DCC Concepts - OO Gauge bullhead turnouts

[AndyID]

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

S1946.JPG

 

Hi John,

 

Yes - that looks like the original "wide sleeper" version. The later version has sleepers that are the correct scale width. The chairs are also more realistic.

 

Andy

[mightbe]

[...]

 

Very much (one of) the point(s) I was making, actually. There are numerous options for plain track, in a variety of subjective flavors. By the "wrong question" I was alluding to the very problem you cite--no comparable ready to lay turnouts. It seems much has been made of the need for an 'absolute' match. If modelers can get away with mixing copperclad pointwork and SMP then any need for a precise match is hogwash and manufactures need neither dilly nor dally in getting their pointwork to market.

 

Quentin

[Jeff Smith]

To play the devil's advocate here, both the Peco and DCC chaired bulkhead designs appear to be compromised by the need to accommodate old large flanges wheels. Has this been a problem with the existing offerings?

 

Is this compromise to accommodate the few, defeating the object for the many?

[Dungrange]

I'm not sure that the desire to accommodate older flanges in the DCC or Peco chaired track is necessarily a bad thing.  00 will always be a compromise.  The ultimate perfectionists will surely model in P4 or S4 anyway.  I think the ultimate problem, as Richard has already stated earlier, is the amount of capital that is required to produce the tooling for the turnouts.  It's almost a 'chicken' and 'egg' situation.

 

Manufacturers tend to produce flexi-track first because there is less capital required to do so with higher volume sales and they then use this to test the market demand for a better product (ie the demand for something better than H0 track sold as 00).  However, many consumers don't purchase the new improved flexi-track because there is no matching turnouts.  This means that demand for the flexi-track is perhaps lower than expected and therefore it becomes more difficult for the manufacturer to make a business case at a later date for the significant cost of the tooling for the next stage of product development - ready to lay turnouts.  Ultimately, the situation will only change when someone 'bites the bullet' and releases matching turnouts and crossings at the same time, thus producing a full track system.  The original Peco announcement implied that they would consider turnouts to match their new bullhead track, but the announcement was very much about 'testing the waters', so whether they actually release a range of turnouts, we will have to wait and see.  This therefore leaves DCC as the only manufacturer that appears willing to take the gamble and commit to matching turnouts without waiting to see how much flexi-track they have sold over x months.  This is obviously a risk and one that I hope works out for DCC.  Whether this provides the impetus for Peco to do likewise, we shall have to wait and see, but it does mean that some older products may disappear.

[Junctionmad]

I have not " forgotten " either C&Ls original thin plastic sleeper nor SMP

 

I prefer the exactoscale plastic timbers for point construction as the Butanone dies not cause them to bend. , hence the interest in the thick fast track bases for plain track

 

My own view is if DCCs plastic turnouts are obviously thin plastic then the points , especially large radius could be quite fragile

Edited September 8, 2016 by Junctionmad

[mightbe]

I have not " forgotten " either C&Ls original thin plastic sleeper nor SMP

 

I should have specified that I was remarking on a general trend. I have read numerous threads where someone bought ex-Exactoscale track under the misapprehension that a) it flexed and b) "new"=better. Not other qualities such as thickness etc.

 

Quentin

[hayfield]

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"

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the very detailed reply and the comparison between DCC and C&L products

 

The fact is you have compared the DCC track with the C&L thick based track which is actually the Exactoscale Fastrack bases rather than the existing C&L flexi track which not only comes with thinner sleepers, which I guess is very similar to the DCC flexi track, but also has breaks in the webbing to form curves

 

As for the thicker Fastrack bases how you can even try and curve the rail without cutting the webbing is beyond me as all you would get is a series of kinked straight bits. Perhaps the description by C&L is a bit misleading as when I bought my Exactoscale Fastrack bases they came without rail with the sections still on the sprue needing to be removed, as far as I am aware the Exactoscale product was designed to be part of their track building range rather than to be sold as  mainstream flexible track system. Having said that I find it far superior to both the SMP and C&L products even though the webbing has to be cut to curve track and the odd sprue residue to be trimmed back. I am not in a position yet to compare the DCC track with Exactoscale as I have not seen a sample in the flesh

 

In regard to rail joiners/fishplates, I totally dislike rail joiners for several reasons, the major one being the length of then being far longer that the gap between sleepers they require and totally un-prototypical look. The DCC version looks to be a good compromise which may lead itself after trimming to solve the sleeper distance issue. I use either the Exactoscale plastic or cast metal fishplates which I find not only look the part but do the job of joining rails exceptionally well.

