N gauge Class 50

[Steven B]

Dave, can you test the theory by modifying a spare class 56?

 

Happy modelling

 

Steven B.

[DapolDave]

Hi Steven,

 

The theory works, that's not necessarily the problem, it's peoples perception of it not being a co-co with all wheel power that's probably the sticking point. luckily no ones come up with a reason not to do it this way....................yet

cheers

dave

[Orinoco]

Should have gone for a class 40 instead ;)

 

Seriously, could the coupler boxes not be made detachable, so people can make their own choice?

[Dr Al]

Here's a question for you all.

 

I don't like the way the coupling box protrudes forward of the buffer beam.

 

there is an option which I should like to put to you. Namely to remove the front axle gear and have the loco a 1-BOBO-1

this way the coupling box can be pushed back and not be obtrusive.

 

the loco will max out at 125-150g so should still pull a load, the non powered axle will be pin point and still collect.

 

 

I think it would be better to adopt a short shank coupler if possible - could that, whilst recessing the box as far as is possible into the bogie be enough? I'd prefer to keep all wheel drive.

 

Might be worth looking at the Farish Deltic Prototype and seeing how they did it.

 

This is where NEM boxes really show their failings - they seem rather large and clunky as compared the old spring mounts (ok, they have way increased functionality of course).

 

Cheers,

Alan

Edited June 7, 2013 by Dr Al

[DapolDave]

You'd still need to have strength in the mounting of the box to the bogie or chassis, plus there's the room and gear issue. (its either a co-co or a 1-bo bo-1), sorry.

cheers

Dave

[Tricky-CRS]

Dave

Looking good, no expert but it looks good to me, plan with coupling box is a good idea.

How will I be able to afford a fleet of refers I don't know.

[D1059]

Hi everyone,

 

more revamped class 50 cad/cam's.

I still think there's some work to do, but it looks better that's for sure.

 

As built cad/cams should be here by Tuesday of next week too.

 

cheers

Dave

 

Hi Dave

 

I'm not entirely convinced yet by the angle of the body under the main cab front windows. Maybe its because the fall away to the sides is too subtle for me to see. Here's some of my Class 50 shots - the fall away seems more pronounced in some than others, but its there.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/6847921809/in/photolist-br8ozp-cL8eQd-cHRxPw-dtnrpo-dbbcoE-dEGQFT-cLUjxC-dG1SC6-cSruJw-cK1twE-dacpVq-dz7jKS-eeSHM9-dJasV2-dKXmw5-dG9wRj-e2Mz5W-dngZBR-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/7706626382/in/photolist-cK1twE-dacpVq-dz7jKS-eeSHM9-dJasV2-dKXmw5-dG9wRj-e2Mz5W-dngZBR-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs-dowgh6-dgbmfG-dqY1yn-dbeHkg-dgusNK-cNH5uE-deD5jF-doxLBA-dgtLSb

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/8314276329/in/photolist-dEGQFT-cLUjxC-dG1SC6-cSruJw-cK1twE-dacpVq-dz7jKS-eeSHM9-dJasV2-dKXmw5-dG9wRj-e2Mz5W-dngZBR-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs-dowgh6-dgbmfG-dqY1yn-dbeHkg-dgusNK

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/8689648574/in/photolist-eeSHM9-dJasV2-dKXmw5-dG9wRj-e2Mz5W-dngZBR-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs-dowgh6-dgbmfG-dqY1yn-dbeHkg-dgusNK-cNH5uE-deD5jF-doxLBA-dgtLSb

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/8330605732/in/photolist-dG9wRj-e2Mz5W-dngZBR-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs-dowgh6-dgbmfG-dqY1yn-dbeHkg-dgusNK-cNH5uE-deD5jF-doxLBA-dgtLSb

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/8353420595/in/photolist-dJasV2-dKXmw5-dG9wRj-e2Mz5W-dngZBR-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs-dowgh6-dgbmfG-dqY1yn-dbeHkg-dgusNK-cNH5uE-deD5jF-doxLBA-dgtLSb

 

 

The last one especially shows the fall away is quite pronounced. The CADs show the below windscreen handrails as being around horizontal, but they should be at an angle down towards the loco sides

 

STEVE

Edited June 7, 2013 by D1059

[andygif]

I can't see a problem with a 1-Bo-Bo-1 provided you don't have too much weight on the outer axles. 

