DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[Dungrange]

Compatible in the sense that the rail height is the same?

...and presumably the track gauge!

 

I agree that they are not really what I would regard as compatible.

[martin_wynne]

DCC Concepts to Peco Code 75

 

DCC v Peco75 - s.jpg

 

Many thanks Andy. That is certainly conclusive. I have deleted the rubbish in my previous post.

 

Have you tried curving this new track to a sharp radius? Does it stay flat? The inclined rails may make it difficult to keep it flat when curved to sharp radii.

 

For the announced Peco bullhead track we have only a small-scale CAD image to go on, which may not match the finished track, but measuring in Templot I get these sizes:

 

The prototype chair base thickness is 1.3/4" which scales to 0.58mm. However chairs are sometimes located on a seating adzed into the sleeper surface, so the effective base thickness is a fraction less. If the Peco image is accurate, they seem to have got quite close.

 

The overall height to the rail top would be 3.92mm, close to John's measurements for Peco Code75 flat-bottom.

 

The vertical Peco rails are likely to make it much easier to keep this track flat when it is curved to sharp radii.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[RBAGE]

I've just been doing some snaps for the mag review and thought I'd do a couple of DCC Concepts track v SMP and Peco Code 75.

 

(Click for larger pics)

 

DCC v SMP s.jpg

 

DCC v SMP v Peco75 - 2s.jpg

The DCC Concept track certainly looks much more robust than the SMP.

It's a pity I already have 4 boxes of SMP waiting to be layed.

Bob

[mightbe]

It had, but my recent purchase of C+L had thicker sleepers, 

 

Slight aside; what you describe is not C&L per se but an ex-Exactoscale product. More precisely, they're Exactoscale track bases--which have been sold for eons--with rail threaded through. Though I grant you it can be confusing because of the way they've chosen to list it on the website. 

 

Link to the "new" track: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_375_377_379&product_id=12267

 

Edit: Both ranges are still in production, and a quick look through the site shows how each offering belongs to its own complete line of products, aesthetically and functionally

Quentin

Edited July 1, 2016 by mightbe

[JZ]

I was going to wait for Peco BH track for my Isle of Wight project, but this has whetted my appetite and I'm very much swinging towards using this. Must get a box as soon as it's available.

 

How long before we see some pointwork?

[BG John]

How does the strength compare with SMP? It's 40 years since I last used SMP, and I've just been laying it on my new EM layout. I'd forgotten how delicate it was. It certainly needs a lot of care compared to the Peco Code 100 I've been knocking about for my 7mm layout, and the Code 75 on my OO.

[martin_wynne]

If the bullhead track that Richard is offering is 00 gauge, that is to say 16.5mm between the rails, would it be strange if he produced pointwork at 16.2mm?

It's one thing to build points at 16.2mm and gradually widen the gauge for the straight track but to have RTR pointwork at 16.2mm with a step change to 16.5mm at the joints might be problematic.

Unless, of course, Richard provides a lead in, which I find unlikely. So, why not just wait and see?

 

We are just waiting and seeing -- we don't have any choice. But users planning layouts using this track would be interested to know -- for example it may affect the usable minimum radius.

 

But I think it would be extraordinary if the plain track and pointwork are not to the same gauge all through.

 

Richard has had plenty of opportunities to say it is 16.5mm but has declined to do so. He supplies track gauges for 16.2mm (00-SF) and has previously written about the benefits of 00-SF (4-SF). It would not be surprising to me if the new track is 16.2mm, which would set it apart from the 3 other makes of flexible 00 bullhead track currently or shortly available, and justify the significant investment needed.

 

Or he may have come up with something in between, say 16.35mm gauge with 1.15mm flangeways. This would make it a bit more forgiving of older RTR back-to-backs, at the expense of a slightly bumpier ride for Ultrascale and similar wheels. It would also allow a smaller minimum radius without needing further gauge-widening.

 

But as you say we must wait and see. No harm in gently quizzing Richard in the hope that he lets something slip. There would be no reason not to say that it's 16.5mm if that's what it is, so we can reasonably assume that it isn't. Egg on face time if I'm wrong.

 

Martin.

Edited July 1, 2016 by martin_wynne

[polybear]

Richard has had plenty of opportunities to say it is 16.5mm but has declined to do so. He supplies track gauges for 16.2mm (00-SF) and has previously written about the benefits of 00-SF (4-SF). It would not be surprising to me if the new track is 16.2mm, which would set it apart from the 3 other makes of flexible 00 bullhead track currently or shortly available, and justify the significant investment needed.

 

I'd suggest that plain trackwork at 16.2mm would alienate the product from the mainstream market of 00, with customers preferring to wait until Peco release their own product.  However, turnouts at 16.2mm could be used with both 16.5mm plain trackwork (with appropriate lead-in/out) and also (perhaps at a later date?) 16.2mm plain trackwork.  And since Peco are (I would guess) most unlikely to offer their own (semi-promised?) "scale" turnouts in 16.2mm then it would mean that DCC Concepts won't be going head-to-head with a rival on a similar offering.  

