RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 8, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 8, 2015 Whether you use 1/76, 1/76.2 or 1/76.2546954772456 as the scale conversion factor is up to you of course............. So it's not a H0 model then? Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 8, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 8, 2015 I won't be at the office for a few days so I can't measure it at the moment. But I don't advise designing your layout for the APT-E to be able to pass another train on a curve, unless the APT-E is the main reason you are building a layout (which would be great if it was!). Just make sure that they don't pass on a curve. ......... To ensure you will have no issues with an APT-E passing anything in your roster your track centre-to-centre distances probably need to be Great Western Mainline or larger. In my view, it's not worth designing your whole layout to that standard just so your APT-E can be passed on a curve. -Jason Thanks Jason. I look forward to getting those measurements. My layout contains hidden sidings on a curve as well as 30"/32" curves on the hidden parts of the main line. All visible double track has minimum radii of 36"/38" When I get the dimensions from you later I can make any design changes that I need to do. By the way the advertising for APT-E includes the selling of additional trailer cars so it was obviously envisaged that some modellers would want to run the APT-E in "normal service" without restriction. I have ordered three additional trailer cars but if I can't actually run my seven coach train at the same time as other trains it will be disappointing. Anyway, lets wait and see what the overhang is before jumping to conclusions. This is from the Locomotion website: Additional Trailing Car with seats and one intermediate bogie and joint module.Perfect for those that want to create a longer train as it might have been in service Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevex52 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 And why would any person post such a stroppy response to a simple illustration? That's why I don't usually get involved in RTR topics -- you are all so damn bad-tempered. Here is another illustration. I have replaced the APTE outline on the outer curve with an ordinary coach. Without accurate details of the model dimensions it means little. As before I post it just for the interest of anyone who wants to look at it. Martin. Sorry to pick on your post Martin, I am not stroppy about it. I would rather wait till i have the model here and make my mind up then. I cant see Rapido making a model that would not satisfy most modellers. Lets hope the thread returns to Rapido showing us the development of the model. It was very good to start with. I am afraid most threads become derailed from the original idea which makes most threads not worth reading. Unless its just me it seems to have got worse since christmas. The best threads are the long running photo threads. Good of you Martin to change your diagram. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapidotrains Posted March 9, 2015 Author Share Posted March 9, 2015 The reality is that the overhang will be what it is. We can't make the nose out of slippery latex so it squishes past if it hits anything on a curve... We're making the model to prototype dimensions. If we moved the front bogie to reduce the overhang it would look "off." The only compromise we're making is that the coaches need to spread out on curves, otherwise this model would be known as The Shelf Queen. It has to go around #2 radius curves without falling over! But beyond that, we can't actually change the dimensions to reduce the needed clearances. Best regards, Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 We're making the model to prototype dimensions. If we moved the front bogie to reduce the overhang it would look "off." Hi Jason, I don't think anyone would want a model which is not to scale. We are not asking you to change it, but to tell us the actual dimensions so that we can determine the required track spacing at different radii. It is normal practice to increase the spacing on sharp curves, as is done on the prototype. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 Hi Jason, I don't think anyone would want a model which is not to scale. We are not asking you to change it, but to tell us the actual dimensions so that we can determine the required track spacing at different radii. It is normal practice to increase the spacing on sharp curves, as is done on the prototype. regards, Martin. My italics Exactly Martin. That's all we are asking for, What are the actual dimensions? Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
srihaggis Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Any layout I build has always been gauged to the longest overhanging vehicle I have. In the case, pendolino does overhang a lot so all my curves are gauged to this model. At the mo I am between layouts, so that when APT arrives, I will gauge it to that. I don't have a fancy controller so I can't control the other running line that quickly, the impact would have occurred before I would be able to react with available space so for me it's easier to gauge curves on the largest/longest vehicle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 9, 2015 AFAIK the nose taper was defined more for clearance issues than for aerodynamic ones, but both affected the actual shape. The max. width of the power cars was at the 'hip' of the body profile and was 2365 mm. I took this and scaled a drawing to produce an approx. nose width of 1145 mm. Whether you use 1/76, 1/76.2 or 1/76.2546954772456 as the scale conversion factor is up to you of course............. Measure in inches, take the number, divide by 3, that is the number of mms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I've been brought to this thread from the negativity thread. I like to believe I can solve problems, so here is my solution to the overhang issue - put the overhanging nose on a pivot attached to the bogies on fixed length rods to that when the bogies turn into a curve they also turn the nose in at the same time. A bit like Concorde's nose but rather than up and down it moves left to right depending on the curve. The sharper the curve the more it turns in, heck i don't know why BR didn't think if this too, looks like I am Mr Turn to BR's Mr Tilt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 That will bring a whole new meaning to 'snaking through pointwork'……. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevex52 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 The reality is that the overhang will be what it is. We can't make the nose out of slippery latex so it squishes past if it hits anything on a curve... We're making the model to prototype dimensions. If we moved the front bogie to reduce the overhang it would look "off." The only compromise we're making is that the coaches need to spread out on curves, otherwise this model would be known as The Shelf Queen. It has to go around #2 radius curves without falling over! But beyond that, we can't actually change the dimensions to reduce the needed clearances. Best regards, Jason Well said Jason. Continue to make the model to scale....i have one on order. You can imagine the comments if you said it was not to scale because it had to fit round Hornby 1st radius curves. Continue the good work. I would have thought dimensions were available for anyone to calculate the approximate size at 4mm scale. I am lucky because i have a large layout and i assume it will run ok on my layout. If it should foul on the corners i will just run it whilst the other stock is in the station or sidings. I am sure it will look great running on its own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard i Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Reading some of the comments, they come across as quite negative and demanding, whether they intend to or not. I would like to redress the balence and say... Thank you Jason for taking the time and commercial risk to produce a prototype model that has limited time and livery variation. Thank you for taking such time to ensure that it looks so good and taking the time to ensure that it runs through second radiu curve (the industry standard). In order that i can get it out of the packet plonk it on the railway and it will go. All of this has saved me huge amounts of hours in sratchbuilding one, especially one that tilts. If i need to only run such a unique design on my outside track or move a piece of lineside equipment on my personal railway which you have neither seen, nor do i expect you to see, then so be it. That is a small price to pay when it arrives. So thank you again, i look forward to what else you produce and i hope if i have any questions i will remember to ask you in a polite manner. Yours Richard. P.S. I have ordered an APT even though i model pre grouping steam, quality will always lure me to buy out of era. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 370 001 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I agree, we ordered the sound version in June, were not paying hundreds of pounds and waiting a year and a half for an inaccurate model. I am just glad Jason and co decided on the APT-E. Lets enjoy the build up to the main event. I have a small layout, so if it runs, great, if not I will have to consider changing my current layout or making a larger layout. But it's something I will look at once I have on here. Can't wait! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I've been brought to this thread from the negativity thread. I like to believe I can solve problems, so here is my solution to the overhang issue - put the overhanging nose on a pivot attached to the bogies on fixed length rods to that when the bogies turn into a curve they also turn the nose in at the same time. A bit like Concorde's nose but rather than up and down it moves left to right depending on the curve. The sharper the curve the more it turns in, heck i don't know why BR didn't think if this too, looks like I am Mr Turn to BR's Mr Tilt. heres hoping the 4 x funnies are tongue on cheek. if not gawd helps us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danim Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 out of curiosity Jason are you going to be able to fit dcc sound in the apt if you decide to go down that route later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold grandadbob Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 Er - I hope so 'cos I've a ordered a sound fitted version, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 30801 Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 Er - I hope so 'cos I've a ordered a sound fitted version, Will the sound chip be available as a spare for those undecided about sound who ordered a quiet one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold grandadbob Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 Apologies - misunderstood the earlier post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2015 Richard i I don't see any negative comments about the model. Post #4 asked what the overhang is and to date no one has been able to answer that simple question. Modellers on this thread simply want to make sure they can run their APT-E, and some are prepared to modify their layout if necessary. No one is asking Jason for anything other than a true to scale model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loickebros Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Richard i I don't see any negative comments about the model. Post #4 asked what the overhang is and to date no one has been able to answer that simple question. Modellers on this thread simply want to make sure they can run their APT-E, and some are prepared to modify their layout if necessary. No one is asking Jason for anything other than a true to scale model. Agreed not all of us have the luxury of space my whole railway room is only 8ft x 6ft that is why i asked the question originally. At no point has anyone requested the model to be compromised but we would like to know the clearance so i can lay the track as close to the wall as i can but still be able to run APT'E on the outer circuit (4th radius) without it hitting the wall. I really don't want to wait till november for it to arrive before i can start laying track!! Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The APT-E was designed to fit existing BR kinematic envelopes though a combination of bogie positioning. vehicle length AND crucially the nose cone profile, resulting it having no worse clearances to line side structures and adjacent lines than conventional stock. This fact will translate into "00" just as well even on tight radius curves, as MW has already shown in his drawings above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenwall Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The APT-E was designed to fit existing BR kinematic envelopes though a combination of bogie positioning. vehicle length AND crucially the nose cone profile, resulting it having no worse clearances to line side structures and adjacent lines than conventional stock. This fact will translate into "00" just as well even on tight radius curves, as MW has already shown in his drawings above. Err.. don't think so. 1 BR does not have 2nd radius curves on lines concerned. 2 look at the drawings above again and you will see the possible interference Jasons advice not to pass trains is apt. To those seeking to avoid hitting walls and and lineside stuctures on formations in planning, well good move, a little patience will help. To those like myself with existing formations it must be a case of wait and see, then do exensive testing. Just like when the first mk3s appeared, even where larger radius curves are employed track centres will often have been made more prototypical and/or compact, so testing and route limits will be the order of the day (got the t shirt). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapidotrains Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 Hi guys, Here is an APT-E on a 22" radius curve. The track beside it is a 24" radius curve. So yes, if you are planning your layout now you will want to spread out your tracks on curves. Best regards, Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2015 Hi guys, Here is an APT-E on a 22" radius curve. The track beside it is a 24" radius curve. So yes, if you are planning your layout now you will want to spread out your tracks on curves. Best regards, Jason IMG_7613.JPG By how much Jason? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tetsudofan Posted March 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2015 Colin, Surely you don't expect Jason to give all the possible permutations....... Looking at Jason's picture if you laid inner 24" curves and outer 28" curves you would get clearance.... but the difference in radii would presumably decrease as the radius increases? Boy, am I glad that I only have a single track mainline with oncoming trains only passing at the main station. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.