DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi,

Yes, I've seen it done that way myself, works OK for straight track perhaps but curves I'm not so sure, you may need more than one pair of hands or at the very least some forward planning.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

more pictures please, folks... still can't get a sense of what this stuff is actually like

[Retro_man]

As mentioned in a previous post, we are planning to stock the DCC Concepts Bullhead Flextrack and other accessories here in Canada. Pricing will be similar to UK and we ship by mail with tracking and insurance to the USA.

 

Our customers tell us that US customs do not charge duty or any other charges on our mail shipments whereas couriers such as DHL and UPS do charge extra on delivery.

 

Steve

Model Railway Imports

Canada

 

DCC Concepts Legacy Bullhead Rail OO Flextrack now in stock here in Canada!

http://www.modelrailwayimports.com/products.php?CID=27&BID=12&q=&s=1

 

 

 

Steve

[Dungrange]

The inclination of the rails in the photograph above certainly looks much better, and more realistic, than in one of the photographs a couple of pages ago, suggesting that it was indeed a damaged sample or photographic distortion.  It certainly looks a nice product.

 

It would be nice to see 'in the flesh', but unfortunately I have no immediate need for track, having stocked up on the Exactoscale equivalent earlier in the year.

[Junctionmad]

I just received my DCC legacy track. The rail inclination is certainly noticeable. I'll report later with photos and how it solders and files etc.

[Junctionmad]

OK , I hope this review is helpful , as a comparison , I have compared it against C&L s new Hi-Nickel bullhead, which is on thick sleepered fasttrack base as its a similar price and also new to the market

 

I received two length of DCC Concepts Legacy bullhead , there was no evidence of any damage or pressure in packing as Gaugemaster had sent them in an enormous UPS triangular cardboard packaging

 

first some basics , ( pics underneath )

 

Dimensions ( by digital vernier )

 

Gauge 16.45-16.5mm measured on the inside of the bullhead

sleepers length 31.81mm

width 3.55 mm wide ( corrected from earlier edit)

thickness 0.8mm

height of rail from 3.4mm

inter sleeper gap is 5.7mm

 

edit: Gauge at approx 3 foot radius curve 16.25mm ( which I was not expecting ) but I expect that its the inner rail excessively inclining inwards ?

 

by comparison the C&L

Gauge : 16.72 nominal ( top bullhead )

sleeper length 31.9mm

width 3.46mm

thickness : 1.75mm

height of rail 4.18mm

inter sleeper space : 6.5mm

 

Note that allowing for the difference sleeper thickness, the height of the rail above the top pf the sleeper is almost identical 2.43 C&L , 2.6mm DCC

 

The DCC product is notably clean of flash , whereas the C&L fastback bases are not and its a plain to clean them up

 

The DCC track is considerably more flimsy, but thats the nature of thin sleepers, but in practice it seems more then adaquately strong

 

The nature of the steel rail and the flexibility of the track base, is that flowing curves are much easier in the DCC track then the C&L ( which is very difficult to form into a nice smooth curve . The DCC track base has alternating cuts in the web on each side and curves very easily , the C&L has a far too rigid web of 8 sleepers and Ive found it necessary to cut the webs to implement a nice curve

 

 

​Inclination of track

There is definitely some strange issue with the inclination angle, it can vary quite considerably, examining this , and looking at the photos, I put this down to the rail being held by the chair in the middle of the web and the design of the chair allows considerable room for the foot of the rail to slew in the chair , and leads to some of the odd inclination pictures you have seen, its very noticeable at the cut length end , but it can be seen after cutting in the middle of the track . Its noticeable that the C&L chairs hold the rail much tighter/rigid then DCC Concepts chairs . I have attempted to sketch the issue below . The bearing faces on the rail are very thin and its my belief that the inside web is acting as a " pivot"

 

 

What this means in practice , I have no idea , possibly some gauge narrowing in certain cases , you can clearly see the issue if you zoom the single DCC sleeper picture

 

 

Soldering

DCC in their attached document with the rail , strongy suggest you need solder containing silver , a 50 w iron and high temperatures , Since I had no silver solder, I used ordinary rosin cored 60.40 solder as a test , i used my 50W Hakko iron , which is a professional unit, with the temp at 400 degrees

 

Rosin only : no ability to wet surface and no adherence

Carrs Green flux: some adhesion, very poor wetting , balling

Carrs Yellow Flux: Better wetting , but far from perfect

 

