N gauge Class 17 'Clayton' Locomotive

[Tequila Sunrise]

...........in any case, you will need all the space under the bonnets for the two smoke units

[-missy-]

Good answer!

 

I cannot see how adding to motors would make that much difference personally.

 

Doing a (very) rough calculation using a 4mm scale drawing and an estimated mass of Tungsten @ 19600 Kg/m3 I worked out that you could get around 100g of dead weight into the engine and still have room for 2 motors. Now considering that I have used pure Tungsten and not a Tungsten/Copper Alloy which I suspect is used (like dart weights) and the fact a Dapol clas 22 weighs in @ around 76g I wouldnt think that the mass is a big an issue as you make out.

 

But then what do I know ;o)

Edited November 15, 2013 by -missy-

[NZmodeller]

Hi Dave,

 

Ironically, an empty cab will be more attractive to DCC sound advocates as it would be the most obvious place to fit a sugar cube.

 

Another outside the square option may be to ditch the dummy range and just have all locos powered with 1 bogie drive.  Lack of weight above the driving wheels may be an issue though. Uneven motors would only be an issue for those running in multiple and if the motors are particularly different. My class 20s run sufficiently evenly to put a good case against dummy locos but perhaps I have been lucky.

 

Peter

[DJM Dave]

Good answer!

 

I cannot see how adding to motors would make that much difference personally.

 

Doing a (very) rough calculation using a 4mm scale drawing and an estimated mass of Tungsten @ 19600 Kg/m3 I worked out that you could get around 100g of dead weight into the engine and still have room for 2 motors. Now considering that I have used pure Tungsten and not a Tungsten/Copper Alloy which I suspect is used (like dart weights) and the fact a Dapol clas 22 weighs in @ around 76g I wouldnt think that the mass is a big an issue as you make out.

 

But then what do I know ;o)

I'd never accuse you of knowing nothing Julia and I value your comments.

Certainly from a mass production point of view a second motor would cost more and cause more problems that it would solve (if any) and there's probably a very good reason most of the OO and N gauge manufacturers go for only 1 motor.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Roy L S]

Hi Dave,

 

Ironically, an empty cab will be more attractive to DCC sound advocates as it would be the most obvious place to fit a sugar cube.

 

Another outside the square option may be to ditch the dummy range and just have all locos powered with 1 bogie drive.  Lack of weight above the driving wheels may be an issue though. Uneven motors would only be an issue for those running in multiple and if the motors are particularly different. My class 20s run sufficiently evenly to put a good case against dummy locos but perhaps I have been lucky.

 

Peter

 

I guess that in addition Dave has to take into consideration just how many will require the capability to fit sound, the impact of two motors and associated extra gubbins/complication on the price point and how many will actually worry about having a completely empty cab anyway. 

 

I would suggest that what Dave has so far outlined is the best and most attractive option to most, myself included.

 

In trying to acommodate the relatively small number who will actually require sound to be a plug and play option my fear is he will have to price it at a level which will make it unattractive.

 

My conclusion has to be that you should stick to your initial thoughts Dave.

 

Roy

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello all,

 

Fleischmann did a set (725071) of DB locos as a twin pack. One has the motor, the other sound. They were permanently coupled I believe.

 

I think that the added complication and expense of a second motor offsets any possible advantages.

 

A single powered bogie is an option - Farish use it on their recent MUs - but personally I'd prefer both bogies to be powered.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[Douglas G]

Not a comment on the Clayton, but a general comment, Dave.

 

I just wanted to say that one of the things I most enjoy reading on RMWeb is the interactive discussions when you announce a new model, whether previously at Dapol or now with your own company.  Not only does it allow people to give feedback that will hopefully improve the model, but it also gives potential buyers a sense of "ownership" and generates goodwill.  I think this is important, as railway modellers aren't just consumers (unlike with washing machines for example), but have an emotional investment and enthusiasm for the subject.

 

I used to feel the same when George was in charge of Dapol - he took a very interactive approach and was very approachable through e-mail and at exhibitions.

 

Best wishes,

 

Douglas

[queensquare]

I must admit that I don't really have a problem with the lower half of the cab being full of motor so long as the area above the window line is clear and the cab will look empty in silhouette.

What I would like to see is a move away from the design used on recent Dapol diesels where the worm is fixed and does not form part of the gear tower on the bogie. The result of this is excessive slop in the bogies to allow the top gear in the bogie tower to pivot and still engage with the worm. On the Hymek (and to a lesser extent the class 22s) the slop means that the bogies pull away first with the body catching up momentarily after. On the first of the Westerns I got there was so much slop that the worm and gear tower at one end lost contact all together on even the slightest change of gradient as those who saw it undergoing trials on Highbury will testify. I would much prefer the worm to form part of the gear tower so that the mesh remains constant and is connected to the motor via UJs.

That  said, I won't be after a class 17 - even my cavalier attitude to the prototype doesn't stretch that far but I'm sure it won't be long before Dave returns to his first love  - the WR hydraulics!!

