Accurascale Class 55 Deltic - 4mm scale

[TomScrut]

54 minutes ago, atom3624 said:

I kind of get the impression its an assumed prerequisite - the detailing will be superb, the quality is yet to be seen.

 

We've already seen another 'manufacturer's brave attempt' getting some harsh-but-fair press - let's hope this one strikes gold with no issues ... as is anticipated ... no pressure of course!!

 

Al.

 

Yes at least it would seem there is the advantage of learning from other's mistakes here!

[Mark]

2 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi No Decorum,

 

It's lovely and smooth as a runner, but we have pulled it apart a fair bit too. It could be the frame rate on the camera too. There is another video of it running here: 

 

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

The chip has this feature on it too.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Brilliant!

 

 As a western region modeller I have had to try very hard to justify one in the early 70’s on a special!

 

Mark

[TravisM]

2 minutes ago, Mark said:

Brilliant!

 

 As a western region modeller I have had to try very hard to justify one in the early 70’s on a special!

 

Mark

Several Class 55’s were used on the WR between Swindon and Didcot in the mid 70’s for high speed tests before the introduction of the HST’s.  I know 55001 was one, not sure on the other but a perfect excuse to get one 

[Mark]

1 minute ago, jools1959 said:

Several Class 55’s were used on the WR between Swindon and Didcot in the mid 70’s for high speed tests before the introduction of the HST’s.  I know 55001 was one, not sure on the other but a perfect excuse to get one 

Yes but none west west of Paignton and I am doing South Brent. Anyway I ordered one a while back as it looks like such a good model.

 

Mark

[G-BOAF]

Judging by the juddering of the wagons in the train at medium on the video, I think any cogging effect will be camera frame rate, possibly further hindered any any fluro or LED lighting being used which can have a high frequency strobing effct.

In my experience a jerky loco on a loose wagon train will either see the jerkiness smoothed out by the back of the train, or amplified. It seems quite constant on the video.

I will give Accurascale he benefit of the doubt on this one :-)

They have gone to such lengths over this model I can't seem them ending up with poor running by design (or hopefully not by QC either)

[No Decorum]

3 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi No Decorum,

 

It's lovely and smooth as a runner, but we have pulled it apart a fair bit too. It could be the frame rate on the camera too. There is another video of it running here: 

 

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

The chip has this feature on it too.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

Many thanks, Fran. I see on the above video apparent jerkiness followed by smoothing out, then more jerkiness. It looks to me as if it’s a result of the camera or the electronic hoops the video has to jump through to get to YouTube. I wasn’t going to cancel my order anyhow. Oh that sound! Heaven in the roof space! 

[Accurascale Fran]

5 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

Many thanks, Fran. I see on the above video apparent jerkiness followed by smoothing out, then more jerkiness. It looks to me as if it’s a result of the camera or the electronic hoops the video has to jump through to get to YouTube. I wasn’t going to cancel my order anyhow. Oh that sound! Heaven in the roof space! 

 

No problem! @AY Mod gave it a run during an interview we did back in October and may remember how smooth it was!  

 

Definitely the frame rate rather than the loco itself. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

No problem! @AY Mod gave it a run during an interview we did back in October and may remember how smooth it was!

 

Fran's right; that's all in the frame rate. It was certainly smooth when we played with it last autumn (only beaten by the silkiness of the A Class's running but Fran tells me the Deltic will have the same circuitry in the production run which will be wonderful).

 

We'll just have to persuade you to do any other vids in 50fps.

[No Decorum]

2 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Fran's right; that's all in the frame rate. It was certainly smooth when we played with it last autumn (only beaten by the silkiness of the A Class's running but Fran tells me the Deltic will have the same circuitry in the production run which will be wonderful).

 

We'll just have to persuade you to do any other vids in 50fps.

Not forgetting to upgrade RMweb (again) to cope!

[MRDBLUE17]

Hello everyone,

 

I agree with Andy about how smooth and quiet the Deltic is. As mentioned a few pages back at Glasgow the sample  had a little run on Rannoch with its ordinary DCC decoder and before it had its proper circuit board and it was very impressive. What you can’t see from a video/photos is the amount of weight the loco has too, so it should be able to handle any prototype train with ease. 
Personally I’m looking forward to the 92’s and 37’s, but the Deltic is going to be superb.

