N gauge Class 17 'Clayton' Locomotive

[DJM Dave]

Hi everyone,

These are the latest Cad/Cam images arrived this morning from China.

 

I'm quite happy with them apart from I'd like the roof thinner and 1 or 2 little changes.

 

I've asked for the headcode panels to be pre-printed on clear plastic as separate items for the customer to choose their headcode, with a selection of 6 in each loco box accessory bag.

 

One thing that is now incorporated if a moulded separate representation of the fan ( picture 3) beneath the etched fan grill either end, and this cad/cam also has the close coupling mechanism included.

 

Now for the bad news. Try as I might, and in an endeavour to keep as much weight as possible and the loco evenly balanced on all 4 axles, it's currently not possible to have an empty cab as the motor will run through the bottom half of it with the PCB board on top filling most of it. I will try and get round this somehow, but its looking tight to be honest as its a split frame chassis running through the lower cab beneath the window bottom edge too.  I hope this doesn't detract from your thoughts on the model too much?

 

I'm thinking that the PCB board might go into the fuel tank on the chassis bottom, but this would prevent this space being used for any sound speaker area. but at least it would leave the view through the windows clear.

 

Anyway, please feel free to comment is you wish, as I always appreciate feedback.

Cheers

Dave

 

[-missy-]

Looks good Dave

 

Now for the bad news. Try as I might, and in an endeavour to keep as much weight as possible and the loco evenly balanced on all 4 axles, it's currently not possible to have an empty cab as the motor will run through the bottom half of it with the PCB board on top filling most of it. I will try and get round this somehow, but its looking tight to be honest as its a split frame chassis running through the lower cab beneath the window bottom edge too.  I hope this doesn't detract from your thoughts on the model too much?

 

I'm thinking that the PCB board might go into the fuel tank on the chassis bottom, but this would prevent this space being used for any sound speaker area. but at least it would leave the view through the windows clear.

 

Anyway, please feel free to comment is you wish, as I always appreciate feedback.

Cheers

Dave

 

Ok, how about using 2 smaller motors, each one driving an individual bogie? That would mean plenty of space in the middle bit. I personally dont like anything in the cab (other than stuff that should be there).

 

M

[Steven B]

Hi Dave,

 

Are there any ideas from the Farish class 14 that you can borrow? They used a nice lump of metal for the cab detail and didn't have a full length PCB - just one soldered to the back of the motor.

 

Does it have to have all wheel drive? The Farish DMUs can manage a decent train length with just two axles powered.

 

If having PCB on show in unavoidable please remember that they are available in colours other than green!

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

[Alex Duckworth]

Looks good Dave

 

 

Ok, how about using 2 smaller motors, each one driving an individual bogie? That would mean plenty of space in the middle bit. I personally dont like anything in the cab (other than stuff that should be there).

 

M

 

 

I'm with Julia on this one - motor in cab (or PCB) would really put me off, particularly in a loco that is mostly bonnet.

 

Alex.

[DJM Dave]

Hi Steven,

 

I suspect the 17 will need all wheel drive, the 17 twin packs will include a dummy which along with a reasonable train to be hauled might be a bit much on just 2 axles, especially with gradients etc.

 

Cheers

Dave

[-missy-]

Hello.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Are there any ideas from the Farish class 14 that you can borrow?

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

 

I dont think Farish would like that, borrowed or not!

 

M

[Adam1701D]

I believe that Heljan had the same issue with the 4mm Clayton, which was helped by having a neutral grey moulding over the chassis block. Hides any shiny bits!

 

So long as the gubbins can be kept below window level, I can't see too much of an issue.

[Revolution Mike]

Provided there is nothing visible above the window level and it is not in a bright visible colour I don't see a problem with things intruding in the cab.

 

Go with the 2 axle drive and performance may be just like the real thing

 

Cheers, Mike

[McRuss]

Dave,

 

maybe you could get some inspirations from some german N scale models of the Class V100/211 from the Deutsche Bundesbahn, by Fleischmann, Arnold and Minitrix. These engine class had a similar appearance as the class 17

 

Markus

[Dr Al]

Does this include suitable guiding for the close coupling box for tight curves to keep the box central? (Sorry, I'm still going on about this Dave, but I think it's quite important!).

Thanks,
Alan

[Dr Al]

Have you thought of using a compact DCC system that could employ either Bachmann's upcoming decoder with right angled pins (I think there was a pic of this on their Jinty thread) or a Lenz one? Would this gain you a little space? (I know it would significantly limit the decoders).

 

Or can the motor be offset to the side (laterally) slightly, to allow the decoder to slide down a cab side and then keep more space in the fuel tanks, or cab free for speakers (ok, trying to think more out of th box here )...?

 

Cheers,
Alan

[Revolution Ben]

Hi Dave

 

For me, the most important thing is that the loco is heavy enough to run smoothly, and that it has flywheels to help it to move (and to shunt) slowly.  If the block has to be in the lower half of the cab then as long as it doesn't actually block the windows I can't see too much of a problem.

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[D9020 Nimbus]

I've got a query about the numbers. Coming from North-East England, I'm interested in the higher-numbered examples (from the batch built by Beyer-Peacock) as allocated to Gateshead (52A) (and Thornaby--although I believe theirs moved to Scotland at some point, while Gateshead had examples as late as 1970-1.

 

The only higher-numbered examples you're currently offering are in the powered+dummy sets, and I *never* saw a pair of Claytons together in the NE--always single locos, and I've never seen a photograph of a pair of Claytons operating in NE En gland either.

 

Could you consider making higher-numbered examples available singly, please?

[Joseph_Pestell]

With narrow and low bonnets, I am not at all surprised that the motor has to intrude into the cab.  I'm with those that say it won't be too noticeable with a suitably dull cover over it.

[pmorgan_cym]

Interesting to read this and compare peoples expectations v practicalities. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Dave,

I always like the challenge of fitting the proverbial quart into a pint pot. If you can PM me the dimensions of the Clayton, I will do some thinking (although I think you are probably right).

[DJM Dave]

I've got a query about the numbers. Coming from North-East England, I'm interested in the higher-numbered examples (from the batch built by Beyer-Peacock) as allocated to Gateshead (52A) (and Thornaby--although I believe theirs moved to Scotland at some point, while Gateshead had examples as late as 1970-1.

 

The only higher-numbered examples you're currently offering are in the powered+dummy sets, and I *never* saw a pair of Claytons together in the NE--always single locos, and I've never seen a photograph of a pair of Claytons operating in NE En gland either.

 

Could you consider making higher-numbered examples available singly, please?

Hi,

Yes I understand your point and I will definately put NE singletons in a second production batch.

Meanwhile, if I'm not being too cheeky, I bet someone will bite your hand off for a dummy singleton if you offered it out there, so that might solve your problem quicker.

HTH

Cheers

Dave

[DJM Dave]

Dave,

I always like the challenge of fitting the proverbial quart into a pint pot. If you can PM me the dimensions of the Clayton, I will do some thinking (although I think you are probably right).

Hi Joseph,

I've sat down and designed the mech below cab windows and the socket will easily fit in the fuel tank , yay :-)

There will be a cover over the visible chassis to hide it when you look through the cab windows.

 

Al, I'm working on the guide pin principle on this and also experimenting here.

Any chance you can PM me the situations you find this a problem in, and also what stock your using at the time?

Cheers

Dave

[-missy-]

There will be a cover over the visible chassis to hide it when you look through the cab windows.

 

Thats such a shame

[DJM Dave]

Thats such a shame

Not really, you'd prefer 2 motors or a full cab?

[-missy-]

Not really, you'd prefer 2 motors or a full cab?

 

Erm....2 motors?

 

Come on Dave, think outside the box!

[DJM Dave]

Ok, so I'm trying to think of the advantages in N for a short, none heavy bo-bo loco, to take a lot of weight out and replace with 2 small coreless motors and flywheels.

You would possibly get a completely empty cab but at a lack of overall weight, although I could cheese the 2mm guys off by combatting that by putting traction tyres on opposing axles but that wouldn't give the necessary adhesion fora dummy, and train (for those buying a twin pack).

Then you have the possibility of mismatched motors, and the chance that the free rolling mechanism might 'rock' due to motor lag.

And of course raise the price for a second motor, flywheel, electronics and assembly.

 

Or.............................I could just keep the existing motor, and put the circuit board on the bottom within the fuel tank area, but sacrifice the bottom half of the cab and keep the price as advertised?

 

Hmmmmmmm decisions decisions ;-)

[Roy L S]

I'm with Julia on this one - motor in cab (or PCB) would really put me off, particularly in a loco that is mostly bonnet.

 

Alex.

 

If two small motors are used, the cab area left clear and the tank area left for a speaker i'm not sure I understand where sufficient tractive weight could then be located?

 

I would suggest Dave sticks with the idea of a centrally mounted motor even if this encroaches into the area below the cab windows. I would suggest the "cover" includes whatever cab details are practical in relief.

 

For those who want DCC I would suggest the decoder socket is in the tank area,

 

I accept that would not be good for those who want sound too but surely there is a limit to what is technically possible without compromising key attributes such as adequate traction?

 

My knowledge on things DCC is very limited but could the solution be to offer the facility to fit sound in the twin set? If paired as a powered and dummy could one (powered) haveh a normal 6 pin decoder and the other (dummy) provision for a sound chip and a speaker in the lower cab/tank area where the motor would otherwise be (To avoid hard wiring the pair?).

 

Roy

[Tequila Sunrise]

To my mind, simplicity and reliability and price are far more important than an empty cab. Anyone who wants to add the detail afterwards could maybe build their own chassis and sell the original to someone who wants to power their dummy version.

[queensquare]

Putting the PCB in the tank isn't really an issue if you want to fit sound as I have removed the PCB and hard wired the chip in all the N/2mm locos I've put sound into. The PCB takes up a lot of space.

 

Jerry