I acknowledge that I cannot at this point comment on 2% silver solder ( I have some on order )

 

 

Workability

 

This is a hard call, using a standard flat needle file I , filed away the bullheads on one side , the stainless is notably harder as expected , but the main issue is that also as expected it work hardens rapidly resulting in a decreasing ability to maintain a cutting edge , it became more and more difficult to file the heads to reach the web as it work hardened ( it became more slippery etc and the file struggled to bite )

 

HiNi is a good bit harder then standard NS, nearly as hard as the stainless, but does not work harden in the same fashion and hence is easier to file

 

The DCC rail can be easily cut by my new Xuron cutter, but a fair bit more force is required then HiNi

 

Rail Profile

 

​DCC 1.95mm rail height

bullhead width 0.93mm

 

C&L 1.94mm

bullhead width 0.91mm

 

Photos

 

some photos C&L is the lighter grey. certainly for the Hi Ni , there is very little difference in colour, the stainless is a little more matte. apologies for the quality of some , Im no photographer, but they are loaded into RMweb at the highest resolution it allows, so they should zoom in a good bit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My conclusions, are that its a welcome addition , but Id have some concerns over the inclination issue and the workability , the workability may be moot for those that intend to buy the point work ready made,

 

All the errors in this review are my fault !

Edited September 3, 2016 by Junctionmad

[martin_wynne]

Not being a track geek, I assume the inclination is prototypical, but if so, this must be a classic example of something that's dead right looking dead wrong.

 

Hi Pete,

 

Yes it is prototypical. In the UK bullhead rails are inclined inwards at an angle of 1:20 from the vertical. That's not quite enough to be noticeable.

 

There have been several photos and comments on the new track suggesting that the rail is inclined to a greater angle than that, and easily noticeable.

 

C&L flexi-track also has the rail inclined.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi,

Can I just re-iterate my own findings:

 

1) Soldering - I use Rapid Lead Free on all rail types - no problem

 

2) Flux - I did try the recommended flux but found my usual flux worked better - Building O Gauge online Safety flux - they even give the formula if you want to DIY but its a lot cheaper than the competition anyway - the usual Carrs fluxes don't work for me.

 

3) Soldering Iron - I use a 65w Maplins Digital TC iron (rebadged version of one of the Hakko models I think) at 450C

 

4) Working and cutting - I found it harder to cut etc, I normally use a cutting disc etc for shaping - no problem and have limited need for filing anyway.

 

Apart from building a crossing with C&L Chairs and plywood timbers, I also found no problem in attaching droppers without damage to the chairs, the secret being I think a hot iron with decent size bit, tinning both rail and dropper.

 

I have no plans for using any flexi track for myself but can only think the comments about C&L come from the fact the bases were originally Exactoscale, the normal C&L thin sleepered track is very easy to curve. SMP of course is not unless you cut the webs. This might be seen be some as either good or bad depending on whether yoour need is for mainly straight track or one with lots of curves.

[Colin_McLeod]

Not being a track geek, I assume the inclination is prototypical, but if so, this must be a classic example of something that's dead right looking dead wrong. As always, just my humble uninformed opinion, but take aim anyway...

I feel the same about the sleeper spacing. Scale spacing looks too far apart and reminds me of the coarse track of the 1940s and 50s. Perhaps I have just got used to the Peco etc spacing.

[Junctionmad]

I think the excessive rail inclination of the DCC track warrants some investigation. I can see it leading to unexpected gauge narrowing , Im convinced it's s function of the chairs not holding the rail tightly enough.

 

As for sleeper spacing it certainly looks far better the HO peco ? Firstly the rail is bullhead and is carried correctly with space above the sleepers. And secondly the more 00 track is closer to 4mm /foot the better even if we can do nothing about the gauge.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Junctionmad

[ChrisG]

 

OK , I hope this review is helpful

 

 

Thank you, a most helpful review indeed. I found the sketch of how the chairs hold the rail most interesting and informative. Am I the only person who thinks the chairs just look "odd"?  

 

I can see clearly that DCC Concepts are breaking a few moulds with this product. As with most innovations time will tell as we hear from people who have used the product in anger. Such innovations can also shake up the market which isn't always good and certainly won't be if other good products fall by the wayside as a result. All eyes on Peco now for their product, and of course on the turnouts when they eventually come from both manufacturers, and which are surely what we REALLY wanted!