 

cheers

Mark

[G-BOAF]

2 minutes ago, MRDBLUE17 said:

Hello everyone,

 

I agree with Andy about how smooth and quiet the Deltic is. As mentioned a few pages back at Glasgow the sample  had a little run on Rannoch with its ordinary DCC decoder and before it had its proper circuit board and it was very impressive. What you can’t see from a video/photos is the amount of weight the loco has too, so it should be able to handle any prototype train with ease. 
Personally I’m looking forward to the 92’s and 37’s, but the Deltic is going to be superb.

 

cheers

Mark

Splitting hears, you can't SEE the weight of the model even in real life! :-p

[atom3624]

You can appreciate it's effect ... !!

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

Splitting hears, you can't SEE the weight of the model even in real life! :-p

Oh yes you can....it’s part of Rule One......

[Ian J.]

6 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

It's very kind of you to say so but there are several areas that needed improvement and refinement that are currently being worked on. We know this caused a delay in delivery, but so many times before we have seen models unveiled with flaws, modellers pointing them out, then being disappointed with the flaws continuing to production. We wanted to be different in this regard and correct what we found wrong. It costs a fair bit to do these corrections, but we felt it should be done and modellers would appreciate this in the long run. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

 

 

Thinking aloud (and I have no inside knowledge, I'm just an outsider looking in) and not in any way aimed at Accurascale (who, judging by the above quote, might actually be taking notice):

 

For all commissioners/manufacturers, I still wonder at how errors make it past the CAD stage. Surely someone with knowledge and vested interest is checking to make sure that the CAD looks right; that all GA and critical dimensions and potentially problematic areas are noted and checked to make sure they are done correctly; a 3D print done to ensure output from CAD is working right and then all GA and critical dimensions and noted areas checked again; the first tooling done and an EP received and again, all GA and criticial dimensions and noted areas checked again...

 

Surely it's in the interest of the businesses to produce something that will sell well, and not just cover basic costs in a one-time production run?

 

If a production slot might be missed due to making sure things are right, surely there are other existing models that can have re-runs or new runs that could fill an otherwise unused production slot?

 

What am I missing in my vastly incomplete knowledge that means all this means nothing? Is it just that a budget is set and once it's reached a model gets sent to production regardless of its state, even if that means poor reputation seriously tarnishes sales?

 

Thinking aloud over.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Ian J.
Add 'Off-Topic' Emoticon

[Accurascale Fran]

21 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

 

Thinking aloud (and I have no inside knowledge, I'm just an outsider looking in) and not in any way aimed at Accurascale (who, judging by the above quote, might actually be taking notice):

 

For all commissioners/manufacturers, I still wonder at how errors make it past the CAD stage. Surely someone with knowledge and vested interest is checking to make sure that the CAD looks right; that all GA and critical dimensions and potentially problematic areas are noted and checked to make sure they are done correctly; a 3D print done to ensure output from CAD is working right and then all GA and critical dimensions and noted areas checked again; the first tooling done and an EP received and again, all GA and criticial dimensions and noted areas checked again...

 

Surely it's in the interest of the businesses to produce something that will sell well, and not just cover basic costs in a one-time production run?

 

If a production slot might be missed due to making sure things are right, surely there are other existing models that can have re-runs or new runs that could fill an otherwise unused production slot?

 

What am I missing in my vastly incomplete knowledge that means all this means nothing? Is it just that a budget is set and once it's reached a model gets sent to production regardless of its state, even if that means poor reputation seriously tarnishes sales?

 

Thinking aloud over.

 

 

 

Hi Ian,

 

I know you didnt generally aim it at us, but from what my experience has been so far, I can offer some insight. For the Deltic, the corrections on tooling is more to enhance the look of the grills, as you dont always know how well they will render in the tooling phase, so we took the decision to improve this. We are confident about overall shape and have some very good systems for checks and balances on this, as well as running it past a group of people who really know their stuff on certain locos. That's what we have done, but I cant speak for other manufacturers of course.

 

Sometimes mistakes can happen, wood from the trees etc too, people are only human at the end of the day. Other times it can be pressure to get a model to market, whether its to stay on budget, customer demands, poor project management or to beat a competitor. This last point is speculation on my part, but having been this side of the fence for a while I can see how such things can happen.

