More model ideas

[Dunsignalling]

11 minutes ago, reddragon said:

That makes the likely price of an AS EMU very attractive.

If AS could do a 3-car 120, for up to £300, I'd snatch both their hands off!

[MoonM]

5 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

There is my pet hate again "high-quality". As somebody who audits organisations it is a phrase that I see often and is meaningless. What does it mean?  Quality is about delivering to specification in a repeatable manner.

 

Whether that specification is highly detailed and accurate (what we keep calling high-quality) or poorly defined and inaccurate is irrelevant. Quality Assurance is the process that ensures that the specification is achieved reliably - here we have (in layman terms) good or bad quality.

 

So, to go back to what we as a collective seem to refer to as high-quality, some manufacturers aim for highly detailed and accurate models, some don't.

 

Roy

Surely then "high quality" is very well defined? You have your own definition of "quality" nailed down as "specification that is achieved reliably". Then add "high" to it and you have "high specification that is achieved reliably". I wouldn't have though "high quality" could be defined or assumed to have a meaning anything different from this? 

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, MoonM said:

Surely then "high quality" is very well defined? You have your own definition of "quality" nailed down as "specification that is achieved reliably". Then add "high" to it and you have "high specification that is achieved reliably". I wouldn't have though "high quality" could be defined or assumed to have a meaning anything different from this? 

 

"Specification that is achieved with high reliability".  Says nothing about the nature of the specification (except that it must be reliably achievable).

[MoonM]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

"Specification that is achieved with high reliability".  Says nothing about the nature of the specification (except that it must be reliably achievable).

The use of the word "high" does this. I'd argue this should read 'high specification that is achieved with reliability" and not "specifically that is achieved with high reliability". The word "high" has been deemed to reside in the wrong place

[TomScrut]

21 minutes ago, MoonM said:

The use of the word "high" does this. I'd argue this should read 'high specification that is achieved with reliability" and not "specifically that is achieved with high reliability". The word "high" has been deemed to reside in the wrong place

 

In business and engineering terms it is to do with meeting the expectations and needs of customers. That doesn't necessarily mean high specification.

 

Even if you think of quality being a synonym for excellence, what is excellence? Is it excellent pricing? Excellent specification? Excellent mixture of both? Which then comes straight back round to the business definition of meeting expectations. Something can only be measured against its purpose. In business terms that is to satisfy a customer's expectations and needs.

 

For example, would a gold plated wheelbarrow be high quality? For most wheelbarrow users, almost certainly not as it would be too expensive and wear through the gold too quickly being used for the purpose of most wheelbarrows. As an ornament or a piece of art? Possibly.

 

And therefore "high quality" is well satisfying or exceeding a customers expectations and needs.

 

And I have just been sent this, thought it quite apt:

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by TomScrut

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, MoonM said:

The use of the word "high" does this. I'd argue this should read 'high specification that is achieved with reliability" and not "specifically that is achieved with high reliability". The word "high" has been deemed to reside in the wrong place

 

The word high has no significance from a quality perspective. Either the specification is met, or it is not. It is the specification that may be high, or not. Either way, as a consumer of the product/service you would expect a quality product to meet that specification.

 

Roy  

[wombatofludham]

I suppose it would be more accurate, in the case of railway modelling, to replace "high quality" with "model that meets a consensual agreement on modern standards of detailing running, features, fidelity of shape and form, and value for money".

If anyone can precis that down to a two word shorthand, fill your boots.

[newbryford]

Just now, wombatofludham said:

I suppose it would be more accurate, in the case of railway modelling, to replace "high quality" with "model that meets a consensual agreement on modern standards of detailing running, features, fidelity of shape and form, and value for money".

If anyone can precis that down to a two word shorthand, fill your boots.

 

"It's alright"

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, wombatofludham said:

I suppose it would be more accurate, in the case of railway modelling, to replace "high quality" with "model that meets a consensual agreement on modern standards of detailing running, features, fidelity of shape and form, and value for money".

If anyone can precis that down to a two word shorthand, fill your boots.

its ok

not bad

will do

 

i’m in Manchester tonight and they would say its… 

 

alreet.

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, MoonM said:

The use of the word "high" does this. I'd argue this should read 'high specification that is achieved with reliability" and not "specifically that is achieved with high reliability". The word "high" has been deemed to reside in the wrong place

 

In your interpretation.  Clearly other valid interpretations can exist, as I demonstrated, and the fact that they differ from yours does not make them wrong.

[Wickham Green too]

11 hours ago, adb968008 said:

its ok ... not bad ... will do ... alreet

... can all be interpreted as "hmmm ........... I guess it'll have to do !"