 

 

Chris Gardner

Alton

Hampshire

[Richard Johnson]

*** Just a few pragtmatic observations related to this page of comments.... Thread page P16 on my computer :-).

 

We recommend that Irons are set to high heat / max. The Hakko is a nice Iron and actually goes to 480 or so. Why test at 400? We clearly said that SS needs high heat for best results and solder flow.

 

Silver in the S179 solder helps flow with stainless steel. It works pefectly. It is NOT silver solder, just a well designed/specified 179 degree solder.

 

We recommend our own flux for several practical reasons. Its kind to the rail, its kind to the copper in your wiring, it works as we claim and unlike MOST solders, it's also designed to not hurt your lungs by generating nasty by-products in the air you breathe. Its also a professional product and properly lab created, not mixed in a bathtub.

 

Yes you can buy cheaper solder and flux or follow your habits. It is your choice and I really do not mind. However you cannot then judge or make ANY valid comment if you choose to use lower temperaturss OR use non recommended products.

 

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

 

Before worrying about rail inclination, install some. The extra cant you see in all these images above doesn't exist in installed track - we KNOW because we tested it every which way but loose as they say, and have done so many times. 

 

The way the rail is held gives perfectly natural curvature very easily and is not at all sloppy. There IS an important difference..

 

We feel that is important... as we observe many layouts all over the world that clearly show the difficulty modellers have (on average) with getting flex to curve naturally.

 

In fact you could easily make a joint in a curve with this track with NO fishplates and it will hold shape. Nothing else currently does that - HOWEVER we have made a lovely bullhead fishplate that nobody seems to have botherted to notice or comment on and they are IN THE PACK with each pack of 12 (24 of them) as well as being available separately.

 

What the rarified modeller will NOT also see is that this track is extremely tolerant of non-fine flanges. It will NOT work with them all, but it is very surprising how FEW wheels have problems running on it.

 

In the real world - THAT is far more important to the average modeller than many other things.... yet we have made the changes so subtle it is clearly NOT noticeable as nobody has commented on it. (When we'd tried all the UK brands, going back 30~40+ years to find most were fine... we also tried wagions from some current production Euro brands that ran well on it ... (we were did NOT expect that))

 

And

 

Even the woodgrain is finer and different sleeper by sleeper within each track panel.

 

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

 

For all those who worry one supplier may simply replace another... if that happens it will NOT be because of our track but because the range that makes up the longest serving competitor is either tired-tooling wise or simply never designed for flex track in the first place.... and the company itself, already less and less focussed on finer scale issues, is again changing hands. We know the current owners, like them and wish them well quite sincerely but its the real world out there - and NOT our responsibility to worrry about them in relation to this issue.

 

For all those who micro-analyse, please do not forget that ignoring the fact that we are not frivolous with very expensive projects like this.... WE are finer scale modellers too with a fussy eye and good hands-on skills, and you will, combined, not spend the even close to the time we did in thinking this through and checking all related issues. 

 

The flex track was always a precursor to the DCCconcepts "Legacy" Pointwork range which is advancing all the time.

 

It will not be a constantly delayed issue. Most will be more than happy with it, of that I am sure.... although I expect to wade through at least this many pages of "Almost pointless" discussion again when we do release it.

 

I'd suggest those who want a pragmatic comment without all the faff, read BRMs article on our track in the September issue, out now. It has many really nice pictures. We had no idea it was going to press, and never saw a proof copy as is quite right with any review really - so its an "outsiders look at it" in all respects.

 

By the way... I write this from Settle, where the DCCconcepts UK offices and distribution centre are taking shape.. so it will NOT be too long before you can visit and see the track in real life - installed on a showroom layout :-) :-) :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts

[martin_wynne]

*HOWEVER we have made a lovely bullhead fishplate that nobody seems to have bothered to notice or comment on

 

Hi Richard,

 

Not so. There is a 2-page topic discussing your new fishplate here: http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4945

 

The presence of 6 bolts does make them look rather odd to UK eyes. I posted a drawing of a UK fishplate in that topic.

 

(Non-members can reply in the Guest Book section.)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Junctionmad]

Hi Richard thanks for your comments, I mentioned that I was not following your soldering specifications, I was comparing it with what I do with NS.  I specifically stated I wasn't following your recommendations.  Im aware that the term i used i.e. silver solder was sloppy , I have some     Solder Wire, 62/36/2, on order. and  I will retest.  