 

DCC products look to be making great strides in producing a great product for the steam era 00 gauge modeller and I look forward to seeing the range extended

[Junctionmad]

John , given that Exactoscale no longer effectively exists , I have refrained from calling such products Exactoscale , even though I am aware of genisis.

 

I referred to them as C&l fasttrack as essentially that what's it is , compared to the older c&l thin sleepered products and I compared the two primarily as its what I had to hand , it was in NiNi so a colour comparison was useful and the standard of chair and sleeper detail is similar.

 

Dave

[Jeff Smith]

Whilst I realise that DCC and Peco have already designed their plain tracks, I still like an idea put forward some time ago on this Forum. The suggestion was that instead of having webs underneath each rail, that a single thin web be provided between sleepers on the centre line. The track could be curved either way whilst maintaining constant sleeper spacing. Once the track is stuck down these webs could be cut away or just ballasted over.

[hayfield]

John , given that Exactoscale no longer effectively exists , I have refrained from calling such products Exactoscale , even though I am aware of genisis.

 

I referred to them as C&l fasttrack as essentially that what's it is , compared to the older c&l thin sleepered products and I compared the two primarily as its what I had to hand , it was in NiNi so a colour comparison was useful and the standard of chair and sleeper detail is similar.

 

Dave

 

 

Dave

 

You are quite right that C&L are the sole supplier of Exactoscale products, but the Exactoscale products do differ (and may still have a different owner) from those of C&L. Its good that we have an additional supplier of 4 mm track and there is nothing like choice to improve standards for the customer. Looking forward to seeing the turnouts and hopefully a better range of turnouts for the 00 gauge modeller

 

I am waiting to see how the stainless steel rail performs in operation, looks to be a great idea if it looks better and the performance is unaffected. Could even benefit the P4 boys who use steel in preference to N/S solving the associated rust problems with plain steel, 

 

Thanks again for taking time informing us of the comparisons

Edited September 12, 2016 by hayfield

[Junctionmad]

Dave

 

You are quite right that C&L are the sole supplier of Exactoscale products, but the Exactoscale products do differ (and may still have a different owner) from those of C&L. Its good that we have an additional supplier of 4 mm track and there is nothing like choice to improve standards for the customer. Looking forward to seeing the turnouts and hopefully a better range of turnouts for the 00 gauge modeller

 

I am waiting to see how the stainless steel rail performs in operation, looks to be a great idea if it looks better and the performance is unaffected. Could even benefit the P4 boys who use steel in preference to N/S solving the associated rust problems with plain steel, 

 

Thanks again for taking time informing us of the comparisons

I stand to be corrected on this, but Exactoscale ltd no longer exists ( see http://www.exactoscale.co.uk) , I understand c&l bought all the rights

[CoViAnna]

Is there any idea of when the turnouts will be forthcoming?

 

It's a long thread and I may have missed it if it has been mentioned.

[coachmann]

DCC Concepts rail top height is the same as SMP.

DCC Concepts track is very and I mean very flexible. As yet I haven't tried laying any dead straight. SMP is ideal for straight track but of course webs need to be cut.

DCC Concepts sleepers are rigid plastic and do not suffer from curling. SMP sleeps have regularly arrived curled and distorted this year.

DCC Concepts and SMP both share thin sleeper ~ ideal for goods yards and places where sleepers need to look reasonably flush in ash ballast.

DCC Concepts and  SMP rail height is lower and does NOT match that of Peco Code 75 points.

 

C+L hi-rail (my description) currently available has a higher rail height than DC Concepts and SMP.

C+L hi-rail is very flexible and much care is needed to lay it dead straight. 

C+L sleepers are rigid plastic and do not suffer from curling.

C+L hi-rail rail height matches perfectly with Peco Code 75 points.

 

I have laid C+L hi-rail on my main running lines because it matches the Peco points, (my Code 83 points are laid on slightly thinner cork and are not fishplated to adjacent track).

