All new RTR Class 91 and Mark 4 carriages

[JR_P]

13 hours ago, MarshLane said:

Where was the article JR?

That info was from Railway Herald issue 631 - hope that helps :-)

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 00:47, MarshLane said:

...I appreciate there is a cannot please all of the people all of the time issue here. But can I ask (not expecting you to give any details away, just food for thought at your end) that you give thought to two areas when it comes to close coupling between the 91 and Mk4s. It isn’t unknown for the 91s to run blunt end first, it a regular sight but does happen occasionally, and it may be something that modellers may wish to replicate, also that in the early days the 91s ran with Mk1 (charter) and Mk2 stock, hence the ability to retain normal couplings may be an issue?

 

The second point is that some people (me included) May look to purchase a couple of different liveried 91s but a lower number of sets and switch around.  A friend of mine for example would do the same thing, but his fiddle Yard is automated, therefore the ability to add a form of automatic couplings to allow the loco to be detached and changed comes into play. You cannot account for everyone of course, but my thought being that what every you decide on should (hopefully) keep the door open for those that may wish/need to amend it...

Considering what is already demonstrated in RTR HO and OO, all these requirements could be met in my opinion by provision of correctly positioned NEM coupler pockets, mounted on close coupling mechanisms on all vehicle ends with a gangway. That provides full access to an established selection of RTR HO and OO autocouplers. (On the outside ends, I would hope for alternative user exchangeable parts to provide the exterior appearance per prototype, or compromised by the addition of a correctly positioned NEM pocket.)

 

Specifically, if this was the provision I would use the Roco coupler between all gangwayed vehicles, and that

would deliver the train 'closed up' on straight or nearly so track for optimum appearance, able to open out to go around below scale radius curves. If I wished to make provision for changing traction using an autocoupler, then the loco to coach coupler I would use is Kadee, either in the NEM pocket with the head made rigid for best possible working of the close coupling mech, or body mounted.

 

All other RTR autocouplers with NEM pocket fittings would be available. The tension locks - and possibly other older types - would tend to cause derailments, but that's because it is a legacy coupler design mechanically unsuited to provide the recentralising force the close coupling mechanisms require. Move to a suitable design of autocoupler and this problem is eliminated: an easy change facilitated by the NEM coupler pocket.

 

Does that sound 'useful'?

[MarshLane]

On 19/04/2019 at 13:57, JR_P said:

That info was from Railway Herald issue 631 - hope that helps :-)

 

That a really interesting article and some great images of some early workings that we just don't see today.  Thanks for flagging it up JR.  Great mag too!

[Grimleygrid]

May 2019 Update

 

The next update on Project 225 will be at DEMU showcase in June.

 

We are committed to listening to our potential customer’s suggestions and would very much appreciate your top five features for our upcoming Project 225.

What are the most important features for your model? DCC Pan, close coupling system, working lights, DCC sound, we would really appreciate your thoughts.

Please complete the below form to submit your suggestions and ideas:

https://www.cavalexmodels.com/project-225-features

[adb968008]

6 hours ago, Grimleygrid said:

May 2019 Update

 

The next update on Project 225 will be at DEMU showcase in June.

 

We are committed to listening to our potential customer’s suggestions and would very much appreciate your top five features for our upcoming Project 225.

What are the most important features for your model? DCC Pan, close coupling system, working lights, DCC sound, we would really appreciate your thoughts.

Please complete the below form to submit your suggestions and ideas:

https://www.cavalexmodels.com/project-225-features

1. Close (and fixed bar) coupling with integrated Electrics for operating carriage /dvt  lights from the DCC chip of the 91 and to ensure equal performance running forwards and reverse.

2. Ability to turn off cab lights on the 91.. (lights on, on the blunt end would look odd when pushing mk4’s).

3. Coaches: Working carriage door orange unlocked lights, Ability to add passengers without needing a knife, painted interiors, Carriage door sounds as part of the 91 chip, maximum free rolling ability (hence reduce lighting pickups to maybe just the DVT or 91).

