Exclusive OO Gauge Class 89 produced by Accurascale

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, 298 said:

 

The real change came about 20 years ago with centrally mounted motors in locos instead of pancakes, 

 

In this country. The centrally-mounted motor arrangement was in use elsewhere long before.

[PaulRhB]

38 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

In this country. The centrally-mounted motor arrangement was in use elsewhere long before.

Yes but that’s when it was widely adopted in UK rtr models. The Lima 20 was probably the first?

There’s no other significantly better system in existence though. People have used individual traction motors but more as a prove it can be done than for any actual advantage. Back in the early 90’s I remember Alan Darg building an amazing 45, (or 40, it’s a while ago  ), in G1 with individual traction motors. It was beautiful work but cost a lot more than the big standard RJH motor and delrin chain drive. 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, PaulRhB said:

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. 

As I recall it was to be a bit more prototypical by having axle hung motors, really a bit of “look what we can do” and novelty for the modeller.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

In this country. The centrally-mounted motor arrangement was in use elsewhere long before.

Certainly correct there, 20 years a go I was modelling a 2mm Japanese layout (still have it mounted on a door leaning up against playroom wall) the Locos were so much more sophisticated than European stuff, the D/EMUs had centrally mounted very low profile motors with cardan shaft to both bogies so there was almost no intrusion into the coach (still had all seating visible), also to fit a decoder you just had to unclip the battery/ancillary underslung equipment moulding and the decoder just plugged in, a far cry from even today 4mm DCC “ready” Locos.

[boxbrownie]

39 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Yes but that’s when it was widely adopted in UK rtr models. The Lima 20 was probably the first?

There’s no other significantly better system in existence though. People have used individual traction motors but more as a prove it can be done than for any actual advantage. Back in the early 90’s I remember Alan Darg building an amazing 45, (or 40, it’s a while ago  ), in G1 with individual traction motors. It was beautiful work but cost a lot more than the big standard RJH motor and delrin chain drive. 

Come to think of it, when I was building a JLTRT Cl40 I recall there were axle mounted motors available commercially for 7mm, I thought it might be ABC gears but could be wrong......I went for a normal motor bogie from ABC instead, deciding that doing the axle slung was just a bit of fun really, with no real advantage.

[NIRCLASS80]

Do any of you remember dyna-drive? Fantastic piece of kit. 

[7013]

5 minutes ago, NIRCLASS80 said:

Do any of you remember dyna-drive? Fantastic piece of kit. 

I only ever met her sister Intha

[Accurascale Fran]

2 hours ago, 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?

 

Hi everyone,

 

Just to clear up any potential confusion here; we are using helical gears in the gear towers for better mesh and smoother performance, but it will still be a central can motor and worms. This method has been used on some more recent US outline locomotives and we liked it very much. This for us is the most smooth and commercially viable drive system we can implement. 

 

Anyway, back to the Class 89.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Foden]

Oh this is so tempting! Any history of these ever having a run on the WCML??!!

 

(apologies if been asked already)

[JDW]

35 minutes ago, NIRCLASS80 said:

Do any of you remember dyna-drive? Fantastic piece of kit. 

Yep. See here...

 

...and here...

It was - and still is, as long as the clutches hold out - a good drive system, but modern mechanisms have come on a long way since then, it's not really needed any more. A Hornby class 60 will pretty much do the same out of the box unless you want to haul stupidly heavy trains or want the play value of it coasting (and even then, DCC can give that).

 

Very much looking forward to the 89 though, in whatever form it takes!

[Darlington South Junction]

19 minutes ago, Foden said:

Oh this is so tempting! Any history of these ever having a run on the WCML??!!

 

(apologies if been asked already)

89s did indeed find themselves on the WCML during their early year(s) for testing, mainly between Crewe and Carlisle. 

 

You can find more information and some pictures on Train testing here.

[Pete the Elaner]

35 minutes ago, Darlington South Junction said:

89s did indeed find themselves on the WCML during their early year(s) for testing, mainly between Crewe and Carlisle. 

 

You can find more information and some pictures on Train testing here.

 

There are a couple of photos of it much further south than that: through Stafford, Bletchley & Leighton Buzzard. 2 were on the same day & the 3rd may well have been too.

This may well have been its only trip on the southern WCML section, but still an excuse for running it on the layout.

[slg]

3 hours ago, Foden said:

Oh this is so tempting! Any history of these ever having a run on the WCML??!!

 

(apologies if been asked already)

 There were test runs.

 http://www.traintesting.com/Class_89.htm

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 hours 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. 

Or even more specifically, DCC. I was disappointed when Bachmann in the early 2000's dropped the five pole motor from the spec. of their steam models, in favour of a Kader 3 pole motor design. But at about the same time I was experimenting with DCC, and it quickly became apparent that a good decoder could completely mask the difference. I made the direct comparision between three mechanisms  originally released with 5 pole Buhler or  Mashima motors, but with later

releases having 3 pole Kader motors: no difference in any aspect of on track performance if a good decoder was used.

 

6 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

...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.

Here's hoping! It should provide a smoother drive under acceleration, in particular eliminating the harsh whirr that can occur when a twin bogie drive enters a curve or is going down gradient at speed. This is caused by the worm repeatedly momentarily locking its drive line due to a slight rail speed mismatch. A reversible drive line should not have this problem.

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, 298 said:

The real change came about 20 years ago with centrally mounted motors in locos instead of pancakes

 

 

dont you mean 59 years ago...

