Jump to content
 

Cavalex - all new Class 56 in OO


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry @RBE, I didn’t mean to set the hares racing! I was just trying to work out if my proposed helix should be a 2nd/3rd radius or a 3rd/4th and if I could save some money and space, as I have 008 and 093 on pre-order.

Fantastic news about being able to remove any offending parts and certainly I would not not be able to see the difference.the 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, IRC said:

Sorry @RBE, I didn’t mean to set the hares racing! I was just trying to work out if my proposed helix should be a 2nd/3rd radius or a 3rd/4th and if I could save some money and space, as I have 008 and 093 on pre-order.

Fantastic news about being able to remove any offending parts and certainly I would not not be able to see the difference.the 

Off topic but I would go for 3rd / 4th radius over 2nd / 3rd regardless.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Monkersson said:

I've seen this conundrum coming for a few years now...

 

People are expecting new models to be accurate to tiniest detail, yet still expect the model to go round train set curves.   No disrespect to those who have 2nd radius curves, I have a couple that are around that tightness.

 

Some models will need detail omitted or only partially represented to negotiate these tight curves, and/or will need increased ride height.  I'd personally have the model correct and deal with whatever issues that throws up myself.

 

I hear you, and agree. I long ago realised I could never be happy with train set curves and decided that I'd rather have a short, straight end-to-end layout rather than a cramped roundy-roundy. It means I lower my ambitions and compromise my layout ideas, not the models that run on them.

 

I also decided that I would try wherever possible not to go below 914mm (3 feet). I didn't quite manage it as my room space situation when I built my test track curves meant I had to have an outer radius on the edge of 914mm, and with double track that meant a five inch wide running surface and consequently a 787mm (2 feet 7 inch) inner edge and a 812mm (2 feet 8 inch) inner track centreline with an 889mm (2 feet 11 inch) outer track centreline. All my planning always attempts to keep minimum curve to 914mm, but if it can't be avoided it's allowed to drop to 812mm. Those curves are now in use with modification for my S&P idea, so that minimum running line radius of 812mm centreline is still what I use today.

Edited by Ian J.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Monkersson said:

I've seen this conundrum coming for a few years now...

 

People are expecting new models to be accurate to tiniest detail, yet still expect the model to go round train set curves.   No disrespect to those who have 2nd radius curves, I have a couple that are around that tightness.

 

Some models will need detail omitted or only partially represented to negotiate these tight curves, and/or will need increased ride height.  I'd personally have the model correct and deal with whatever issues that throws up myself.

 

Yes and it is a bit of a difficult one. I don't have any settrack points, and I think everything on mine is R3 or greater, but there are a lot of people (maybe the majority?) where there is at least some R2 somewhere on the layout, my last layout I had to use settrack points in certain places to fit what I had to do.

 

11 hours ago, Ian J. said:

I hear you, and agree. I long ago realised I could never be happy with train set curves and decided that I'd rather have a short, straight end-to-end layout rather than a cramped roundy-roundy. It means I lower my ambitions and compromise my layout ideas, not the models that run on them.

 

I think the thing here is that you are probably in the minority across the entire RTR OO gauge market. Whether that market is relevant to Cavalex (as some of that market won't even have heard of Bachmann let alone Cavalex - with all due respect here guys) I don't know but I expect the desire would be to have a model to appeal to as many people as possible.

 

Like the next (extreme) step could be that manufacturers make the gauge to scale and we have to convert back to OO.

 

11 hours ago, Ian J. said:

I also decided that I would try wherever possible not to go below 914mm (3 feet)

 

I did that (actually a big bigger) where I could as I wanted 50mm track spacing but to accommodate mk3s and class 800s the radius needs to be around 1000mm. I ended up compromising with a fancy shaped curve that increases the gap in the corner gradually to get it down to an effective 800mm where it was going to mess things up. They do look a lot better for not having a big overhang.

 

14 hours ago, RBE said:

Either way, if it causes any issues on 2nd radius, it will be possible for you to remove the offending added detail between the bogies and the battery boxes and still run the loco on 2nd radius should that be necessary as they are separately fitted parts in any case. We certainly don't want to fudge details which would ultimately make the model incorrect.

