Hugh Flynn Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Craig The bearing housing has not come out on sample as required as the bottom sole bar that is why there is a test sample to address issues like this. As for the gap under bearing approx 1" scale so as you can see it is minute that is why it might have to be a recess. Believe it or not these issues are only a few hours work altering cad. Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hi Hugh What horizontal datum point have you used when measuring the real thing? To me both on the cad and the resin, all of the under frame details sit too low, w irons, handbrake and handbrake leverage 'ladder' all seem to sit far too near track level. The roller bearing looks nothing like the example in your prototype picture. Hth Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Flynn Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Jim measurements taken from detail drawing. The ladders i will have to cross check but i dont have sample at moment? The roller bearing is being worked on. The cad designer has taken sample to address main issues. Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hugh I've highlighted three things in your prototype photo In red - the axleguard stay and hole beneath the beariing for the wheel to be released. In blue - something I'd never noticed before, the W-iron has a bulge to accomodate the brake caliper. In green - the bearing isn't deep enough and dosn't have the 'hood' cover. In Yellow - the spring hanger difference I don't think I've seen you comment on In Pink - this might only be an issue with the photo's - I don't seem to see this much wheel behind your W-iron, is that a function of the photo's, a function of the wheel size, or because the W-iron is too big? Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
new puritan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Jim sorry any photos of brake caliper / frame? hugh A few pictures of the underneath of an SPA now here. Have dozens more if needed... http://www.wagons.smugmug.com/ and an SPA door post Cheers Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
new puritan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hugh I've highlighted three things in your prototype photo In blue - something I'd never noticed before, the W-iron has a bulge to accomodate the brake caliper. Jon Here you are ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
new puritan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hi Hugh Another area you can steal a march on Bachmann is to actually include the brakes! None of bachmanns air braked wagons of this size have any brake calipers or mounting gear at all. If you really want to make some money make this part available as a spare and you will have a market as large as all the Bachmann wagons of this type that have been sold. HTH Jim Jim The calipers and mounting brackets are not identical across the different classes. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I know Mark but I think most modellers would be happy with something available than having to scratchbuild them Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I do not have any p4 wheel sets to try and cad designer has sample wagon to correct errors and check over wagon . ,yes the axles do swivel slightly i have got to take into account set track curves/points. Hugh, Bearing in mind you are investing thousands of pounds on producing this model, I would consider spending a couple of quid on EM and P4 weelsets just to check (and prove to others) they fit - one extra sale would repay that investment. Do the swivels have some sort of self-centering action - I've always found this sort of floating wheelset will crab when pushed, and cause derailments? Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Flynn Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hi Jon If you read my comments no74 EM wheels dropped straight in. To be honest i find most EM/P4 modellers will stick the swivel as they use scale track with longer points and smother curves so dont need the swivel also fitting there preffered wheel sets. Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hi Hugh But do they fit? I dont think the comment about the swivel was aimed at p4 or EM modellers anyway. It is likely on a wagon of this size that some sort of flexibility is required for P4 and possibly EM. Does one of the swivel bogies rock from side to side at all? I suspect p4 modellers will want to replace the w irons with some sort of spring system and Bill Bedford does the right sort for this wagon. In order for it to fit the floor in this area needs to be flat and the gap between the solebars needs to be a minimum on 25.5mm. I hope this helps Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWJ Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hugh, Great to see a new RTR supplier on the scene, and the designs look to be coming on nicely. Thank you for taking the time to share your progress on here, and I hope that some of the more negative comments don't put you off showing further 'work in progress' images. This communication is much better than that from some other manufacturers, large and small, so is to be applauded. I can understand some of the compromises you have had to make (e.g. leaving off the brake calipers, making the sides thicker, etc.) in order for the model to be (a.) manufacturable and (b.) be suitable for the rough-and-tumble of operation. Unfortunately we have been spoilt recently by very fine models from the larger manufacturers so peoples' expectations are high, which probably puts you under pressure as a 'newcomer' without their experience and hindsight. I would take Ben A's advice and remember that you can't please everyone! Furthermore, the enthusiasts on this forum probably represent those with the keenest eye for detail and will therefore be much 'harder to please' than the majority of your potential customers. It is very easy to criticise detail errors without considering manufacturability, durabilty (when handled heavily in the worst-case scenario), operational flexibility (e.g. on tight curves), the cost impact of modifications and all the other things you have responsibility for as the manufacturer. Having said that, it would be a foolish supplier who ignored advice from knowledgeable sources such as RMWeb, and you have already demonstrated that you are listening to the feeback on offer, and are making changes. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium romley midland Posted October 19, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2011 Unfortunately we have been spoilt recently by very fine models from the larger manufacturers so peoples' expectations are high, which probably puts you under pressure as a 'newcomer' without their experience and hindsight. I would take Ben A's advice and remember that you can't please everyone! I'm sorry but the hard truth is that Bachmann could well announce this wagon in March seeing as it was launched into the Graham Farish range this year, it would make sense for them to be developing a 00 version aswell. So 'unfortunately' Hugh's model will have to better any model Bachmann may produce in the near future because if it doesn't Hugh faces a serious loss of the investment he has put into this project, as let's be honest, all we know of Hugh's company/product is this thread on RMweb, Bachmann on the other hand are a global company. Cheers, Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Flynn Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Jim my wheel axle is 26mm as requested by a few early on. Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