 

Jerry

[DJM Dave]

Hi Jerry,

 

Thanks for that, however I'm sorry mate, your knowledge base is somewhat lacking.

 

In the 1960's ( the exact date escapes me at the moment) the western region trialled nighttime runs with single class17's into the Forest of Dean, the Fairford branch, and in fact all South Wales and down to Penzance.

 

I'm afraid the outcome of such trials is still secret due to goverment restrictions, but I'm assured by the great railway sage is such matters Mr Aiyma Wally' that both blue and green examples were used on these lines with up to 100mph achieved through Coleford!

 

So I humbly suggest you re-appraise your need for one, as it would look a treat on your layout, and, as we now know, wouldn't look out of place! :-)))

 

Cheers

Dave

[queensquare]

Hi Jerry,

 

Thanks for that, however I'm sorry mate, your knowledge base is somewhat lacking.

 

In the 1960's ( the exact date escapes me at the moment) the western region trialled nighttime runs with single class17's into the Forest of Dean, the Fairford branch, and in fact all South Wales and down to Penzance.

 

I'm afraid the outcome of such trials is still secret due to goverment restrictions, but I'm assured by the great railway sage is such matters Mr Aiyma Wally' that both blue and green examples were used on these lines with up to 100mph achieved through Coleford!

 

So I humbly suggest you re-appraise your need for one, as it would look a treat on your layout, and, as we now know, wouldn't look out of place! :-)))

 

Cheers

Dave

Well I'll eat my hat. You learn something everyday!! 

Now you mention it I believe Goldy Locks famous brother Bo photographed them

 

Jerry

 

Jerry

[dmeaden]

I'd never accuse you of knowing nothing Julia and I value your comments.

Certainly from a mass production point of view a second motor would cost more and cause more problems that it would solve (if any) and there's probably a very good reason most of the OO and N gauge manufacturers go for only 1 motor.

Cheers

Dave

Hi Dave

 

In terms of motor - one would be best with four wheel drive. As for weight - can you make some of the weight removable ie in cab area so users with sound or clear cab requirements can remove the weight if they don't want to run prototypical length trains?

 

Keep us informed of progress :-)

 

Also I would second the need for weathered north east numbered loco (s)

 

Best Regards

[Roy L S]

Hello all,

 

Fleischmann did a set (725071) of DB locos as a twin pack. One has the motor, the other sound. They were permanently coupled I believe.

 

I think that the added complication and expense of a second motor offsets any possible advantages.

 

A single powered bogie is an option - Farish use it on their recent MUs - but personally I'd prefer both bogies to be powered.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

 

I dug out my rather average Parkwood 17. Mine is built on a dummy chassis and represents one towed "dead" as a failure which was not uncommon (the chassis options it is designed to fit is are almost impossible to get hold of).

 

This reminded me just how small the bonnet ends are, and with a gear tower in place each end I see a real need to use the centre section and bottom half of the cab for tractive weight and no realistic way round that (even if some kind of low profile mechanism is involved).

 

The lack of space available over the bogie for weight (unlike the Farish 108 etc) makes a single powered bogie  look a real "no-no" to me unless one wants feeble haulage capacity akin to the Dapol M7 where one is essentially faced with a similar issue.

 

As I see it, just looking at the model rather than applying any more complex asessment of volume within the body shell, were motors, gear towers and flywheels in the bonnet ends (even if all that would fit) allowing for body moulding thickness there would be very little room for tractive weight anywhere, particularly if the cab is required to remain clear and the tank available for a DCC socket. A two motor option would be a massive complication and expense to provide a solution to two issues (totally clear cab and DCC sound) that I am guessing only a very small number of purchasers would even be concerned about, while potentially seriously compromising it's ability to haul a typical train never mind a dummy too.

 

Nope, having looked at a model in 3D and been reminded of it's size I still remain of the view that the best solution, and the one providing what most potential purchasers who will want (a sufficiently heavy smooth and reliable runner) is most definitely Dave's original one.

 

Roy

[Alex Duckworth]

Well I'll eat my hat. You learn something everyday!! 

Now you mention it I believe Goldy Locks famous brother Bo photographed them

 

Jerry

 

Jerry

 

 Strangely enough it was the little known photo by Bo of the Blue Pullman trial run on the Wath section of the Woodhead that made me buy one.

 

Alex.

[DJM Dave]

Exactly Alex, and the 77 at the blocks in Brighton too ;-)

[Fenman]

Certainly from a mass production point of view a second motor would cost more and cause more problems that it would solve (if any) and there's probably a very good reason most of the OO and N gauge manufacturers go for only 1 motor.

 

Hm... I sympathise with the problems you're experiencing in getting the best (or do I mean "least worst"?) compromise for this model.

 

Can I suggest that you put the N gauge version on hold for a while and, in the meantime, produce an O gauge model, so that you can experiment and test where there are fewer space constraints...? We could all see what effect having an empty cab would have, too.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just speaking selfishly, of course. 