 

An alternative view on this, is that if I was making model railway items (and I appreciate that I do not and therefore it could be said I don't know what I am talking about) I'd aim for making the trains run on 99.9% of layouts out of the box, and have anything further to that to improve detail as a detailing pack item. The people who don't entertain R2 are also more likely to be the ones willing to modify the loco. The ones with settrack/R2 are more likely to return a loco than want to take it to bits IMO.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think I'm in a minority of one, as I also use a wider 'back-to-back' for my stock to run on 'finescale' track where the check rail gaps are narrower. This makes it highly unlikely my stock would run on any other layout, and highly unlikely that others' stock could run on mine without significant adjustment of b2bs.

 

I'm OK with all that though. My layout(s) are for me to run my stock on and my stock is for running on my layout(s).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2021 at 11:51, TomScrut said:

 

Yes and it is a bit of a difficult one. I don't have any settrack points, and I think everything on mine is R3 or greater, but there are a lot of people (maybe the majority?) where there is at least some R2 somewhere on the layout, my last layout I had to use settrack points in certain places to fit what I had to do.

 

 

I think the thing here is that you are probably in the minority across the entire RTR OO gauge market. Whether that market is relevant to Cavalex (as some of that market won't even have heard of Bachmann let alone Cavalex - with all due respect here guys) I don't know but I expect the desire would be to have a model to appeal to as many people as possible.

 

Like the next (extreme) step could be that manufacturers make the gauge to scale and we have to convert back to OO.

 

 

I did that (actually a big bigger) where I could as I wanted 50mm track spacing but to accommodate mk3s and class 800s the radius needs to be around 1000mm. I ended up compromising with a fancy shaped curve that increases the gap in the corner gradually to get it down to an effective 800mm where it was going to mess things up. They do look a lot better for not having a big overhang.

 

 

An alternative view on this, is that if I was making model railway items (and I appreciate that I do not and therefore it could be said I don't know what I am talking about) I'd aim for making the trains run on 99.9% of layouts out of the box, and have anything further to that to improve detail as a detailing pack item. The people who don't entertain R2 are also more likely to be the ones willing to modify the loco. The ones with settrack/R2 are more likely to return a loco than want to take it to bits IMO.

 

I agree to a certain degree and we are, as I said, designing all stock based on R2. However Cavalex Models as a company are dedicated to the most accurate models on the market and as such we will do our best to make that a reality. Whether its a correct assumption or not R2 is a very tight radius at 438mm (personally, and again this is my preference as a modeller, I would never design any part of my layout with less than 3ft radius as even that looks incredibly tight). The schematic that I posted above shows that the 56 is ok at R2 in theory and at say 500mm radius would be 100% fine in practice. This would be fine for a vast majority of the market I would think.

 

In a worse case scenario that the loco has any issues as R2, the detail in the battery box area would be a lot easier to remove than to add from a bag we feel and have seen many complaints before from customers who have to apply details from detail packs. The ViTrains 47 etc being prime examples. I personally loved them as separate as I could paint up and detail the models etc prior to fitting parts such as handrails etc but the model railway community is indeed filled with customers from all angles of the hobby.

 

As a modeller myself from many different genres (I do railway, military, sci-fi, aviation and wargaming) I can see the uniqueness of the model railway world and the diversity of the people in it with regards to whether they are modellers, collectors, model train drivers or any combination of the above. The modern railway modeller as a whole appears to now expect a museum level piece straight from the box and that is what we are trying to deliver to allow everyone in the hobby to obtain the levels that only the elite modellers could enjoy a few years ago.

 

Anyway, we welcome all feedback and take no comments lightly, its only with the voices of the customer base can products be improved and tailored to suit peoples wants and needs.

Edited by RBE
  • Like 9
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RBE said:

 

I agree to a certain degree and we are, as I said, designing all stock based on R2. However Cavalex Models as a company are dedicated to the most accurate models on the market and as such we will do our best to make that a reality. Whether its a correct assumption or not R2 is a very tight radius at 438mm (personally, and again this is my preference as a modeller, I would never design any part of my layout with less than 3ft radius as even that looks incredibly tight). The schematic that I posted above shows that the 56 is ok at R2 in theory and at say 500mm radius would be 100% fine in practice. This would be fine for a vast majority of the market I would think.