 

After all the fabulous (for their day) Life-like E-units were correctly A-1-A A-1-A and they are excellent pullers.

 

All the very best

Les

I've had old Farish loco's turn into  1A1 1A1 or  11 1A's and still trundle round ok, might not have the strength to pull the skin off a rice pud, but they still looked ok.

(well as close as the old farish loco's got to ok looking)

Edited June 7, 2013 by andygif

[D1059]

Here's one more shot where backlighting has highlighted the fall away very clearly

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48175753@N03/8377172980/in/photolist-dLgcEU-dbbcxu-dtYaX6-dqhceS-duByWP-cLUj63-e7chy4-dZfxiK-dbF18w-dfSJ85-e6WYGF-cKnL6Y-e54Jem-e1921R-dG36aP-e8KA7b-cK1t8G-d7D241-e5JJ5y-dhsgYE-cHRxoE-e5Fc82-dMMJb8-e63bKZ-d78khh-e8DVTR-e2FVEk-dhvqe4-dbaqdz-9Fjzd2-br7QW2-d5UFV7-9FmGQs-dowgh6-dgbmfG-dqY1yn-dbeHkg-dgusNK-cNH5uE-deD5jF-doxLBA-dgtLSb

[justin1985]

I agree that 1-Bo-Bo-1 with a hidden coupler pocket is definitely preferable to a true Co-Co! Looking really good, and I'll certainly be buying one in revised NSE when they appear, the idea of building an LSWR themed module is becoming irresistible !

[DapolDave]

And nobody has yet mentioned there's a window missing. shame on you.  

[justin1985]

Haha - interesting point, and it seems to apply on this forum generally - "as long as the face is OK, not bothered about the body" !

[Multiple identity account 2]

This is just an off-topic question, but does anyone know what software is used to make the models seen in the images Dave posts?

[frobisher]

Jeremiah Bunyan, on 07 Jun 2013 - 15:03, said:

This is just an off-topic question, but does anyone know what software is used to make the models seen in the images Dave posts?

I dunno, but my experience in the field of prices for professional 3D and CAD/CAM packages is that you probably want to be sitting down when you here the price (typically £2K+ per user seat).

[Dr Al]

You'd still need to have strength in the mounting of the box to the bogie or chassis, plus there's the room and gear issue. (its either a co-co or a 1-bo bo-1), sorry.

cheers

Dave

 

I don't see why the Co-Co need be a problem. This loco is essentially (bogie wise) identical to the Deltic - and Farish appear to have managed ok...unless folks have had trouble with the couplers on their deltic DP1? Not heard any woes yet....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69375-farish-progress-on-20132014-models-link-to-pictures/?p=1060308

 

Whilst both can be done, sticking with the conventional Co-co may be logical - you know that works and have made some very nice mechanisms using it. Personally, I'd prefer that the coupling box and mount were changed rather than the drive (good opportunity to tool for something less chunky and more refined to use in the future too?).

 

Cheers,

Alan

[DapolDave]

Hi Alan,

 

I think it's aesthetics more than anything that I'm going for.

 

No end of reviews quite rightly mentioned the coupling box on our 26 protruding and I don't like the GF 37 for the same reasons, so I'd like it back and more obscure while still allowing NEM coupling pockets we all now use.

 

Cheers

Dave

[TomE]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't Dave!

 

IF the 1-bo bo-1 arrangement can be proved to provide adeqate haulage then I would think that is more likley to be overlooked than a huge great whopping coupling box protuding from the front end! Also assuming that the box itself is not removable, the current layout would seem to make it impossible to fit the extra beam detailing?

 

Alternatively you could always break new ground for N Gauge and employ a bulleid-esque chain drive mechanism....................

 

Tom.

[Bomag]

Would it not be 1-B B-1 as the axles would not be separately powered?

[Robert Shrives]

Hi great idea and I am sure with just a fewmore cad/ picture comparisons the niggling items you spotted will be sorted! Cant wait for these but will you be doing a real Waship ! (D600!!! ) go on you know you want to!

 

Robert   

[Dr Al]

Hi Alan,

 

I think it's aesthetics more than anything that I'm going for.

 

No end of reviews quite rightly mentioned the coupling box on our 26 protruding and I don't like the GF 37 for the same reasons, so I'd like it back and more obscure while still allowing NEM coupling pockets we all now use.

 

Cheers

Dave

 

 

Hi Dave,

 

Yes, rightly so! I didn't think the 26 was too bad to be honest - it was the standard length coupler when plugged into the socket that looked odd as it stuck out quite far - mine all got replaced with Farish short shanks.

 

I think the problem with both the Farish 37 and this is that the NEM socket then mounts into a rectangular box, which takes up a much larger volume than the socket itself. To be honest, it's clunky and inelegant. It's clear that you don't need the box though as it serves very little functional purpose - the socket can just be mounted directly onto the bogie in the way Farish have done with their 55.

 

In that way you can have your cake and eat it - otherwise it seems a bit of an inelegant solution to redesign the drive when you could do something similar to the Farish ones.

 

I think also it's more risky I'd have thought to change the drive - when folks hear (who haven't followed this thread) that it's only 4 axle drive I suspect the natural reaction will be: ?????? when every other Co-Co model is 6 axle drive. Might not help sales...

 

I guess the one down side to changing the NEM socket design to allow it to be mounted in the Farish way is that you'll need to tool for this component, so added cost. But I think you may find that a worthwhile investment in the long run if you can use this on future models, and also keep the 50 'conventional' in terms of a drive system you know you've had no problems with past Co-Cos like the 58 and 56.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[DapolDave]

Hi all,

As promised the original class 50 (as built'ish) cad/cam's have arrived.

 

Same problems as the refurbished example, and please forgive the colouring of the cad/cam.

 

I think i've cracked the NEM pocket problem though,  and just to show how far it protrudes on the proposed model I have included a top down of the cab front. (not good  )

 

Cheers

Dave

[Multiple identity account 2]

Nice stuff....!!

[andygif]

does this mean we can see a new variant of the Dapol nem couplers, ie the ultra short, in the production pipeline?

[oreamnos]

I'm a bit late to this party but - just to add my two-cents worth - I want to say that the 1-B B-1 arrangement gets my vote for two reasons:

 

1.) The early BachFar releases of the 50s on the spit chassis mechanism had a sprung coupler which was proud of the buffer beam and it really looked bad.  When they released "Illustrious" (and then "Glorious) in rail blue, they managed to move the whole bogie further under the body slightly by retooling the battery box to give the bogies more clearance to swing on tight radius curves.  Given the the coupler box was attached to the bogie, it was pulled under the buffer beam just enough and this improved the looks of the model considerably (well, apart from its other shortcomings...), and I recall the NGS journal which reviewed "Illustrious" even commented on this fact.

 

2.) All my Bo-Bo diesels (24, 25, 26, 27, 33, and 42 - I don't have a latest spec 20 or a powered Hymek and my blue 22 is still in transit) are generally better runners than any of my diesels with 6 powered axles.  I attibute this to a reduction of geartrain friction owing to the fact they have two fewer geared axles.  I would expect a 1-Bo Bo-1 50 would benefit from the reduced friction as well.  Given that the ungeard axle will still pick-up, I think this is the way to go and is a win-win.

 

Just my two-cents.

 

Matt

Edited June 10, 2013 by oreamnos

[D1059]

Hi all,

As promised the original class 50 (as built'ish) cad/cam's have arrived.

 

Same problems as the refurbished example, and please forgive the colouring of the cad/cam.

 

I think i've cracked the NEM pocket problem though,  and just to show how far it protrudes on the proposed model I have included a top down of the cab front. (not good  )

 

Cheers

Dave

Thanks Dave - the cab close up clearly shows now the model has the body fall away under the windows. I think its the horizontal handrails that mask it - they should fall away towards the sides too

 

STEVE