Ready-to-lay OO Track and Pointwork - moving towards production

[andytrains]

Also if you want to sell to North Americans, you must use the language/terms they are familiar with.

My local hobby shop (Train Store to the UK). 

 

One thing that is not seen in the US is the radius designation for turnouts/switches whether in metric or inches. Only Atlas snap track is sold with 18 or 22 inch designations. 

It is a Model Railway Shop in the UK. Stores are where people store items.

[Vistisen]

I have an idea for a new way of holding the sleepers at the correct distance on this new track that I'd like to suggest. With almost all the retail track that I've seen up to now. The sleepers are kept at the correct difference by two thin strips of plastic that runs parallel and just under each rail ( with gaps every few sleepers on flexible track to allow curves). This annoys me, If i had any belief in my own ability to make trackwork, one of the major reason for doing so would be the separation of sleepers from each other. But a thought crossed my mind, I can not imagine that any of our potential customers would not be using ballasted  track. So why not replace these two strips under the rails with one that is half the depth of the sleepers down the middle for the track? It is was slightly wider than the current sections under the rails it could also be using for pinning down track rather than making holes in sleepers. It would also mean that on curves each sleeper could be perpendicular to the track which they often can't be with fixed distances between each sleeper being the same on the inside and outside rail on current retail flex track.

The thin middle strip would be covered by ballast after laying the track and become more invisible than the current strips under each rail

An alternative could be that the track is supplied with a central 'comb' strip mounted on the rail side for the sleepers that holds the sleepers at the right distance apart in between the 'teeth' that do not go the whole depth of the sleepers on the comb. After gluing down the sleepers the comb can be pealed off to leave no sign that It had been there. This would enable production of different tracks with varying numbers of sleepers per Cm. this would be hard to do for pointwork, these would be better done with my original underside idea.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Vistiaen

[bike2steam]

You would be surprised at how many people don't get around to the messy task of ballasting. On both sides of the the Atlantic.

Messy ?? I suppose it depends how you do it.

 

57 pages,1400(-ish) posts, and only 313 votes - not really representative is it, or do you think different ?

Edited October 1, 2015 by bike2steam

[Joseph_Pestell]

Messy ?? I suppose it depends how you do it.

 

57 pages,1400(-ish) posts, and only 313 votes - not really representative is it, or do you think different ?

 

Difficult to know how representative it is. But 313 votes is not a particularly small number as a percentage of railway modellers. Compare for instance with the samples used by political polling companies. What we don't know is how typical of the wider railway modelling population, RMWeb members are.

 

Ideally, one would carry out further market research before launching a new product. Articles in one or more magazines could be a starting point but ultimately one probably has to take the plunge and start production of a few items to kick it off.

 

So one would be following the Peco business model and starting with just RH and LH turnouts (probably #6). It's not just that they are what is needed the most, but the greater number that they sell should generate the revenue to re-invest in the rest of the range.

 

I do think that it is useful to announce the future programme early on so that modellers understand the potential. But there is a danger there (sceptical lot, railway modellers) that they hold off from purchasing until the whole range is available.

[Mike Storey]

Difficult to know how representative it is. But 313 votes is not a particularly small number as a percentage of railway modellers. Compare for instance with the samples used by political polling companies. What we don't know is how typical of the wider railway modelling population, RMWeb members are.

 

Ideally, one would carry out further market research before launching a new product. Articles in one or more magazines could be a starting point but ultimately one probably has to take the plunge and start production of a few items to kick it off.

 

So one would be following the Peco business model and starting with just RH and LH turnouts (probably #6). It's not just that they are what is needed the most, but the greater number that they sell should generate the revenue to re-invest in the rest of the range.

 

I do think that it is useful to announce the future programme early on so that modellers understand the potential. But there is a danger there (sceptical lot, railway modellers) that they hold off from purchasing until the whole range is available.

 

Mob-funding (as applied to people like us) looks like the way forward these days, as in put-up or shut-up. That should ultimately suggest the size of the eventual market, even though the initial subscription is likely to be a fraction of that, and may then interest the likes of Peco to adopt, or hopefully *liked it so much that they.....*.

 

Is the principle worth testing, at least for the pointwork, through a run of 3D printed versions, rather than invest in all new tooling?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Mob-funding (as applied to people like us) looks like the way forward these days, as in put-up or shut-up. That should ultimately suggest the size of the eventual market, even though the initial subscription is likely to be a fraction of that, and may then interest the likes of Peco to adopt, or hopefully *liked it so much that they.....*.

 

Is the principle worth testing, at least for the pointwork, through a run of 3D printed versions, rather than invest in all new tooling?

 

3D printing may well be the way to go to produce a limited number of prototypes for testing. It would seem silly not to take that opportunity. But I don't see it as a way of testing the market, at least not for ready-to-lay. 3D printed bases would only produce a kit from which it would be too time-consuming/costly to produce in quantity.

[JohnR]

I see from the interview with Richard Johnson in the new BRM (November 2015) that he is talking about a new track range they are developing.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I see from the interview with Richard Johnson in the new BRM (November 2015) that he is talking about a new track range they are developing.

 

I will have to go buy a copy.

[Vistisen]

I will have to go buy a copy.

I can't get it in Denmark. Do spill the beans

[JohnR]

I can't get it in Denmark. Do spill the beans

I read it in my digital copy from www.pocketmags.com - no international barrier there. 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I imagine it's pretty much what's here on the DCC Concepts website?

 

As it's just another range of bits to build your own track and not RTP, I'm not sure how it offers any advantage over C&L for example.

