Exclusive OO Gauge Class 89 produced by Accurascale

[7013]

Never having had an interest in GNER before I now find myself thinking...should I be looking for coaches to go behind this loco. Are there any RTR coaches suitable for the Gold logo model?

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, 7013 said:

Never having had an interest in GNER before I now find myself thinking...should I be looking for coaches to go behind this loco. Are there any RTR coaches suitable for the Gold logo model?

Hornby Mk4 GNER coaches - it's up to you to decide if they are of sufficient quality - a lot will say no, some will say absolutely not and some will go Mwah.

 

People are hoping that Cavalex can still turn out new Mk4s still having pulled from the race to deliver a new 91.

[PaulRhB]

31 minutes ago, ColinK said:

Perhaps there should be a unpowered option for those like me who don’t have overhead and have no reason to get one, so we can tow one around behind a diesel?

It makes about £10 difference in parts and that’s swallowed up in setting up running two assembly sequences and adding another product to stock control. Therefore it makes no sense to offer it from the manufacturer’s point of view.
Athearn abandoned unpowered, and Dapol seem to have too, because it was unnecessary complication in production and inventory. 
Highly unlikely these days  

[ColinK]

Yes, I know!  Would be easy to ‘unpower’ a diesel to pull it though. Indeed I’be got a defective Falcon I could use.  Oh dear, looks like I’ll have to order one. 

[philiprporter]

Really hope this gets the green light. Swallow and Exec expressions of interest duly registered - if I had more money it would be all options!

[7013]

In the absence of decent GNER Mk4s I have a rake of Hornby Gresley Teaks. I feel a rule 1 heritage train coming on.

[letterspider]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

It makes about £10 difference in parts and that’s swallowed up in setting up running two assembly sequences and adding another product to stock control. Therefore it makes no sense to offer it from the manufacturer’s point of view.
Athearn abandoned unpowered, and Dapol seem to have too, because it was unnecessary complication in production and inventory. 
Highly unlikely these days  

 

 

You can always pull out the motor and sell it

[33052]

4 hours ago, 7013 said:

Never having had an interest in GNER before I now find myself thinking...should I be looking for coaches to go behind this loco. Are there any RTR coaches suitable for the Gold logo model?

A few moons ago Hattons were selling off GNER MK4 Coaches for a good price - I bought a few plus have a 91/DVT Coach pack , put together I have enough for a full 9 Coach Rake.Was really looking forward to the Cavelex 91 but this announcement if it goes ahead would provide a good stablemate for the updated Hornby version.Ive expressed interest in a GNER (Gold) plus IC EXEC.

 

30 minutes ago, letterspider said:

 

 

You can always pull out the motor and sell it

With the bar constantly being raised in Specifications of Locomotives and Rolling Stock  perhaps the obvious solution is a Loco with Switchable Power - using a Decoder or a Switch to  have a disengagement option for Towing etc where the Wheels run Free ,sort of a Neutral Gear if you like - no need for parallel production.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

4 hours ago, ColinK said:

...Would be easy to ‘unpower’ a diesel to pull it though. Indeed I’be got a defective Falcon I could use.

Very easy indeed. One gear out of each gear tower, or remove both worm gears; and disconnect one motor connection, and you are 'done'. It is possible to do much better, at the cost of more work.

4 minutes ago, 33052 said:

...With the bar constantly being raised in Specifications of Locomotives and Rolling Stock  perhaps the obvious solution is a Loco with Switchable Power - using a Decoder or a Switch to  have a disengagement option for Towing etc where the Wheels run Free ,sort of a Neutral Gear if you like - no need for parallel production.

And potential good news - as I recall it - is that Accurascale are hopefully on track to implement an alternative to worm gear transmission which will be reversible, (unlike worm gears) which should allow the model to roll when pushed. This brings further benefits beyond what is being asked for, so it is a development I and others are very much interested in. A simple switch in one motor connection would then be all that is required for the 'neutral' option.

