Jump to content

Andy Y

Accurascale Class 55 Deltic - 4mm scale

Recommended Posts

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

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Accurascale Fran
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Friendly/supportive 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Agree 12
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 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

 Tilting is one thing, fighting gravity with a cam system raising a heavy tungsten body is very much another. Glad you tried though :)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

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!

Agreed!! Accurascale have been such a breath of fresh air with being open and transparent - please don't stop Fran!!! 

  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise have to agree this pragmatic approach is the best compromise - and all our models have compromise!

 

Just a thought in case any of us want to swap for full sized wheels .... could you offer them as drop in replacements?

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Likewise have to agree this pragmatic approach is the best compromise - and all our models have compromise!

 

Just a thought in case any of us want to swap for full sized wheels .... could you offer them as drop in replacements?

 

Cheers

 

We are looking into that Phil!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

 Tilting is one thing, fighting gravity with a cam system raising a heavy tungsten body is very much another. Glad you tried though :)

 

The engineering Prototype clocked in at just over 750g, which didn't help any 'cam system' plans :) We've put it on a slight diet for the forthcoming decorated, working samples.

Edited by McC
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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

 

Thanks for the reply Fran.

 

Please do not take my post as an expression of disappointment, I was genuinely curious. Your openness has been one of the best things to happen to railway modelling for years, the fact that we are having this discussion proves that -I can't imagine many (any?) other manufacturers discussing the details of their development process. Please keep it coming, mistakes, blind alleys, corrections and all.

 

Thanks

 

Steve

 

 

  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frond said:

 

Thanks for the reply Fran.

 

Please do not take my post as an expression of disappointment, I was genuinely curious. Your openness has been one of the best things to happen to railway modelling for years, the fact that we are having this discussion proves that -I can't imagine many (any?) other manufacturers discussing the details of their development process. Please keep it coming, mistakes, blind alleys, corrections and all.

 

Thanks

 

Steve

 

 

 

Hi Steve,

 

I didn't, don't worry, and we will continue to engage. We do appreciate the feedback and we are glad members enjoy engaging with us.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

  • Like 8
  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McC said:

 

The engineering Prototype clocked in at just over 750g, which didn't help any 'cam system' plans :) We've put it on a slight diet for the forthcoming decorated, working samples.

Removed the crew eh? :lol:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McC said:

 

We are looking into that Phil!

 

How much Millionaires shortbread would it take....?????

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, McC said:

 

The engineering Prototype clocked in at just over 750g, which didn't help any 'cam system' plans :) We've put it on a slight diet for the forthcoming decorated, working samples.


750g... you did specify that the coaches it was supposed to pull were also model railway coaches not real ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:


750g... you did specify that the coaches it was supposed to pull were also model railway coaches not real ones.

 

Needless to say it could pull a rake of 30 brass coaches without breaking a sweat :)

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like the class 50s in GBRF livery. Wonder what a deltic would look like in those colours?  I suspect you are not going to produce one!

 

PS I do have a large logo deltic, not sure it suits it.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ColinK said:

I quite like the class 50s in GBRF livery. Wonder what a deltic would look like in those colours?  I suspect you are not going to produce one!

 

PS I do have a large logo deltic, not sure it suits it.

 

That's our April Fools Day prank sorted, thanks Colin! :) 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/01/2020 at 11:51, Phil Bullock said:

Likewise have to agree this pragmatic approach is the best compromise - and all our models have compromise!

 

Just a thought in case any of us want to swap for full sized wheels .... could you offer them as drop in replacements?

 

Cheers

Just a thought. Larger wheels might cause trouble with the couplings being raised too high. The hook on a coach might bang into the bar on the loco instead of gliding up over it to engage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/01/2020 at 11:51, Phil Bullock said:

Likewise have to agree this pragmatic approach is the best compromise - and all our models have compromise!

 

Just a thought in case any of us want to swap for full sized wheels .... could you offer them as drop in replacements?

 

Cheers

 

As mentioned in the previous post the larger wheels would cause bigger problems than the size of the wheels not being prototypical is a problem to begin with! It would probably need a different bogie to compensate for the raised CL of the axle required to accommodate the larger wheels whilst keeping ride height the same. That's why I suggested the 37 bogie.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea of drop in wheel sets for the 55 is an excellent idea. Personally I would love to run the full size wheel set as I have the room on my layout to accommodate a 4th radius. Having the opportunity to model this accurately is a real positive and making them available would be excellent.  Regarding transparency Fran...............keep it going. I appreciate sometime for business reasons there may be specific issues that cant be brought to the forum but please keep us in the lop as much as possible. It adds to the historical significance of the model and keeps us mere mortals informed and updated.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wheel size/coupling height/axle centre issue depends on the diameter reduction required to accomodate 2nd radius curves I guess... both the Deltic and 37 run on 3'9" wheels which should be 15.25mm diameter but presumably its the flange that fouls and presumably the depth of that remains constant regardless of wheel diameter - so if flange depth measures 1mm then that is about 6.6% of the total diameter so any reduction in wheel diameter has to be proportionally greater to achieve the desired effect to avoid fouling....

 

How much do you have to shrink the wheels gentlemen - and will axle centres still align with axlebox centres? 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Bullock said:

The wheel size/coupling height/axle centre issue depends on the diameter reduction required to accomodate 2nd radius curves I guess... both the Deltic and 37 run on 3'9" wheels which should be 15.25mm diameter but presumably its the flange that fouls and presumably the depth of that remains constant regardless of wheel diameter - so if flange depth measures 1mm then that is about 6.6% of the total diameter so any reduction in wheel diameter has to be proportionally greater to achieve the desired effect to avoid fouling....

 

How much do you have to shrink the wheels gentlemen - and will axle centres still align with axlebox centres? 

 

Cheers


Hi Phil,

 

Axleboxes do indeed line up with axle centres. Final size still being experimented with, but very similar to the DP1 model.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you coping with that? Simply reducing wheel size or lowering the axle box on the bogie/lowering the bogie frame?

 

I ask because if you need (for example) 1mm at the top for clearance then if just reducing wheel size you'd lose 2mm in wheel diameter and 1mm in ride height. Dropping the axle box/bogie frame you would have to move it by 0.5mm and only lose 1mm in wheel diameter and no ride height loss. Likewise if you dropped axle centre vs bogie/axle box. Or do all three (lower bogie, lower box on bogie and offset axle centre) by 0.17mm it would give you a mm at the top!

Edited by TomScrut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TomScrut said:

How are you coping with that? Simply reducing wheel size or lowering the axle box on the bogie/lowering the bogie frame?

 

I ask because if you need (for example) 1mm at the top for clearance then if just reducing wheel size you'd lose 2mm in wheel diameter and 1mm in ride height. Dropping the axle box/bogie frame you would have to move it by 0.5mm and only lose 1mm in wheel diameter and no ride height loss. Likewise if you dropped axle centre vs bogie/axle box. Or do all three (lower bogie, lower box on bogie and offset axle centre) by 0.17mm it would give you a mm at the top!


Hi Tom,

 

I would have to confirm with our engineer in the East and get back to you. Unfortunately it’s CNY at the moment so likely to be a few weeks!

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNY cancelled according to the Beeb! Will all models require immersion in disinfectant? 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.