The 2mm Society'Easitrac' Point Kit

[Enigma]

Two weeks on and we've had replies from less than 1% of the society membership, some negative and some positive(ish). Without in any way trying to be contraversial, my outlook on what has been said is -

1. - 'Track needs to flow' - agreed, it looks great if you have the time and skill to make it and the space to lay it. It also looks great in 2mm finescale as well but this is the society that has produced a B6 point kit that is selling well to their membership who are presumably happy with the concept.

2. - Manufacturing tolerances - if it is possible to manufacture a perfectly usable 'peg and hole' style chair in 2mm scale then surely in 4mm scale it should be twice as easy to achieve a good and accurate fit. Being able to use these chairs on plywood sleepering IMHO doesn't really apply.

3. - Milled/cast common crossing - I agree that a milled component would not have the correct appearance in 4mm scale and could be a sticking point. However, we are an inventive lot so an alternative may arise.

4. - Are we, as a society, 100% happy with the current supply situation for track components? All the eggs in one basket so to speak. Has any product development taken place since the takeover? Has any more stock been manufactured? If so, is the quality control still adequate? If the answer is a resounding 'YES' then no problem. If 'NO' then.................. £50 is a lot of money for a single point and if you need a double slip and/or you're building a layout with a fair number of points then..............! Yes, you can build a ply and rivet/plastic chair point a lot cheaper (which I do myself) but the neophyte P4 modeller might prefer the kit approach as a start at least, especially if the price is reasonable.

5. - I wonder what the general response to the matter would be if the remaining 99% of the membership got involved in the discussion? I've seen from another thread that the overall membership forum usage is very low even though many members have registered but not actually posted.

Like I've stated in previous posts, I'm NOT advocating that our society MUST do this, merely throwing my hat into the ring as they say because the 2mm product caught my eye and I found it an interesting concept. Perhaps a short article/letter in S4News to also catch the eye of the non-forum using members might be a possibility?

[jim s-w]

Having 1 source of track components certainly is a concern but unless someone else says they have both the inclination and the manufacturing capability to consider an alternative this is just wishful thinking sadly. I certainly wouldnt advocate opening this up to the whole membership unless there is a remote possibility that it can happen. (when you say throwing your hat into the ring are you volunteering to do the work and absorb the financial risk?)

What source of point kits are available for 2mm modellers other than this? Ar ethey providing an alternative or filling a gap? If its the latter then they are not really setting a president but merely catching up with 4mm finescale about a decade after exactoscale did thier point kits.

I also think yes, £50 for a point is a lot but if this is aimed at new entrants to the hobby that changes things a lot. You see many of us will remember being able to buy a decent diesel loco for £40 new but that hobby doesn't exist anymore. With bachmann charging £30 for a 2 axle wagon, close to £50 for a coach and locos getting well north of £100 is £50 actually an unrealistic figure anyway?

Cheers

Jim

[Noel]

Two weeks on and we've had replies from less than 1% of the society membership, some negative and some positive(ish).

Probably because there isn't enough information to make much comment about. An alternative supplier of track components might, or might not, be a good thing. The market is pretty limited really, and so much would depend on the engineering specifications of what was to be made available, the range of pointwork envisaged, and at what price(s).

[Guy Rixon]

What source of point kits are available for 2mm modellers other than this? Ar ethey providing an alternative or filling a gap? If its the latter then they are not really setting a president but merely catching up with 4mm finescale about a decade after exactoscale did thier point kits.

2FS has three soldered systems for making track "Blackburn", "Versaline" and "Fencehouses". All three have some support through the Association shop, which I think non-members can view at http://www.2mm.org.uk/products/shops.php?shop_num=1. The Fencehouses system is by Bob Jones, builder of the mammoth layout of the same name and possibly available directly from him. The other two, as best I can remember, have only ever been sold though the Association shop.

There was also a previous system of moulded bases for plain track. I think this is now discontinued.

Easitrac is considered to be much less labour-intensive than the soldered systems.

[jim s-w]

Thanks guy

I know I've asked before but I'm still at a complete loss to understand just what the 2mm kit offers that an exactoscale point kit doesn't.

cheers

Jim

[nigelcliffe]

Thanks guy

I know I've asked before but I'm still at a complete loss to understand just what the 2mm kit offers that an exactoscale point kit doesn't.

Price, and supplied by a member funded model organisation rather than a commercial supplier.
There are no massive technical benefits in the 2mm SA design over the Exactoscale design.

