PenrithBeacon Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I've idly speculating on how these dreadful oversize wheel splashers on Bachmann locos could be removed and replaced. Assuming that the splashers are not moulded into the smokebox ... glue a thin piece of plasticard (using a glue that can easily be removed like copydex) onto the footplate and then use a razor saw to remove the splasher. This will protect the footplate while sawing. If the splasher is moulded into the smokebox then it might be necessary to separate the boiler and cab from the footplate with a razor saw ... difficult! If the splashers are to be reduced in height then the length will be reduced too. It might be necessary to fill up a hole or two in the footplate. It gets yet more of a problem particularly of the loco body is made of mazac which I assume they are. Second thoughts, forget it! Bachmann have made a mess of it. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Rather than idly speculating and assuming, why not take a look at one or two examples. For example, the 4F and 3F splashers are separate plastic pieces that pull off by hand, see here, no razor saw needed. As to how oversize they are, this post gives an idea. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 Rather than idly speculating and assuming, why not take a look at one or two examples. For example, the 4F and 3F splashers are separate plastic pieces that pull off by hand, see here, no razor saw needed. As to how oversize they are, this post gives an idea. Nick Ouch! Unless you buy the locos you aren't to know that they're separate and unfortunately I missed your post. Might actually invest now although it's unclear where to source scale replacement splashers. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2014 Second thoughts, forget it! Bachmann have made a mess of it. Made a mess of what? Bachmann sell OO Gauge models RTR. They have therefore to include compromises on items like splashers to clear the larger flanges OO requires, as Andy Y's recent post with photos on the E4 thread demonstrates. Those who work to finer tolerances of gauge and wheel profile can hardly complain if the RTR stuff doesn't meet their standards - it couldn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Second thoughts, forget it! Bachmann have made a mess of it. Let Brassmasters be your friend..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Quite so, Ian. All my RTR eventually gets converted to P4, usually by a complete chassis replacement, not just wheels, so I expect the manufacturer to have made compromises and expect to have to ignore or deal with them as the mood takes me. However, there is a question as to where the compromise(s) should be made. In terms of splasher diameter (not the width as there's little that can be done about 00 wheel width and the sideplay needed by the tighter curves) the size could be made closer to scale by reducing the diameter of the 00 driving wheels. In the case of the 3F and 4F, and presumably other recent products, Bachmann have chosen to use something very close to the correct scale driver when measured across the tread. Because 00 wheels need larger than scale flanges, this results in a wheel that is too large overall. Consequently, the splashers also need to be oversize to accommodate the wheels. In this case, there has been no compromise in the wheel tread diameter but, as a result, the splasher size is compromised. Some might also argue that the wheel size appears to be too large. On the other hand, Bachmann could have chosen what I think would have been a much more sensible compromise. That is to reduce the wheel diameter so that it's overall (not tread) diameter is closer to scale. I doubt many would notice the reduction. This would then allow the highly visible splashers to be reduced to something closer to scale size and further compromises over fitting them to the body could be avoided. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 ... On the other hand, Bachmann could have chosen what I think would have been a much more sensible compromise. That is to reduce the wheel diameter so that it's overall (not tread) diameter is closer to scale. I doubt many would notice the reduction. This would then allow the highly visible splashers to be reduced to something closer to scale size and further compromises over fitting them to the body could be avoided. Nick Now you've got me confused as to your true opinion! In Post #2 you appeared to be having a go and now you've written a paragraph which I could have written myself. Confused of Harrow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Now you've got me confused as to your true opinion! In Post #2 you appeared to be having a go and now you've written a paragraph which I could have written myself. Confused of Harrow Not sure why you're confused, David. In #2, I merely pointed out that removing the splashers was not as difficult as you suggested. Even back in August (page 5 of the 4F thread) we and others were in agreement that the splashers are too big. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Andy Hayter Posted January 25, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2014 On the other hand, Bachmann could have chosen what I think would have been a much more sensible compromise. That is to reduce the wheel diameter so that it's overall (not tread) diameter is closer to scale. I doubt many would notice the reduction. This would then allow the highly visible splashers to be reduced to something closer to scale size and further compromises over fitting them to the body could be avoided. Nick But then, in times when we check the dimensional accuracy to a fraction of a mm, the chassis would sit too low - and that would then introduce other compromises in correcting the error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I'm for the scale thickness plastic splasher, myself. Of course, the problem is, it'll be so thin you can see through it and you won't dare touch the model or you'll crush it! Don't lets undersize the wheels (after years of pressing for dimensional accuracy on such things) of thousands of RTR models