DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[Vistisen]

 

 

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.

 

Except in this case there is no RTR chicken or RTR egg. You can not buy EM gauge rolling stock or track!

[dhjgreen]

Just to clarify, there is RTR EM track, but not turnouts. Otherwise my and many others layouts would be figments of our imaginations

[alfsboy]

I feel once again we are getting bogged down in pedantic fripperies that have little to do with the actual subject .Its there .Buy it or dont .Looks OK to me but lets all spoil a good idea  to please a few ...............please insert your own description here .

[Bernard Lamb]

Just to clarify, there is RTR EM track, but not turnouts. Otherwise my and many others layouts would be figments of our imaginations

Marcway.

Shout it from the roof tops.

Marcway.

Usual disclaimer.

Pretty sure their EM points are not a figment of my imagination.

Bernard

[dhjgreen]

Marcway. Not done a very good job of marketing to me then!

[JimF51]

Marcway. Not done a very good job of marketing to me then!

 

Perhaps a lack of searching on your part?

 

I looked at going EM over a year ago, and very early on had found both C&L kit info, and the Marcway products.

 

To Richard, Thank giving your clear responses, to all the questions/issues that have been brought up. I think that goes a long way towards this thread NOT going haywire as the Peco BH track thread has done.

 

Jim

[Dominion]

Quote Richard (sorry I lost format)

 

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

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

 

Richard,

My vote for early in the sequence ...

Number 6 turnout (guess B switch length ?)

Number 6 single slip (inside)

Number 7 turnout (Guess C switch length ?)

Number 6 diamond crossing.

Number 6 double slip

Curved turnout with min radius 36 inch or above. (Guess number 8 and 60 ish or above outside through track radius ?)

 

With hope we can cut the webs to introduce a little flex where needed.

 

My focus on number 6 above is to try to enable ladders that balance reasonable min. radius in the slip and not extreme length for the ladder.

I have experimented with 5.5 frog angle and single slip and that still gives a much nicer radius through the slip than current peco 75/100 and a usefully shorter ladder than at number 6 angle.  So I would really prefer 5.5. But that is not a "normal" frog angle that people talk about, and I think a 5 angle gives too tight a slip. So if it has to be 5 or 6 and not 5.5, then I vote for 6.

 

Tom

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by Dominion

[Izzy]

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.

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

 

Personally, given the increased interest in using better/more realistic looking bullhead track i would have thought that perhaps incorporating catch/traps where appropriate might feature more widely in layouts, and since they are often found in the simplest track formations might be considered as an early candidate for release. Especially if they could be designed so the web could be cut to allow them to be inserted into either straight or curved formations.

 

Does of course raise more questions, i.e. single-bladed or double bladed, but then nothing is ever that easy........

 

Izzy

[gismorail]

Maybe it's time for the EM gauge society or P4 whatever to commission someone to produce ready to run track as this seems to be the 'buzz' thing to do nowerdays.

I still think there will have to be some hand building going on to get turnouts to fit a defined location.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Maybe it's time for the EM gauge society or P4 whatever to commission someone to produce ready to run track as this seems to be the 'buzz' thing to do nowerdays.

I still think there will have to be some hand building going on to get turnouts to fit a defined location.

But there already is r-t-l track in 18.2 and 18.83. It is pointwork that is lacking but not economically viable in small numbers.

[gismorail]

But there already is r-t-l track in 18.2 and 18.83. It is pointwork that is lacking but not economically viable in small numbers.

Sorry I should have clarified that post better as I was refering to turnouts in people choosen gauge.

[autocoach]

Pricing is critical needed information for 2016-17 planning. Kit and RTR prices will determine success.  I am not adverse to light assembly kits particularly if there is a significant price advantage over RTR.

Edited April 18, 2016 by autocoach

[Vistisen]

It would be lovely if you could send dimensions of these points to David from AnyRail software as soon as the are definite, Then we can start using them in his excellent track planning software.

[martin_wynne]

As posted elsewhere on RMweb, DCC Concepts are moving their base to the UK soon.

 

This topic includes some interesting replies from Richard Johnson about that, and about their new bullhead pointwork:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266

 

 

It is a really serious commitment (a very healthy 6 figure sum) to make a track range, but we are totally committed to the project with a real passion! We have already approved all flex track tooling (down to varying very subtle woodgrain that is even different on each sleeper) and it's close to full production. We are also well along the path to final approvals for the first point-work... which looks really nice and is VERY detailed. We already know that it will be more detailed and accurate than Peco can manage.

 

 

Martin.

[Adams442T]

As posted elsewhere on RMweb, DCC Concepts are moving their base to the UK soon.

 

This topic includes some interesting replies from Richard Johnson about that, and about their new bullhead pointwork:

 

 http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38266

 

 

 

 

Martin.

 

Excellent news!  They appear to be 'galloping' rather than walking, and their concept of a whole range of pointwork, with sensible geometry, rather than Peco's usual compromises, and 'if you respond positively enough we might make pointwork' have sold it to me already.  

[2750Papyrus]

*** 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.

 

Very pleased to see this initiative and note that it is aimed at "the average modeller".  Didn't somebody else once headline that?

[Richard Johnson]

*** Yes, Average modeller has quite a depth of precedence and there was no intention to hijack - it's just a word really and doesn't really suit our intention that well anyway.

 

How to better qualify it? I'll find the right simple words one day :-).

 

For now, we are trying quite hard to make it as well as possible for the modeller who cares but doesn't have the confidence or perhaps time to build. I'd like to hope we'll succeed in making it hard to see the difference so that trackwork is a truly positive part of the model scene... without breaking the bank cost-wise at the same time.