- Nigel

[jim s-w]

Even in only 2 dimensions not 3 the cost of the point scaled up to 4mm scale would be £76 so it's not really cheaper. There would be 8x the amount of plastic used for the same turnout for example.

Cheers

Jim

[nigelcliffe]

Even in only 2 dimensions not 3 the cost of the point scaled up to 4mm scale would be £76 so it's not really cheaper. There would be 8x the amount of plastic used for the same turnout for example.

Not really fair Jim. The cost of the plastic is trivial. The cost of injection moulding in small volumes is primarily the manufacture of the tooling (quite a few thousand pounds per mould tool), with a smaller factor for "on machine time per shot". The plastics are pretty close to give-away at the volumes used in either scale.

There are some significant differences in the way a P4 Track Company turnout kit is constructed. The pre-assembled V is much more advanced than a casting, and the pre-assembled blades are another component lacking in the 2mm version.


From my roles in the 2mm Scale Association, I know what is spent on mould tool development and the production costs of plastic parts.

- Nigel

[jim s-w]

But if the tool is 4 times the size Nigel then it's significantly more expensive isn't it? Not only producing the tool but the size of the machines the can deliver the pressure required to produce the product). Plus the work involved in 4mm chairs and potential tool release complications for more complex chairs is also a factor isn't it?

I really can't see how it can be done for much less than the exactoscale product and what is more after the societies previous experience of third rail components I just can't see anyone in the committee going anywhere near this.

It would need a wealthy individual to take the lead and then we are back to private companies (even if they are supplying the society).

The whole discussion is about filling a gap we don't have, using resources we dont have to reach a price point that from scratch (with tooling etc) we couldn't get anywhere near.

The more I think about it, I have reservations that exactoscale could get anywhere near thier current price point if they were starting from scratch.

[nigelcliffe]

Jim,
to be clear, at no place in this thread have I argued that the Scalefour Society should develop a turnout kit. I've only tried to present information to aid a discussion.

- Nigel

[jim s-w]

I know Nigel.

That's why I said the whole discussion, not your discussion.

Jim

[Enigma]

Jim,
to be clear, at no place in this thread have I argued that the Scalefour Society should develop a turnout kit. I've only tried to present information to aid a discussion.

- Nigel

Which was exactly my original intention as well. Having seen the 2mm point at an exhibition demo and been given an explanation of the reasons leading to its introduction and its manufacturing processes, I wondered if the same might apply to us. Given the mixed response on here it appears it may not.

Oh well, back to rivets and butanol. We do at least know that this works.

[Mike Garwood]

Jim,
to be clear, at no place in this thread have I argued that the Scalefour Society should develop a turnout kit. I've only tried to present information to aid a discussion.

- Nigel

Which was exactly my original intention as well. Having seen the 2mm point at an exhibition demo and been given an explanation of the reasons leading to its introduction and its manufacturing processes, I wondered if the same might apply to us. Given the mixed response on here it appears it may not.

Oh well, back to rivets and butanol. We do at least know that this works.

Well said. Some posts on this thread certainly are tainted with a judge and jury syndrome and don't add anything informative to the discussion at hand. Nigel obviously has facts and figures that could be exploited - if he's willing - that would certainly provide a solid basis for a costing of such a project. But given the lack luster responses, I doubt if this will go anywhere.

Mike

[barhamd]

I'm not sure about the merits of an P4 point kit, but absolutely convinced that the Scalefour Society, possibly dare I say in collaboration with the EMGS, should consider doing something to help with the 'single source' issue for chairs. I had wondered if advances in 3D printing from the like of Modelu might bring some alternatives.

David Barham

[Will L]

... I had wondered if advances in 3D printing from the like of Modelu might bring some alternatives.

Much as I see 3D printing as a very important innovation for us, given the bulk of mouldings for producing track work, I very much doubt if anything will replace injection moulding for items like this.

While you can imaging a scenario whet the society might fund/own the necessary moulds/dies, I very much doubt they would want to be seen as setting up in completion with an existing, and very important, trade source. If competition is needed to cause a downward pressure on the component cost I'm afraid, for now it will need to be an individual initiative.

[dal-t]

I had wondered if advances in 3D printing from the like of Modelu might bring some alternatives.

Maybe not from the company named (although they do seem to be doing great things), but if you follow the story of 3D-printing track bases in 'another place' the prospects look extremely interesting, and although currently proceeding in 4mm 'narrow' gauge there's no reason why the solution should be gauge- (as opposed to scale-) specific.

Meanwhile, if no-one's interested in turnout kits, how about something like those smashing turnout assembly jigs the 2mm Association have for solder construction (at surprisingly reasonable prices)? Certainly wish I'd had something like that when I was churning out HOe and 00-9 pointwork in profusion, the promise of 'every chance of working properly first time' would have saved me a lot of fettling. Even their common crossing jigs and rail filing jigs look a lot handier than our (usually unavailable and too heavy to post) versions. Any reason why the couldn't be upscaled?

[nigelcliffe]

Meanwhile, if no-one's interested in turnout kits, how about something like those smashing turnout assembly jigs the 2mm Association have for solder construction (at surprisingly reasonable prices)? Certainly wish I'd had something like that when I was churning out HOe and 00-9 pointwork in profusion, the promise of 'every chance of working properly first time' would have saved me a lot of fettling. Even their common crossing jigs and rail filing jigs look a lot handier than our (usually unavailable and too heavy to post) versions. Any reason why the couldn't be upscaled?

Most of those 2mm Scale Association jigs come from a member who owns a very good CNC milling machine (quite a lot of thousands of pounds worth) who is willing to make things on it. He's a trained toolmaker, so understands machining as well as the CNC device. He makes jigs and parts for various organisations, so might be willing to take orders for 4mm scale. So, if a serious proposition is forthcoming, introductions could be arranged. But, strictly no "tyre kickers" and time wasters.

However, the best bit of "copy 2mm" advice I could give anyone is to buy a copy of the 2mm book "Track" and look at the jigs/fixtures described within its pages. All designed to be home-built without fancy machinery.


- Nigel

[mickeym]

DCC Concepts appear to be going to enter the field......

http://www.dccconcepts.com/catalogue/g/track-and-track-making-parts

[Noel]

Looking at the BRM article http://www.dccconcepts.com/vamr/brm-magazine-dccconcepts-legacy-point-kit, it appears that, currently at least, you have to file up your own point blades and "V" assembly, aspects that BRM seem to have pretty much ignored in this article [they may have covered these aspects elsewhere, I don't know]. Point blades and "V"s might, of course, become available later. The point kits are intended to cover a range of points, so the solder pads are larger than is required for each particular point, which will have implications for the appearance of the finished article. No chairs are yet on the website, but the thinner sleepering intended for chaired track construction has the same solder pads, which seems to imply metal chairs . The flux for stainless steel is pretty aggressive; post-soldering cleaning is important, and if not done properly will lead to problems, as BRM warn.

To me, the "V" and the point blades are the most difficult things to do in point construction; I admit to using commercial products, not making my own. Apart from that I'm reasonably confident about making points in copperclad or using functional plastic chairs, so, for me, this system has few pluses and quite a lot of minuses. I'm not sure what market DCC Concepts are aiming at with "the best ever range of track-making parts" using "the most accurate range of track-making gauges ever offered"; it doesn't seem to be beginners.

[dal-t]

The flux for stainless steel is pretty aggressive; post-soldering cleaning is important, and if not done properly will lead to problems, as BRM warn.

Personally, I have only ever silver-soldered stainless steel, and even then I wasn't very confident of the strength of the joints. But I suppose the fact that DCC Concept's sleepers are pre-tinned means you could also pre-tin the rail (using an 'aggressive' flux, which then needs to be thoroughly cleaned up, quickly). You could then join rail to sleeper with a rosin-cored solder needing minimum clean-up. But why would you bother, when nickel-silver rail to copper-clad sleepers is so much easier (and plastic chairs to the sleeper of your choice is IMHO even easier, neater and more prototypical)? I too see a number of minuses and very few pluses - being able to download different templates is good, having a 'core set' of timbers is good, but frankly the finished appearance (even without the uneven check and wing rails of BRM's demo) is awful.

[Martin Wynne]

DCC Concepts appear to be going to enter the field

Following Peco's recent announcement, DCC Concepts are also known/thought to be working towards RTR bullhead pointwork and flexi-track for 00 gauge. Richard Johnson has dropped hints from time to time about this, see for example:

http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/in ... t&p=433634

I suspect this will be the main thrust of his Legacy track range, with handbuilt track filling the gaps, rather than track-building parts for P4.

Martin.