[Dorset33]

On 07/01/2023 at 13:15, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi everyone,

 

The 5-WES is indeed an interesting one. To be honest, we did look at them seriously, but were then told by someone else that they were working on one, so we pulled back in the interest of fairness (second time we have for this producer too) 
 

Mind you, it was a while ago now and we’ve not heard much more. We presume it’s still going ahead. It wouldn’t make sense to duplicate on something like this as I’m sure you can appreciate. We’ve been asked a lot for it, so I hope this helps to outline why we haven’t taken it further.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

It makes sense for you to enter the Mk3 world, besides The plug door design found on the CIÉ Mark 3 coaches was later used on the  Class 442 😁.

[SouthernBlue80s]

My suggestion. A rebodied 21t coal hopper. Only thing out there at the moment is the Parkside kit, of which I have built a couple.

 

I think it might sell well and compliment your other coal wagons well.

[nightstar.train]

6 hours ago, Dorset33 said:

It makes sense for you to enter the Mk3 world, besides The plug door design found on the CIÉ Mark 3 coaches was later used on the  Class 442 😁.

 

The Irish Mk3s were announced in March 2021 by Murphy Models. 

 

http://www.murphymodels.com/

https://www.hattons.co.uk/directory/versiondetails/article?id=1031

 

However the Murphy Models website hasn't been updated since March 2021, so who knows what the status of the project is and if/when they'll arrive. 

[Dorset33]

10 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

The Irish Mk3s were announced in March 2021 by Murphy Models. 

 

http://www.murphymodels.com/

https://www.hattons.co.uk/directory/versiondetails/article?id=1031

 

However the Murphy Models website hasn't been updated since March 2021, so who knows what the status of the project is and if/when they'll arrive. 

I don’t think they are going to be making a 442, loco hauled Mark 3 or HST trailers anytime soon, looking at their production history they don’t seem to bring much to the market consistently.

[rob D2]

21 hours ago, SouthernBlue80s said:

My suggestion. A rebodied 21t coal hopper. Only thing out there at the moment is the Parkside kit, of which I have built a couple.

 

I think it might sell well and compliment your other coal wagons well.

Good idea, that was just below a UKF pallet van on my 1980s wish list 

[MoonM]

Based on the coupling announcement today I had an idea. Not sure if possible, but I'm sure there is an engineering solution somewhere. 

 

I love close couplings. I always try to get  corridors touch and block the visible light where I can. Sometimes I can do this by applying an alternative model's coupling to a unit. For instance substituting the factory Bachmann class 411 coupling for a Bachmann class 101 does this perfectly. However, when purchasing 'made for measure' close coupling solutions (eg from hunt) units are v close but there is always a slight gap. I suppose this is because manufacturers have to build in tolerances for curves, points etc. 

 

What would be great is if there was a coupling solution that could be extended or retracted slightly so that each modeller could remove the daylight between units/corridor coaches as close as they each individually dare and based on their own layout tolerances. There must be a solution in there somewhere. 

 

Alternatively could there be at least a way of masking the light between corridors? Eg a fabric or rubberised magnetic connection of sorts? This would be especially helpful on corners when close couplings often noticeably (and necessarily) open up. 

 

Thoughts accurascale? 

 

Thanks 

[McC]

1 hour ago, MoonM said:

Based on the coupling announcement today I had an idea. Not sure if possible, but I'm sure there is an engineering solution somewhere. 

 

I love close couplings. I always try to get  corridors touch and block the visible light where I can. Sometimes I can do this by applying an alternative model's coupling to a unit. For instance substituting the factory Bachmann class 411 coupling for a Bachmann class 101 does this perfectly. However, when purchasing 'made for measure' close coupling solutions (eg from hunt) units are v close but there is always a slight gap. I suppose this is because manufacturers have to build in tolerances for curves, points etc. 

 

What would be great is if there was a coupling solution that could be extended or retracted slightly so that each modeller could remove the daylight between units/corridor coaches as close as they each individually dare and based on their own layout tolerances. There must be a solution in there somewhere. 

 

Alternatively could there be at least a way of masking the light between corridors? Eg a fabric or rubberised magnetic connection of sorts? This would be especially helpful on corners when close couplings often noticeably (and necessarily) open up. 

 

Thoughts accurascale? 

 

Thanks 

That’s how the kinematic coupling system works on all of our coaches. When on the straight they should be almost touching.  

[WCML100]

7 minutes ago, McC said:

That’s how the kinematic coupling system works on all of our coaches. When on the straight they should be almost touching.  