That's my guess anyway.  Maybe we should start to run a book on it....

Cheers,

Brian

[martin_wynne]

I'd suggest that plain trackwork at 16.2mm would alienate the product from the mainstream market of 00

 

Not if you don't tell them.

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

16.35mm gauge 

 

I make it 16.33 but happy to be corrected if anyone else gets to take a measurement.

 

I've just bent it into 12" radius and it seems to stay perfectly flat.

[RBAGE]

Would it be inaccurate to describe 16.2mm straight track as 00 gauge?

It strikes me that this would be misleading and would be a great cause for complaint if the general modelling public ordered 00 and received 00-SF.

I'm sure Richard isn't daft.

However, I too stand to have egg on my face if my faith in the product proves to be unfounded.

Anyway, I'm up to my neck in SMP so won't be an issue this layout.

Bob

[RBAGE]

I make it 16.33 but happy to be corrected if anyone else gets to take a measurement.

 

I've just bent it into 12" radius and it seems to stay perfectly flat.

So, not 00 of any known variant.

[AndyID]

I make it 16.33 but happy to be corrected if anyone else gets to take a measurement.

 

I've just bent it into 12" radius and it seems to stay perfectly flat.

 

Very interesting

 

For what it's worth, I think the DCC chairs are a bit more convincing. The outside jaw of SMP always strikes me as being a little unsubstantial.

[martin_wynne]

For what it's worth, I think the DCC chairs are a bit more convincing. The outside jaw of SMP always strikes me as being a little unsubstantial.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I think the problem with the SMP chair is the too small representation of the key -- it should fill the rail web. DCCC seem to have done much better there. It's not possible to have a proper length key with a simple two-part split mould, of course. On the other hand the outer part of the SMP chair looks far more like a casting, with a proper representation of the square-head chair screws and bosses. The angular DCCC chair looks more like a welded fabrication, and the tiny screw heads look very wrong. On the inside jaw the DCCC version is clearly too wide.

 

But that's just me and you. I suspect the 00 mass market will barely notice such things, especially when it is painted and ballasted. And the Peco version will have its own failings.

 

Martin.

Edited July 1, 2016 by martin_wynne

[autocoach]

I would guess it makes sense for it to be a match with your own track work range and most claim their track is compatible with Peco without explaining a bit of packing is necessary. Still good to see an additional range available

The operative word is compatible. Not claiming an exact match.

Edited July 1, 2016 by autocoach

[martin_wynne]

Would it be inaccurate to describe 16.2mm straight track as 00 gauge? It strikes me that this would be misleading and would be a great cause for complaint if the general modelling public ordered 00 and received 00-SF.

 

Hi Bob,

 

Please don't start all that again. I changed the name of 00-SF to 4-SF in Templot to satisfy those for whom 00=16.5mm is a religious belief. But I'm sure that's a tiny minority of 00 modellers.

 

We don't even know if this 16.33mm is the intended gauge or simply falls within the manufacturing tolerance. But whatever it is, if it is intended that 00 models should run on this track, and 00 models do in fact run on it, it is surely the case that the manufacturers can describe it as "00".

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Richard Johnson]

*** Our testing was in depth - you do not risk problems when the associated costs are so high.

 

It is compatible woth almost everything produced in the last 30+ years. You will have to go back to wrenn/triand/dublo and a few odd anachrnoisms from the 25 years or more ago to find problems.

 

Unbelievably we also tried current Marklin simply because of the pizza cutter wheels and it ran OK - you could just feel the chairs if you pressed down on the van but otherwise it was running fine.

 

Richard

 

 

I hope Richard's testing, which I'm sure is comprehensive in respect of RTR, also includes Markits, Scalelink and Gibson wheels.  If there is a problem with any type, I'd be surprised if we weren't told.  It might even be worth DCC Concepts looking at some legacy wheel types that are probably still to be found on some layouts, Hamblings or first generation Airfix. It would be impossible to combine good appearance, smooth running for the vast majority of modern wheels as well as wide backwards compatibility, but t would be nice to know what works when the time is right.

[Richard Johnson]

***Good grief... I am simply amazed at the faffing around about gauge.

 

Nobody on this forum thread will have stock that will not run really nicely on it unless their stock is way out of spec is the real point, and yes, it is 16.5mm gauge.

 

(Not that it its an issue anyway in reality - if I had made it to 16.2 <<and clearly nobody could decide one way or another when seeing the photographs>>, and your stock and locos still ran well, would it ACTUALLY matter at all??)

 

The inclined rails make no difficulty in the bending. It lays flat if laid with sensible standard tracklaying methods. Personally I prefer just a little glue and thats what is recommended in the instruction with each length.

 

Basically - It lays, runs and looks nice, and is easy to ballast well unlike thicker sleeper track - I can't offer any more useful comment than that.