 

Hope that's of use.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Ian J.]

5 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

Hi Ian,

 

I know you didnt generally aim it at us, but from what my experience has been so far, I can offer some insight. For the Deltic, the corrections on tooling is more to enhance the look of the grills, as you dont always know how well they will render in the tooling phase, so we took the decision to improve this. We are confident about overall shape and have some very good systems for checks and balances on this, as well as running it past a group of people who really know their stuff on certain locos. That's what we have done, but I cant speak for other manufacturers of course.

 

Sometimes mistakes can happen, wood from the trees etc too, people are only human at the end of the day. Other times it can be pressure to get a model to market, whether its to stay on budget, customer demands, poor project management or to beat a competitor. This last point is speculation on my part, but having been this side of the fence for a while I can see how such things can happen.

 

Hope that's of use.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

 

Thanks for replying, much appreciated.

 

I think what worries me most is not that a mistake is made (I accept this can happen), but that they seem to be made with alarming regularity by so many of the 'manufacturers' (and certainly all four of the majors - Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol - whether it be their own models or commissions for others). It suggests something systematically wrong at the heart of the basic R&D process.

[Roy Langridge]

41 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

 

Thanks for replying, much appreciated.

 

I think what worries me most is not that a mistake is made (I accept this can happen), but that they seem to be made with alarming regularity by so many of the 'manufacturers' (and certainly all four of the majors - Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol - whether it be their own models or commissions for others). It suggests something systematically wrong at the heart of the basic R&D process.

 

Not wanting to take this thread away from the Deltic, but I think some of the "mistakes" that get missed from CAD are conscious decisions taken on cost grounds etc.  How many times do we hear.. "That was pointed out at CAD stage" for something that is a) costly to fix or b) only applicable to a small number of possible tooling variations? We look for near perfection, manufacturers look to be financially viable.

Roy

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Ian J. said:

 

Thanks for replying, much appreciated.

 

I think what worries me most is not that a mistake is made (I accept this can happen), but that they seem to be made with alarming regularity by so many of the 'manufacturers' (and certainly all four of the majors - Hornby, Bachmann, Heljan, Dapol - whether it be their own models or commissions for others). It suggests something systematically wrong at the heart of the basic R&D process.

Cost......mass market and cost against profit, that’s all it suggests.

 

The smaller/specialised manufacturers can take more time getting the minutiae correct and reap the rewards in charging slightly more and a smaller market share.

[G-BOAF]

I do recall in the Dapol Western Thread, it was noted that the grills were on the centre lines in the CADs, despite the loco having been laser scanned (on the prototype the are offset opposite at each end due to position of internal walkway crossing from one side of loco to the other. Someone in China working on the CADs had 'corrected' the off-centre grills, clearly thinking that they should be on the centreline of the roof. I suspect a number of 'corrections' occur (given that most chinese cad engineers have not spent any time up close with the prototype) that introduce errors into models and are not always picked up on.

 

Then there are also changes due to necessary compromise of scale, track radius etc that require other adjustments and knock-on impacts that I guess can result in deviation from what was originally scanned.

[Mark]

9 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

I do recall in the Dapol Western Thread, it was noted that the grills were on the centre lines in the CADs, despite the loco having been laser scanned (on the prototype the are offset opposite at each end due to position of internal walkway crossing from one side of loco to the other. Someone in China working on the CADs had 'corrected' the off-centre grills, clearly thinking that they should be on the centreline of the roof. I suspect a number of 'corrections' occur (given that most chinese cad engineers have not spent any time up close with the prototype) that introduce errors into models and are not always picked up on.

 

Then there are also changes due to necessary compromise of scale, track radius etc that require other adjustments and knock-on impacts that I guess can result in deviation from what was originally scanned.

They scanned the body but couldn’t do the roof. In the end I sent them my cadds model which I created several years ago. Even with that they still missed the point on the top of the nose and made it flat all the way across. It is another one of those subtle Western Features that combine to give the correct appearance. I think they have also done something with the lower valences but I haven’t checked them against my original cadds model.

 

Otherwise it is the best Western to date.

