Model Railway Forum banner
41 - 60 of 252 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
QUOTE (rb277170 @ 27 Dec 2019, 21:18) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...With Bachmann though , I think their credibility is shot to hell,
probably announcing models that will arrive in 2024.
Then again production disruption robbed Hornby of the ability to get sufficient volume to market on schedule for several years not that
long ago, (which was the prime cause of a couple of retailers developing their own supplies of product) and Dapol's OO delivery has been
variable; the newly available class 21 originally announced in about 2009! Bachmann's troubles with the enforced early closure of a
factory was acknowledged, and it looks like the replacement facility is now building up to full output. I am of the opinion that 'normal
service' will be seen to have resumed by the end of 2020.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Hornby have indeed announced a pretty phenomenal range for their centenary celebration, and to be fair are referencing more than just
Hornby/Hornby Dublo, there is Rovex and Triang in the mix too. Looking forward to seeing it as it comes to market, and if it is 'right' I
will be in for W1 60700, and an A2/3, both in late BR condition.

Another attractive item is a Duchess with a diecast body. I won't go for the limited edition, but will wait in hope that this is to become a
regular range item. (Having now three Hornby steam locos with diecast bodies, I am rather impressed, and would like this to be seen in
more of their new introductions. I was actually hoping for an all new 8F - a much liked H-D product - done this way, as Hornby's 8F is
easily one of their weakest steam models and I could imagine a 'bob on' metal bodied 8F being very popular; and offering the option of
being sold in an HD styled box.)

Rocket and coaches is back in a new tooling and arriving in February. Will it go a storm? I think so, and this time it will work well too.

Also offering A2/2, BR 2MT 2-6-0, APT, class 91, full set of Coronation Scot coaches in LMS streamliner livery, and much else besides.
Some glooming about 'no Manor', nothing new for SR. Come on guys, the 'heritage' behind this centenary was all LMS and LNER. So it
is hardly a surprise when its all about 'origin references'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
From the point of view of Hornby getting back onto its feet and in profit, I am sure the range will do the job. OK - nothing at all for me as
a GE lines modeller, and some bits seem really weird - £529 for a tinplate 0-4-0? Thompson's ugly Pacifics an odd choice, but I guess the
W1 will go well. Good luck to them - the hobby needs them as a strong player.

There was only one W1 - how many J67/69 in real life?

RayS
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
Useful black locos rather than mainline monsters in short. (At least we have decent efforts at the J15 and N7 now to hold the torch for
Stratford.) I am not too wildly excited about the prospect of more Doncaster pacifics from the minor classes: of big engines it's the V2
that Bachmann appear to be giving some push - at last - that really appeals.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,002 Posts
Although announced in late 2018, the Accurascale Deltic isn't in the shops yet and today the company have posted a news item explaining why the delivery date has now been pushed out to November this year. Decorated electrically complete samples are expected in May.

Full details can be read here: https://accurascale.co.uk/blogs/news/deltic...te-january-2020

Can't say I'm not disappointed but if they achieve their aim of producing a better model I am prepared to wait.

David
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
I an watching the Accurascale Deltic too. There's a question hanging over it that will influence whether I purchase: are they going for
the scale wheel diameter, or the sad old fudge of undersize wheels with the several inevitable 'knock on' errors of appearance? At the
asking price it has to be right, or no thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Its pretty certain that you cannot do a model of a 37/Deltic etc body shell 100% accurately and expect it to get round set track curves. The only previous attempt at a wholly accurate model was the FIA Trains LMS 10000/1 which as supplied had a minimum 5ft radius and with user modification could be got round 3ft radius curves.

Oxford have announced they are to make a J26 0-6-0 in LNER, BR early crest and BR late emblem liveries; a GER 10T covered van in GER,LNER and BR liveries; a Pilchard wagon (2 BR black versions), and a Cowans Sheldon 15T Crane (LMS Wellingborough, LNER Sunderland, BR Stewarts Lane, BR Stoke MPD versions).
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
QUOTE (butler-henderson @ 22 Jan 2020, 19:35) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Its pretty certain that you cannot do a model of a 37/Deltic etc body shell 100% accurately and expect it to get round set track curves.
The only previous attempt at a wholly accurate model was the FIA Trains LMS 10000/1 which as supplied had a minimum 5ft radius and
with user modification could be got round 3ft radius curves...
So how did Bachmann pull off this feat then, with scale diameter wheels and a correct body plan form, on these and several other models
where the wheel tops are inside the body, and thus liable to foul on below scale radius curves?

Very clever solution in my opinion. The body is elevated above the wheels sufficiently to prevent fouling on 2nd radius.
Now the clever aspect of this solution. It is the easiest thing for any owner with layout curves large enough to adjust the bogie pivot
interface to the main casting. And there's a model that is all dimensionally correct and as a result looks really well. (OO buys enough
wiggle room to get a class 55 around a 34" radius curve.)

I dislike the undersize wheel approach. The problems with this:
First, it's necessary to find and purchase replacement wheelsets that will take the axle gears, then take the drive line apart to install
them if you want to correct the inaccuracy, unless the manufacturer makes them available as exchange items.
Second, there's a temptation to diverge from correct dimensions to make the bogie components 'correct' in relation to the incorrectly
dimensioned wheels. If necessary, availability of exchange alternative cosmetic bogie frames would be a way around that.
Third, unless the designer has thought about it, there may be some solid metal to cut away to allow the scale wheels in: that'll be too
much trouble if the block is the tungsten casting as advertised.
Maybe Accurascale will cover all these points.