 

Paul

[Les1952]

The only issue I might find with a decoder socket in the belly tank would be if you did the same as happens on one or two Minitrix locos- the decoder goes on the side of the PCB you can't see! The result of that is having to guess which way up to fit the decoder as the labelling is also on the side you can't see.......

 

All the very best

Les

(still after an NE class 17 in N)

[Roy L S]

Pottering in the modelling room today, I thought it may better illustrate my concerns about room for tractive weight by putting a pic up of my Parkwood Clayton next to the Dapol 26.

 

The 26 is in itself quite a small diesel, but just looking at the comparative sizes of the loco bodies it just illustrates (to me anyway) how little room by comparison there will be in the 17 for motor, DCC PCB and socket and tractive weight and why using the area in the cab below windows for the motor, flywheels and said weight will be essential if the loco is to have adequate haulage capacity and still have room in the belly-tank for a DCC socket..

 

Others may disagree, but as I see it, this is about looking at how to produce a comercially successful product that will satisfy the majority at a suitable price-point rather than an enginering challenge where a more complex solution may well work but in so doing push the price to a commercially unrealistic level.

 

Ultimately it is Dave risking his cash and I am sure he will consider everyone's ideas before locking down his design.

 

Personally I never thought a RTR Clayton would ever happen in N and I am looking forward to reading about this loco's development very eagerly indeed.

 

Roy

[Tricky-CRS]

How about a basic metal cast body with extra detail parts, diecast can be very god these days? 

[Roy L S]

How about a basic metal cast body with extra detail parts, diecast can be very god these days? 

 

I have to admit I had been having similar thoughts, after all the small Farish diesels like the 08 have diecast body with plastic cab and fittings and that works very well.

 

Regards

 

Roy

[Revolution Mike]

Others may disagree, but as I see it, this is about looking at how to produce a comercially successful product that will satisfy the majority at a suitable price-point rather than an enginering challenge where a more complex solution may well work but in so doing push the price to a commercially unrealistic level.

 

I'm afraid I do disagree - Dave is doing exactly the right thing by trying to work these things out before finalising the CAD. If we discount the 2 motor option then there is no reason why any of the suggestions should increase price.

 

The trick is to not try and re-invent the wheel, but look at the best examples from other N gauge manufacturers from around the globe.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Roy L S]

I'm afraid I do disagree - Dave is doing exactly the right thing by trying to work these things out before finalising the CAD. If we discount the 2 motor option then there is no reason why any of the suggestions should increase price.

 

The trick is to not try and re-invent the wheel, but look at the best examples from other N gauge manufacturers from around the globe.

 

Cheers, Mike

 

Hi Mike

 

I was most specifically referring to the two motor option, when talking about complexity and cost. Sorry, I could have made that a bit clearer.

 

That said, I also have serious misgivings that with this particular small bonneted design you will ever get enough weight over one powered bogie to make it work/pull anything like as well as a central motor driving both bogies. As far as I know the small bonneted continental N designs do not use this approach but the rather more traditional one, Whether any are fitted for sound I do not know. 

 

I know a single powered bogie was used years ago by Lima and I think Atlas (Plus also the Bachmann US "Doodlebug") but all with much bigger body-shells. More recently too by Farish in their DMUs. However in all these cases there is much more room for weight above/around the driven wheels and in case of the earlier ones no need to factor DCC and sound into the design, In Lima's case they also had to compromise a large pickup footprint for using four traction tyres to make the locos actually pull  - I'm thinking that's not acceptable thse days (not that I think Dave will be probably using Lima's 1970s thinking as a blueprint for anything!).

 

Anyway, I have expressed my thoughts and ideas, at the end of the day it is not my money or commercial risk. I am sure we all want Dave to be successful in his venture which is much of what is driving these discussions. I am perfectly happy to wait and see now what solutions/compromises Dave comes up with.

 

Regards

 

Roy

Edited November 17, 2013 by Roy L S

[Multiple identity account 2]

Hi Dave,

In my opinion, I think you should go with a centrally mounted motor that sits below the cab window. It would be nice it it was concealed with a grey lump of plastic (something similar posted before??). The idea of a PCB in the fuel tank also seems excellent. 

J

[-missy-]

Hello.

 

Hi Mike

 

I was most specifically referring to the two motor option, when talking about complexity and cost.

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

Regardless of what Dave decided to go with I really dont get why people are having hang ups about this arrangement.

 

OK, so you need 2 motors instead of one but the only real difference is that the drive shafts comming from each end of a centrally mounted double shafted motor (t the bogies) is shortened and a single ended motor is added to each end of the drive shafts, the motors are then wired up in series. Its not rocket science!

 

Am I alone in seeing this?

 

M.

[DJM Dave]

Sorry Julia, but yes I think you are.

As mentioned earlier by me there a reason no one else uses it for UK outline OO and N models. Can they all be wrong?

[-missy-]

Oh well.

 

But then I am not one for being boring and following 'convention'!

 

M.