 

Which is great - but what would be one step closer to being the real deal is a Flexi gangway on the ends of coaching stock which can magnetically attach and have wiggle room for cornering? not sure how possible that is but would be fantastic if done properly...(even drop in ones to attach to current stock would be great too)

[Wolf27]

On 07/01/2023 at 13:15, Accurascale Fran said:

Hi everyone,

 

The 5-WES is indeed an interesting one. To be honest, we did look at them seriously, but were then told by someone else that they were working on one, so we pulled back in the interest of fairness (second time we have for this producer too) 
 

Mind you, it was a while ago now and we’ve not heard much more. We presume it’s still going ahead. It wouldn’t make sense to duplicate on something like this as I’m sure you can appreciate. We’ve been asked a lot for it, so I hope this helps to outline why we haven’t taken it further.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

I got fed up of waiting so I made my own.

[MoonM]

1 hour ago, McC said:

That’s how the kinematic coupling system works on all of our coaches. When on the straight they should be almost touching.  

So sounds like you're ahead of most then. I admit I don't have any of your coaches yet (waiting excitedly for the mk2bs I have on order). Will corridors touch on straights if being pulled? I often find it easier to solve when being pushed for much of my rolling stock but pulling often opens a slight gap due to a little bit of slack in the coupling mechanism (quite noticeable on Hornbys 225 sets where dvt leading is much more convincing) 

 

[McC]

27 minutes ago, MoonM said:

So sounds like you're ahead of most then. I admit I don't have any of your coaches yet (waiting excitedly for the mk2bs I have on order). Will corridors touch on straights if being pulled? I often find it easier to solve when being pushed for much of my rolling stock but pulling often opens a slight gap due to a little bit of slack in the coupling mechanism (quite noticeable on Hornbys 225 sets where dvt leading is much more convincing) 

 

Absolutely. Check out the Hornby magazine video of our mk2bs in action!

 

[Iskra]

8 hours ago, MoonM said:

Based on the coupling announcement today I had an idea. Not sure if possible, but I'm sure there is an engineering solution somewhere. 

 

I love close couplings. I always try to get  corridors touch and block the visible light where I can. Sometimes I can do this by applying an alternative model's coupling to a unit. For instance substituting the factory Bachmann class 411 coupling for a Bachmann class 101 does this perfectly. However, when purchasing 'made for measure' close coupling solutions (eg from hunt) units are v close but there is always a slight gap. I suppose this is because manufacturers have to build in tolerances for curves, points etc. 

 

What would be great is if there was a coupling solution that could be extended or retracted slightly so that each modeller could remove the daylight between units/corridor coaches as close as they each individually dare and based on their own layout tolerances. There must be a solution in there somewhere. 

 

Alternatively could there be at least a way of masking the light between corridors? Eg a fabric or rubberised magnetic connection of sorts? This would be especially helpful on corners when close couplings often noticeably (and necessarily) open up. 

 

Thoughts accurascale? 

 

Thanks 

Couldn’t someone make a way of coupling coaches via flexible corridor connectors, and then just have a normal coupling on the end of the rake where it attaches to the loco? 

[MoonM]

8 hours ago, McC said:

Absolutely. Check out the Hornby magazine video of our mk2bs in action!

 

Yes a good vid. But dare I say the gap opens up from touching (when stationary) to a slight gap when moving. Think that is the inbuilt 'slack' I am used to seeing on a number of models and maybe not possible to completely eliminate (certainly it seems that you can get it closer than almost everybody). Still wonder though if there is a way to either reduce the slack, offer couplings with ability to somehow edit the length (that may have advantages if we want to retro fit to old rolling stock or mix/match to the Bachmann mk2a (ie for a rake out of waterloo behind a class 50) or find a clever way to fill the corridor gaps to shield the light gap? 

[Dunsignalling]

I've been messing about with close-coupling units for a good number of years and the millimetre or so of slack is necessary if you want to be able to couple up automatically using a mechanical coupler. Magnetics should eradicate it but only if you can get a set of exactly the length required.

 

My solution is to remove the plastic corridors and fit folded paper ones within sets, just retaining the detailed ones on the outer ends. They have enough "spring" in them to maintain contact on curves, too. NOTE: This is modelling advice: Don't do it if you care about what you'll get back if you decide to sell your coaches on!

 

I model SR so almost everything runs in sets but it won't be so easy for those who want to remarshal trains on visible parts of the layout. You effectively need to divide your stock into "inner" and "outer" categories and do any swapping in the fiddle yard.

 

Couplers in the photo are Keen Systems CCUs fitted with modified Roco heads from which the uncoupling loops were removed and the couplers fitted upside-down.

 

John

Edited January 12, 2023 by Dunsignalling