 

In a worse case scenario that the loco has any issues as R2, the detail in the battery box area would be a lot easier to remove than to add from a bag we feel and have seen many complaints before from customers who have to apply details from detail packs. The ViTrains 47 etc being prime examples. I personally loved them as separate as I could paint up and detail the models etc prior to fitting parts such as handrails etc but the model railway community is indeed filled with customers from all angles of the hobby.

 

As a modeller myself from many different genres (I do railway, military, sci-fi, aviation and wargaming) I can see the uniqueness of the model railway world and the diversity of the people in it with regards to whether they are modellers, collectors, model train drivers or any combination of the above. The modern railway modeller as a whole appears to now expect a museum level piece straight from the box and that is what we are trying to deliver to allow everyone in the hobby in order to obtain the levels that only the elite modellers could enjoy a few years ago.

 

Anyway, we welcome all feedback and take no comments lightly, its only with the voices of the customer base can products be improved and tailored to suit peoples wants and needs.

 

Thanks for the explanations, RBE, much appreciated. I wouldn't mind removing the odd pipe or other detail part to get a loco round a 2nd radius curve and have done so on occasions. My concerns were more based around the possibility of having to make major modifications (to bogie pivots, for example), but that doesn't seem to be applicable here. That's good to hear.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you for the very informative replies on this.

 

I mentioned previously that I was worried. I'm not now as you've put my mind at rest.

 

A suggestion, maybe include some instructions of what detail to remove from the model to achieve running around 2nd Radius?

Obviously you won't know for certain what that needs to be until you've had some samples from the factory and done some testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LNERandBR said:

Yes, thank you for the very informative replies on this.

 

I mentioned previously that I was worried. I'm not now as you've put my mind at rest.

 

A suggestion, maybe include some instructions of what detail to remove from the model to achieve running around 2nd Radius?

Obviously you won't know for certain what that needs to be until you've had some samples from the factory and done some testing.

Yes, I am pretty confident that there will be no issues with R2 however if there are we will include instructions for any modifications necessary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To some extent I agree, but I’d choose robustness over absolute fidelity every time.

why I rated the Bachmann 08 over the Hornby version TBH - I’d imagine a lot of layouts don’t have space for all the stock  to be out all the time so a hand taking stuff on and off will keep occurring .

 

Its a fine line and I wouldn’t want to be calling the shots !

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rob D2 said:

To some extent I agree, but I’d choose robustness over absolute fidelity every time.

why I rated the Bachmann 08 over the Hornby version TBH - I’d imagine a lot of layouts don’t have space for all the stock  to be out all the time so a hand taking stuff on and off will keep occurring .

 

Its a fine line and I wouldn’t want to be calling the shots !

Those are fair comments, but in all fairness to us, our ethos is premium products with super high detail. It's not really possible to sit in both camps of mega realism and Tonka toy robustness as much as we'd like to. There shouldn't be any issues taking off and placing stock on the track though. I think that has to be a minimum spec to be honest. :D

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's that now age old conundrum - wanting higher levels of detail and design close to prototype, but wanting 'toy train' capabilities. They're simply just not compatible wants.

 

As I said previously, I made my decision to change my layout expectations in order not to compromise on the fidelity of the stock. It seems I am in something of a minority (although maybe not a minority of one) in this regard.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RBE said:

Those are fair comments, but in all fairness to us, our ethos is premium products with super high detail. It's not really possible to sit in both camps of mega realism and Tonka toy robustness as much as we'd like to. There shouldn't be any issues taking off and placing stock on the track though. I think that has to be a minimum spec to be honest. :D

Understood, but when I look on YT and the like the majority of layouts have tight curves and shall we say, the layout fidelity doesn’t quite match the quality of the stock often . In other words - people often like nice models but lack the time, skill, space or finesse to make a fine scale  layout - I wouldn’t want you to miss out on sales if the product can’t make it round their curves .

