Jump to content
 

Dr Al

Members
  • Posts

    1,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,397 profile views

Dr Al's Achievements

578

Reputation

  1. Tony, I hate to say this, but now that I've seen it, I can't un-see it, and not point it out....have you not inverted the cab and tender lining on this model - i.e. the grey should be on the outside edges of the red? Unless there is an odd case of this in prototype? Sorry - don't hate me for pointing it out, but I suspect you'd want to know as constructive comment. Best, Alan
  2. No, it's a different tool. Cheers, Alan
  3. The top bogie gear is worn down - very clear in the picture - a common issue on Farish 66s. You need to replace these - the rest of the gearing is all fine. This will just allow the worms to bump across that gear rather than mesh with it. Cheers, Alan
  4. Dapol 68 is not a coreless motor - IIRC it looked like a Tomix style 5 pole open frame. Coreless motors can be fast - the 3.7V ones for drone use have much higher RPM values. I think the problem with rail ones is that 12V is fairly strong to use in such a small form factor - which I presume is why finding any alternative replacements is almost impossible. Cheers, Alan
  5. The link is here (18krpm or 13.5krpm versions, and it's the 18k you want). https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254604745332 The fitting is as below: The parts: Comparison of motors: Even the small new motor makes the original look weedy: The replacement is a snug fit in the casting, and has the same diameter shafts so the flywheels fit immediately (though again, they are so pitifully small that if they hadn't got the drive couplings mounted, I'd have been tempted not to bother refitting them), meaning that the plastic retainers are not needed - though if retention was an issue, the screws could be used with some thin brass retaining strips: Clearance to the PCB (the motor sits taller by 0.5mm, but the flywheels are where they were, since the casting's cut out is 8mm, and there's clearance hole in the PCB anyway): Any issue, and it's all completely reversible, nothing has been cut, hacked or modified. The speed increase is not mega, but it helps get the scale speed up to around 125mph or so, which is still tight, but gives a bit of headroom. I also cleaned out all the grease from the bogies to reduce drag and further found one model that had the flywheel at one end of the motor rubbing on the chassis block. This was corrected when new motor was installed. I have to say, that when you strip a 90, you do feel rather short changed - there's plenty of space for a superior motor and still have all the modern gimmicks folk want (speakers etc), or add more chassis material to up the weight of the unit. There is space between the PCB and the chassis casting to add some lead if you find it necessary (though insulate the top surface if you do that!!). Cheers, Alan
  6. Not because they are coreless, no. But the implication here is that the gearing hasn't changed in the revised design; but the top speed has, which is down to the motor RPM. This is why the 47 is interesting case to see the difference. There seem a very limited number of 12V, 7mm diameter, coreless motors about, so these look to have a 13000rpm rating from what is out there. I suspect the earlier can motor is 18000 or 21000 rpm. The 90 has space for an 8mm motor, and I've replaced them with 18500rpm 8mm motors (which fit so perfectly you could believe the designer intended it), to stretch the legs. Fortunately these can be got fairly cheaply (if it was the 22 quid for a Farish spare it'd be sore). The motors Bachmann have in the 90s seem also to be slow on first run, and need time to 'warm up' which is also mediocre, and not something I've seen on other Farish coreless drives, so may be a batch issue. I've not looked to see if these motors will fit the 40, and the 60 I doubt I'll ever buy (have my fill of original run models). That's a scale 81mph. About right for a normal 47, but too low for the 100mph rated 47/7 - so if/when they do another run of those, they should be prepared for complaints. Plus, it doesn't take into account a long scale train adding drag, curves, not-quite-level track, different controllers, wear etc, with not a lot of headroom there. Also, to run at scale speed you have to hammer the motor at full speed which will only add to the speed of degradation. All a bit disappointing overall, as these kind of things should come out in design and testing IMHO - designing with no margin at the top end isn't well thought out IMHO. Not looking for Smokey Joe on reheat here, but they need more headroom for me. Cheers, and thanks to those who looked and measured, Alan
  7. Anyone measured the scale top speed of the current chassis in the new 47s? Given recent use of the coreless motor, in locos like the 40, 60 and 90, all of which struggle to reach a scale top speed (with no load), it'd be interesting to know if the new 47 chassis is also afflicted with this issue. Cheers, Alan
  8. I've fitted later Farish A4 style RP25 blackened wheels to one, and these work fine. Cheers, Alan