 

Availability:

 

NOW really - its made and waiting, but its the end of the UK financial year so stock shipping into our distributors is delayed by their EOY processing time.

 

Regards

 

Richard

[JZ]

When do you think turnouts will be arriving?

[martin_wynne]

***Good grief... I am simply amazed at the faffing around about gauge.

 

Which would have been entirely avoided Richard if you had provided a bit more information earlier.

 

Can you now say anything about the pointwork standards? Your 16.5mm roller gauges for bullhead rail are listed with 1.1mm flangeways: http://www.dccconcepts.com/gauges-tools-amp-fasteners/dccconcepts-gauges/2-roller-gauges-with-handle-for-16-5gauge

 

That would give a check span of 14.3mm, and a minimum back-to-back of say 14.4mm. That might be a bit tight for some older RTR.

 

Are you using sharp-nose vees, or prototypical blunt-nose vees? 1.1mm flangeways with blunt-nose vees gives a minimum wheel width of 2.5mm, and might be a bit bumpy with Ultrascale and similar kit wheels. Sharp-nose vees would be ok with all wheels, but look awful.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[coachmann]

Richard Johnson, on 02 Jul 2016 - 06:00, said:

***Good grief... I am simply amazed at the faffing around about gauge.

 

RMchair experts rule......... 

Edited July 2, 2016 by coachmann

[RBAGE]

Richard,

You have the patience of a saint.

Bob

[RBAGE]

Richard Johnson, on 02 Jul 2016 - 06:00, said:

 

RMchair experts rule......... 

Michael Gove: "The people of Britain are sick of experts".

[hayfield]

I am not trying to diss a product I have not seen other than in a photo but I am fully conversant with the C&L and Exactoscale range as I use both

 

Slight aside; what you describe is not C&L per se but an ex-Exactoscale product. More precisely, they're Exactoscale track bases--which have been sold for eons--with rail threaded through. Though I grant you it can be confusing because of the way they've chosen to list it on the website. 

 

Link to the "new" track: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_375_377_379&product_id=12267

 

Edit: Both ranges are still in production, and a quick look through the site shows how each offering belongs to its own complete line of products, aesthetically and functionally

Quentin

 

From memory Peter introduced this product with rail threadded on at a time when C&L were having problems with one of their 00 tools. I gather its been very popular even though its quite unknown by many 00 gauge modellers. Has the benefit of being extremely close to the height of Peco's track range, has bull head rail, chairs and is to 4 mm scale not 3.5 mm. The thickness of the sleepers makes the track far more robust than C&L and SMP. The HiNi rail is much less yellow than standard nicklesilver and can be easily soldered 

I was going to wait for Peco BH track for my Isle of Wight project, but this has whetted my appetite and I'm very much swinging towards using this. Must get a box as soon as it's available.

 

How long before we see some pointwork?

 

Why not try a length of Exactoscale track, its available now, will match Peco in height and can be easily soldered, and if you compare the chair design looks closer to UK style

How does the strength compare with SMP? It's 40 years since I last used SMP, and I've just been laying it on my new EM layout. I'd forgotten how delicate it was. It certainly needs a lot of care compared to the Peco Code 100 I've been knocking about for my 7mm layout, and the Code 75 on my OO.

 

C&l and Exactoscale have larger chairs than SMP, Exactoscale is very robust owing to sleeper thickness

 

Very interesting

 

For what it's worth, I think the DCC chairs are a bit more convincing. The outside jaw of SMP always strikes me as being a little unsubstantial.

 

Andy

 

There was a comparison of all three tracks in a photo, the DCC chairs seem to be of a different style (Martin knows the name) of those used by C&L namely S1 chairs, Exactoscale use S1 chairs as well. Agree with you on the SMP track I have but it is quite old and newer stock may be better

 

For historic UK representation, whilst incorrect for many companies the S1 chair is closer in looksto them, being slimmer than the style DCC are using. Many have commented on the near impossibly of soldering wires to stainless steel rail. Then there is both the strength issues and height incompatibility with Peco track systems, both of which are stated objections made by those using Peco Streamline against using C&L and SMP products.

 

I wish DCC well with this product, but wonder is the issues I have raised may be a reason not to change to a better looking track system

[Kiwi]

***Good grief... I am simply amazed at the faffing around about gauge.

I can't agree with that statement. Two words too many! Try just "Good grief... I am simply amazed at the faffing around". It sums up many of the comments on here far better.

 

Despite Richards repeated requests NOT to waste everyone's time nit-picking over millimetres here and there, but to consider how well it looks, how well it works, etc the 1% of railway modellers this product range is NOT aimed at still can't resist! Staggering!!!

 

Frankly I'm amazed at your patience Richard, and your fortitude to keep giving such calm responses. I would have walked away pages ago, as I did after about three pages of that huge and pointless Peco thread.

:-)