4. Removable skirt on the front of the DVT & 91 (to hide a coupling, but expose when needed).

5. In cab camera, wifi to an app on my phone, including speed, gradient, curve measurements.

 

ok I realise i’m pushing the bar into the sky, but when a genie grants me five wishes, I take his whole arm off.

:-)

 

I could have been harsh and ask for changeable destination signs in coaches, lights in the buffet, with stocked shelves, and a tilting mechanism.

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by adb968008

[Legend]

All for these gimmicks for folk that want them , but to me the most important thing is a bulk standard DC version without electrical couplings etc. Keep the price to a reasonable amount . The Accurascale boys seem to be achieving this and I’d aim at a similar level.  Let people who want servo pantograph have the ability to have that as option . 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Legend

[Andy Mac]

5 hours ago, Legend said:

All for these gimmicks for folk that want them , but to me the most important thing is a bulk standard DC version without electrical couplings etc. Keep the price to a reasonable amount . The Accurascale boys seem to be achieving this and I’d aim at a similar level.  Let people who want servo pantograph have the ability to have that as option . 

 

Just to echo your thoughts, let’s keep the models to a realistic spec and price.... 

['CHARD]

16 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

I could have been harsh and ask for changeable destination signs in coaches, lights in the buffet, with stocked shelves, and a tilting mechanism.

 

Tilting mechanism?  As a 'what-if?'

[Bomag]

1 hour ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Tilting mechanism?  As a 'what-if?'

 

On a few occasions the air suspension has part gone en-route on a Mk4 it has ended up at a jaunty angle. Also it managed to stir the tea to perfection, just before spilling it.

[adb968008]

7 hours ago, Andy Mac said:

 

Just to echo your thoughts, let’s keep the models to a realistic spec and price.... 

But Hornby already fills that gap.

 

i agree i’m a bit OTT, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

Edited May 7, 2019 by adb968008

[RBE]

Nothing is over the top, we are asking for peoples wants and we will assess each on merit and whether practical and cost effective to include.

 

We will not be producing a low end 'railroad' model here however. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by RBE

[Legend]

Why are all the people who don’t want full blown DCC servo pans and lights automatically consigned to the Railroad category?  Please just consider that there is a sizeable market that doesn’t run DCC and would like decently accurate models at reasonable prices ie without paying for lighting (like the Bachmann 2fs) , raised pans , through electric coupling etc .  Appreciating that some like it , but it is still nice to  put a model on the rails and turn the controller knob without worrying if cv29 should be set to 120 or whatever. As I’ve said for £45 for a coach , looks like the Accurascale guys have got it about right.   Thinking about it a Dapol 68 probably is still a benchmark in modern models . Base DC model @£130, you can add decoder and sound versions if required.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Legend

[Padishar Creel]

Hallo,

I duly completed the form behind the link. There can be tons of schnick-schnack in a model, and disregarding the obvious accurate shape, dimensions, of the models themselves summarising the common complaints from other threads I feel that:

 

The loco must have a reliable motor which can haul a prototypical load at slightly faster than scale speed

 

The livery must be accurately represented and be neatly applied, sporting correct stock numbers / other decals.

 

es grüßt 

pc

[RBE]

23 hours ago, Legend said:

Why are all the people who don’t want full blown DCC servo pans and lights automatically consigned to the Railroad category?  Please just consider that there is a sizeable market that doesn’t run DCC and would like decently accurate models at reasonable prices ie without paying for lighting (like the Bachmann 2fs) , raised pans , through electric coupling etc .  Appreciating that some like it , but it is still nice to  put a model on the rails and turn the controller knob without worrying if cv29 should be set to 120 or whatever. As I’ve said for £45 for a coach , looks like the Accurascale guys have got it about right.   Thinking about it a Dapol 68 probably is still a benchmark in modern models . Base DC model @£130, you can add decoder and sound versions if required.

 

Please don't get my comments wrong, I wasn't consigning anything suggested by you or anyone to the Railroad spec! I was merely saying that we won't be producing a railroad spec model.