  9. Agree totally with the first point - I've lowered the body also on all my Farish 37s. [note: there are some very poor standard fixes to this that *raise* the bogie frame sides instead - these are not a good solution!] Second point is irrelevant - a correctly lowered body Farish class 37 can go round R1 curves also. So there's no reason any well designed 37 from......another manufacturer..... could not also be designed to go round R1. While I avoid R1 and tight curves in general, R1 will not disappear any time soon in N as so many folks still use it, and Peco setrack points use it extensively. The only way it'll start to be phased out is if Peco remove it from their setrack system, and to do that would mean replacing basically the whole system as the basic left and right standard points (ST5, ST6) that are the basis of the system use it for their curved roads. Cheers, Alan
  10. I think if this refers to my comments, that it's not quite what I was trying to say. Coreless or cored 'can', is not the problem - it's serviceability. The Farish coreless is just particularly impossible to get apart. That doesn't make it a bad performer - indeed it's a much better performer than their equivalent cored- 'can' motors. It's very clear to me, having seen a lot (not mine, from various sources, before anyone claims I must be doing something wrong!) of Farish and Dapol 'can' motors where they have worn the brushgear through. With current designs, brushgear is not replaceable*, so this means a new motor. That is costly IMHO. Very costly - Farish motors are typically £22 (despite being more like £1-2 from China, on the few occasions they've been offered from there direct). Add the cost to get someone to fit it and you're likely close to or more than £50. This is where some better design could really set a new manufacturer apart - and from everything that's been said, Accurascale seem keen to be such a player. However, I do understand nowadays the it's likely no manufacturer would make their own motor; instead buying them in. As such, getting the spares cost down, and reliable continuous supplies seems highly necessary IMHO if it's going to be a necessity to change them. So the my bullet points would be: - coreless or cored isn't a big deal, as long as the performance (particularly ultra-creep speeds) is superb - brushgear should be serviceable within reason - if that means normal older style brushes that can be replaced, or easy of access to motor end caps (and make them available - it can and has been done before by Mashima). - spares be a bit more reasonable in price, especially if the motor is not serviable. - spares to be available, and remain available. Some Farish spares have taken 5 years to get back in stock and some have never been available, similarly for some Dapol spares. - fit a motor with enough RPM to give a good headroom in top speed, as stuff like the current Farish class 90 is very disappointing in this respect. The Holden J69 in N would be nice....! Cheers, Alan * yet it can be, as I've done it by replacing motor end caps - but the only way I could was to save up burnt out motors with ok brushes and put those onto motors whose brushgear had worn through. Which is frankly ridiculous, and not viable for most people!
  11. I totally agree. We are in the strange situation now where locos can potentially be expected to go through 2 or 3 or more motors in their lifespan [some have tested motors to destruction and shown lifespans of ~100 hours] - this is just a complete waste. Given that open frame easy to maintain motors can last the lifetime of a loco (one only need look at original Minitrix - many still going after now *55* years (first N gauge they did was 1967)) the current situation is in many ways embarrassing. The question is to manufacturers: What is so bad about a traditional 5 pole, skew wound, carbon brushed motor, that it's dropped out of favour? Or a larger coreless with exchangeable brushes, instead of the short lifespan, irreplaceable commutation seen now? I imagine the reason is: that the 3 pole can and coreless motors are el-cheapo, and that most manufacturers don't bother to make their own motors any more. Sadly too, manufacturers of superb quality motors, like Mashima, also are disappearing. The markup is quantifiable - the 7mm coreless motors Bachmann use (or at least something identical) were available from China direct for a short period, and they were ~£1.50 each, delivered. Bachmann are charging £20+. Now sure, I expect Bachmann to make a profit on this, but close to 14x, and at a level that can often consign the model to "beyond economical repair" bin, just because it needs new brush gear, feels a bit sore. I guess if spares could be a lot cheaper, that would be better, but it's still a lot of hardware going to landfill. Again, this is not theoretical - I've seen a lot of modern Farish with worn out, or trashed brushgear, some less than 2 years old. E.g Farish 3 pole 1015 can, badly grooved worn out commutator, and dead wiper brushes. Otherwise totally fine, coils all read good resistance, but in the bin. IIRC this was from a Farish Class 55, so not an old model when I pulled this one (early 2020): Cheers, Alan - oh dear, sorry it's the soapbox again. P.s. If you run a model for 1 hour a week (seems reasonable?) then with 100 hour life, it'll be dead in less than 2 years. That means even if you keep it only 10 years, you'll go through 5 motors in that time, costing more than the loco's new value to get replaced (assuming sent for repair). Given how difficult and infrequent batches are, keeping a model 10 years isn't unreasonable either.....many of us expect to have these models until we croak it, or change to something else!