 

this loco has a can motor with a drive shaft to metal gears... indestructible... rtr UK in 1961...so good it took 58 years for a rtr replacement to oust it 

 

http://www.british-ho.com/showcase/traction-diesel/playcraft_d6100_1.htm

more pics here

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/playcraft-d6100-diesel-electric-53330067

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by adb968008

[Dixie Dean]

1 x LNER Gold selected by me!  Do need some similar MK4s/DVT now.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

15 hours ago, adb968008 said:

...this loco has a can motor with a drive shaft to metal gears... indestructible... rtr UK in 1961...so good it took 58 years for a rtr replacement to oust it ...

But regarding general application of the now standard  centre motor with shaft drive to both bogies aspect, the Bachmann Peak of circa 1992 came next: the old Mainline mouldings with a version of Kader's 'Spectrum' drive as the mechanism. (It's good enough to have lasted coming up 28 years in service with zero maintenance - this is an experiment with one of the two I purchased - and both are still running, now as my track cleaning drag power. )

 

And then a seven year gap before the newly tooled class 24, and then shortly after Hornby and Heljan joined the party, and then even Lima before they TTTUAD: and the awful  unpower 'bogey' of UK RTR OO was finally slain.

 

The mechanical refinement of a reversible transmission, whether by a helical or bevel gear set should be enough to 'ice the cake' on this drive layout. (Hopefully the reversible transmission can then migrate into rigid chassis models, which can really use the gain in mechanical efficiency.)

[PaulRhB]

23 hours ago, Accurascale Fran said:

using helical gears in the gear towers for better mesh and smoother performance, but it will still be a central can motor and worms.

 

Fran has provided the answer already,

 

19 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It should provide a smoother drive under acceleration, in particular eliminating the harsh whirr that can occur when a twin bogie drive enters a curve or is going down gradient at speed. This is caused by the worm repeatedly momentarily locking its drive line due to a slight rail speed mismatch. A reversible drive line should not have this problem.

 

 

50 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

.

 

The mechanical refinement of a reversible transmission, whether by a helical or bevel gear set should be enough to 'ice the cake' on this drive layout. (Hopefully the reversible transmission can then migrate into rigid chassis models, which can really use the gain in mechanical efficiency.)

 

There’s still a worm in the drive so it won’t be reversible or coast  They’re using the helical gears for smoother and no doubt quieter power transfer in the bogie. 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

9 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

...Fran has provided the answer already...

Thanks, missed that completely. Disappointed too...

[PaulRhB]

I find the BEMF levels in decoders more of an issue with surging in the drive so I usually turn it down or off altogether. I’ve not noticed any issues on my models on analog but I don’t generally have severe enough gradients on my UK layouts to prompt it. I only found it an issue above 1in30 grades in HOm and it turned out to be a drive shaft slipping in the delrin universal joint causing it. 

[adb968008]

On 23/05/2020 at 09:49, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

But regarding general application of the now standard  centre motor with shaft drive to both bogies aspect, the Bachmann Peak of circa 1992 came next: the old Mainline mouldings with a version of Kader's 'Spectrum' drive as the mechanism. (It's good enough to have lasted coming up 28 years in service with zero maintenance - this is an experiment with one of the two I purchased - and both are still running, now as my track cleaning drag power. )

 

And then a seven year gap before the newly tooled class 24, and then shortly after Hornby and Heljan joined the party, and then even Lima before they TTTUAD: and the awful  unpower 'bogey' of UK RTR OO was finally slain.

 

The mechanical refinement of a reversible transmission, whether by a helical or bevel gear set should be enough to 'ice the cake' on this drive layout. (Hopefully the reversible transmission can then migrate into rigid chassis models, which can really use the gain in mechanical efficiency.)

no it didn’t, the Lima class 20 is much older the Bachmanns “Fly Wheel” Fitted class 46, I believe it is circa 1983 ?, the class 46 was 1990’s.

 

Limas class 67 has a central mount motor also. (The class 40 was designed for it, as was the class 59 given thoughts to it, but in both cases price was considered too high).

The central can motor and shaft has been around for decades, its just the UK market wouldn’t pay for it... Europe and US has had it consistently for 5 decades, even some steam locos use it !

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by adb968008

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

16 hours ago, adb968008 said:

...no it didn’t, the Lima class 20 is much older the Bachmanns “Fly Wheel” Fitted class 46...

Not with drive to both bogies it didn't, which is where the real benefit kicks in; and acutely misbegot as a design with rubber tyres on the driven bogie and pick ups arranged as brakes on the undriven bogie. Horrible.

 

What I think of as the 'hair shirt brigade' among UK manufacturers and retailers held back the implementation of this and other superior drive designs well proven in HO. Yet various notable dealers were successfully selling the better HO products which were miles ahead of RTR OO; in my case living just North of London on the ECML, Kings Cross Models, and Victors, both very convenient, and of happy memory.

[boxbrownie]

53 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Not with drive to both bogies it didn't, which is where the real benefit kicks in; and acutely misbegot as a design with rubber tyres on the driven bogie and pick ups arranged as brakes on the undriven bogie. Horrible.

 

What I think of as the 'hair shirt brigade' among UK manufacturers and retailers held back the implementation of this and other superior drive designs well proven in HO. Yet various notable dealers were successfully selling the better HO products which were miles ahead of RTR OO; in my case living just North of London on the ECML, Kings Cross Models, and Victors, both very convenient, and of happy memory.

Victors in Upper Street?  it was my local toy shop when I was little, just up the road from me......my sticky finger prints are probably still on the windows 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Don't remember the address when I first visited, and not that long after they relocated to the Pentonville Road, slightly nearer KX.

[boxbrownie]

16 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Don't remember the address when I first visited, and not that long after they relocated to the Pentonville Road, slightly nearer KX.

Must have been after we moved out of London........would have been about 1965