Accurascale Class 55 Deltic - 4mm scale

[Titan]

Are you going to add the supports in the middle of the cant rail grilles as shown here?

 

 

Or is Lima still going to be the only Deltic model that gets this right...

[Accurascale Fran]

1 minute ago, Titan said:

Are you going to add the supports in the middle of the cant rail grilles as shown here?

 

 

Or is Lima still going to be the only Deltic model that gets this right...

Hi Titan,

 

Yes, it’s on the snag list!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Titan]

1 minute ago, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi Titan,

 

Yes, it’s on the snag list!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

 

Great, thanks!

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

They could well be compatible actually. We will know more when the 37 is tooled. Interesting idea! Leave that one with us.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

I suppose it all depends upon just how much difference there is between accurate wheels size and reduced size, in practical terms they are pretty much hidden behind the bogies, are the reduced size wheels really an issue cosmetically?  I doubt it to most users on balance.

[Accurascale Fran]

That is how we feel David, compared to a nose or body shape that is not right. I think that's the most important aspect to achieve and wheels can be altered by end user if he'she so desires. Changing the shape of a body shell is a much more difficult task!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Bucoops]

I assume the gearing takes into account the smaller wheels to get the appropriate top speed?

[Accurascale Fran]

28 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I assume the gearing takes into account the smaller wheels to get the appropriate top speed?

 

It does indeed! 

 

Cheers,

 

Fran

[truffy]

32 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I assume the gearing takes into account the smaller wheels to get the appropriate top speed?

 

3 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

It does indeed! 

 

Cheers,

 

Fran

 

So if the wheels are changed for something larger, say dustbin lids for example, the thing should fair fly along! 

[G-BOAF]

1 hour ago, Accurascale Fran said:

That is how we feel David, compared to a nose or body shape that is not right. I think that's the most important aspect to achieve and wheels can be altered by end user if he'she so desires. Changing the shape of a body shell is a much more difficult task!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Totally Agree that this is the least-worst option.

If there is an option to swap in Class 37 bogies (with cast frames) that would be interesting.

Would such bogies be available as spares? And is the intention that they be mechanically and electrically the same as the Deltic (i.e. could drop in, and be wired up while maintaining the same ride hight and functionality)?

[Accurascale Fran]

1 minute ago, G-BOAF said:

Totally Agree that this is the least-worst option.

If there is an option to swap in Class 37 bogies (with cast frames) that would be interesting.

Would such bogies be available as spares? And is the intention that they be mechanically and electrically the same as the Deltic (i.e. could drop in, and be wired up while maintaining the same ride hight and functionality)?

 

Hi David,

 

We dont plan to do them as spares at this time, and it's early days in 37 tooling. But when we get later in its process we can experiment and see. I cannot promise anything more at this time tbh.

 

Cheers,

 

Fran

[Bucoops]

23 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

It does indeed! 

 

Cheers,

 

Fran

 

I didn't want to assume

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

I suppose it all depends upon just how much difference there is between accurate wheels size and reduced size, in practical terms they are pretty much hidden behind the bogies, are the reduced size wheels really an issue cosmetically?  I doubt it to most users on balance.

Depends if you know what the prototype looked like. The top of the wheel rims emerge above the top of the bogie frame and are inside the lower edge of the bodyshell. It won't be an accurate model if that appearance cannot be replicated on the model. (I have fiddled with the Bachmann 55 to obtain this, very simple to achieve.)

 

I am glad to see that some thought is being given this by Accurascale. The solution of having the 37 bogies with scale diameter wheelsets as alternatives to the undersize wheelset bogies strikes me as having potential. There needs to be enough clearance available within the bodyshell if this substitution is to be possible: trying to cut clearance for the tops of the flanges if the tungsten alloy block comes down to the body shell exterior edge will be pretty much no go.

 

Such an option will require curves of about 34" minimum radius in OO. Time for those of us liking the overall look of this model and having sufficiently large layout curves to make ourselves known?