  12. Everyone knowing how motors work is not the point - I don't think anyone expects that; though better messaging around basic maintenance is something the hobby is again lacking, or has a lot of misinformation on. The pertinent point is that maintenance remains necessary whatever the owner's knowledge. If they don't know, they are likely to send it for service or repair, and that is where the rub comes - some of these models are actually barely possible for even experienced repairers to do basic maintenance on (without junking the motors and replacing, at considerable expense). For my fleet, I've had to accumulate various precision tools and (at times borderline ridiculous) ways of getting in to some of todays motors, just to clean the brush carbon out, which is something that can be done in minutes on older style motors (because they don't need stripped down...). Some motors are actually impossible to open - Farish's 7mm coreless is an example - it either works, or it's in the bin, and that (at £20 a shot) is...........expensive. And they do fail - I've seen several. Design changes do not need to be significant to do this (and should be trivial for a clean sheet design IMHO) - Dapol is a good example - their 5 pole skew wound motor only needs a 5mm square hole tooled in on one side to expose the commutator. Currently the only methods are to either remove the flywheels and the motor end cap fully; or drill out your own access hole (which is one for the die hards!). I do feel that none of these things are in any way complex - the mechanism in a model is not conceptually complicated at all, and wouldn't take much for those of knowledge to bring about, so it does amaze how poor some models can be. Anyways, I fear there's enough of the soapbox from me - I don't want to drag thread too much away from the original point. Cheers, Alan
  13. In terms of locking, yes, this is true. But there is also another way, which actually makes them function to their maximal ability- namely to close the gap up with appropriately shortened coupler heads so the corridors just touch on straight track. Then on curves the corridors will force the coupler system to actually work kinematically. Any coupler can be used - I do this mostly with standard Rapidos (so a short shank on one coach and a standard on the adjacent) or Dapol's fixed knuckles. This works on most of the current models, though there are a few exceptions, where pronounced buffers cause locking (e.g. Farish Stanier). But Farish Mk1s, Mk2s, Dapol Mk3s, and Dapol Gresleys all work well. Of course the closed up gap also looks good. Some examples (excuse photo quality - these were taken years and years and years ago) - note I have done precisely nothing fancy (yet virtually nobody else does this!): Farish Mk2 (short + standard rapido) Dapol Mk3 (short fixed knuckles) Farish Mk1 (short + standard rapido) Dapol Gresley (short rapidos) These all work well as the buffers are retracted or in the case of Mk3s, not present. Regarding Farish's execution - agreed. Farish have frankly waded through a mess of attempts at NEM sockets and couplers over the last decade, only in the last few years actually getting one that meets the standard. They've had: - original execution, which had the pips on the coupler too small a diameter, and their receptacles the same - this is why early sockets (e.g. many of the first Mk1 batches) are so damn tight - floppy sockets, unfortunately something still on some recent models - the little plastic 'wings' that should keep them centred either being moulded at an angle that doesn't make them function, or being so fine and weak that they don't work - second iteration of the coupler and socket, where the pips were fixed, but the coupler head design had a completely non-standard symmetrical socket that relied on the base of the socket (rather than the two forks at the rearmost of the coupler head) to sit at the right height. These just about work in the Farish sockets, but on anything else they sag. - many pockets on the current design are too stiff, so the coupler can get stuck upwards. Current class 37s are a culprit of this, I've had to patiently remove material from the heads on numerous to get these to free up. Couplers at this size are a precision device, and as such, for proper reliable functionality need to be treated with more care in both design and manufacture. Cheers, Alan