just so that a handful of P4 modellers can have a ready-made body to suit them. After all, if P4 modellers want TOTAL accuracy, surely they will scratch-build? CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 I'm for the scale thickness plastic splasher, myself. Of course, the problem is, it'll be so thin you can see through it and you won't dare touch the model or you'll crush it! Don't lets undersize the wheels (after years of pressing for dimensional accuracy on such things) of thousands of RTR models just so that a handful of P4 modellers can have a ready-made body to suit them. After all, if P4 modellers want TOTAL accuracy, surely they will scratch-build? CHRIS LEIGH Indeed, Chris. Those who have greater talents and work to finer standards will often encourage us lesser mortals to have a go at kit-building. Complaining that models designed to be sold RTR for less than £100 are not to exact scale hardly seems logical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted January 26, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 26, 2014 ........................... On the other hand, Bachmann could have chosen what I think would have been a much more sensible compromise. That is to reduce the wheel diameter so that it's overall (not tread) diameter is closer to scale. I doubt many would notice the reduction. This would then allow the highly visible splashers to be reduced to something closer to scale size and further compromises over fitting them to the body could be avoided. Nick But then the axles would sit too low, the valve gear would be at the wrong place relative to either the cylinders or the cranks, the axle to running plate dimension would be wrong, so drop the running plate and the cab and boiler are in the wrong place so the steam pipes are too long.......ad inf..... It doesn't matter what kind of model you build. Unless it's for the display case there has to be a compromise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Complaining that models designed to be sold RTR for less than £100 are not to exact scale hardly seems logical. Is not the obsession over detail for such models equally illogical? The critical agenda pursued by the mainstream media, i.e. one characterised by an avoidance of addressing dimensions, is imbalanced. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Is not the obsession over detail for such models equally illogical? The critical agenda pursued by the mainstream media, i.e. one characterised by an avoidance of addressing dimensions, is imbalanced. Let's all go back to the days of Dublo and Triang. Life was so much simpler then. Best of all, most RTR models cost under £20. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 £20!!!! My 1st loco I bought after leaving school was a Triang Jinty, at around £3. This was after the demise of HD, though you could find it in the shops. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 I believe there is a picture of a radial tank with the wrong size splasher fitted. There were variants with 4'6", 5' and 5'6" wheels. IIRC it was in one of the Bradley books. Years ago I was trying to lower a Tri-ang Jinty and found the top of the splasher was wafer thin. Tri-and were obviously aware of the problem. Similarly years ago I was in the KESR shop at Tenterden and a old guy (who had been a model maker for Basset-Lowke) was relating that he had been tasked with making boiler fittings for an Original Royal Scot 4-6-0. The 'scale' fittings were deemed to be 'too small' by the other staff. He then produced various versions, each a little larger than the previous attempt. When the audience were happy it was a fair percentage oversize. He went on to explain that with certail small details it was better to leave them off as they just looked like 'warts'. Better to give a suggestion of something. Likewise I have seen fencing at the back of a layout that was posts only with no rails, the eye filled the rails in...... Modelling is a bit of theatre and we should look to that discipline for inspiration. Anyway, as long as it runs well I'll be happy with my E4 when it arrives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 But then, in times when we check the dimensional accuracy to a fraction of a mm, the chassis would sit too low... But then the axles would sit too low, the valve gear... Tyres wear on the prototype so wheels can easily be 2-3" undersize with the rest of the loco sitting slightly too low. Yes, outside valve gear might add further complexity to the compromises, or change the significance of some relative to others, but most of the recent models referred to here (3F, 4F, 64XX, etc) don't have o/s gear. I'm for the scale thickness plastic splasher, myself. Of course, the problem is, it'll be so thin you can see through it and you won't dare touch the model or you'll crush it! Don't lets undersize the wheels (after years of pressing for dimensional accuracy on such things) of thousands of RTR models just so that a handful of P4 modellers can have a ready-made body to suit them. After all, if P4 modellers want TOTAL accuracy, surely they will scratch-build? CHRIS LEIGH Did you actually read what I said, Chris, or was my writing that unclear? It's almost as though you saw 'P4', the red mist descended and you started ranting about P4 modellers wanting ready-made bodies. In fact, I was talking about the compromises made in the 00 model. As far as I'm concerned, most P4 modellers, myself included, are quite capable of knocking up some scale sized splashers when we need them. Where did "scale thickness" and "TOTAL accuracy" come from? Damned silly ideas if you ask me What is so wrong with a suggestion that undersizing the wheels (within or close to realistic wear limits) so that thousands of RTR modellers can have splashers that are a bit closer to scale size? Indeed, Chris. Those who have greater talents and work to finer standards will often encourage us lesser mortals to have a go at kit-building. Complaining that models designed to be sold RTR for less than £100 are not to exact scale hardly seems logical. I'm happy to encourage people to have a go at kit building if that's what you want, Ian, but what has that to do with any part of my post, or with the design compromises in an RTR model? Choosing one set of compromises over another at design time need not necessarily have significant cost implications. I suggest that's the case with wheel vs splasher size. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigw Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 What is so wrong with a suggestion that undersizing the wheels (within or close to realistic wear limits) so that thousands of RTR modellers can have splashers that are a bit closer to scale size? Absolutely nothing is wrong with the idea. Guy Williams had advocated since at least the 1960s that wheels should be the correct size over the flange because he was dead against distorting the the body with an oversize splasher. As has been seen many times by now, over scale splashers stick out because there are things to reference them against. If the idea was acceptable to Guy Williams then it is most certainly acceptable to me. Craigw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Quite so, Ian. All my RTR eventually gets converted to P4, usually by a complete chassis replacement, not just wheels, so I expect the manufacturer to have made compromises and expect to have to ignore or deal with them as the mood takes me. However, there is a question as to where the compromise(s) should be made. In terms of splasher diameter (not the width as there's little that can be done about 00 wheel width and the sideplay needed by the tighter curves) the size could be made closer to scale by reducing the diameter of the 00 driving wheels. In the case of the 3F and 4F, and presumably other recent products, Bachmann have chosen to use something very close to the correct scale driver when measured across the tread. Because 00 wheels need larger than scale flanges, this results in a wheel that is too large overall. Consequently, the splashers also need to be oversize to accommodate the wheels. In this case, there has been no compromise in the wheel tread diameter but, as a result, the splasher size is compromised. Some might also argue that the wheel size appears to be too large. On the other hand, Bachmann could have chosen what I think would have been a much more sensible compromise. That is to reduce the wheel diameter so that it's overall (not tread) diameter is closer to scale. I doubt many would notice the reduction. This would then allow the highly visible splashers to be reduced to something closer to scale size and further compromises over fitting them to the body could be avoided. There is a third alternative, that is to have the splashers to scale in both diameter and width and have the wheel flanges exposed on the inside of the splashers. O'corse Bachmann wouldn't like this because it would draw even more attention to the block of metal they put between the frames. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 Regarding wheel sizes, I had to measure those on the 4F and J11 to answer a members PM and was suprised to find the 4F's are 21mm dia to represent 5' 3" and those on the J11 are 20mm to represent 5' 2". Visualy I wouldn't have spotted the difference. Bachmann could have fitted the 4F with 20mm drivers and correspondingly smaller splashers had it come out after the J11, but it didnt. I think we are back to the old chestnut of expecting far too much of RTR models even though they have come a very long way. Railway modeller's still have some adapting to do if RTR is to suit their requirements and lets fact it, it's the least expensive option! What I am glad to learn (from Buffalo's entry) is that the 4F splashers are plastic and separate mouldings, as this answers a question and leaves the route open to creating a LH drive 4F. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 If you undersize the wheels, the buffers would end up closer to the track. Looking at a typical Bachmann model, the flanges are a good mm deep. That means knocking off 2mm from the wheel diameter or 6 inches under scale with buffer height being 1mm closer to the rails. Then you have side play to contend with anyway. At the end of the day, oversized splashers is good compromise. All design is compromise. Is this case the model needs to function under greater extremes than the prototype (due to space constraints most people have). In any case the over scale splashers are compatible with P4 and anyone in P4 going to trouble to re chassis an RTR would find replacing splashers child's play in comparison , if they desired to do so. And it should be noted that replacing them is not required to make the model run in P4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimbus Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 If you undersize the wheels, the buffers would end up closer to the track. Looking at a typical Bachmann model, the flanges are a good mm deep. That means knocking off 2mm from the wheel diameter or 6 inches under scale with buffer height being 1mm closer to the rails. Not quite! A newly turned prototype flange was 1 5/8" high, or 0.55mm at 4mm:1ft scale. The amount you'd need to lose from the scale tread thickness would be 0.45mm to create your 1mm flange height. So a tread diameter reduction of 0.9mm from nominal scale. This is slightly less than half the prototypical wear allowance, within which ride height variation was not worried about. That varied with vehicle loading as well, of course. The Nim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 They also have a mm of roll play, then there is a minimum thickness they can mould too. I suspect the models plastic is a mm thick, while the real thing would be thinner than a 1/4 inch. Likewise the taper of the wheel must be sharper than the real thing in order to cope with tighter curves. I am sure I would want my wheels to have less diameter on the grounds that it represents the locos tyres at the end of their working lives. Model wheels also wear down over time but not as pronounced. To wear down 3 inches, I suspect the real thing would be machined down in diameter as wear is unlikely to be even in practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.