[MikeParkin65]

23 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Rob,

 

We have indeed taken option B as it is the only workable solution to keep the body shape prototypical and allow the navigation of 2nd radius curves minimum. Prototype sized wheels can be fitted but you are looking at being limited to 4th radius curves at the very least. Unfortunately there isnt enough layouts out there with such generous curvature to launch a mass market model and have it succeed from a sales POV, so we had to offer a workable compromise. Since so much of the wheel is behind the bodywork on the real things however it's barely noticeable on the model, but can be changed if you have generous curves and the desire to of course!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Definitely the right choice. I didnt realise my Bachmann DP1 had undersize wheels until it was mentioned above whereas my DP2 looks like it has been punch on the nose and both my Bachmann production Deltics look like they are teetering on their bogies even though I have reduced the ride height as far as I dare.  Must get my order placed for yours plus a 37 

Edited January 23, 2020 by MikeParkin65
Spell check induced mistype

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Depends if you know what the prototype looked like. The top of the wheel rims emerge above the top of the bogie frame and are inside the lower edge of the bodyshell. It won't be an accurate model if that appearance cannot be replicated on the model. (I have fiddled with the Bachmann 55 to obtain this, very simple to achieve.)

I know exactly what a Deltic looks like, I was at eye level with the axle boxes wandering around Finsbury Park when I was a dot......

 

I understand your point but I suppose it depends just how close you look at the model while it’s rolling around the layout, if you want a museum grade model that’s another game altogether.

[ChrisMitchell]

On a related topic, is the option for EM or P4 wheels still on the cards?  I know it is specifically mentioned in the Class 37 thread.

 

 With reduced flange size, and the overall larger radius curves in use by modellers in the wider gauges,, does the option of using correct size wheels become viable?

 

regards, Chris

[Guest]

Looking forward to this model, but does it matter about the wheel size, that you can't see without a magnifying glass!  I thought the rivet counters faded away in the eighties.

[woodenhead]

Not wishlisting, but all this bogie swapping talk made me think about another EE Co Co loco that might want a super Accurascale treatment.

['CHARD]

2 hours ago, confused said:

Looking forward to this model, but does it matter about the wheel size, that you can't see without a magnifying glass!  I thought the rivet counters faded away in the eighties.

 

Under normal running and viewing, then maybe.  However, in side profile in cruel static close-up, this will be apparent, so naturally it is a topic of discussion, and of importance to people who were expecting ground-breaking fidelity to prototype, rather than what some may perceive as a compromise based on what they signed up to in 2018.  The issue was raised at the launch of the project, so it's understandable that now we know the solution, it will be subject to peer scrutiny, rather than 'rivet-counting' per se.  

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 hours ago, confused said:

Looking forward to this model, but does it matter about the wheel size, that you can't see without a magnifying glass!  I thought the rivet counters faded away in the eighties.

I can see it from three feet on the layout. The point for me is that this feature can be provided for in OO RTR, has been demonstrated. Going backwards holds no appeal. If the producers are aiming for fidelity, then it is a feature that should be on the table. I appreciate it won't be for all, but if something can be done - and the possibility of using the class 37 bogies with scale diameter wheels as a solution certainly suggests a way forward - it will be welcome.

 

Of one thing I am certain. Not asking will ensure nothing happens.

[Accurascale Fran]

3 hours ago, ChrisMitchell said:

On a related topic, is the option for EM or P4 wheels still on the cards?  I know it is specifically mentioned in the Class 37 thread.

 

 With reduced flange size, and the overall larger radius curves in use by modellers in the wider gauges,, does the option of using correct size wheels become viable?

 

regards, Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

Yes it is something we are actively looking at as an additional item. Changing them has been made straightforward too of course. We have been talking to EM and Scalefour societies for guidance. 

 

57 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Under normal running and viewing, then maybe.  However, in side profile in cruel static close-up, this will be apparent, so naturally it is a topic of discussion, and of importance to people who were expecting ground-breaking fidelity to prototype, rather than what some may perceive as a compromise based on what they signed up to in 2018.  The issue was raised at the launch of the project, so it's understandable that now we know the solution, it will be subject to peer scrutiny, rather than 'rivet-counting' per se.  

Hi Chard,

 

As explained above the wheels are something that can be easily changed. Misshapen nose or off centre bogies? Less so. We were inspired by the Bachmann prototype Deltic which really carries off this trick well. You can drop in scale sized wheels if your curvature can allow it.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Ian J.]

I for one would like to have the option to swap out the wheels or bogies for a more accurate appearance, based on running with 32 inch minimum radius curves. So if there could be a solution that used, say, the 37 bogies, with scale sized wheels and allow running at the correct height above the rail, then I'd be interested (even more so if eventually this could be a pre assembled provision for the Deltic model as bought, but I'll do the work myself if I have to).

