.

It does work harden, and age harden, but the skin is less hard then mild steel at 120 Brinell, stainless steel at 200brinell, and nickel silver at about 75-80 dependant on types. High nickel content pushes hardness to about 90.

Any friction only affects locos under power, it does not affect stock in the same way. Wear from stainless would only affect drivers.

Stephen.

[Richard Johnson]

*** I do not YET have any production track here with me in UK here to photograph for you, however...

 

Yes, the investment is extremely high and we are not fools... so we have already tested all of the things that you are speculating about and more.

 

On a more personal note: Given that the investment still to come in the creation of the first ever range of RTR bullhead pointwork will exceed the value of most of the houses you live in by a considerable margin, and is therefore a huge leap of faith for us, it'd be nice to see less  BS occasionally - and much more importantly - While I DO most definitely value comment from all those whose knowledge is proven - I'd prefer silence from those whose forum life is dedicated to idle BS and self promotion or fact-free speculation.

 

Quite honestly I really do not mind if you buy it or not, but if you don't, with very few exceptions - I see zero validity in your comments.

 

Back to a positive me and pragmatic answers:

 

* We found no "vices" when testing and we most certainly do NOT see the extreme angle of Visitaens photos when we look at stock. I already quite clearly indicated that I thought Visitaens photos showed evidence of some crushing in trransit at the ends. If tightly wrapped for several days with a plastic thats slightly stretched, this results in a very high constant pressure and the extreme angle would be the result. It will however relax and return closer to the to correct shape when laid unless chair damage is done as the material is resilient and of high quality.

 

* Having bought lots of bulhead track with thin sleepers over the years I was quite aware of what tight packaging can do over time so planned packing of this product very carefully. We package it in a low outer quantity / packs of 12 (complete with fishplates) and each length is individually protected within in the pack. We cannot be responsible for shipping issues after the breaking of the factory packaging.

 

* Yes the angle is slightly more than 1:20 but it is actually 1 in 18, far less than the 1 iin 15 mentioned. We did that quite consciously... as we did with all other dimensions. Sometimes slight exaggerations or compromises are needed with scaling, especially when that scaling is to an item with an already fundemental and quite significant gauge compromise. It has nothing to do with chair design issues at all - the chair is specifically designed from the beginning to hold at our chosen angle. Subtle things nobody has noticed in 13 pages of comment also allow some deeper flanges clear passage too... even some continental wheels work fine!

 

* Basically RTR and kitbuilt Rolling stock and locos all run really well on it and when laid properly it looks good. Its track that looks like UK track and has that fine-ness and clear air under the rail that is essential for classic bullhead track. . We even used a variety of different woodgrain patterns, all finer than anyone has managed before on the sleepers...  What more is reasonable to ask of it?

 

* The rail angle adds B-all to the force needed to curve naturally which is does. It curves easily and lays perfectly flat when glued, which is how ALL thin sleeper track I have ever seen acts and is in fact our specific recommendation in the instructions packed with it (Which nobody else bothers to do, just as they never bothered to invest in fine tooling for more proper-looking fishplates that we also pack with it!!)

 

* The rail very easily connects and transitions are not an issue. Bullhead rail is extremely flexible, twists easily from slight angle to upright and we have tested the transition from plain track to pointwork with vertical rails - both copperclad and with chairs. It works really nicely using our fishplates and would do so for you. (BTW, insulating fishplates WILL also come soon too... in case you are wondering)

 

Kind regards

 

Richard, DCCconcepts

[martin_wynne]

Yes, the investment is extremely high and we are not fools... so we have already tested all of the things that you are speculating about and more.

 

On a more personal note: Given that the investment still to come in the creation of the first ever range of RTR bullhead pointwork will exceed the value of most of the houses you live in by a considerable margin, and is therefore a huge leap of faith for us, it'd be nice to see less  BS occasionally - and much more importantly - While I DO most definitely value comment from all those whose knowledge is proven - I'd prefer silence from those whose forum life is dedicated to idle BS and self promotion or fact-free speculation.

