The J67/68/69 ‘Buckjumper’, By Accurascale

[BrakeCoach]

9 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

 

Just out of interest, check the inside of the skirts. I've seen a few which run poorly and it's down to the skirts making contact with the connecting rods as they rotate. The skirts are easily squeezed in when handling these little chaps. 

 

Easy to identify if this is the issue as you will, on turning little chap upside down, see a circular or semi circular mark on the insude of the skirt,  consistent with the rotatoon of the eccentric return crank  joint thingy on the connecting rod. 

 

Rob

but that would be very impolite!

[No Decorum]

Just some observations, if I may. My Model Rail J70 works all right in one direction but is a little jerky at slow speed in the other. It’s not enough to return it but bad enough to stop me getting a skirted version as well, which was my original intention.

 

My Hunslet was hopeless until I discovered that it was choked in grease. After cleaning it up, It runs fine but it is a sound version. I am nervous of coreless motors but I have adopted the idea of fitting decoders or buying decoder-fitted models. Decoders seem to help them even when running on DC. I don’t know why coreless motors have started to be used. The much-maligned Hornby manages to produce beautifully running tiny locos with a conventional motor so it can’t be size. I have also compared models with both types of motor with their tops off. The coreless is just as big as the conventional motor, although I concede that it is a little slimmer. My conclusion is that they are a cost-cutting exercise, which seems strange when we are led to understand that motors contribute very little to the cost of a model.

 

There is no doubt that coreless motors bring problems with their use. There are workarounds if the model you happen to want has a coreless motor but I wish manufacturers wouldn’t use them.

 

Coreless on the right.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

14 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

...my suspicion is that these modern coreless motors are somehow designed with DCC in mind...

There's no real relation of this sort.

Coreless motors represent a cost saving is all, largely by material content reduction.

DCC represents a significant profit opportunity to model railway manufacturers, due to the currently  fashionable additional features it provides that enable the retail price to be anything up to double that of 'DCC ready'.

I would suggest that the fact that DCC offers superior safe control of coreless motors is a happy chance, with the benefit for the manufacturers that this probably encourages transition to DCC, and thereby potentially more opportunity to sell fashionable features for enhanced profit.

 

36 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

... Hornby manages to produce beautifully running tiny locos with a conventional motor...

This is true. I'd make a guess that they know that among their end customers are a large proportion with dated DC control gear which might not treat coreless motors kindly.

[PhilJ W]

Do coreless motors use less energy than a conventional motor?

[spamcan61]

8 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I'd make a guess that they know that among their end customers are a large proportion with dated DC control gear which might not treat coreless motors kindly.

Even Hornby's  current 'entry level' controllers use low frequency (160Hz or thereabouts) PWM, so not much cop for coreless.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

? Do coreless motors use less energy than a conventional motor?

 

Yes, regarded as 'stand alone'. Sir Isaac's mechanics tells you that reduced mass to accelerate brings this benefit.  But installed in a model, the overall much greater mass of which has to be accelerated, any saving comes to diddly-squat.

Edited March 22 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
Context

[Islesy]

6 hours ago, No Decorum said:

My conclusion is that they are a cost-cutting exercise, which seems strange when we are led to understand that motors contribute very little to the cost of a model.

If I can just step in here lads, to put the record straight? 

The large coreless motor has been chosen for its superior running and haulage characteristics, in a smaller package than an equivalent 5-pole motor. That gives extra space to fit speakers, stay alive and added weight where it's needed. The old myths about coreless motors are based on small, cheap motors fitted by A.N.Other manufacturer in the past, but can be judged better by existing models, such as the Baccy 94xx.

The Buckjumper has passed all of our haulage tests on our DC operated test layout of doom, with absolute flying colours. I wouldn't have spec'd this motor if I wasn't sure of its capabilities and it's Accurascale's (and my) reputation on the line here! The results have spoken for themselves though.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Best wishes,

Paul.

[Ian Hargrave]

Some of you may have heard of OO Works.They don’t “do” DCC. They supply high quality hand built models in all metal construction. You want DCC ? Then you do your own conversion which will negate the warranty. Highly conventional I know and off putting to digital specialists,some of whom have given their thumbs down to them on this forum. Well then,fine….their choice of course. The models are simply superb in terms of both finish and performance. One of them ,an SR liveried Adams Jubilee 0-4-2  ( and please note the wheel arrangement in terms of haulage capacity….it’s 4 coupled kiss of death  ) has been hauling my rake of Accurascale Banana vans since they arrived yesterday very sweetly indeed. So then ….finally…….we come to the motor used by OO Works. 
         It’s a “ high quality coreless motor “ gents. And I have no complaints as a non DCC user. 

[McC]

Just to contribute from a financial point of view, the high end coreless motors in much of our stock actually cost more than equivalents with cores and provide better efficiency , torque and pulling power. Any notion they are a cost cutting measure is a very legacy one. 

Edited March 22 by McC

[RailwayModeller927]

On 19/03/2024 at 11:35, NXEA! said:

Just checked my account and my order for the exclusive Liverpool Street pilot is showing due for payment on the 23rd… interesting! 

You aren't the only one, my payment was due on the 23rd as well.

 

Thankfully I was able to pay for it about a week beforehand.

 

I do have a nagging feeling however that it's going to end up being delayed if I'm honest.

[Black 5 Bear]

4 hours ago, RailwayModeller927 said:

You aren't the only one, my payment was due on the 23rd as well.

 

Thankfully I was able to pay for it about a week beforehand.

 

I do have a nagging feeling however that it's going to end up being delayed if I'm honest.