new puritan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Hugh, Great to see a new RTR supplier on the scene, and the designs look to be coming on nicely. Thank you for taking the time to share your progress on here, and I hope that some of the more negative comments don't put you off showing further 'work in progress' images. This communication is much better than that from some other manufacturers, large and small, so is to be applauded. I can understand some of the compromises you have had to make (e.g. leaving off the brake calipers, making the sides thicker, etc.) in order for the model to be (a.) manufacturable and (b.) be suitable for the rough-and-tumble of operation. Unfortunately we have been spoilt recently by very fine models from the larger manufacturers so peoples' expectations are high, which probably puts you under pressure as a 'newcomer' without their experience and hindsight. I would take Ben A's advice and remember that you can't please everyone! Furthermore, the enthusiasts on this forum probably represent those with the keenest eye for detail and will therefore be much 'harder to please' than the majority of your potential customers. It is very easy to criticise detail errors without considering manufacturability, durabilty (when handled heavily in the worst-case scenario), operational flexibility (e.g. on tight curves), the cost impact of modifications and all the other things you have responsibility for as the manufacturer. Having said that, it would be a foolish supplier who ignored advice from knowledgeable sources such as RMWeb, and you have already demonstrated that you are listening to the feeback on offer, and are making changes. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Will Will The 'negative comments' were actually positive feedback in an attempt to correct perceived issues with the CAD and therefore aid in the future model being more prototypically correct hence the time spent in posting comments and the detail pictures.posted by others. As you so rightly state people have high expectations and therefore this should be as accurate as possible because if this fails to meet expectations then sales will suffer and therefore this would be a valiant failure and the only production with no further wagons produced if too inaccurate. If the smallish number of knowledgeable enthusiasts on this forum did not add their comments would this be a better wagon model by their showing restraint in expressing their opinions ... backed up by photographs? Manufacturing problems may limit Hugh's options but surely he should be given the option to improve his model as much as possible by posting the CADs and therefore expecting feedback be it positive or as you perceive 'negative'. Now off to have a beer and relax as I have just got in from work. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Jim my wheel axle is 26mm as requested by a few early on. Hugh Indeed but that's not what I asked. I was advising the clearances ideal for p4 which is 22mm+ for the wheel faces (as mentioned earlier in the thread) and 25.5mm between the sole bars. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWJ Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Just to clarify, I agree with Richard that it would be a shame (understatement!) if Bachmann produced a model of this wagon at the same time as Hugh, but this is clearly a risk that Hugh has already taken and I don't see that there is much to be gained from repeatedly reminding him of it. I also agree with Mark that constructive feedback, especially the supporting photos, is a very useful (another understatement!) part of the design process but I did interpret some of the entries on this topic as being overly negative given that this is the first model from a small supplier. For example, it may be a little unreasonable to expect a 'P4-ready' model from a new, small supplier when much more established manufacturers, who have had plenty of opportunities, don't always facilitate this. Bearing in mind that P4 modellers represent a very small minority, and I say that as a P4 man myself (admittedly a novice). Perhaps I mis-interpreted the positivity which was intended to come across; I just hope that Hugh didn't. I think we should all join Mark for a beer and sit back and enjoy watching this model develop Cheers, Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Absolutely - The best outcome will be a great model that sells well, and pays for the next ones, but Hugh is competing with Bachmann not Brio, and in 2011 not 1985 When you consider what he is competing against in this familiy of wagons, the SPA CAD/Prototypes we have seen would hold up quite well against the Hornby OAA, but not the Bachmann OBA. Its a whole lot cheaper for Hugh to put it right in the virtual world, than once metal is cut, and he is getting a free peer-review of the data that should be very valuble to him. Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Hi will You have completely missed the point. All I am saying is with a few design considerations at this stage the model can be p4 friendly. These considerations cost little or nothing at this stage but keep a (I agree) small part of the market open. It's the simple difference between copying something and designing something. I got the impression Hugh was unaware of some simple dimensions that would make a big difference to p4 modellers. Now he has them what he chooses to do with them is up to him. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Flynn Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Hi I have attached updated chassis I will ask cad designer for chassis spacing for those interested We are down to last few bits to finish off Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Flynn Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 Hi Just had confermation the space is 23.02mm so it looks like P4 will have to modify. Again this is due to allowing swivel to take place. Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Hi Hugh As stated earlier we only need 22mm so that's fine. What's the gap between the sole bars? Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Hugh, In the pic below, why is the part labelled 'THIS' so thick? If you reduced the thickness of these rectangular parts (or did away with them, as I can't quite figure out what they're supposed to be), you'd eliminate the problems with your axleboxes looking flat. Any chance of a couple more pics of the overall wagon, please? Just so we can see if the modifications have made the difference. Edit, I've also noticed that you have the bottom of the body and the top of the solebar visible in that picture. Take a look here: The top of the solebar is hidden behind the bottom of the body, as shown in this pic: That's why your solebar looks a bit squashed. HTH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Also http://wagons.smugmu...8026966_FQKF52W showing how the suspension brackets sit on extended bits of the solebar. Your brackets are not tapering bigger at the top as per the prototype. The axleguard is still missing the dished section to avoid the brake calipers, the tie bar across the bottom isn't great and personally I think the spring is too thick. The bump stop is also incorrect and there is a square on the solebar im not sure about, is it meant to be a label clip? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 personally I think the spring is too thick. Yep, I'd agree with that. The height of the spring, over the buckle, should be 2.231mm in 4mm scale. Also, the buckles should be proud of the leaves of the springs, but only by 0.5mm-ish. HTH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.