DJM Dave Posted November 17, 2013 Author Share Posted November 17, 2013 Thanks for the 'compliment' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 There is one UK RTR model that employs 2 motors, but as it isn't out yet DJMDave remains correct in his assertion that there are no 2 motor engines about, the Hattons Garratt. Back to N gauge Claytons, central motor as long as it is not visible in silhouette. It's N gauge/2mm who is going to get that close to the locomotive to be able to tell the floor is too high in the cab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Al Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I think the Farish class 14 is a good loco to look at for comparison here - it has the motor mounted centrally, with a plastic cab interior covering it, and motor below the window line. Not sure I've heard any complaints about that arrangement asthetically? Cheers, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-missy- Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Yes but regardless of whatever the specifics are, someone who says "As mentioned earlier by me there a reason no one else uses it for UK outline OO and N models. Can they all be wrong?" is not what I would to expect to hear from someone who said "I intend to produce a raft of models over the next few years with my desire for innovation, and forward thinking put into each and every model I make." Maybe other manufacturers are doing the same and just following convention? Im not gong to say anymore on this. I think I have dug a big enough hole already... M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Yes but regardless of whatever the specifics are, someone who says "As mentioned earlier by me there a reason no one else uses it for UK outline OO and N models. Can they all be wrong?" is not what I would to expect to hear from someone who said "I intend to produce a raft of models over the next few years with my desire for innovation, and forward thinking put into each and every model I make." Maybe other manufacturers are doing the same and just following convention? Im not gong to say anymore on this. I think I have dug a big enough hole already... M Hi Missy I think that may be a little unfair as far as Dave's stated ambitions are concerned. In both the 17 and 23 he is promising a coreless motor and close coupling mechanisms, neither so far done my any manufacturer of British N Diesels yet as far as I know (although I am happy to be corrected). The smaller Faish Diesels do not even have a decoder socket, the 17 (which is actually not really a whole lot bigger than the 14 and sharing many similar issues) will have one. Other things such as provision for DCC sound may just not be feasible on such a small loco without compromising something else (such as haulage) that the majority (many of which will never go to DCC) rightly expect. I am sure Dave will consider all the options and not just discount them out of hand but when all is said and done he has far more experience of design/manufacture with all the commercial considerations than most of us will ever have. There must surely be a balance between innovation, commerciality and risk? That's my lot on this subject for now too I think Regards Roy Edited November 17, 2013 by Roy L S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmthtrains - David Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Trying to word this carefully so it comes across as the positive constructive point I intend it to be, and not a dig or personal comment - I think as a new entrant into the hobby as a manufacturer, it is most important for Dave to establish his credentials with a simple, solid quality, WORKING release. You will carry with you a certain reputation as DapolDave (by this I mean from the company, not yourself), and Dapol in my mind have been incredibly irritating in trying to 'innovate' when all I really want from them is a loco that runs properly, has no howling errors and doesn't fall to bits (and add to that, actually gets released!!) Having full interior cabs would be lovely, but as it would mean straying into a new, unproven motor arrangement in N, I would strongly suggest sticking to what you know works and make it work. You will quickly get a terrific reputation if you offer a high quality design built to last and backed up by strong quality control standards. If you end up with an 'innovative' design that doesn't run well or falls apart, the innovation won't be what people remember... David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted November 17, 2013 Author Share Posted November 17, 2013 Trying to word this carefully so it comes across as the positive constructive point I intend it to be, and not a dig or personal comment - I think as a new entrant into the hobby as a manufacturer, it is most important for Dave to establish his credentials with a simple, solid quality, WORKING release. You will carry with you a certain reputation as DapolDave (by this I mean from the company, not yourself), and Dapol in my mind have been incredibly irritating in trying to 'innovate' when all I really want from them is a loco that runs properly, has no howling errors and doesn't fall to bits (and add to that, actually gets released!!) Having full interior cabs would be lovely, but as it would mean straying into a new, unproven motor arrangement in N, I would strongly suggest sticking to what you know works and make it work. You will quickly get a terrific reputation if you offer a high quality design built to last and backed up by strong quality control standards. If you end up with an 'innovative' design that doesn't run well or falls apart, the innovation won't be what people remember... David Hi David, duly noted and agreed with, And don't forget, I'll lose my house (literally) if that scenario came about. Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Echoing BMHTrains-David look at Union Mills, plaudits for solid engines, simple and reliable. Build on what you have learnt from the Dapol experience and innovate where it won't compromise on the quality and reliability and you probably won't go far wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Regardless of what Dave decided to go with I really don't get why people are having hang ups about this arrangement. OK, so you need 2 motors instead of one but the only real difference is that the drive shafts comming from each end of a centrally mounted double shafted motor (t the bogies) is shortened and a single ended motor is added to each end of the drive shafts, the motors are then wired up in series. Its not rocket science! Am I alone in seeing this? M. If only it were that simple - it would make axle-hung drives so much easier. The basic problem with series coupling is that as soon as one end starts slipping and its motor accelerates, the back-emf of that motor increases, thus reducing the voltage across the other motor, which then slows. To mitigate this, some electronics would be needed to keep the common point between the motors at exactly half the potential applied to the pair. The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 You will quickly get a terrific reputation if you offer a high quality design built to last and backed up by strong quality control standards. If you end up with an 'innovative' design that doesn't run well or falls apart, the innovation won't be what people remember... As was rather well demonstrated by this particular prototype... The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Alex Duckworth Posted November 17, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 17, 2013 My Backwoods NGG 16 Garratt has two motors - one in each unit - and runs rather well, even if I do say so myself. My recently completed 2mmFS Janus chassis has a mini motor at each end (under each bonnet) and seems to be OK as far as I can tell, although it isn't finished yet. My 2mmFS ES1 has only one driven bogie at the moment, it'll have two when I get around to it. When I build my 2mm Clayton it will have independantly driven bogies As Julia says, it isn't rocket science. The desirability of this configuration in a mass market, cheaply produced model is quite another question. Alex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmeaden Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Would imagine two motors would not work well with back emf potentially with the dual back signal disturbing the control - this would also be similar with DCC decoders? Just thinking aloud! DaveM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium boxbrownie Posted November 21, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 21, 2013 After butchering most of Kato Japanese fleet to fit decoders and other details I notice the multiple units use especially small central mounted motors slung very low in the underframe leaving the seating area clear (well, up to at least cushion level), would one of those smaller motors not suffice as one power car pulls around six other coupled trailers quite happily. Then again thinking from fresh, how about a powered bogie (motor bogie mounted) with drive taken off using a propshaft to the other bogie, all you'll have is a small prop running low through the cab area and if there is weight added over the "trailing" bogie in the body it can be removed to add a speaker or whatever after? Just thinking aloud........... Oh yes......Copyright 2013........Me!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multiple identity account 2 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 After butchering most of Kato Japanese fleet to fit decoders and other details I notice the multiple units use especially small central mounted motors slung very low in the underframe leaving the seating area clear (well, up to at least cushion level), would one of those smaller motors not suffice as one power car pulls around six other coupled trailers quite happily. Then again thinking from fresh, how about a powered bogie (motor bogie mounted) with drive taken off using a propshaft to the other bogie, all you'll have is a small prop running low through the cab area and if there is weight added over the "trailing" bogie in the body it can be removed to add a speaker or whatever after? Just thinking aloud........... Oh yes......Copyright 2013........Me!!!! One of my Mehano BO-BO diesels has a similar arrangement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium boxbrownie Posted November 21, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 21, 2013 There you go just proves there's nothing in this world new! Maybe the Copywright should change to ME-hano Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreamnos Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) Dunno how I completely missed this thread until today! I share the opinion stated by a few others that as long as I can see through the cab glazing and out the other side, I'm happy. Rather like the Farish Warship or the Dapol 122 where only the seat tops are seen with the chassis/motor tucked under. But if the cab is filled I think I would be turned off. Memories of black windowed Minitrix 27s and Warships come to mind. I don't do DCC or sound, but my! How the innards of locos these days have gotten so complicated to meet the expectations of those who do. And then also having to keep the 2mm people happy? Yikes! I would personally prefer all wheel drive, metal body for weight/traction like the Farish 08 and 14 (And 03 and 04? I don't own either of those so don't know.), and also a set of traction tires on an inboard axle. But I'd happily give up any or all of those things as long as I'm able to see through the cab. Matt Edit - Also on my "would like to see