In fairness, there are worse solutions yet, see Heljan's ugly job on the DP2 OO model, by very visibly distorting the body form.

In a premium price model I expect a clever solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,642 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 23 Jan 2020, 07:01) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So how did Bachmann pull off this feat then, with scale diameter wheels and a correct body plan form, on these and several other models
where the wheel tops are inside the body, and thus liable to foul on below scale radius curves?

I always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that Bachmann didn't pull this feat off and were using under-scale wheels on their Deltic. I don't have one to be able to check and will stand corrected.

To be honest, I really don't get the fixation with 'second radius'. Any bogied item is going to have massive end overswing to the point of being totally unreallistic in scenic areas.
I 'get' hidden sidings etc but even then, I'd question such tight radii as in hidden sidings, I would be looking for reliability wherever track is not easily visible.

If I had to resort to 2nd radius (or even 3rd radius for that matter) I'd seriously be thinking about an end to end layout in 4mm. Or moving to a 7mm scale end-to-end.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 23 Jan 2020, 00:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that Bachmann didn't pull this feat off and were using under-scale wheels on their Deltic. I don't
have one to be able to check and will stand corrected...
They got it right on their production Deltic, class 55. Too tall as supplied, so that the body clears the wheel tops going round R2. A few
minutes to drop the overall height to scale and there it is, all correct. (Reversible too, a washer on each of the bogie towers restores the
R2 capability if required.) That's the clever way, provide a path to a good scale model.

Unfortunately they went the undersize wheel path on the prototype DP1 produced for the NRM, and it really shows.

There's no simple solution. You cannot just plug in a drive from the class 55 model, as there are subtle differences in dimensions. Put a
set of the correct diameter wheels in, and it is then too tall. Fiddle about to change the relationship of the bogie mechanisms to the body
to reduce the overall height to scale, and the tops of the dummy bogie frames are now jammed against the bottom of the body. Adjust
the position of the bogie frames on the bogie mechanism so that there is a scale gap between the bogie top and the body, and now the
axleboxes don't align with the wheel centres, and the brake shoes are a mismatch to the tyre position. That's the trouble with varying
the visible dimensions of the model exterior away from a correct representation, it 'locks in' the compromise making any corrections a
pain to accomplish. All very frustrating when the main body shell remains one of the best RTR OO items available: why spoil the model
in this way?

I would think it was the NRM that wanted this, as Bachmann's own productions have consistently used the 'raised ride height'
approach to get the longer models around R2. All my larger BR diesels; 40, 47 and 55, have been simply altered to correct ride height
thanks to this clever idea from Bachmann.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 23 Jan 2020, 08:30) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>They got it right on their production Deltic, class 55. Too tall as supplied.
So they did not get it right as they had to raise the ride height to provided the clearance. Is this the old adage of people accepting something is wrong without question but when an alternative approach is taken noticing it as if its the worse thing ever.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,002 Posts
I took this photo in June 2012.



David
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
QUOTE (butler-henderson @ 23 Jan 2020, 19:39) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So they did not get it right as they had to raise the ride height to provided the clearance. Is this the old adage of people accepting
something is wrong without question but when an alternative approach is taken noticing it as if its the worse thing ever.
I feel it is the right way. For way too small curvature, ride height has to be high. Use much larger radii, and with a simple modification it
looks right altogether. Surely we after best possible rather than bodges?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,642 Posts
QUOTE (34C @ 23 Jan 2020, 18:30) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>They got it right on their production Deltic, class 55. Too tall as supplied, so that the body clears the wheel tops going round R2. A few
minutes to drop the overall height to scale and there it is, all correct. (Reversible too, a washer on each of the bogie towers restores the
R2 capability if required.) That's the clever way, provide a path to a good scale model.

Unfortunately they went the undersize wheel path on the prototype DP1 produced for the NRM, and it really shows.

The washer approach on the production model is probably the best of both worlds: those who want to run on train-set curves can do so, but have to compromise with the height being increased and those who use proper large radii can lower the model down to correct it.

It is quite possible that DP1 was a completely different toolset, hence the results are different.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 ·
QUOTE (Graham Plowman @ 24 Jan 2020, 00:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...It is quite possible that DP1 was a completely different toolset, hence the results are different.
It is indeed. I was very surprised back in 2008 on receipt of mine to find that the correct wheelbase of the prototype - slightly different
from that of the production locos - had been accurately reproduced. Still in the mindset of olden times when a 'nearly right' mechanism
already in production would inevitably have been used. But not so, the few millimetres difference in both bogie and overall wheelbase
correctly represented. (But the wheel diameter well undersize, and no simple path to correction...)
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 ·
And now Rails of Sheffield are asking for expressions of interest for a class 89, which many have been badgering for over recent
years. If there is sufficient interest, then Accurascale are the chosen supplier (apparently there are commonalities with the class
92 they have underway).
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
Rails now showing the second EP of their NRM/Dapol commission SECR Wainwright D class 4-4-0. Now I am no SECR specialist,
but have looked on this charmer regularly when visiting the NRM, and the model promises very well I think in capturing the
elegance of this design. In common with Hornby's excellent D16/3 the boiler is diecast: that promises well in getting sufficient
weight balanced over the coupled wheels for effective traction.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 ·
KR Models now seeking expressions of interest for both the Bulleid Leader and the Clayton DHP1 (centre cab DH type 3 developed
from the class 17 platform). Their GT3 and Fell projects are coming along: swiftly claiming the ground that was once dominated by
Heljan's range of one offs!
 
41 - 60 of 252 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top