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ian J. said:

It's that now age old conundrum - wanting higher levels of detail and design close to prototype, but wanting 'toy train' capabilities. They're simply just not compatible wants.

 

As I said previously, I made my decision to change my layout expectations in order not to compromise on the fidelity of the stock. It seems I am in something of a minority (although maybe not a minority of one) in this regard.

 

I'm in your minority too.

 

Sounds to me like the balance seems about right here.... and testing will find any removal of detail needed to satisfy tighter curve clearances.  Sounds OK to me. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I sometimes wonder why manufacturers do it.

 

They seemingly have to produce a premium product but at a low price suitable for the sharpest curve.

 

I suppose if anyone wants a 56 to go round sharp curves, then buy the Hornby loco - at least it fulfils 1 of the above 3 criteria.

 

Carry on Cavalex.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 14/09/2021 at 11:24, jools1959 said:


I’ve scanned my pictures and those on Flickr and as you pointed out, the only major visible difference is the DCR logo, positioned just behind the cab doors. I also noticed a very minor difference, on 56103, the cab door windows have black surrounds, whereas 56091 doesn’t.

 

Number 2, duly ordered :locomotive:


What the presumably bit of metal above the driver’s side front cab window on 56103 all about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, newbryford said:

I sometimes wonder why manufacturers do it.

 

They seemingly have to produce a premium product but at a low price suitable for the sharpest curve.

 

I suppose if anyone wants a 56 to go round sharp curves, then buy the Hornby loco - at least it fulfils 1 of the above 3 criteria.

 

Carry on Cavalex.

 

I was thinking the exact same 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, brushman47544 said:


What the presumably bit of metal above the driver’s side front cab window on 56103 all about?

 

It's above the drivers window on both 56091 and 56103 - at the number 2 end only. Looks like a small aerial mount.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 hours ago, rob D2 said:

To some extent I agree, but I’d choose robustness over absolute fidelity every time.

why I rated the Bachmann 08 over the Hornby version TBH - I’d imagine a lot of layouts don’t have space for all the stock  to be out all the time so a hand taking stuff on and off will keep occurring .

 

Its a fine line and I wouldn’t want to be calling the shots !

 

As you say a difficult choice - for me I favour the finer detail of the Hornby 08 over the Bachmann version every day of the week.

 

I think the Cavalex approach is spot on, supporting both markets if necessary. 

 

Anyhow, given that it has been said it is unlikely there will be a problem, I suggest we wait for the EP to give a definitive answer. 


Roy

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

As you say a difficult choice - for me I favour the finer detail of the Hornby 08 over the Bachmann version every day of the week.

 

I think the Cavalex approach is spot on, supporting both markets if necessary. 

 

Anyhow, given that it has been said it is unlikely there will be a problem, I suggest we wait for the EP to give a definitive answer. 


Roy

Exactly, we don't want to promise something now and then have to backpeddle later. Always better to allow for a likely improvement than a possible disappointment.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Went to a nice small little show in Briston, Norfolk, it was the Scalefour Area Group open day and surprised to see Cavalex there.  Had a really good chat with Alex and his son about the Class 56, as well as discussing the 3-D printed model they had on display.

 

As pointed out that it was a 3-D version, the factory had exactly the same drawings and printed it off as per.  Even though it’s rough and ready, I was amazed by the amount of detail and even discussed the possibility of it going around 2nd degree curves.  They even had 3 different versions of the cab on display.

 

It was a very impressive model and I look forward to getting my pair of DCR (2 x 56091) one’s and maybe a Colas one.

A9F02B47-E295-4E02-B4D3-79186E4F860E.jpeg

86BCB14B-6F5E-4817-B2DC-B128FCE15413.jpeg

B999ED29-EA60-440B-8B53-82FFDA00E9C2.jpeg

675E52DC-6854-481E-BCF7-B08877841F7D.jpeg

B7264759-B9FE-4AD3-B4AF-5CCCEF7F6FA9.jpeg

48AA9B29-7258-4EAB-82BF-BE56B92826A3.jpeg

  • Like 12
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...