 

Unless the BRM interview suggests otherwise!, it still seems to leave a wide open window for a range of RTP bullhead track and turnouts in the manner of Peco's range.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Jeff Smith]

I suppose this will fill a niche for dedicated soldered track constructors but personally I prefer plywood sleepers and plastic chairs......

[JohnR]

"It will eventually evolve over the next year to include flexi-track, some ready-to-use points and the sleeper frets we've produced with brass chairs - at a reasonable cost".

 

This is what caught my eye - a new flexi-track range along with ready-to-use points.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I suspect that the ready-to-use points would be Marcway style: i.e. soldered up from their kits of etched parts. Nothing wrong with that but they won't come cheap.

[JohnR]

Well, it was the "at a reasonable cost" which intrigued me. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

I'm sure DCC Concepts plans for a RTL track range have been known about since at least Ally Pally, back in March.

 

Wasn't it mentioned by Richard in his BRM/RMweb "theatre" talk?

 

I can't find it on the forum, but I seem to remember it being mentioned here, several months ago.

 

 

 

.

[Adams442T]

I'm sure DCC Concepts plans for a RTL track range have been known about since at least Ally Pally, back in March.

 

Wasn't it mentioned by Richard in his BRM/RMweb "theatre" talk?

 

I can't find it on the forum, but I seem to remember it being mentioned here, several months ago.

 

 

 

.

 

I think it was part of their advertising 'insert' in Model Rail some months ago too.  Issued as part of their 'Legacy' range it appears to be a significant improvement on existing kits, but of course if they're proposing to make it really RTL then that's even better!

Edited October 13, 2015 by Adams442T

[Joseph_Pestell]

I would urge you all to take a look at Andy ID's thread on 3D printing of pointwork bases. He has made great progress with this in only a few months.

 

Still some development to go, but it opens up the possibility of made-to-measure pointwork at very reasonable cost. It would come in kit form but with very little work to do, well within the scope of anyone who can build a model railway using ready-to-lay turnouts.

 

The made-to-measure stuff (mainly to put points on curved track) could be a complement to a range of standard straight turnouts and formations which would be much cheaper as only needing printing with no extra CAD work.

[mezzoman253]

I would urge you all to take a look at Andy ID's thread on 3D printing of pointwork bases. He has made great progress with this in only a few months.

 

Still some development to go, but it opens up the possibility of made-to-measure pointwork at very reasonable cost. It would come in kit form but with very little work to do, well within the scope of anyone who can build a model railway using ready-to-lay turnouts.

 

The made-to-measure stuff (mainly to put points on curved track) could be a complement to a range of standard straight turnouts and formations which would be much cheaper as only needing printing with no extra CAD work.

Link for that topic is here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/100879-printing-turnouts-on-a-3-d-printer/

 

Rob

Edited December 17, 2015 by mezzoman253

[Joseph_Pestell]

Thanks, Rob. I have not mastered "links".

[mezzoman253]

Thanks, Rob. I have not mastered "links".

Hi Joseph,

 

You just find the page you want on the web then copy and paste the URL, that simple.

 

HTH

 

Rob

[Joseph_Pestell]

3D printing may well be the way to go to produce a limited number of prototypes for testing. It would seem silly not to take that opportunity. But I don't see it as a way of testing the market, at least not for ready-to-lay. 3D printed bases would only produce a kit from which it would be too time-consuming/costly to produce in quantity.

 

I am beginning to reevaluate this in light of the progress that AndyID has been making with his 3D bases.

[Phatbob]

I am beginning to reevaluate this in light of the progress that AndyID has been making with his 3D bases.

Given that it is possible to 3D print some metals, would it be worthwhile printing the "tricky bit" of the turnout (i.e. the crossing vee (frog) and switchrails)?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Given that it is possible to 3D print some metals, would it be worthwhile printing the "tricky bit" of the turnout (i.e. the crossing vee (frog) and switchrails)?

 

I'm not sure that switchrails could  be done. The crossing ought to be possible.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I will post this here and then try to post a link on GrKing's more recent thread on the same subject.

 

I am now in a position to pay for CAD work to be done to develop the first items in a range of OO pointwork. Once these have been produced as prototypes by way of 3D printing and we have been able to assess the costing of other aspects (e.g. machining of blades, fabrication of crossings), we should be in a position to commission tooling for injection moulding. That may need further finance by way of crowdfunding but I don't think it sensible or fair to start the crowdfunding until people have a much clearer understanding of what the product will look like. The crowdfunding proposal will also set out the business plan, including distribution.

 

The key technical aspects, derived from comments on both threads, will be:

a. compatibility with modern ready-to-run OO locos and rolling stock;

b. appropriately sized sleepering on both plain track and pointwork;

c. compatibility with DCC (Edit to add: isolated metal crossing with soldered dropper wire for polarity change);

d. code 75 bullhead rail;

e. switches made from rail and not hinged.

 

The first phase launch would include:

#6 turnouts (L & R)

#6 crossovers (L & R)

#6 diamond crossing - straight for trailing lead to goods yard

#6 single slip

Sleeper base moulded in 60' panels (or 2 half panels)

 

The second phase will include:

#8 turnouts (L & R)

#8 crossovers (L & R)

#8 double-junctions (L & R) - which as some will guess involves curved diamonds

#6 double slip

 

I still have a "day job" so I will try not to be unrealistic as to timescale. With a following wind, I would hope to have the prototypes available in late Spring with a view to launch in Autumn.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Joseph_Pestell