list" is no wire connections between body and chassis. Edited November 25, 2013 by oreamnos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BYMR Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I don't write much on the forums and am primarily an observer of general goings on but I have one question regarding the Class 17 that will ultimately decide if I get one or not... (I hope you provide the right answer as having seen the CADs, I really want one). Will the motors being used be of Dapol design/sourcing or closer to the Farish mechanism? The reason I am asking is every Farish model I have is a lot quieter and a lot smoother than Dapol items, both in steam and diesel. I know this might not be the case for everyone but I would still be interested to know, that is if you are able to even disclose that information. I have to add that I am highly impressed in you going solo on this venture and I wish you all the best with DJModels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZmodeller Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Hi All, Some may have interpreted my previous post as exhorting Dave to cater for sound but it was actually pointing out that those who want to do that will find a way and live with the compromises. They may decide to obscure the windows with a speaker for instance. I would suggest, Dave, that you go with your instincts here and if you can manage to see right through the cab windows that will be a major achievement. Haulage may be a problem though and every last mm3 will need to be occupied by tungsten to get the weight up to a workable level, especially if the locos need to pull "for 2" with a dummy. If you were considering traction tyres on the 23 then they may be a necessity on this loco to pull trains worthy of 1800hp. All the best with this, both the 17 and 23 will be in the don't need/wrong region/wrong era/must have category for me. If they are up to the standard of the magnificent Western, I can't wait. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold queensquare Posted November 28, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2013 Haulage may be a problem though and every last mm3 will need to be occupied by tungsten to get the weight up to a workable level, especially if the locos need to pull "for 2" with a dummy. If you were considering traction tyres on the 23 then they may be a necessity on this loco to pull trains worthy of 1800hp. Peter Please, no traction tyres - unless of course you are going to make spare wheel sets available for those who don't want dirt spreading rubber bands on their wheels!! Jerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted November 28, 2013 Author Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't write much on the forums and am primarily an observer of general goings on but I have one question regarding the Class 17 that will ultimately decide if I get one or not... (I hope you provide the right answer as having seen the CADs, I really want one). Will the motors being used be of Dapol design/sourcing or closer to the Farish mechanism? The reason I am asking is every Farish model I have is a lot quieter and a lot smoother than Dapol items, both in steam and diesel. I know this might not be the case for everyone but I would still be interested to know, that is if you are able to even disclose that information. I have to add that I am highly impressed in you going solo on this venture and I wish you all the best with DJModels. Hi BYMR, My designs won't be using any of the main 2's components, I have sourced motors in China ready for my projects. I hope this helps Cheers Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted November 28, 2013 Author Share Posted November 28, 2013 Hi Jerry, Don't worry, spare wheel sets are in hand and will be available for whoever wants them at launch of each product. Cheers Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted November 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 30, 2013 Hi Dave, What news from the front? Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted November 30, 2013 Author Share Posted November 30, 2013 Hi Robert, No news as yet. Still awaiting altered cad/cams as I'm still not happy with the thickness of the roof. I've redesigned the chassis so that the decoder socket is in the fuel tank, and the cab is clear from just below window height upwards, all the way across the cab. Shouldn't be long before I'm in a position to sign off on the tooling I hope. (Dependant on cash flow and an enquiry to the bank as I'd rather not hold the N gauge items up any longer than necessary, but cash flow is into the OO J94 as the primary model). However I've started looking at new products to follow, so I get a small rolling programme going. No clues yet though :-) Cheers Dave 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted December 2, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2013 Thanks Dave, I understand the way to make a small fortune in railway modelling is to start with a large one , hopefully the bank will support the venture fully and not leave you paddle and homeless. I look forward to news of metal being cut and if you can feather the clayton roof lip it would be better but there must be engineering limits. Hopefully new projects equally worthwhile and I look forward to little bits of info as do many on RMW. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold scottystitch Posted December 3, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 3, 2013 To echo many others here, I'd be happy as long as the window line is clear all the way through. I'd rather have that than an engine that won't pull rice pudding, nor the extra cost of a second motor. I'll take a useful, reliable, affordable engine over an experimental one. My tuppence worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts