Hello Everyone--

Have any of you had a chance to buy and/or try Bachmann's new HO DCC
turnouts?  What have been your experiences? 

For me, the jury is still out.  I bought 4 DCC #5-turnouts, returned
2 of them (1 because it did not respond to my EZ-command; 1 because
of an anemic switch spring.  I bought 2 DCC #6-single x-overs,
returned 1 because the metal frog was not in gauge and due to an
anemic switch spring).

Overall, I have been very satisfied with Bachmann's EZ-command system
specifically, and their products in general.  In addition, after
shopping around the Internet, I have paid very little for Bachmann
items (e.g., $35 for the DCC #6 x-over). 

But, I must confess, Bachmann's outrageous retail prices and poor
quality control for DCC turnouts may spell the demise of these
items.  That's too bad because most of Bachmann's DCC products work
fine.  I have been a Bachmann HO-Scale proponent for a few years now,
but its really time for the company to get its crap together about
manufacturing reliable DCC and DC HO-scale switches.

Your thoughts?

Steve Williams

Dear Bach-Man

I read recently that some improvements have been made to your HO EZ track, such as, low-profile spike heads, clear tie spacing at the end of each section (can you elaborate, please?), and no more nail holes.  Are there any other things we can look for?

Thanks,

Steve Williams

P.S. Is the new EZ-Track book still on schedule for May?

Bob--

Just a suggestion.  Place two small 33.25 sections (4 sections come in a bubble package [item #44508]), not 2 larger sections on the diverging angle.  I found the distance of the parallel tracks to be the same as the gap between the parallel tracks on Bachmann's #6 crossover switch.  I think you'll find the distance suitable.  Let me know.

Steve

Below is a copy of a post I placed previously.  See if it helps.

Steve

Hello Everyone--

Well, after much experimentation and a little math, I found one solution (using only EZ track) to an issue with the #5 switch and the proper radius on the diverging track so it runs parallel with the mainline, using the shortest track length from the switch.   The divergent angle of the #5 switch is 12 degrees.  If you use 2 short 33.25 radius 6 degree track sections (item #44508), you will have a 12 degree angle with minimum spacing between the mainline and the passing track.  Furthermore, if you add 3 2-1/4 sections on the mainline (after the switch), the ends of both tracks (the mainline and the passing siding) will be almost equal distant (only fractions of an inch differentiate them).  Finally, I found the parallel spacing between each track to be equal to that of #6 crossover, which I find to be appropriate. 

I would be remiss if I did not give credit to Yampa Bob.  His post on the mathematics regarding divergent angles help put everything together.  So... Thanks Bob. 

I also recognize there are other solutions to this issue.  So, if mine suggestion doesn't work, there are others that may. 

Finally, Mr. Bach-Man, I have broached this subject before.  But, I think it bears repeating.  I am sure many others would find it useful if sections of your #5 and #6 switches came with (a) a radius track piece of the proper angle (coming from the diverging track section) and (b) mainline track extension so that both lined up parallel shortly and equal distant after the switch.  So, again, I implore you to talk to management or engineering about such track sections.  In my humble opinion, this would would be icing on the cake.

Sincerely,

Steve Williams

Hello Everyone--

Well, after much experimentation and a little math, I found one solution (using only EZ track) to an issue with the #5 switch and the proper radius on the diverging track so it runs parallel with the mainline, using the shortest track length from the switch.   The divergent angle of the #5 switch is 12 degrees.  If you use 2 short 33.25 radius 6 degree track sections (item #44508), you will have a 12 degree angle with minimum spacing between the mainline and the passing track.  Furthermore, if you add 3 2-1/4 sections on the mainline (after the switch), the ends of both tracks (the mainline and the passing siding) will be almost equal distant (only fractions of an inch differentiate them).  Finally, I found the parallel spacing between each track to be equal to that of #6 crossover, which I find to be appropriate. 

I would be remiss if I did not give credit to Yampa Bob.  His post on the mathematics regarding divergent angles help put everything together.  So... Thanks Bob. 

I also recognize there are other solutions to this issue.  So, if mine suggestion doesn't work, there are others that may. 

Finally, Mr. Bach-Man, I have broached this subject before.  But, I think it bears repeating.  I am sure many others would find it useful if sections of your #5 and #6 switches came with (a) a radius track piece of the proper angle (coming from the diverging track section) and (b) mainline track extension so that both lined up parallel shortly and equal distant after the switch.  So, again, I implore you to talk to management or engineering about such track sections.  In my humble opinion, this would would be icing on the cake.

Sincerely,

Steve Williams

Hello Everyone--

Has anyone had any experience running Bachmann's 85' Amfleet coach (item No. 13108) on 22" radii?  How did they negotiate this radius, especially with their body mounted couplers? 

Thanks,

Steve

Bach-Man

Many custom made options have been brought to light on this subject.  Is there a possibility Bachmann would consider offering curved sections for #5 and/or #6 switches so tracks come parallel with reasonable spacing between the them, may be a distance equal to the #6 "crossover" switches?  It really seems as though a large demand exists for such an item. 

Please talk to management, design engineers, etc.

Thanks,

Steve

Chief--

I have had the EZ crossing gate for a short period of time (about 3 months).  It operates fine so far.  May be someone else who has had it longer than I can chime in.  For $20, if you shop around, I would pick one up and experiment with it.

Steve 

Sour Rails--

Thanks for the input.  I added your point to my original post.  I thought about it too, but did not think it was very necessary.  Well, I was wrong.  Again, thanks for your reply.

Steve

Hello Everyone--

I hoping someone can help me.  I want to find the correct combination of short track pieces emanating from a #5 switch that will form two parallel tracks of equal lengths for both the diverging and main track.  I want the shortest length of track possible coming from the switch and do not want to cut any pieces of track.  What pieces have you used or would recommend? 

As for the distance between the parallel tracks, I would like a minimal, but sufficient space to ensure trains on each track will pass safely.  As a benchmark it would be something equivalent to the distance between the parallel tracks in the #6 crossover, which is about 1/2 inch from one roadbed edge to the other OR about 1-5/8" between each inner most rail.   

Thanks,

Steve   

Hey Bach Man--

How are you doing  Bach Man?  I met you at the WGH at Del Mar.  Thank you for taking the time to talk to me.  Anyway, I also am anxiously awaiting your DCC switches.

Any idea when we will get more information, per JAS requests? 

Thank you,

Steve

Hello Everyone--

I want to improve the running capability of the entry level mechanism powering the N-Scale Alaska F7 that came with the McKinley Explorer trainset.  Ultimately, I want to lash up two powered units.  One idea is to place the Alaska F7 shell on a Spectrum Santa Fe chassis.  But, I don't know how well the two will fit.  From pictures I've seen, it looks like some kitbashing will be involved.   If I stay with the original chassis, I think I will cannibalize two other power units and replace the traction tires for better electrical contact.
Is there anything else I can do to improve the running quality of this engine?


Thanks for your input.

Steve

Bach Man--

I want to control EZ track remote (analog) switches with an EZ Command DCC controller instead of a DC powerpack.  Will I be able to retrofit the them with DCC decoders from Bachmann or another company?  Or must I replace them with new EZ DCC equiped switches?   

Hello Everyone--

Much has been written on DCC for operating our trains and turnouts.  My question is: has anyone experienced connecting stationary decoders (I believe that's the appropriate name) to Bachmann's remote (electric) EZ-track #5 turnouts (or another size turnouts)?  What equipment did you use?  Manufacturer?  Approximate price?  Results, Etc.?

I realize Bachmann plans to introduce some time soon DCC controlled turnouts, but what about folks like me who have already invested a lot of money in remote EZ track turnouts and crossovers?  I am sure many of you out there are in the same boat.

Furthermore, and this may be a question for the Bach Man, can remote switches be retrofitted for DCC capability?     

Thanks for your input.

Steve

Hello Everyone--

I hope this is not redundant, so please bear with me as I ask.  As all who use HO E-Z track know, sometimes (may be more often than we want) connecting sections can be a real pain in the butt for a variety of reasons.   For me at least, misaligment of metal rail joiners are the biggest offenders.  I know other manufacturers have similar track that may be easier to connect (e.g., LifeLike and Kato), but their renditions have limited track options, don't look as good as EZ track, or are very expensive.  Some ideas I have thought of include using duct tape under the connections of track sections (e.g., 2 curved sections), buying long sections of track, and/or constructing templates of cardboard or hardboard. 

But, I still need to connect many sections that cannot be secured.  I run trains on temporary basis: set up the track on the floor and tear it down afterwards.  Besides, I like the idea of changing the track plan on the fly.  I know, I know, this will not sit well with some, but that's the way I run HO trains in my apartment.

So... any ideas on speeding up the connection process and/or ensuring the metal joiners/track ends remain in better alignment?

ALSO, any ideas for portable scenery (landscape, trees, backdrops, flexible street material that can be set up and broken down quickly)?  I got some good ideas from Bachmann's first book on EZ track, but would like to see what else is out there.

Thank you,

Steve