 

Mark

[Pre Grouping fan]

15 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

I do recall in the Dapol Western Thread, it was noted that the grills were on the centre lines in the CADs, despite the loco having been laser scanned (on the prototype the are offset opposite at each end due to position of internal walkway crossing from one side of loco to the other. Someone in China working on the CADs had 'corrected' the off-centre grills, clearly thinking that they should be on the centreline of the roof. I suspect a number of 'corrections' occur (given that most chinese cad engineers have not spent any time up close with the prototype) that introduce errors into models and are not always picked up on.

 

Then there are also changes due to necessary compromise of scale, track radius etc that require other adjustments and knock-on impacts that I guess can result in deviation from what was originally scanned.

I can backup the Chinese engineers changing/not following the drawings. Used to work at a injection moulding company receiving tooling from China and it was common to receive tooling that had parts deviating from the design/specification and some additional parts that didn't even fit correctly.

So I can quite see how minor changes can be snuck in by the factories that weren't on the signed off CADs. 

[Accurascale Fran]

15 minutes ago, G-BOAF said:

I do recall in the Dapol Western Thread, it was noted that the grills were on the centre lines in the CADs, despite the loco having been laser scanned (on the prototype the are offset opposite at each end due to position of internal walkway crossing from one side of loco to the other. Someone in China working on the CADs had 'corrected' the off-centre grills, clearly thinking that they should be on the centreline of the roof. I suspect a number of 'corrections' occur (given that most chinese cad engineers have not spent any time up close with the prototype) that introduce errors into models and are not always picked up on.

 

Then there are also changes due to necessary compromise of scale, track radius etc that require other adjustments and knock-on impacts that I guess can result in deviation from what was originally scanned.

 

I have to say that in our experience China make what they see, not what they think.  It can be easy to blame those who have no voice after all, and if you put bad info in, bad product comes out. It is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure data is up to scratch and are vigilant in checks. 

 

(Not saying that this is the case of this particular model, and wouldn't pass judgement on another company's product! Dapol produced a cracking loco with a lot of input from RMWeb I believe, I just wanted to take up the point and counter the "blame China" narrative which has been pushed by some individuals to cover their own shortcomings.) 

 

Maybe we've been very lucky, but that's our experience. 

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[spamcan61]

16 minutes ago, Accurascale Fran said:

 

I have to say that in our experience China make what they see, not what they think.  It can be easy to blame those who have no voice after all, and if you put bad info in, bad product comes out. It is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure data is up to scratch and are vigilant in checks. 

 

Having spent a fair chunk of the last 20 or so years working with/for Far Eastern suppliers the main challenge IMHO is that by and large you will get exactly what you ask for, implemented in the quickest cheapest way possible. Hence any grey areas open to interpretation are asking for trouble. I can imagine that's tricky on something as complex as a toy train - with a high level of hand assembly.

 

Having said that there was one 'premier league' Chinese CEM I worked with back in late 2000s that blatantly weren't meeting the specification (their own chemical analysis reports proved this) and that's tricky to deal with when culturally admitting mistakes is a total no-no and saving face is everything. Not difficult to see why DJM had so much trouble...

Edited June 15, 2020 by spamcan61

[Accurascale Fran]

1 minute ago, spamcan61 said:

Having spent a fair chunk of the last 20 or so years working with/for Far Eastern suppliers the main challenge IMHO is that by and large you will get exactly what you ask for, implemented in the quickest cheapest way possible. Hence any grey areas open to interpretation are asking for trouble. I can imagine that's tricky on something as complex as a toy train - with a high level of hand assembly.

 

Having said that there was one 'premier league' CEM I worked with back in late 2000s that blatantly weren't meeting the specification (their own chemical analysis reports proved this) and that's tricky to deal with when culturally admitting mistakes is a total no-no and saving face is everything. Not difficult to see why DJM had so much trouble...

 

Maybe doing our own CAD helps, but so far (touch wood!) we havent suffered anything major. 

 

Now I have just left us hostages to fortune!!! 

[sirwilliamfrs]

Rails of Sheffield have a limited edition version of D9019 listed in 1965 two-tone green condition. It is shown in profile on their website as having plated over front cabside windows. Is this a mistake in the drawing or was this loco an exception by having the  modification before any other? In all the photos I can find from this period the window is shown as glazed.