DapolDave Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 and a like for like picture of the cad/cam. cheers Dave 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tetsudofan Posted December 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yes please, sound versions for me please Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Hi Dave, I think the problem appears to be that the curve is not the same continuous curve it should be from the lower edge (where it tucks in above the bogies) to the shoulder of the roof, matching, as previously referred to, the Mk.1 coach profile. There are two horizontal lines shown on your CAD in the side view, one just above the footsteps and another just at the top of the handrail recesses, that seem to suggest that these are interfaces of differing radius planes, which is how it appears in the renderings. For your information, the radius of the Mk.1 coachside profile is 28ft 17/16th in. (source - dia. on page 3 of "Mk.1 Coaching Stock of British Railways" by Keith Parkin). The outer faces of the cab handrails are flush to main bodyside and have the same curve top to bottom too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) The profile used for the throwover calculations gives a radii of 27' 5 7/8'' with a centre 2' above the deckplate of 9' across (dimensions over outer skin). 4' 11'' top of deckplate to rail.. SL/SW/2689 Throwover diagram for 2700HP DH C-C Locomotive I'd hope the dimensions here were correct as they were used to calculate clearance against the L1 load gauge. Edited December 21, 2011 by craigwelsh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugd1022 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The top and bottom profiles look good Dave, but to my eyes there's still not quite enough curvature around the midrif, just as BernardTPM says above. The 'face' of the loco looks great, but it would be a real shame to get that all important profile wrong..... as subtle as these things sometimes are, it'll stand out a mile! Checkout the curvature of the cabside handrails in these recent shots of 'Courier'... In this one, even allowing for the zoom effect, you can see how the profile matches the Mk1 stock... http://www.flickr.com/photos/21403537@N00/4244236413/in/set-72157618776618664 And here with Champion out on the mainline, you can see how much it stands out against the flatter sides of Mk2 stock... http://www.flickr.com/photos/21403537@N00/2175023231/in/set-72157618776618664 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Looking good Dave, nice to see the tweeks around the front valance area. As Enterprisingwestern alludes to though, the end on profile should resemble that of a BR Mk1 coach.... is this anomaly just in the CADs...? Edit : the bogie detail looks very nice, and the list of liveries and dates carried will be coming your way very soon, along with a collection of photos Agreed on the bogies Nidge - they well and truly look the business. And yes - agreed that the bodyside does look too flat - the handrails are a good guide and they look straight on the view of the CAD in Post No.176. Edited to add comment about handrails & the body curve. Edited December 21, 2011 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Totally echoing what these guys have said. As the loco's body profile was designed to match the MkI cross-sectional profile (and did), here's a thought. These models will be spending most of their operating lives around the popular MkIs available RTR, which going forward are likely to be Bachmann for the foreseeable future. A different profile to those will be a glaring error to the cognoscenti, possibly irrecoverable, so why not match the Western to the humble (but nicely proportioned) Bachmann MkI? Or am I being overly simplistic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 That of course assumes the Bachmann mk1s are correct. It could be that the subtle curve is far to subtly to show up correctly on the cadcam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) That of course assumes the Bachmann mk1s are correct. It could be that the subtle curve is far to subtly to show up correctly on the cadcam. I was prepared for this, and it's possibly a debate to have. But, if the Bachmann MkIs aren't correct, it's a facet that I've never seen picked-up on (unlike the Heljan O equivalents), and they sure as night follows day won't be getting a retool in that capacity because they're now rightly regarded as the RTR accepted standard. So, let's assume that the vast majority would want the Western to match the profile of the MkIs in their fleet (the majority of the remainder won't be reading this thread and/ or bothered), so as not be jarring to the eye, it would be a strange route to take to adopt some 'third way.' Edited December 21, 2011 by 'CHARD 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreamnos Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Wow. I haven't looked at this thread in some time and the CADs look absolutely fantastic. Clearly a lot of hard work has is going into this. When this model makes in into N, I may decide it is worth the price after all especially as I was so pleased with the Class 26. However, I agree with those who have raised concern about the bodyside curve as depicted in the CADs. To my eye the sides do appear to be too flat. The cab handrails even more so. In fact in the 3/4 view CAD, the handrails look completely straight - certainly straighter than the body. Given that they are depicted as white lines on the CAD I am wondering if they are drawing the eye away from the slight curve to the body? I'm just not sure. Comparing the various CADs posted here by Dapol Dave, the curve in the most recent head-on CAD looks flatter than the curve in the head-on CADs posted earlier, and I think the earlier ones look better. Dapol Dave's comment, "but if we put more curve do we risk the model being even more wrong?" was illuminating and I'm glad I don't have to make that decision! However, I do think "if it looks right, it is right" and IMHO, while very close, I don't think it looks right. Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted December 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Totally echoing what these guys have said. As the loco's body profile was designed to match the MkI cross-sectional profile (and did), here's a thought. These models will be spending most of their operating lives around the popular MkIs available RTR, which going forward are likely to be Bachmann for the foreseeable future. A different profile to those will be a glaring error to the cognoscenti, possibly irrecoverable, so why not match the Western to the humble (but nicely proportioned) Bachmann MkI? Or am I being overly simplistic? But the blue-liveried Westerns worked with Mark 2's regularly in the sixties & early seventies Best left to Dave & his team,I think.I'm sure we'll all be pleased with the finished product. If experience with the Class 22 is any thing to go by----get your pre-order in p.d.q. Edited December 21, 2011 by Ian Hargrave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2011 But the blue-liveried Westerns worked with Mark 2's regularly in the sixties & early seventies Best left to Dave & his team,I think.I'm sure we'll all be pleased with the finished product. If experience with the Class 22 is any thing to go by----get your pre-order in p.d.q. Some of us already have one on order - not that it's gonna be in 'banger blue'. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) But the blue-liveried Westerns worked with Mark 2's regularly in the sixties & early seventies Best left to Dave & his team,I think.I'm sure we'll all be pleased with the finished product. If experience with the Class 22 is any thing to go by----get your pre-order in p.d.q. Indeed they did work with MkIIs, fruit vans, Bogie Bolster Cs and Pullmans, but what is irrefutable fact is that their body profile in real life matches that of the MkI coach. If the model fails to satisfactorily resemble that, disppointed punters and lack of sales is the result. Obviously it's Dave's team's decision, but I wouldn't suddenly devalue contributions from this forum regarding the CAD, which have proved positive and manifestly valuable judging by the further CAD iterations so far. Edited December 21, 2011 by 'CHARD 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon020 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Well, I'm sold on the concept now. If Sound is on offer, that might scupper the pre-orders..? Or have I missed something? So now Dave, I'm really looking forward to the similar discussions you'll be getting when you do the EE Class 55... go on, you know you want to.... ok... I'll get my coat! Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DapolDave Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Hi guys, I'll put up some more cad.cams tomorrow leaving out the handrails to see if the curve is any easier to spot. Meanwhile the measurements given earlier were great. However I think I'll ask the cad designer to supply some across body measurements at various heights for the cad and see what you guys think. Certainly I'm beginning to think that there is a curve just not enough. As for a 55? It has been laser scanned by someone in the last 6 months. Cheers Dave 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted December 21, 2011 Author Share Posted December 21, 2011 The other consideration as to how it 'looks' is how a light source is falling on it. On the CAD the lighting is very flat on the sides but most photos are taken below the mid point of the side hence increasing the likelihood that light will be reflected from above the mid-point. Dimensional comparisons between the CAD parameters and Craig's quoted data give a true comparison but there's also a logic to 'Chard's position but as long as the model is 'right' that's the best I think we can realistically wish for. Overall it's looking sooo appealing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 If you want to see what the bodyside curve looks like in cross section, have a look at the edge of an open cab door. Photo anyone? Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugd1022 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 If you want to see what the bodyside curve looks like in cross section, have a look at the edge of an open cab door. Photo anyone? Geoff Endacott A quick look through my Flickr (back) pages has this... have a look at the exposed door hinges - particularly the middle one, the hinge pins themselves are vertically in line which gives an idea of the width at this point in the bodyshell... http://www.flickr.com/photos/21403537@N00/2892836544/in/set-72157618776618664 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Downendian Posted December 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2011 If you want to see what the bodyside curve looks like in cross section, have a look at the edge of an open cab door. Photo anyone? Geoff Endacott Geoff I dunno if this does the trick - D1071 Swindon dump, angle slightly wrong but the curve definitely there Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Endacott Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 That's a start. The best shot would be one taken from inside the cab of the door edge as it opens inwards. The door is a flush fit with the bodyside so the shape of curve should be clearly visible by looking at the edge of the door. Geoff Endacott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Could always get a slice of main bodyside cross section 3D printed if you want to convince people.. In fact posting a cross section at the midpoint may be useful to stop features getting in the way. Throwover btw in a BR context seems to be calculating which bits will stick out and by how much on a particular curve. Ie working out if your loco is going to take a chunk out of the platform when traversing the loco release crossover.. This particular plan shows the body centre throw on one side and buffer etc throw outward on the other side when the loco is traversing a 6 chain curve. Edited December 21, 2011 by craigwelsh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) Parkin quotes a mk1 at 9' wide 6' 11'' above rail height, the throwover diag shows a Western at 9' wide at the same height. The Western though is shown as 27' 5 7/8'' radii centred at the 9' wide mark against the mk1 at 28' 1 7/16". If Dave can dimension a cross section at the points I sent him we should be ok. Hopefully Mark will read all of this anyway and tell us what he measured. Unless China has fiddled with his CAds the original model produced from them looked fine. Edited December 22, 2011 by craigwelsh 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neal Ball Posted December 29, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 29, 2011 At the risk of it being a VERY expensive year - the DCC Sound, sounds very good!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) DapolDave, on 21 December 2011 - 12:41 , said: Hi everyone, Another post giving you an update of where we are with the Western with warts and all. As you can see from the cad.cam there are vast improvements to ours now including a full roof detail, better profile front and valance with some tweeks here and there including air tanks, and roof lift rings. Worthy of note, are that the Chinese still cannot understand what an exhaust port is, and that curved roof panels should be exactly that, and that there should not be a gap betwen the peak and the top of the cab front windows!!! However i have a charged cattle prod in my hand and i intend to use it on the engineer. Thanks to Mark for his generous help in aiding this project, and he will no doubt be as pleased as me with some of the progress and vexed by others. Yes you can see a gap betwen the valance and the body, but dont worry as the model will come with spare valances for you to fix and not have a coupling arm gap visible in. And here's a question..............................who thinks we should sell sound equipped DCC ready Westerns using our big speaker and a loc sound4? (just sounding you out (excuse the pun)) Thoughts and questions are as usual welcomed. cheers Dave Hi Dave, I guess the most obvious issues to me at the moment are as follows: Firstly as others have mentioned is the slab sided effect of the cadds geometry. Looking at the roof, it is also possible to see a few straight edges where the roof panels meet the top of the loco, which leads me to suspect that the cadds geometry may actually be correct, but they have used a very low resolution rendering mesh. I guess that is easily resolved by looking at the wireframe edges of the surfaces used. There appear to be a lot of rivets that have appeared on the edge of the roof panels, clearly these should not be there, neither should they be present around the sand box fillers along the lower bodyside. Also it is worth noting at this stage that the window frames are secured with countersunk screws and not rivets. They would be better represented by a slight depression in the surface of the frames rather than a rivet. I notice also that you have used the later pattern battery box door latch on the centre valence. This was a modification that was applied after the Ealing accident in 1973 and therefore would only apply to the last three years of Westerns in service. The original latch was the same as that used on the Warships and would be correct for all livery variations prior to 1974. It is difficult to be sure from the cadds images supplied, but the ledge in front of the windows appears to be parallel with the front windows. This is not the case as it is slightly closer in the centre than on the outer edges. It also follows a subtle curve. The ridge in the middle of the ledge is horizontal, but is sloped slightly down on the outside edges. The start of this slope begins where the plane of the front windows would intersect the side body panels. The cadds images seem to show it starting further back. The other issue regards the bogie suspension box under the body. I see that this has been broken between the body and the bogie presumably to allow for sharp trainset style curves. In reality, this box transfers all the weight of the loco onto the bogie. It rests via rubber blocks onto a leaf spring which is inside the beam outside the middle axle. The leaf spring is then supported by the two pairs of coil springs at each end of the beam. The way I had envisaged doing this on mine was to keep the suspension box and rubber blocks as part of the body and to leave a small gap above the beam in the middle of the bogie. I guess this isn't practical for sharp curves as the coil springs would foul the rubber blocks, but would it be possible to make this part in such a way that it could be fitted either to the body or bogie depending on the requirements of the modeller? Some photo's to help illustrate some of the points above. Shows small gap above front windows before the roof overhang starts Note the gap between the top of the window frame and roof overhang is greater towards the outer edges. Curvature along the front of the ledge on Western Ranger Curvature along the front of the window ledge on Western Campaigner Weight transfer box on Loco into bogie suspension. The block sits on rubber blockes, which are then carried by a leaf spring inside the beams of the bogie. The leaf spring is able to move between the beams and the load is carried by the two coil springs on either side. Each individual axle has two leaf springs behind the frames immediately behind each wheel. Measuring the roof profile. I used a frame which was levelled and then measures the drop of the roof relative to this datum at 3 inch intervals to produce a set of curves through which I could apply a surface. Front view Three quarter view Side view. Early cadds file of mine. Notice the lower part of the cab side doow has an outwardly chamfered lower edge. Regards Mark Humphrys Edited January 2, 2012 by Mark 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 It is difficult to be sure from the cadds images supplied, but the ledge in front of the windows appears to be parallel with the front windows. This is not the case as it is slightly closer in the centre than on the outer edges. It also follows a subtle curve. The ridge in the middle of the ledge is horizontal, but is sloped slightly down on the outside edges. The start of this slope begins where the plane of the front windows would intersect the side body panels. The cadds images seem to show it starting further back. There's a similar effect on the back tailgate of this Astra http://www.nktuning.com/_var/gfx/1f2f4ca2f329ad41b6b8ba6e0b1050ec.jpg - two slightly curved surfaces meeting at an angle, so there's definitely a fold line, but not a simple 'two flats bent'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now