 

We merely asked for peoples opinions on what is important for them in a model. We are very keen to produce the highest spec and quality models however we are also aware that beyond a great shape, paint finish and running qualities there is also a lot of fluff. We just want to get a handle on just hiw important that really is in the real world.

 

I will comment on the stripped back bare bones aspect for a cheaper price though. As I said we are committed to the best models that we can produce and as such it means catering for dcc operation, accurate lighting etc. I am not particularly sold on dcc servo pans myself but we will see how that goes as we move on. The issue is, with manufacture, if you are producing something that suits the all singing all dancing paradigm there os very little economy in stripping it back to attempt to cheapen it. The parts as a whole are the same and if we were to try to produce the model as a dicotomy of both ends of the spectrum then the cheaper one would actually end up just as expensive as the expensive one or you would be producing two completely seperate models that mean double the set up cost.

 

In a nutshell it makes more sense all around to produce the high spec model and make it also work for those that don't run dcc etc.

 

 

[Legend]

Thanks for the explanation RBE . I have costed industrial products  so I see where you were coming from. It does usually make sense to design options in whether or not fitting them. Sorry was probably being a bit tetchy but I do sense amongst some that if you are not DCC then you are some kind of underclass.  

['CHARD]

8 hours ago, Legend said:

Sorry was probably being a bit tetchy but I do sense amongst some that if you are not DCC then you are some kind of underclass.  

 

Underclass and Proud!   

 

Dabbled with DCC and it didn't have sufficient wow factor.  Not saying that I won't ever be swayed, but it's unlikely at my time of life!

[JSpencer]

If we use the Agile method of running a project, all these features can be listed and then weighted against cost and demand.

It works like this, if something costs too much to add but few will actually use it, you skip it. If its cheap to add and demand is high, you keep it. Every few weeks, you gather feedback in the research/design phase. You may find some people suddenly change their minds. For example if a self raising panto adds £100 (I'm not saying it will) and people start saying 'oh! I don't want one that much', it can be droped.

As you work through the project, you add an ever increasing numbers of features that people really want, remain relatively cheap to include and bring value to the model.

 

From a customer perspective, it means all suggestions are welcome, but each feature will of course need to be weighted and the impact (cost) fed back. A few will doubtless be prepared to pay a £1000 for a loco and wait 5 years for all the complex super duper items to be added into it. Most customers won't and so a balance in cost, features and timescale needs to be found. An Agile project seeks not to deliver everything, but rather the most sought after standard/cost that people want. The research/design gathering part with regular feedback could last 4 to 6 months, but at least you are confident that the end result matches mostly what people are after.

 

[rs4]

Hi Cavalex

 

Just stood here at Peterborough looking at a 225 set. 

 

I’d like to see:

 

Brake discs on the coach axles - internally on the axle - 3 ? I think. Quite distinctive on the mk4s

 

Some representation of the cabling / pipes between the coaches. 

 

Good luck..

Nick 

[RBE]

Like these.

[RedgateModels]

They'll never catch on, no good old brake blocks to scrape the leaf mold off the wheels .....

[brushman47544]

23 hours ago, 'CHARD said:

Dabbled with DCC and it didn't have sufficient wow factor.  Not saying that I won't ever be swayed, but it's unlikely at my time of life!

 

I'm almost the same. I operate with DCC but all I want it for (other than to run trains of course) is to control directional and cab lights and to simplify layout wiring. Anything else, including sound, I will leave to the more adventurous!

[adb968008]

14 hours ago, JSpencer said:

If we use the Agile method of running a project, all these features can be listed and then weighted against cost and demand.

It works like this, if something costs too much to add but few will actually use it, you skip it. If its cheap to add and demand is high, you keep it. Every few weeks, you gather feedback in the research/design phase. You may find some people suddenly change their minds. For example if a self raising panto adds £100 (I'm not saying it will) and people start saying 'oh! I don't want one that much', it can be droped.

As you work through the project, you add an ever increasing numbers of features that people really want, remain relatively cheap to include and bring value to the model.