  14. Bear in mind too that I'm not sure we've seen much rolling stock that does push the coupler in the right direction. The Farish Mk1s are close, but not enough - only happening on really tight curves, and not pushing it enough [though minor modifications can make them function in this way. Generally, with rakes that aren't separated, this is only needed on the end coaches, which is why I find it less of a grumble than the locos]. Maybe in some specific cases for locos this can be made to work. But generally from my observations of this on models like the EFE 17, Dapol 50, 68, Farish 90, no. Why? The pivot centre position of most loco bogies is significantly more inboard than on many coaches/wagons*, either because of bogie position, or bogie length (particularly Co-Cos). This means the body overhang is proportionally greater, so to push the coupling to be central between the rails then can point it in the wrong direction too i.e. it points too much toward the centre of the circle described by the curve it is on, because its pivot centre does not match that of the bogie.... Difficult to explain without photos, which of that instance, I don't immediately have available, but it is clear from the examples out there that I've played with, that even on short bogie wheelbase locos (like the EFE 17) it is unlikely to work well - also the amount the coupler needs to be pushed is much larger, so actually envisaging the right mechanism to even achieve this is not immediately clear - maybe someone can, but I don't see it. As such, this is all becomes very obtuse, as compared to just bogie mounting the coupling, which intrinsically puts the coupler where it needs to be, all the time, every time. Cheers, Alan * Of course there may be examples of rolling stock this also applies to, but it seems like this is less common. At the other extreme, certainly 4 wheel stock like the Dapol blue spot fish van do not need this system as it does not do anything due to their short size - I've looked closely at these models to see if they extend on even tight curves, and they don't. So in cases like this, we are paying for something that is more complex, more parts to tool and assemble, that demonstrably does....precisely nothing.
  15. As a long time N gauge modeller, whose dealt with and seen more N gauge models than I should admit to, I'd like to add to this, but in a different way. All Accurascale's existing models (well locos, certainly) are already available from the main N Gauge manufacturers, they need to distinguish themselves by other means. One such, would be a real step up in design and testing and quality, and less of the 'jumping on the list of features bandwagon'. Specifically, any N gauge loco that could cover the following would have a very strong basis going forward: - kinematic mounts. Do not use kinematic mounted couplers on locos, instead having bogie mounted NEM sockets. Now woaaaahh I hear everyone squeal - that's a retrograde step. But actually consider the real usage of these, and quickly the answer becomes: no it's not. Manufacturers have all recently jumped on this bandwagon, and have clearly not fully functionally tested these systems . No kinematically mounted coupler loco can actually couple reliably, and often never at all on a curve, because these systems point the coupler in completely the wrong direction: This will not couple, quite simply. This has been a retrograde step for the models that have it. [Yes, here that's on a tight setrack curve, but the same problem occurs on less tight curves]. Same is true of other manufacturer's models - it's no recognition of this model's manufacturer (EFE cl17) or execution - it's the basic geometry and concept of the system that fails in this instance, which is always worse for locos which have longer front overhangs/bogies. For rolling stock, if these are used (and I'm not against them being used here, with careful design, as when coupled they work well to close the gaps), then they need to be designed so they are turned by the bogies, such that the coupler follows the track centre, such that they can then couple on curves. - motors. Recently again the trend has been for everyone to go sealed can or sealed coreless. No big problem with this in many ways, and certainly they are smooth credible performers. However, the problems come after a few years - wear to commutation and brushes and they are dead - they can't be repaired, giving an expensive repair or replacement (many Farish motors are £20+ not including cost of getting them fitted). This may sound hypothetical and "you'd need to run it for ages", but actually motor failures just because of worn down brushes on both can and coreless motors are becoming increasingly common given even the number I've seen, in many cases on models that really aren't that old (2, 3, 5 years). While this, I'm sure is something manufacturers don't hugely care about, it does not help the scale's reputation for reliability. Beyond that, even Dapol who do use an open frame motor, which runs well and is 5 pole/skew wound, but it has one part of the design that is poorly thought out - there's no easy access to the commutator for cleaning (something that should be considered basic maintenance IMHO). Again this is being seen in a large number of motors performing poorly (I've seen a lot) when all that's going on is the comm slots are clogged [aside: the can motors Farish use also have this problem - binning motors just because the commutators are clogged is madness, as it can happen after only a relatively few hours of running]. As such, choice of a solid, tested, 5 pole, skew wound, open frame motor, with accessible commutator for easy maintenance would alone distinguish Accurascale as a step up, and give the indication they have really considered their designs from a pragmatic standpoint. Also, recently Farish have scaled all their mechanisms such that the full power top speed is the scale top speed of the loco. This sounds intelligent and a great idea, but again it misses the pragmatic reality - put 10 coaches on behind the model, add some curves or a slight gradient and the scale top speed cannot be reached. Also to then get to top speed you are hammering the motor at its top end. So again careful design thought would go a long way here. - access. Some manufacturers are starting to catch onto this, but easy body removal is a must. We've seen some horrors in N - the Farish DMUs are not easy to get into as the clips are too vicious, the Revolution 320's centre car is a nightmare [worse as there's a functional item in there - the interior lighting switch!]. All use plastic clip type attachments, and all have clearly been designed on a computer and never actually given to someone to test [I've seen several models with big scratches up their sides from slipped tools from poor owners just trying to get the shell off to put a decoder in]. As such, moving to some simple screwed attachments, with easy access to the full chassis for DCC fitment or maintenance would be a simple boon that seems to have been overlooked for so many years. Certainly the removable roof sections on the OO models are a good idea, but making the full body easily removable is also highly desirable. - pickups. Again, the bandwagon had a number of N Gauge models move to axle mounted bearing pickup systems. These can work ok if there's enough wheels and weight, but often are less consistent that traditional systems, and are a nightmare to maintain. Wiper pickups are far better as their positive spring contact ensures good electrical contact. The bearing pickups are often poor in this respect - anyone who's had a Dapol 57xx or some Farish models can attest - the 57xx's can often only be fixed by completely stripping down to the level of wheels off axles to clean the pickups! Wipers are a doddle to clean by comparison. With the right pickups, the need for stuff like stay-alive evaporates, and solves the problem at source. - Rapido coupler. Here, the number of poor renditions of this is amazing. Often with a big mould line across the centre of the coupler, flash, as well as poor toleranced NEM sockets that give stiff operation, loose operation, couplers that droop/stick up high [the primary problem that causes uncoupling is level coupler heads and coupler heights]. Getting these done to a higher standard is something that nobody will shout about, but will actually make a real difference - and in terms of the best coupler rendition - look at a Farish coupler head dating from 1984-2000 - these have a subtle design change that means when coupled to each other they almost never come apart, even if the heights aren't quite perfect and the trackwork is...wandering. I'll admit, it took me a while to discover this, but when I did I was amazed that nobody has kept on doing it! - availability. A big problem in N right now is the scarcity of re-runs, meaning it's almost impossible to get some models. While we all know batch production is the current way, when models have had one batch produced and never another for up to a decade [e.g. Farish Black 5, A1, A2, as well as the coaches], it gets difficult for many to see the scale as credible. Hopefully those at Accurascale are reading, and this makes a somewhat different viewpoint from the usual "I want X, with features R,S,T; but do not want to pay more than Y for it". For a new manufacturer to push things forward, a step change again in quality, and maybe considering some of the above would make them stand out, over and above all the usual DCC, lights, sound gubbins, which we all know will be present in any new model. Cheers, Alan - clearly needs to get out more given he has observed all this over the years.... P.s. for what it's worth, of the list of what Accurascale do, the likely most enticing is the class 37.
×
×
  • Create New...