Should all OO RTR be designed for minimum radius running?

[AndyID]

The turning radius is a big deal with the Stirling Single , because Patrick Stirling gave the class narrow splashers over the bogie wheels , and the clearances there are very restricted on the full size loco. Hence the suggestion being made that it should be treated as an 0-6-2.

 

Ah yes! I see there are no front steps, but those big round cylinder thingys are going to be a problem

[newbryford]

Actually that was Bachmann that pioneered the centre motor drive in the UK OO RTR market from about 1991 with the Peak, and subsequent models such as the class 25, well before any other manufacturer brought out such a drive for OO. 

 

Not quite all-wheel drive, but the Lima Class 20 from the mid-1980's had a centrally mounted motor driving one bogie with driveshafts.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Not quite all-wheel drive, but the Lima Class 20 from the mid-1980's had a centrally mounted motor driving one bogie with driveshafts.

With 4:1 gearing and kept in check from achieving near supersonic velocity by super-drag pick ups on the unpowered wheels acting as brakes. One of the most lamentable drive designs ever seen! Not really a worthy contender. Both the Lone Star Treble-O-lectric and Playcraft ranges essayed all wheel drives for UK diesels in the 1960s too, but neither of the sort of design quality to get me excited...

 

 Why Lima don't deploy a little of the expertise within their group to beat Hornby to death with a better drive I still fail to understand. It costs very little more to put in a good drive line than a crappy one

[Zomboid]

The ALCo PA I bought a few weeks ago will only go around 24" radius curves. Good job I have a display case for it, then.

 

I knew this when I bought it, mind!

 

I don't how many people would actually buy something that needed 48" curves, but I suspect that once you've filtered out people who have no interest in the subject matter (who will never buy it anyway) and those who have to deal with trainset curves (who might like to) you're not looking at a huge number. It'll take a brave manufacturer to try it.

 

I bought my PA because it's a nice thing and my living room needed more warbonnet, but I won't be buying anything else that won't go round trainset curves, as I don't forsee a time when I'll have the space. (Maybe on a club layout, but I'll need to find a club who have a big US HO scale setup, which since I live in England I'm not going to hold my breath for...)

[Ozexpatriate]

at least75% of toy trains buyers don't care about the radius of the track it runs on, as long as it runs on theirs.....which is likely to fit half a circle into 4 ft...that's justs what OO trains doo innit..?

Actually this discussion is about fitting half a circle in 3' (actually about 2'11").  4' (24" / 609 mm radius) would be a huge improvement.

[brianusa]

I know

 

lets take this round in another circular argument......

 

at least75% of toy trains buyers don't care about the radius of the track it runs on, as long as it runs on theirs.....which is likely to fit half a circle into 4 ft...that's justs what OO trains doo innit..?

 

Please don't think that all such buyers are the mythical "kids" ( I doubt they even count as a percentage) Its well heeled men who do it as a bit of a  

"oh look what I've got now"

 

Toy Trains are just like camera equipped helicopter things......It really can be just a toy to spend summat on.... for a bit of a laugh.......

 

Are we all well heeled?  But you're right, kids make up a very small percentage nowadays so its those that are older who indulge in toy trains just to spend summat on!  If you've never seen a O 2-8-8-2 go around a 31' diam curve, you ain't seen nothing!

 

Brian.

[Ozexpatriate]

If you've never seen a O 2-8-8-2 go around a 31' diam curve, you ain't seen nothing!

That's impressive. Was the chassis articulated?

[AndyID]

Here are a couple of diagrams for an OO Stirling. The track radius is 18" (inside rail). Loco facing left.

 

The upper diagram shows how bad the bogie swing is if the driver and trailing wheel are on a rigid chassis.

 

The lower diagram shows how far the trailing wheel would have to swing if it was on a truck. The bogie is still allowed to rotate about a fixed axis but not swing. Does not appear that it would foul the cylinders.

 

[nightstar.train]

Hi Reorte

 

Main range and Railroad range

 

Not fitted with DCC, fitted with DCC, fitted with DCC and sound. Somewhere they think it is economically viable. Trouble is the version I want in the livery for the time period I model is the one with DCC and sound. No sale to the fat bald bloke as he is a DC modeller and hates the noise models make.

But any OO modeller can buy the main range and the railroad range. The railroad range has cost Hornby zero to develop as it is all old tools which have already paid for themselves. What you are arguing for is a super detailed range, which would cost a lot to develop and produce, designed for the minority of modellers who have the space for large radius curves. There is already a RTR manufacturer for you if this is what you want, Golden Age Models. They cost an absolute fortune, partly as they are hand made brass models, but partly due to the development costs. If it costs £100,000 to develop a model and you can sell 10,000 then it adds £10 on top of production costs. If you restrict the market you can sell to and can only sell 1000 then you're adding £100 on top of the production costs. I don't know the development costs of new models, but I suspect they're far higher than that. A manufacturer is not going to risk the loss when they can make the same model with a few compromises that handles R2 curves and can sell to the whole RTR market.

 

As to the argument about DCC, this is rather spurious. They all use the same chassis, body etc. All that's happening is at the end of production the technician is either putting in a DCC blanking plug, or a chip, or a sound chip and speaker. Then put a sticker on the box. The extra development costs are pretty much zero, as Hornby buy in their sound chips and sound files. And whilst some DC modellers may be put off I think that by now (it is 2015 after all) more modellers ar DCC than aren't, and die hard DC fans will buy a DCC sound model, open it up and remove the sound chip, fit a blanking plug and then sell the chip in eBay. And most DCC locos will run on DC anyway. Some continental and American manufacturers only make DCC models now, it's only really in Britain where a fuss was made a decade ago by some diehard DC fans that this hasn't happened.