 

As for the curvature, I acknowledged that its is very easy to lay curves, I put that down to the interlaced webbing , and commented that its better then exactoscale fasttrack base, which requires web cutting to work well 

 

However I still disagree with you rail inclination issues, I have laid a piece of the DCC  track and I do notice gauge narrowing , that i put down to excessive inwards inclination.   fair enough in 00 this is unlikely to be an issue given the typical slop that exists.  I did find that careful pressure on the sleepers to ensure they are stick down , tends to help straighten the rail. but I remain cautious about the inclination issue. ( Im not sure what you are trying to achieve with that chair design ) 

 

I agree that in reality , users of this track will be those that only consider it with the associated paintwork.  

 

PS: I have the Safety Solder from Building Gauge 0 online , which is water based , and was mentioned on scalefourum as giving very good results on the DCC track 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

 

 

For all those who worry one supplier may simply replace another... if that happens it will NOT be because of our track but because the range that makes up the longest serving competitor is either tired-tooling wise or simply never designed for flex track in the first place.... and the company itself, already less and less focussed on finer scale issues, is again changing hands. We know the current owners, like them and wish them well quite sincerely but its the real world out there - and NOT our responsibility to worrry about them in relation to this issue.

I think this is a rather unfair pop at C&L.  Pete has done great work and the self build track work enthusiast would be in the dark  was it not for that company ( and its predecessors ) .  I notice you make no reference to PECOs new track, which will undoubtably give everyone a run for their money !!

[Grovenor]

Hi Richard,

 

Not so. There is a 2-page topic discussing your new fishplate here: http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4945

 

The presence of 6 bolts does make them look rather odd to UK eyes. I posted a drawing of a UK fishplate in that topic.

 

(Non-members can reply in the Guest Book section.)

 

regards,

 

Martin.

No need to go to Scalefour, the fishplates were commented on right here, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/97909-dcc-concepts-legacy-stainless-steel-rail/&do=findComment&comment=1918072 and drew an immediate reply from Richard!

Regards

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi Richard thanks for your comments, I mentioned that I was not following your soldering specifications, I was comparing it with what I do with NS.  I specifically stated I wasn't following your recommendations.  Im aware that the term i used i.e. silver solder was sloppy , I have some     Solder Wire, 62/36/2, on order. and  I will retest.  

 

As for the curvature, I acknowledged that its is very easy to lay curves, I put that down to the interlaced webbing , and commented that its better then exactoscale fasttrack base, which requires web cutting to work well 

 

However I still disagree with you rail inclination issues, I have laid a piece of the DCC  track and I do notice gauge narrowing , that i put down to excessive inwards inclination.   fair enough in 00 this is unlikely to be an issue given the typical slop that exists.  I did find that careful pressure on the sleepers to ensure they are stick down , tends to help straighten the rail. but I remain cautious about the inclination issue. ( Im not sure what you are trying to achieve with that chair design ) 

 

I agree that in reality , users of this track will be those that only consider it with the associated paintwork.  

 

PS: I have the Safety Solder from Building Gauge 0 online , which is water based , and was mentioned on scalefourum as giving very good results on the DCC track 

Hi,

Safety Solder - I mentioned it here as well.

 

Whilst Richard has no doubt done his market research, I am not still not quite sure who is hoping to sell it to. Based on my own experiences, I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of 00 commissions I have received over the last 16 years, so I think I can conclude that unlike EM, P4 and 0 Gauge, the majority of modellers doing 00 either put up with what is easily available or make their own. If they are prepared to DIY, I can't see them wanting to buy rtr, if only because of the price differential. Those who have existing layouts will probably stay with what they have. Those starting new layouts will probably go with the range that has the greatest variety and ease of purchase. For the few who want a scale appearance and don't want to DIY then he may have a share of that market.

 

With 00 probably being the most price sensitive scale I think we are living in interesting times..

[Jeff Smith]

There have been pages and pages discussing the market for British style rtr 00 turnouts. Now it seems there will be at least one, probably two, and maybe even three manufactures.....let's hope for their sakes that there is a decent sized market.

[Richard Johnson]

*** Its certainly not a pop at anyone, simply a statement of fact as I see it.

 

I too like C&L, have used many of their products over the years and I also know Peter. I am really very sad that his health prevents him continuing the sterling efforts he has made to grow the income base of the company. (A general comment, I tend to speak up front and I do not do "read between the lines" stuff).