 

From a customer perspective, it means all suggestions are welcome, but each feature will of course need to be weighted and the impact (cost) fed back. A few will doubtless be prepared to pay a £1000 for a loco and wait 5 years for all the complex super duper items to be added into it. Most customers won't and so a balance in cost, features and timescale needs to be found. An Agile project seeks not to deliver everything, but rather the most sought after standard/cost that people want. The research/design gathering part with regular feedback could last 4 to 6 months, but at least you are confident that the end result matches mostly what people are after.

 

The problem with Agile is it only works if you want a kit, and a whole bunch of replacement or modified parts to assemble the kit as you learn.

 

After 20 years in that industry ive found Agile is an excuse for avoiding engineering principles and poor design, instead just build quick without a design and repent at leisure.

Its good for small projects like iphone apps or features built in modules to make a large whole... if this was a kit delivered in installments maybe, but a whole 91 is required, not a cab today, bogies tomorrow and a redesign on wednesday when it doesn't fit in the frames.

 

Because a model is delivered whole the waterfall approach applies.. everything is designed around a framework (in this case its named after its very namesake.. the frames) and assembled to fit and is delivered as a whole.

 

Agile has a place but in my mind its an overrated fad.

 

For those wondering what were on about, Agile is a methodology that evolved from IT software. Its approach is “quick wins” or 80/20 selection to building cheap and cheerful apps. Its become very popular in the “app” culture we live in, because it negates the need to design for the hard or the long term as it just ignores it and focusses on the now, and saves the difficult problems for tomorrow.. which inevitably leads to longer more expensive projects as the 6 week cycles just become never ending.

Edited May 10, 2019 by adb968008

[njee20]

Agile has a place in the right industry. The concept of “MVP” works really well with software, (ie releasing the bare minimum and then enhancing with features based on demand/benefit/complexity) but not a model train, so not sure it’s of any real relevance here, I agree with adb that a model will basically always be a waterfall project. 

[JSpencer]

21 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The problem with Agile is it only works if you want a kit, and a whole bunch of replacement or modified parts to assemble the kit as you learn.

 

After 20 years in that industry ive found Agile is an excuse for avoiding engineering principles and poor design, instead just build quick without a design and repent at leisure.

Its good for small projects like iphone apps or features built in modules to make a large whole... if this was a kit delivered in installments maybe, but a whole 91 is required, not a cab today, bogies tomorrow and a redesign on wednesday when it doesn't fit in the frames.

 

Because a model is delivered whole the waterfall approach applies.. everything is designed around a framework (in this case its named after its very namesake.. the frames) and assembled to fit and is delivered as a whole.

 

Agile has a place but in my mind its an overrated fad.

 

For those wondering what were on about, Agile is a methodology that evolved from IT software. Its approach is “quick wins” or 80/20 selection to building cheap and cheerful apps. Its become very popular in the “app” culture we live in, because it negates the need to design for the hard or the long term as it just ignores it and focusses on the now, and saves the difficult problems for tomorrow.. which inevitably leads to longer more expensive projects as the 6 week cycles just become never ending.

 

There are different Agile methods, you are referring to the scrum method for cheap apps. 

But this is a large complex project whereby the end user expects an entire loco at the end, but much of the spec is not yet clear (pipe dream items that may or may not be easy to include). 

SAAB used Agile correctly on their Gripen fighter plane project. Something a lot more complex than a model train. It arrived 8 years into service before the Eurofighter Typhoon, costs a 1/3rd to buy and run. The Typhoon is probably the better all round aircraft but it won't match 2 of them let alone 3.

[james-htfc]

I know everyone's patiently waiting for the next-stage announcement in early June, but just reiterating how blummin' excited I am for this project.

The 91 is such an evocative loco for me. From early holidays up in Northumberland to watching them power through Thirsk and Northallerton with my Grandpa as a young lad, they've always amazed me. I remember watching the old Railwatch programme on video tape and loving the shiny new 'Electra' peep its nose out of the engine shed.

I love everything about these locos. The way they were designed to be multi purpose, the ghostly fans blasting as they power up and those iconic horns. Cannot wait to recreate all these memories in miniature in my loft!

Oh, and if you need any assistance on the design-front, I'm a graphic designer so would love to be involved!

Keep up the good work