I have laid SMP in the goods yard and engine shed yard in ash. Seeing as they are dead end sidings, it doesn't matter so much that the SMP and DC Concepts is lower than the Peco points although it does show where sleepers are left floating adjacent to points.

 

I currently have no less than 48 yards of DC Concepts track, so it would suit me (for one) if DC Concepts would get its large radius points to market as soon as.......

Edited September 18, 2016 by coachmann

[Dungrange]

DCC Concepts rail top height is the same as SMP.

DCC Concepts track is very and I mean very flexible. As yet I haven't tried laying any dead straight. SMP is ideal for straight track but of course webs need to be cut.

DCC Concepts sleepers are rigid plastic and do not suffer from curling. SMP sleeps have regularly arrived curled and distorted this year.

DCC Concepts and SMP both share thin sleeper ~ ideal for goods yards and places where sleepers need to look reasonably flush in ash ballast.

DCC Concepts and  SMP rail height is lower and does NOT match that of Peco Code 75 points.

 

C+L hi-rail (my description) currently available has a higher rail height than DC Concepts and SMP.

C+L hi-rail is very flexible and much care is needed to lay it dead straight. 

C+L sleepers are rigid plastic and do not suffer from curling.

C+L hi-rail rail height matches perfectly with Peco Code 75 points.

 

I have laid C+L hi-rail on my main running lines because it matches the Peco points, (my Code 83 points are laid on slightly thinner cork and are not fishplated to adjacent track).

I have laid SMP in the goods yard and engine shed yard in ash. Seeing as they are dead end sidings, it doesn't matter so much that the SMP and DC Concepts is lower than the Peco points although it does show where sleepers are left floating adjacent to points.

 

I currently have no less than 48 yards of DC Concepts track, so it would suit me (for one) if DC Concepts would get its large radius points to market as soon as.......

 

Good summary, but I thought that the C&L thick sleeper track (former Exactoscale range) is not particularly flexible - ie it is better suited to laying straight rather than as sweeping curves.

[coachmann]

Good summary, but I thought that the C&L thick sleeper track (former Exactoscale range) is not particularly flexible - ie it is better suited to laying straight rather than as sweeping curves.

Each rigid C+L base is 8 sleepers long and does not cling to the rail that well, so the track is rather flexible. I had to take the utmost care while laying three straight tracks through my station and kept returning to straighten odd sections out before the PVA dried.  However, laying this track on curves leads to the three-penny bit effect and so the webs have to be cut.

Edited September 18, 2016 by coachmann

[Dungrange]

Okay, that's good to know.  I have some lengths of the former Exactoscale think sleeper track that I want to lay straight, so I may purchase a straight Tracksetta template if it is a little too flexible.  However I need to build the turnouts first before I can make a start on the flexi-track.

[Revolution Mike B]

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.

 

If only you would manufacture a 4 bolt version for flat bottom rail......that would make my day!

[Bloodnok]

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but do we know any more about the DCC Concepts (Legacy Models?) points yet? I'm looking for layout planning type information - approximate length of point, departure angle, etc...

[Stephen Freeman]

They've obviously been busy, see their website for latest news.

[Colin_McLeod]

They've obviously been busy, see their website for latest news.

 

No obvious links to the bullhead points thought. Unless you can point me in the correct direction.

[Stephen Freeman]

No obvious links to the bullhead points thought. Unless you can point me in the correct direction.

Alas no, however it does make mention of chairs, so.... I think that when Richard has something to say he will.

[hayfield]

Alas no, however it does make mention of chairs, so.... I think that when Richard has something to say he will.

 

 

It mentions chairs will be coming soon  !!

Edited November 28, 2016 by hayfield

[Colin_McLeod]

Then we will have somewhere to sit while we are waiting. 

[AJ427]

It mentions chairs will be coming soon  !!

 

I seem to recall some months ago on this thread Richard saying that the chairs were low priority and wouldn't be until 2018.

[aardvark]

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but do we know any more about the DCC Concepts (Legacy Models?) points yet? I'm looking for layout planning type information - approximate length of point, departure angle, etc...

 

Well, I suppose that you've guessed by now that there is no new information to be had, and that all here are in the same boat ... waiting, waiting ...