I think Fran and Mc C both mentioned in previous posts that no money is required to be paid until the pre ordered items are in stock....

 

 

 

[McC]

15 hours ago, Black 5 Bear said:

I think Fran and Mc C both mentioned in previous posts that no money is required to be paid until the pre ordered items are in stock....

 

 

 

 

Exactly that. We are currently working on a method of syncing the invoice due date with the actual arrival date / status page as it’s a ‘new’ feature on the shopify platform and the api is lightly documented. 

 

Aside tho until we send you a payment request no payment is due. Indeed if anyone has paid early and would rather a refund let us know too and we’d be happy to send back your funds until needed. 

 

hope that helps. 

[sparaxis]

On 22/03/2024 at 12:55, McC said:

Just to contribute from a financial point of view, the high end coreless motors in much of our stock actually cost more than equivalents with cores and provide better efficiency , torque and pulling power. Any notion they are a cost cutting measure is a very legacy one. 

Those of us of a certain age will remember the introduction of the RG4 in the late 1970s. They were anything but cheap. My DJH class 5 that I built with the 1616 version in the early 1980s still runs like a dream.

"Cheap" coreless motors are a relatively recent phenomenon. While conventional  motors have progressed from the old open framed types like the X04, coreless motors still have the following advantages: Higher efficiency, lack of magnetic locking/cogging, higher power density.

The superior low speed control goes without saying (given a high quality gear train), and the power density allows tiny models that would not have been possible before.  Undersized motors of any sort are a recipe for tears. I have an old heavy diecast Liliput 2-6-0 tank loco that had a cheapy open frame Mabuchi motor like that fitted to the Dapol/Hornby pug. The poor thing could barely pull itself around the layout. Replacing it with the open frame motor used in smaller Fleischmann HO locos cured that problem.

 

A.N.Other's Bo-Bo was fitted with a ridiculously small motor. It would have been just as sad with a small N-scale "conventional" motor. It runs very nicely, light engine, at speeds of up to about 40 mph!

[Accurascale Fran]

Hi folks,

 

Another interesting aside with coreless motors. We recently had a meeting with ESU and one of the topics discussed was our coreless motors for the Buckjumper and beyond. ESUs main man spoke of coreless in very glowing terms, and explained how all his HO locomotives (high end, high premium!) now all have coreless motors. This includes their  smallest Deutz shunter, through his stunning 4-6-4 tank loco all the way up to their latest large diesel and electric locos. They no longer use can motors at all.

 

Of course, their locos are all DCC sound fitted, but shows the confidence in the coreless design among the premium continental manufacturers. As @Islesy said, don’t pin your opinion on what was a fundamentally flawed model to begin with, but look at the excellent models on the market which utilised the design successfully, both domestically and abroad.

 

As for the buckjumper, I’m awaiting some details and I will then have an update, likely in mid-late April, all going well.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[RailwayModeller927]

Well folks, Accurascale's got me again with the Buckjumper.

 

I know I want another one but for the life of me, I can't choose.

 

I'm torn between getting either 84 in the ultramarine blue or the preserved 87 in the GER dark blue.

[Adi]

When are they due out 

[Accurascale Fran]

9 hours ago, Adi said:

When are they due out 

Hi @Adi,

 

We’re currently awaiting decorated samples which the factory are currently working on. Once we have them in hand we will provide a full update as we will have a full picture then.

 

Cheers!

 

Fran

[Fredo]

After the NEC then I guess. Fred

[CF MRC]

I’m looking forward to the N gauge Buckjumper…! I have been using coreless motors for 45years, with very, very few failures in heavy use. They easily outperform cored equivalents.
 

Tim 

[Captain Kernow]

14 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

I’m looking forward to the N gauge Buckjumper…! I have been using coreless motors for 45years, with very, very few failures in heavy use. They easily outperform cored equivalents.
 

Tim 

Would you mind saying what kind of controller you use with the coreless motors, please?

Thanks. 

 

[Neil]

If it's any help  I've had a couple of coreless motored locos through my hands, a Piko German 2-6-0 with the motor in the tender (which I sold on) and a scratchbuilt Belgian Moyse shunter on a Kato mechanism which I still have. Both ran and in the case of the Moyse still run beautifully. I use a cheap Bachmann train set controller which seems perfectly compatible with them.

 

 

 

Edited April 15 by Neil

[The Stationmaster]

43 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Would you mind saying what kind of controller you use with the coreless motors, please?

Thanks. 

 

They definitely work well with an H&M Powermaster on full wave rectification (although people say they shouldn't).

[CF MRC]

On 15/04/2024 at 11:19, Captain Kernow said:

Would you mind saying what kind of controller you use with the coreless motors, please?

Thanks. 

 

These were originally controlled with ECMs running on a low feedback setting (not ideal for any N gauge motors) then with Pentrollers, when they became available, and more recently PICtrollers. For testing locos I use a straight DC controller. 
 

Tim

Edited April 16 by CF MRC

[PaulG]

17 hours ago, CF MRC said:

These were originally controlled with ECMs running on a low feedback setting (not ideal for any N gauge motors) then with,  when they became available and more recently PICtrollers. For testing locos I use a straight DC controller. 
 

Tim

 

Interesting that you use ECM controller with coreless motors. I had to replace all my ECM controllers when I purchased a Model Rail/Rapido J70 tram, with Gaugemaster controllers. It turned out to be a very expensive loco!

 

Paul

[RodneyS]

From what I can remember (it was a long time ago) ECM would adjust the feedback setting if the controllers were returned to them.  Perhaps that is what happened to Tim's ?

Not an option now of course.

Rodney