[PaulRhB]

44 minutes ago, 33052 said:

interest in a GNER (Gold) plus IC perhaps the obvious solution is a Loco with Switchable Power - using a Decoder or a Switch to  have a disengagement option for Towing etc where the Wheels run Free ,sort of a Neutral Gear if you like - no need for parallel production.

And designing a new type of drive train with more moving parts?

Sorry but it all costs more in tooling for a tiny number who want it so it’s just uneconomic.
In the US they offered dummies because loco lash ups could reach 12-16 locos and with the motors drawing ⅓ to ½ amp back then it was more than the controllers could handle. There was a big market but not much price difference. Once the motors they used got better in the late 80’s they slowly stopped making them without. 

If you want to pretend it’s being hauled just keep the pantograph down and switch off the lights. No new mechanism to tool and test and no extra bits to go wrong! 
;) 

[JDW]

It's very tempting, I do like the 89 but it would likely just end up in its box on a shelf most of the time. Still looking forward to seeing the model though.

 

A couple of slightly OT thoughts (sorry)...

If you want to run one behind a diesel, by the time you've gone to the trouble of taking the motor out or whatever, the simpler solution is surely just stick a cheap decoder in and programme it to the same number as the loco hauling it (or set it up as a consist). No need to faff about, and still in one piece should you wish to sell it on later.

Looking at the pale yellow undercoat, I'm curious why they went to the trouble of a neat grey skirt. It's not as if that's separate parts. Maybe I'm overthinking it, just seems odd to paint that bit grey if its going to be repainted anyway - why not just undercoat it all pale yellow?

Edited May 21, 2020 by JDW

[JSpencer]

3 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

And potential good news - as I recall it - is that Accurascale are hopefully on track to implement an alternative to worm gear transmission which will be reversible, (unlike worm gears) which should allow the model to roll when pushed. This brings further benefits beyond what is being asked for, so it is a development I and others are very much interested in. A simple switch in one motor connection would then be all that is required for the 'neutral' option.

 

Portescap cracked that decades ago. Not sure why we would want a motor to go neutral though. The loco model has deadweight well above that of the prototype.

The only thing I would want in DC mode is switch to make the panto stay down.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

19 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

...Not sure why we would want a motor to go neutral though. The loco model has deadweight well above that of the prototype...

Indeed, neither would I, but a poster wanted the option. Possibly only until they try it...

 

And as already suggested above, using DCC offers a much more flexible option. That's how I run a BR 350hp shunter on delivery in a slow goods train for example.

[JSpencer]

Just now, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Indeed, neither would I, but a poster wanted the option. Possibly only until they try it...

 

And as already suggested above, using DCC offers a much more flexible option. That's how I run a BR 350hp shunter on delivery in a slow goods train for example.

 

Indeed. Under DCC you can kill the sound off in loco 2 and let it just follow behind.

[InterCity80s]

This is great news. Never thought anyone would release a RTR Class 89 tbh. Just hope there is sufficient interest for them to proceed.

[7013]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Sorry but it all costs more in tooling for a tiny number who want it so it’s just uneconomic.

Until all expressions of interest are counted it cannot be said that it’s a tiny number. I would agree that the simplest way of hooking up another (Diesel) loco would be the DCC route, 

Railway modellers are a funny lot; a (Potential) new model is announced and already people are asking for dummy locos, motors that can be put in neutral etc. I would suggest we should just be happy that this loco may be made.

[TravisM]

I wonder how long we’ll have to wait until the expression of interest becomes a pre order?  I think most people would agree with me that the Class 89 in whatever livery will either be a sellout or very few left after the pre-orders are sent out.

[PaulRhB]

8 hours ago, 7013 said:

Until all expressions of interest are counted it cannot be said that it’s a tiny number. I would agree that the simplest way of hooking up another (Diesel) loco would be the DCC route, 

Railway modellers are a funny lot; a (Potential) new model is announced and already people are asking for dummy locos, motors that can be put in neutral etc. I would suggest we should just be happy that this loco may be made.