[Frond]

On 2 December 2018 at 02:11, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi John,

 

I believe that this has been pointed out elsewhere in this topic and I am loathe to speak ill of another companies product but the DP2 solution is a complete non-runner as it distorts the whole body shape of the locomotive as a result. The body of a Deltic (and DP2) tapers at either end just before the cabside doors, and the DP2 model does not depict this most distinctive of body features correctly as a result of this feature you are championing. Therefore, it looks very wrong when you look at it from above and the sides. I would suggest reading the relevant thread on here for further information and I’m sure you will then accept why it’s a non-runner for us.

 

All I will say at this juncture is that we are working on a cunning plan in this area, which will take a lot of working with the factory and when we have the acceptable results and engineering, we will show it.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

 

Must say I am curious as to what happened to the "cunning plan" to overcome the wheel size /body shape conundrum - I suspect that copying Bachmann wasn't it!

 

As an engineer myself I gave the problem some semi serious thought coming up with vague ideas of cams to raise the body on sharp bends to allow clearance, which in turn gives the problem of the body bobbing up and down etc. I pretty soon gave up and thought I would wait for the answer, turns out there isn't one, only a compromise (which I must add I have no problem with). However I would like to know what ideas were considered and ultimately rejected.

 

Steve

[Accurascale Fran]

1 hour ago, Frond said:

 

Must say I am curious as to what happened to the "cunning plan" to overcome the wheel size /body shape conundrum - I suspect that copying Bachmann wasn't it!

 

As an engineer myself I gave the problem some semi serious thought coming up with vague ideas of cams to raise the body on sharp bends to allow clearance, which in turn gives the problem of the body bobbing up and down etc. I pretty soon gave up and thought I would wait for the answer, turns out there isn't one, only a compromise (which I must add I have no problem with). However I would like to know what ideas were considered and ultimately rejected.

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

We looked into the raising the body on curves and it was not practical from a manufacturing point of view or operationally. We did push hard for it, but was a non-runner. I guess what I have learned from this is that we probably should not be as open and transparent as we have been on RMWeb and elsewhere, and just not discuss anything until its ready. It may have given some false hope in some quarters which was not my intention. Lesson learned here I guess.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Edited January 24, 2020 by Accurascale Fran

[No Decorum]

1 hour ago, Frond said:

 

Must say I am curious as to what happened to the "cunning plan" to overcome the wheel size /body shape conundrum - I suspect that copying Bachmann wasn't it!

 

As an engineer myself I gave the problem some semi serious thought coming up with vague ideas of cams to raise the body on sharp bends to allow clearance, which in turn gives the problem of the body bobbing up and down etc. I pretty soon gave up and thought I would wait for the answer, turns out there isn't one, only a compromise (which I must add I have no problem with). However I would like to know what ideas were considered and ultimately rejected.

 

Steve

On the face of it, I tend to agree that cams would be the ideal solution. They should be designed to have no effect at all on curves with sufficiently large radius and only come into action on tighter curves. However, for all I know, if that is tried out, the result might be an unseemly lurch on tight curves which looks far worse than smaller wheels. It would have been, I think, an idea worth trying out early on in the project in case a smooth action would have been achievable. Perhaps it was tried and just looked ridiculous.

 

What we are going to get seems reasonable. It’s a compromise demanded by our insistence on using tighter than scale curves; itself a compromise. The alternative of dropping in larger wheels has been mentioned. Is doing that to a model designed for smaller wheels going to make the model look noticeably too tall?

 

I’m not cancelling my order in any case.

[No Decorum]

7 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Steve,

 

We looked into the raising the body on curves and it was not practical from a manufacturing point of view or operationally. We did push hard for it, but was a non-runner. I guess what I have learned from this is that we probably should not be as open and transparent as we have been on RMWeb and elsewhere, and just not discuss anything until its ready. It may have given some false hope in some quarters which was not my intention. Lesson learned here I guess.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

No, no, no! Above all, continue to be open and transparent! It was very interesting to learn that raising the body on curves was tried. Now I know that it was tried and wasn’t practicable, I’m entirely reconciled to the solution you’ve chosen. Following the project through RMweb is one of the pleasures of the project; please keep it going, Fran!