 

I make no comment on others because they do not currently exist. As with my previous comment, whatever they do will live or die on its merits, not because of the existence of a competitor.

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

 

 

I think this is a rather unfair pop at C&L.  Pete has done great work and the self build track work enthusiast would be in the dark  was it not for that company ( and its predecessors ) .  I notice you make no reference to PECOs new track, which will undoubtably give everyone a run for their money !!

[Junctionmad]

There have been pages and pages discussing the market for British style rtr 00 turnouts. Now it seems there will be at least one, probably two, and maybe even three manufactures.....let's hope for their sakes that there is a decent sized market.

Yes , it's strange , for years there has been frothing about better 00 gauge track , in particular bull head track , now within almost one year , we have C&L new Exactoscale based 00 track , dcc concepts and PECO.

 

c&l of course are not producing turnouts so DCC and PECO will be " it" , it now remains to be seen whether the 00 users will part with two to three times the cost of Peco current streamline .

 

We live in interesting times.

[mightbe]

Yes , it's strange , for years there has been frothing about better 00 gauge track , in particular bull head track , now within almost one year , we have C&L new Exactoscale based 00 track , dcc concepts and PECO.

 

 

The Exactoscale product really isn't new as such, more of a quick-fix for a failing mold which has since been repaired.

 

There are a number of things I don't understand. There are now a total of 5 discrete products on the table, all fitting the bill, and some of them have been around for decades. SMP at least 30-35 years, C&L 20+ years, Exactoscale 10+ years (I'm approximating/guessing). And still the demands persisted. Was it really because it wasn't the likes of Peco making it? Or were they asking the wrong question? 

 

Nor do I understand why people who clearly wanted the "old" C&L flextrack buy the "new" Exactoscale track (note my distinction). The older products are progressively being forgotten in spite of having no major faults, only slight variations--des goûts et des couleurs, on ne les discute pas. Why the apparent collective amnesia? And why can't people bother to read the description or look at the picture before buying? It would save them a lot of disappointment and save the product from press I dare say it doesn't deserve.

 

Quentin

[BG John]

SMP at least 30-35 years

I used it on an EM layout I started in 1975, so a bit longer than that! And I've just used it again on two new EM layouts.

[Dungrange]

The Exactoscale product really isn't new as such, more of a quick-fix for a failing mold which has since been repaired.

 

There are a number of things I don't understand. There are now a total of 5 discrete products on the table, all fitting the bill, and some of them have been around for decades. SMP at least 30-35 years, C&L 20+ years, Exactoscale 10+ years (I'm approximating/guessing). And still the demands persisted. Was it really because it wasn't the likes of Peco making it? Or were they asking the wrong question? 

 

Whilst each product may 'fit the bill' for flexi-track, at the moment none of these track systems 'fit the bill' for a complete ready to lay track system that includes matching point and crossing work. SMP flexi-track may have been around for more than 40 years, but 40 years later and there has still been no investment in matching ready to lay point work, although a kit (something like a B6) is / was available.  However, that is not what everyone is looking for.

 

Personally I prefer thicker sleepers and therefore in my eyes, the Exactoscale product wins over C&L or SMP, but that's not to say that there is anything fundamentally wrong with either of these products.  However, whilst it is possible to mix Exactoscale Fast-track with current Peco Code 75 'finescale' flat bottom turnouts, such a mix is never going to look right on the scenic part of the layout.

 

The demands for better track generally tend to come from people not unlike myself, who would like flexi-tack with a range of better ready to lay turnouts.  Such people generally have two options; stick with Peco 'finescale' streamline and moan about the issues, or switch to another brand of flexible track and build their own turnouts.  Having got fed up waiting for the ready to lay turnouts that I wanted, I have decided to have a go at building them myself and now have everything I need to make a start as soon as I finalise my design in Templot.  As such, I am now out of the market for new turnouts, but there are probably plenty of people who are still waiting.  Hopefully the DCC Concepts products (when they hit the shops) fits with their needs.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Dungrange

[AndyID]

I used it on an EM layout I started in 1975, so a bit longer than that! And I've just used it again on two new EM layouts.

 

That might have been the original SMP version with 4 mm wide sleepers. I think I still have some.

[BG John]

That might have been the original SMP version with 4 mm wide sleepers. I think I still have some.

Don't know. I don't remember it being different to what I've just used. This was it: