Bachmann announce Class 90 (OO)

[ThaneofFife]

i like detail but if we were to run a poll on who would like electric models that can collect current from overhead i predict the take up would be low and that's based on my gut feelings as an avid fan of ac locos so I'm not biased to diesel.  current collection from the rails is fine.   i dont see the attraction, well you wouldnt - you cant really "see" electrcity apart from the odd spark. I'm all for pushing boundaries but this might be pushing it unnecessarily far.

 

if its a case of a few pence spent on additional wires to from the pan to the pcb and easliy switchable then I don't have a problem with that.  I can imagine all kinds of issues though with inconsistent overhead wires cutting out stalling or dcc sound issues when collecting from above.  would those same people wanting manufacturers to make these locos pick up from above as well as below give as much time and attention to setting up their working catenary to the point that those lovely new models run flawlessly.  the knitting cant just be cobbled together.

 

 

surely most folk are happy with good looking dummy overhead equipment?  most modellers will run diesels alongisde their electrics so I think many will prefer to keep with a single system rather than overhead for electrics and also power thru the rails for diesels.   just doesn't make sense to me to have all the extra expense and setting up.

Edited April 11, 2016 by ThaneofFife

[ThaneofFife]

what next..... tiny diesel engines fitted to diesel models?  LOL.

[Gordon H]

if its a case of a few pence spent on additional wires to from the pan to the pcb and easliy switchable then I don't have a problem with that.  I can imagine all kinds of issues though with inconsistent overhead wires cutting out stalling or dcc sound issues when collecting from above.  would those same people wanting manufacturers to make these locos pick up from above as well as below give as much time and attention to setting up their working catenary to the point that those lovely new models run flawlessly.  the knitting cant just be cobbled together.

 

If you are a committed OHLE modeller then you are more likely to be prepared to give it the time and attention required. Taking the opposing view, it doesn't make sense to me not to do it.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Gordon H

[No Decorum]

what next..... tiny diesel engines fitted to diesel models?  LOL.

The late, great, Bob Symes fitted a miniature internal combustion engine to a 47 many years ago. I cannot say for sure if it was a diesel. Gauge 1, mind.

[phil-b259]

If it is a cost issue, why does it not have the same effect on equivalent European and Japanese outline models? Are the expectations of modellers in those fields different?

Sommerfeldt and Veissmann, to name but two European manufacturers, have complete ranges of catenary and pantographs which can be used conductively.

Ironically, whilst looking around for other manufacturers, I now find that Bachmann themselves have produced DCC fitted models with working pans - and a switch to select the option:

http://www.spookshow.net/loco/bachmanhhp8.html

The case rests...

 

Sommerfeldt and Veissmann produce European OHLE kit which naturally encourages the desire to use it as a power delivery system for European models. None of it is remotely like UK OHLE and it is no more authentic on a UK layout than the Triang system of old.

 

The only RTR OHLE kit in the UK is Dapols recent Mk3 masts - which are clearly not designed around being a power delivery system like the European products you highlight. As such there is no pressing need for UK 25KV locos to have a 'working' pantograph, and in an age where cost is frequently complained about by modellers (not least on here) UK manufacturers would be foolish to provide 'working' pantographs if it increases the end RRP of the model or means compromises in the pantograph design.

[Pete the Elaner]

When I tried making OHLE, I found that the contact wire needed to be very over scale in order to prevent being broken by pantographs.

A subsequent chat with Dagworth revealed that he reduces pantograph spring tension in order to reduce the size of the contact wire.

The more upward force exerted, the better the pan cleans the wire, so it needs to be stronger & thicker. Reduce this force & you can make the wire look more realistic, but you will make it less reliable for contact.

 

This is a problem fr Bachmann & they are not going to come up with a solution which pleases all of us.

[wombatofludham]

Personally, given I'll be running my 90s on track which scales at 4ft 1.5ins, round curves which scale up at about 150ft radius which would be tight for narrow gauge in real life, and the loco will have a single motor housed in a plastic body rather than four motors housed in bogies with a body of steel and glass fibre, I suspect not having a working pan and OHLE is a compromise I can live with.
 

​I'd prefer Bachmann to concentrate on getting the model out then developing more AC traction than mithering over a working pan. 

[298]

Sommerfeldt and Veissmann produce European OHLE kit which naturally encourages the desire to use it as a power delivery system for European models. None of it is remotely like UK OHLE and it is no more authentic on a UK layout than the Triang system of old.

 

The only RTR OHLE kit in the UK is Dapols recent Mk3 masts - which are clearly not designed around being a power delivery system like the European products you highlight. As such there is no pressing need for UK 25KV locos to have a 'working' pantograph, and in an age where cost is frequently complained about by modellers (not least on here) UK manufacturers would be foolish to provide 'working' pantographs if it increases the end RRP of the model or means compromises in the pantograph design.

What about the soon to be released Peco system...?

 

After modelling it since the mid-1990's, I soon realised that the whole subject is very much a "chicken & egg" situation- the average purchaser wasn't going to buy an AC Locomotive without specific wires & masts available, and nobody was going to release those without the demand there, which can only be generated through having numerous loco types available.

 

I do agree that the market ought to be served by both, even if they were small steps such as upgrading older models or plastic masts that work as a scene setter before being replaced with something better, but I wish that Modellers have solved these percieved issues years ago.

[jonathan452]

what next..... tiny diesel engines fitted to diesel models?  LOL.

Not forgetting of course an authentic live third rail on all those Southern Railway/Region layouts!

[Gordon H]

Not forgetting of course an authentic live third rail on all those Southern Railway/Region layouts!

 

Quite right. That can also be achieved if you put your mind to it.

[Removed a/c]

But why or is it a case of because it can be done.........bragging rights? 

 

 

As my layout will not be seen by anyone in the know I don't see a reason for the added expensive plus the fact I am not gifted enough to  perform this type of task. 

[railroadbill]

what next..... tiny diesel engines fitted to diesel models?  LOL.

There have been successful O gauge and 1 gauge diesel hydraulic and diesel electric locos made (Bob Symes, back in the day). But they were really model engineering. The gauge 1 class 47 had a taplin twin and a motorcycle generator. However, 00 gauge might be a little more difficult - but then Hornby have produced commercial live steam in 00!

 

re third rail.   Outside third rail was common for course scale O gauge once upon a time, so it can work.

 

:-)

[JSpencer]

There have been successful O gauge and 1 gauge diesel hydraulic and diesel electric locos made (Bob Symes, back in the day). But they were really model engineering. The gauge 1 class 47 had a taplin twin and a motorcycle generator. However, 00 gauge might be a little more difficult - but then Hornby have produced commercial live steam in 00!

 

re third rail.   Outside third rail was common for course scale O gauge once upon a time, so it can work.

 

:-)

 

So far, most of these have been simple 2 stroke engines. Might sound ok-ish for a Deltic but wrong for a 47. Live steam in guage 1 etc captures quite well the functional design of the original and sounds/acts something like the original allowing for it being much smaller. Diesels have a way to go.

[GordonC]

Hi railroadbill

 

I have been experimenting with live 3rd rail for a pullman unit I am working on using 5 or 6 Hornby Railroad Pullman Cars 2 brake 3rd for the driving coaches and 3 or 4 trailer cars depending on the performance of the motor being used in it and up to now the results have been better than expected. Still a few bugs to iron out but its getting there.

 

I would hope 1 day that there will be actual diesel engine powered class 37/47/50/56/60/66 & 67 powered by and actual engine. Now that will be something to see and individual motors driving individual axles on electric outline models like a loco or unit instead of a single motor as a complete bogie though as you rightly pointed out to do these in OO Gauge is more difficult though it would be fascinating to see it actually happen.

 

can you imagine trying to get it serviced? ... changing the oil etc.

 

doesn't sound very practical to me and I'll stick to electric and with sound chips!

[railroadbill]

So far, most of these have been simple 2 stroke engines. Might sound ok-ish for a Deltic but wrong for a 47. Live steam in guage 1 etc captures quite well the functional design of the original and sounds/acts something like the original allowing for it being much smaller. Diesels have a way to go.

Definitely a way to go for very small diesels,  Physics may not allow fuel to burn in a very small cylinder, I wonder how small a working internal combustion engine has actually been made?   When I was interested in such things, there were model aircraft engines that were 0.1 cc.

 

Still, you never know, who would have thought that T gauge could be made commercially?

[railroadbill]

Hi railroadbill

 

I have been experimenting with live 3rd rail for a pullman unit I am working on using 5 or 6 Hornby Railroad Pullman Cars 2 brake 3rd for the driving coaches and 3 or 4 trailer cars depending on the performance of the motor being used in it and up to now the results have been better than expected. Still a few bugs to iron out but its getting there.

 

I would hope 1 day that there will be actual diesel engine powered class 37/47/50/56/60/66 & 67 powered by and actual engine. Now that will be something to see and individual motors driving individual axles on electric outline models like a loco or unit instead of a single motor as a complete bogie though as you rightly pointed out to do these in OO Gauge is more difficult though it would be fascinating to see it actually happen.

That Pullman sounds quite an achievement!  Be interested to see pictures when it's all done.  I can understand why you're doing it, it replicates how  the full size picks up current, operationally realistic.

 

 

 

The Bob Symes gauge 1 class 47 from the 1970s had electric motors driving each axle like the full size (twin cylinder model boat engine drove a generator) so powered axles has been done but in a larger scale. Actually with present day small electric motors, individually powered axles might be possible in oo. . Wonder if anyone's done that?

There was a long write up about the gauge 1 model  in Model railway magazine, er 40 years ago or so.  Making a scale Sulzer 12LDA28-c engine might be a bit difficult though...

[Gordon H]

But why or is it a case of because it can be done.........bragging rights? 

 

 

Originally to prove to myself that it could be done, just as an engineering challenge.

Thereafter, knowing this to be the case, my aim has been to get the message across to others that a lot of these things that seem too difficult to contemplate are actually do-able with a bit of effort. In many cases, the difficulties could be eased by manufacturers helping out a bit with some of the features they might include.

It all depends what aspects of the hobby you prefer - running trains round and round a bit of track just for the sake of it is not for me. I prefer to try things out that are a bit (or a lot) out of the ordinary - e.g. the Class 508 sliding door unit mentioned elsewhere.

[JSpencer]

Definitely a way to go for very small diesels,  Physics may not allow fuel to burn in a very small cylinder, I wonder how small a working internal combustion engine has actually been made?   When I was interested in such things, there were model aircraft engines that were 0.1 cc.

 

Still, you never know, who would have thought that T gauge could be made commercially?

Physics will allow it burn in a small space, however you still need to obtain the compression, heat etc of life size engine (well almost). It might be possible in about 100 years from now, when printers can printing out in nanotechnology and multi material type technologies.

[railroadbill]

At the time that article was written I was not far off 3 years old. With regards to the pullman unit if you look in the kitbuilding and scratch building section of the forum and checkout a thread for the ayjay models class 507/508 kit which is being built and finished in the regional raolways yellow and white with black and grey striped brlow the windows there are a couple of pictures of my pullman unit on there when I was explaining to the builder of the Merseyrail 507 about doing a live 3rd rail to allow me to drive it completely independent of all thd other stock. Although the pictures only show 1 of the driving cars and a small section of 1 of thr trailer coaches with a white link wire between the 2 which takes power from the coach where the cab would be through the cars to a Hornby hst motor in 1 of the other coaches. Ideally it needs 2 or 4 underfloor motor bogies but until funds allow I'm stuck with a struggling underpowered hst motor.

Hi Mersey507003, I had a look at the thread you mentioned, think it's this one? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/109339-ayjay-class-507508-kit-project/page-2

 

but I can't find the pics of your unit? 

It is a very interesting thread though and the 508 sliding door unit that Gordon H mentions above is fascinating as well, think I've seen that displayed somewhere.

[The Ghost of IKB]

Until I can put a 16 cylinder engine in my class 40's and two 18cylinder engines in my deltic  I'll stick with dcc

[James Makin]

Very interesting topic and I can see a lot of us approaching from very different angles, all with valid points of view!

 

For me, I have no interest in how the loco is powered, as long as it's consistent with the rest of my DCC fleet - it's all about the looks, so that with some minor weathering and detailing, if you took a photo you would think it was the real thing! I get very little satisfaction from driving the trains themselves, but if it looks absolutely amazing in a photograph, then that's my 'fix'!!

 

Just goes to show how it's nearly impossible for Bachmann to please all of us, especially considering the costings which have been discussed so much here before!

 

Cheers

James

[Dagworth]

Given that the manufacturer will be obliged to fit something to the roof, it can hardly be considered an additional feature. The only cost consideration should only be the incremental difference between fitting one that can never work and one that could. For their 85, Bachmann clearly went to some effort getting the dimensions of the Faiveley pantograph right, but then spoilt what could have become a useful item, even as spare parts for other applications, by moulding most of it in plastic.

The 85 pan is metal, or at least mine are. It's just a shame that the screwed up the upper link so the head doesn't stay upright although it is easy enough to fix.

 

Andi

[Dagworth]

If you are a committed OHLE modeller then you are more likely to be prepared to give it the time and attention required. Taking the opposing view, it doesn't make sense to me not to do it.

I think I probably qualify under that description, but having the wires for traction has certain negatives that so outweigh the (invisible) advantages that I will choose rail pick up every time. 

 

• No need to put wires in fiddle yards
• DCC control of raising pantographs
• Ability to reduce spring pressure on pans

Andi

[Crewlisle]

Personally, given I'll be running my 90s on track which scales at 4ft 1.5ins, round curves which scale up at about 150ft radius which would be tight for narrow gauge in real life, and the loco will have a single motor housed in a plastic body rather than four motors housed in bogies with a body of steel and glass fibre, I suspect not having a working pan and OHLE is a compromise I can live with.

 

​I'd prefer Bachmann to concentrate on getting the model out then developing more AC traction than mithering over a working pan. 

 

I agree with the above comment.

 

Part of my Comment No. 9 in ‘the Peco forum where 'Peco announces OHLE’ dated 7/2/15:

I have had OHLE on my DCC 00 gauge layout ‘Crewlisle’ for 30 years & it is always a point of interest & questions at exhibitions.  I used JV single masts (still available) as they looked like BR single masts, modified their continental portal frames  to look like early WCML masts but scratchbuilt the actual catenary wire as it is unique to each layout as it depends on the radius of the curves & points.  The loco pantograph is always in contact with the contact wire.  It is all portable & is tested to a scale speed of 100 mph.   I have seen a number of layouts at exhibitions with super detailed scale catenary but only dare run their locos at just over shunting speed!  Why have an APT & not run it at its scale speed?

 

Looking at the Peco offering, it is sturdy enough for the pantograph to be in contact with the wire, the catenary wire appears to be a good compromise between prototypical & practical size in 4mm scale & (if required) appears to be quite easy to make both the masts & catenary wire portable like mine.  Making it portable makes it easy for track cleaning/repairs, fitting across baseboard joints & entrances to tunnels.  

 

 

With reference to my comments in the ‘Peco announces OHLE’ forum, my catenary is half way between the early over scale 1980s Lima/Hornby catenary & today’s layouts with super detailed catenary.  My wires are all made from 0.5mm piano wire/high tensile steel wire for strength & resistance to ‘kinking’ if caught by the pantograph & is all portable.   None of the wires are soldered to the cantilever arms; stiffness is maintained by the correct adjustment of the sections of catenary wire between masts.  I sprayed them with car primer grey to help them blend in with the rest of the layout & at many exhibitions some visitors have to do a double take to see it at a viewing distance of just over one metre.  The wires are stiff enough to enable the pantograph to be in contact with the contact wire.  I admit I have to cheat to restrain the maximum height of my pantographs for when they pass through my two tunnels & not to exert too much pressure on the contact wire.  I use a very basic (but very effective restraint mechanism) called a ‘piece of grey cotton’ between the pantograph & its base frame secured with superglue!  No one has yet spotted it from normal viewing distance.

 

No, I do not tension my wires or have any of the detailing as in all the prototype drawings.  It is purely for the representation of catenary from normal viewing distance & it works.

I think it would be a waste of Bachmann’s time & effort to enable the loco to collect power via the pantograph.  The only ‘extra’ which would be nice to have would be the mechanism to lower/raise the pantograph as fitted to some continental models.  But overall, just give us a loco to the same standard as the Class 85!

Edited April 15, 2016 by Crewlisle

[Gordon H]

 I have seen a number of layouts at exhibitions with super detailed scale catenary but only dare run their locos at just over shunting speed!  Why have an APT & not run it at its scale speed?

 

You clearly never saw 'High Gill' at any of the many exhibitions it attended during in its heyday in the 80's. We regularly ran our trains at well over a scale 100mph - with working pantographs on a tensioned 0.25mm contact wire. All fully portable too.

The stock also included a full length Hornby APT, fitted with a modified Sommerfeldt 968 to simulate the version the real thing had before it was changed to Brecknell-Willis.

The really unfortunate thing about all this is that it was before any of us had a means of video recording it in operation.