I’m going by previous entries in the market that haven’t been repeated or extended to their whole range because the manufacturers stated there wasn’t enough demand. It’s based on those previous experiences and it’s highly unlikely to change with a niche prototype

Is there a large market out there for people taking motors out of Heljans prototype locos, 86’s, 90’s etc to drag them on simulated diversions? If there is it’s missed my radar  
Spur gear drives have allowed coasting for years, I had Portescap motors in a couple of O gauge locos 30 years ago and they were well established then  A spur type drive also has to work well with BEMF now dcc is well established so that may possibly add complications. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Not specific to the 89, but I have thought for some time that the engineering of model locomotive powertrains has not moved forward much. We are still sticking to the technology of fifty years ago. And yet there are many motors available now that are so much smaller and cheaper.

[PaulRhB]

1 minute ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Not specific to the 89, but I have thought for some time that the engineering of model locomotive powertrains has not moved forward much. We are still sticking to the technology of fifty years ago. And yet there are many motors available now that are so much smaller and cheaper.

Mainly because they are simple and robust. The advance to coreless motors causes squeals from certain sectors so they need a best compromise in certain markets

Those that did offer high spec motors like LGB have moved to cheaper slightly inferior motors because they save a few pennies I guess. The official line is it’s not necessary with modern control electronics, by which I guess they mean BEMF. 
 

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Mainly because they are simple and robust. The advance to coreless motors causes squeals from certain sectors so they need a best compromise in certain markets

Those that did offer high spec motors like LGB have moved to cheaper slightly inferior motors because they save a few pennies I guess. The official line is it’s not necessary with modern control electronics, by which I guess they mean BEMF. 
 

I was thinking more in terms of designing something that could be simpler to assemble than the current norm of a central motor, cardan shaft and gear tower.

[boxbrownie]

I thought I read that Accurascale are going to use Helical gearing on the mechanism rather than the usual worm type?

 

Also didn’t one manufacturer either use or proposed to use ultra small axle hung motors for a 4mm diesel at sometime?

[PaulRhB]

47 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I was thinking more in terms of designing something that could be simpler to assemble than the current norm of a central motor, cardan shaft and gear tower.

Not sure how you make it simpler  They went to a central motor because it was cheaper than two motors. Various belt and pulley drives have been tried but while quieter lack the long term reliability as the belts perish. LGB,and others, have used toothed belts and they also fail so they retooled to a drive shaft. 
There’s no system I know of that’s better and why spend money researching others when the cost savings will be fractional? Better to wait and see if someone does come up with something ground breaking and then adopt a version of it. 
I seem to remember egg being liberally applied to the visage of the last claim of the next generation of model trains  

[PaulRhB]

Just now, boxbrownie said:

I thought I read that Accurascale are going to use Helical gearing on the mechanism rather than the usual worm type?

 

Also didn’t one manufacturer either use or proposed to use ultra small axle hung motors for a 4mm diesel at sometime?

It’s been done but does it save them anything or add to the cost? I’m not sure micro motors and the extra motors and wiring add any benefit to running but they do mean more delicate parts that can fail such as the windings and every extra wire joint that can flex. 
 

Helical gears are great but more expensive so I guess it depends if Accurascale can make them cheap enough at the required tolerances to make it viable.  

[298]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Not specific to the 89, but I have thought for some time that the engineering of model locomotive powertrains has not moved forward much. We are still sticking to the technology of fifty years ago. And yet there are many motors available now that are so much smaller and cheaper.

 

The real change came about 20 years ago with centrally mounted motors in locos instead of pancakes, as manufacturers realised they had to raise their game. Motor bogies still have viable applications in DMUs etc, but even then they aren't based around a pancake. Various forms of belt drive have been used but probably aren't robust enough for the RTR market and replacing them can be a nightmare.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that axle hung motors in anything less than 7mm are viable as they lack torque and don't have room for sufficient reduction gearing. Here's a video (ironically) of a Bachmann powered DC kits class 89, I never did get round to lowering the motor to decrease the angle of the driveshafts and it went on eBay not long after.