 

Hi Richard,

 

Well there is one clear difference between DCC Concepts track and Peco track -- the tone of replies from their marketing departments.

 

Martin.

[bertiedog]

It does look like packing may have curved the track a bit, I picked another piece, left it at about 80F overnight, and glued it down on flat MDF on a surface plate and it measures 1:18 to 1:17 range average of several test points, so well within spec.

The quality is excellent, and looks better than the earlier rival makes, and curves better.

Another order going in soon, and longing for ready to lay points.

Stephen

[Stephen Freeman]

I trust it is just a miss understanding, but steel (mild) and Stainless steel are far harder then Nickel silver, which is a copper bronze, with nickel.

It does work harden, and age harden, but the skin is less hard then mild steel at 120 Brinell, stainless steel at 200brinell, and nickel silver at about 75-80 dependant on types. High nickel content pushes hardness to about 90.

Any friction only affects locos under power, it does not affect stock in the same way. Wear from stainless would only affect drivers.

Stephen.

No Misunderstanding, normal Stainless Steel and Mild Steel are indeed harder than Nickel Silver but the 'mild' steel rail we use has a little something added into to make it softer and I suspect the same may be true of DCC Concepts rail. In the case of ordinary steel rail, I believe the magic ingredient is possibly lead, that's what they usually add into free cutting brass etc.

[bertiedog]

Leaded mild steel is free cutting and a bit softer, but only a small amount as the lead is here to make a difference to the chipping action of a cutting tool, not to make it softer.

Stainless steel comes in various grades, none are soft in the sense nickel is. I believe other metals than lead are used in the alloys with stainless, as lead cannot be used in food grade stainless Steels, the most common use for the metal.

Simple test on my DCC track samples, it takes far more work to file the metal than nickel, which files like hard brass for clockmaking. It also requires a lot more pressure to cut with cutters, needing Maun cutters to slice through it without crushing before cutting.

None of this makes it any more difficult to use, just different, apart from Mr Pritchards comment on wear on plated wheels, and that may be only a long term issue.

I do know from making BS test needles in S/S that S/S is abrasive, I had to do tests at work to ensure vacuum hardening had not increased the abrasive nature of the surface. The chrome added to make it stainless is very hard indeed, and passes on this hardness to the steel, normally a desirable effect, but might increase wear on a driven wheel.

 

Stephen

[hayfield]

Richard

 

Thank you for a clear theory as to what has happened to the track in the photo, like you I do prefer the thicker sleeper size. Having said that I am in the process of building a layout with thinner sleepers and timbers.

 

Hopefully I will be able to see your product in the flesh next month so I can make up my own mind on it, as photo's can be very unkind to the subject they are portraying. Also seems worth from your reply to buy by the box if only for the protection in transit the box gives its contents

 

Thank you for being willing to contribute to the subject something other owners businesses seem unwilling to do. And I can understand your frustration with some of us as we debate the topic

[Richard Johnson]

***A quick note to thank Stephen for the "History". Quite interesting.

 

I do have the latest pointwork sample here and apart from more work on tidying u the tie bars its pretty well final... So perhaps the "Luck" is working OK for us in this at least :-).

 

I will see if I can get a usable photo of it to show you - its not easy right now though as I am working in a corner of a "Work in progress" for office Renovations here in Settle, with lots to do and most of my equipment still in a containers  - and the first of the containers is not due until next week... so it may have to be a photo from my phone if I can find the time!

 

I'd suspect that RTR bullhead pointwork hasn't happened simply because of pragmatism and huge costs. If I wasn't very committed to the project personally it'd not be happening now, but I love the hobby, see its long standing shortcomings for the average modeller and believe in throwing my heart over the fence and chasing it... Tackling this project is FAR more than a simple business issue in more ways than one.

 

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

 

Brinell? Come on :-)  The alloy composition changes things, and Nickel silver and stainelss both have significant alloy choices, with large hardness differences.  Similarly the rolling uses significantly different numbers of steps in the process for NS and SS, so work hardening differs too. Again a generalisation quoting generic hardnesses is totally meaningless. By the way - lead is also often added to NS to make it free-turning...

 

Simple benefits of SS vs NS are clear. Better adhesion, a more relaistic track colour (yes, more than High nickel rail as sold... and of course less cleaning come to mind immediately. It Solders fine, cuts with track cutters if they are not knackered (cut from top to bottom is best in my tests) and files with standard files... Why is it even an issue other than in supporting previous hobby habits.

 

My thoughts... NS has never been a good choice from day 1 - it was simply easier to roll than SS and easier to get the right wire diameters in the right grades for easy rolling, that's all!

 

 

 

Regards

 

Richard

Edited August 19, 2016 by Richard Johnson

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi,

Agree that it's perhaps a bit harder to cut, not sure because it's softer or harder though, because it just squishes with my somewhat worn xuron cutters, mini-cutting disc is no problem. It certainly bends easy enough, more so than nickel silver but then so does normal steel rail.

 

I don't see it as a problem to working with it and the end result looks so much better. I bet if you compared the running surface of the DCC Concepts rail with the real thing, you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference, which is more than can be said for the alternatives, though HiNi comes close.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Stephen Freeman

[Richard Johnson]

*** Hi Martin

 

I like that :-)

 

Its true. 

 

I do care enough to respond honestly, and do my best to be black and white in responses, with zero hidden between the lines... 

 

I think being up front matters... there's too much corporate marketingspeak with no meaning in the world.

 

Whether its wise to do so may be another story I suppose.... but I'd say the same over a beer with anyone :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

 

 

Hi Richard,

 

Well there is one clear difference between DCC Concepts track and Peco track -- the tone of replies from their marketing departments.

 

Martin.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Richard Johnson

[Vistisen]

Hi Richard,

 

Well there is one clear difference between DCC Concepts track and Peco track -- the tone of replies from their marketing departments.

 

Martin.

 

I don't know about that, It is easy not to offend anyone if you don't say anything. As far as I know their marketing department has not said anything since announcing the track. I am after all VERY interested in their product so I have been keeping an eye out for any news on it, but not seen any. So if there has been some the marketing is ineffective.

[James Harrison]

Just catching up on this thread after a few weeks away. 

 

I have bought a length of the plain track, had 'a play' with it, and found the vast majority of my stock (some of it running on 1970s Hornby and Graham Farish wheels) likes it.  I am also highly impressed with the appearance of it- so I'll be buying more.  As I don't yet have a layout, and it will quite likely be a few years yet before that changes, I'm in no real hurry for RTR bullhead pointwork- but once it comes available I'll be buying and stockpiling it ready for use. 

 

Gets a big thumbs-up from me. 

[hayfield]

* Having bought lots of bulhead track with thin sleepers over the years I was quite aware of what tight packaging can do over time so planned packing of this product very carefully. We package it in a low outer quantity / packs of 12 (complete with fishplates) and each length is individually protected within in the pack. We cannot be responsible for shipping issues after the breaking of the factory packaging.

 

Kind regards

 

Richard, DCCconcepts

 

 

Looking at the photos of the track in BRM the rail does sit squarely in the chairs without gaps, looks so much better in those photos. If it does not go back to the correct position I would contact the suppliers

[Junctionmad]

well the proof is in the eating , I have ordered some DCC track, ar the current price its very similar to C&L new pre-made up HiNi Fasttrack lengths ( which are my current favourite ) I generally prefer thick sleepers as the point work  is easier made up , 

 

but we shall see in a few days.....

Edited August 25, 2016 by Junctionmad

[coachmann]

Two boxes of DCC Concepts track arrived today courtesy of a very good friend. Sleeper thickness and rail height match SMP but the sleepers are of more substantial plastic and not curled up. I simply darent go near it while I'm earning a crust, but I am looking forward to laying it in due course. Interesting to read the advice is to lay and ballast at the same time. Yup, we do it all the time haha....

Edited August 25, 2016 by coachmann