 

Some answers:

 

* The plain track is looking really nice and we'll be packing it a little differently too. You will see that AND its market price quite soon, with delivery close behind.

 

* Pointwork - The info below is trying to answer most of the above questions without saying too much, or of course making committments or promises I cannot keep:

 

Delivery:      When - Plain track is imminent, first pointwork is planned for delivery this year - that is still is my fervent hope but it'll be tight. After the first ones the rest will be easier as we will have solved some interesting issues.

Price:           Reasonable. it will not be as cheap as a peco code 75 nor as dear as some common currently used kits and definitely WAY below any other chaired RTR price.

Challenges: Many including who to please most :-). Big ones include realistic approaches to tie-bars so a modeller will see something nice that is also robust. That is an interesting challenge. Several different materials will be needed other than the main base material.

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.

 

Specific questions above:

 

THIS range will not have kits - but we do intend to do some as time allows... Mainly to make our pre-cut frets into a full kit at a reasonable price - kits wil have all brass chairs and premade common crossing... They will actually be dearer than the RTR points but at a reasonable price compared to other offerings from the trade. Its NOT a high priority for us though, and EM and P4 may unfortunately still miss out on the frets themselves as required quantities to cut them economically are actually quite high.

 

EM and P4 i general: You have my respect BUT it's simply not viable in ready to run as quantities are just not there. I really am sorry... it is not that I would not love to do it but there is NO way to make it commercialy positive for us as an option. I will probably create reasonable price common crossings though and top quality brass chairs will become VERY cheap when we do them. I am looking at that as part of the overall production issue to see if its practical.

 

Other:

 

DCCconcepts moving: We are expanding logically / growing rather than moving. We are definitely coming to UK as UK and Europe are critical to our future and I will take up residence there reasonably soon... but Australia will retain some exellent people and will stay a very important part of everything we do.

 

A question from me:

 

I must confess to being quite surprised to see so little comment related to the fact that we have worked hard to adjust costs and steer our distributors to significantly lower ALL of our pricing as one of the positive effects of this move though... Especially when increasing prices always results in screams of pain from many! I thought the market needed a positive price story after so many tales of woe from others in relation to costs. 

 

Future questions from you:

 

I will answer semi regularly (weekly or so) so please do ask them. I need to keep you informed and will do so if I can, but there may be the odd vague answer as I need to communicate without also helping others along the same road :-)

 

Kind regards

 

Richard

DCCconcepts

[Adams442T]

I think Richard that your proposals are an excellent way to provide a good quality system with greater fidelity to the prototype ( small space here for those who want to complain that it doesn't promise the Earth and free gold bars with every bit of track....) and I can quite see why you can't envisage EM or P4 being viable.

 

I think also that when your prices are announced you will see a greater response.  Most modellers are cautious when it comes to parting with money, IMHO, not to say downright parsimonious in many cases..............................

[TerrySVR]

Excellent response Richard it always make me wonder why anyone would contemplate introducing improved model railway items with all the grief it brings.

 

Richard more than anyone else has proved his ability to bring superior products to the market place on time and in budget, personally I cannot wait for these new items and when they are introduced that would be the time to review them?

 

I have no connection with Richard but do worry we may, as a community, be in danger of putting barriers to new products with ill advised criticism. These new developments cost a tremendous amount of speculative investment and with someone of Richards pedigree it's fairly safe to assume he will get it right.

 

Just a thought.

 

Terry

[Edwardian]

Very helpful, excellent reply from Richard at DCC Concepts.  

 

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I believe the phrase once emblazoned across the cover of a certain magazine was For the Average Enthusiast, however, I count myself as well and truly an "average modeller". 

 

My own sense of the market is that the average modeller is now easily sophisticated enough to appreciate a better Ready-to-Lay track system than has previously been on offer, as this would mean track commensurate with the higher standards of prototype fidelity he (or she) has come to expect from RTR locomotives and stock,

 

So, when I read "the modeller who cares but doesn't have the confidence or perhaps time to build", I thought "Me! That's me! and, surely, many, many others"

 

So, thanks and best wishes to DCC Concepts and I look forward to developments.

[BG John]

So, when I read "the modeller who cares but doesn't have the confidence or perhaps time to build", I thought "Me! That's me! and, surely, many, many others"

Wouldn't flat bottomed spiked track suit your needs better?

[No Decorum]

Below average modeller here. I doubt that I’ll rip up what I have but I have spare baseboards and have been toying with the idea of doing something for ages. I for one am looking forward to what appears with interest. If Peco produces hinged point blades and DCC Concepts not …

[Edwardian]

Wouldn't flat bottomed spiked track suit your needs better?

You mean as in light railways?  Well, my projects to date are more 'small independents' than Light Railways proper, so not necessarily so lightly engineered.  I have considered whether I should attempt entry-level track building by laying a couple of sidings on the West Norfolk with lighter, flat-bottom rail.  I may just chicken out, however!

 

I hope to go onto to 'mainline' companies.  I have an old exhibition layout that needs rescuing and I will need to lay some pretty convincing track to complete this.  The 'layout of a lifetime' project is a mainline and will be as long as the building I eventually find for it!

[Joseph_Pestell]

It would be lovely if you could send dimensions of these points to David from AnyRail software as soon as the are definite, Then we can start using them in his excellent track planning software.

 

A B7 is a B7. Dimensions known apart from the possible issue of what track centres Richard is planning to use.

[martin_wynne]

A B7 is a B7. Dimensions known apart from the possible issue of what track centres Richard is planning to use.

 

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.