[Clive Mortimore]

But any OO modeller can buy the main range and the railroad range. The railroad range has cost Hornby zero to develop as it is all old tools which have already paid for themselves. What you are arguing for is a super detailed range, which would cost a lot to develop and produce, designed for the minority of modellers who have the space for large radius curves. There is already a RTR manufacturer for you if this is what you want, Golden Age Models. They cost an absolute fortune, partly as they are hand made brass models, but partly due to the development costs. If it costs £100,000 to develop a model and you can sell 10,000 then it adds £10 on top of production costs. If you restrict the market you can sell to and can only sell 1000 then you're adding £100 on top of the production costs. I don't know the development costs of new models, but I suspect they're far higher than that. A manufacturer is not going to risk the loss when they can make the same model with a few compromises that handles R2 curves and can sell to the whole RTR market.

 

As to the argument about DCC, this is rather spurious. They all use the same chassis, body etc. All that's happening is at the end of production the technician is either putting in a DCC blanking plug, or a chip, or a sound chip and speaker. Then put a sticker on the box. The extra development costs are pretty much zero, as Hornby buy in their sound chips and sound files. And whilst some DC modellers may be put off I think that by now (it is 2015 after all) more modellers ar DCC than aren't, and die hard DC fans will buy a DCC sound model, open it up and remove the sound chip, fit a blanking plug and then sell the chip in eBay. And most DCC locos will run on DC anyway. Some continental and American manufacturers only make DCC models now, it's only really in Britain where a fuss was made a decade ago by some diehard DC fans that this hasn't happened.

I don't. Why should I pay over the top for bits I do not need. Why should I waste my time to find someone who wants the bits that I never wanted in the first place.

 

The argument about DC and DCC models was to show manufacturers already do models to meet multiple likes of us modellers. So stop being a nay sayer and think that there might be a market for models that do not have to run on set track as well as one where modellers use set track.

 

Ah a Peak where the pony truck is srung so it guides the bogie through the point work not one where everything is so floppy the two uncontrolable pony trucks go off in their own directions and the fixed four wheels in another.

[Andy Reichert]

But any OO modeller can buy the main range and the railroad range. The railroad range has cost Hornby zero to develop as it is all old tools which have already paid for themselves. What you are arguing for is a super detailed range, which would cost a lot to develop and produce, designed for the minority of modellers who have the space for large radius curves. There is already a RTR manufacturer for you if this is what you want, Golden Age Models. They cost an absolute fortune, partly as they are hand made brass models, but partly due to the development costs. If it costs £100,000 to develop a model and you can sell 10,000 then it adds £10 on top of production costs. If you restrict the market you can sell to and can only sell 1000 then you're adding £100 on top of the production costs. I don't know the development costs of new models, but I suspect they're far higher than that. A manufacturer is not going to risk the loss when they can make the same model with a few compromises that handles R2 curves and can sell to the whole RTR market.

 

As to the argument about DCC, this is rather spurious. They all use the same chassis, body etc. All that's happening is at the end of production the technician is either putting in a DCC blanking plug, or a chip, or a sound chip and speaker. Then put a sticker on the box. The extra development costs are pretty much zero, as Hornby buy in their sound chips and sound files. And whilst some DC modellers may be put off I think that by now (it is 2015 after all) more modellers ar DCC than aren't, and die hard DC fans will buy a DCC sound model, open it up and remove the sound chip, fit a blanking plug and then sell the chip in eBay. And most DCC locos will run on DC anyway. Some continental and American manufacturers only make DCC models now, it's only really in Britain where a fuss was made a decade ago by some diehard DC fans that this hasn't happened.

 

I don't buy much RTR at all, unless it happens to overlap what I'm looking for to convert to my wheels and mechs.. I certainly don't buy a DCC fitted version, because I already have much better chips than the ones included and I don't want tinny sound or duplicate R/C under any circumstances.

 

I find it very difficult to link the word "modeller" to the idea that buyers flock to the latest RTR offerings, regardless of their own layout plans, just because they are "Wow and great detailed models".

 

That's why I'm convinced I have a different hobby.

 

Andy

 

Andy

[Revolution Mike]

Not fitted with DCC, fitted with DCC, fitted with DCC and sound. Somewhere they think it is economically viable. Trouble is the version I want in the livery for the time period I model is the one with DCC and sound. No sale to the fat bald bloke as he is a DC modeller and hates the noise models make.

 

Clive

 

The problem with that analogy is that in terms of tooling that costs nothing as everything is the same, the only difference is in the assembly where the production line put in a blanking plate, DCC decoder or DCC sound decoder.

 

What you are talking about with different tooling costs money. I'm not saying people won't pay for it (I'm sure some will) but I can understand why a manufacturer would be reluctant to do it.

 

Cheers, Mike

[jjb1970]

The Hornby Railroad range is no longer just about old tooling that allowed Hornby to knock out trainset models on the cheap. They now offer:

 

Duke of Gloucester

Tornado/A1

A4

A3

P2

Hall

Mk.1 coach

Mk.2E coach

 

They also have the Crosti 9F coming. Some of these models do raise a lot of questions about what Railroad is meant to be but the newly tooled Railroad models offer some very good models to those on a tight budget. Yes they're compromised and lack the finesse and finish of main range models but Railroad releases like the A1, DoG, Hall and Mk.1 coach merit being described as sclae models and are much more than just cheap trainset toys.

 

all from new modern tooling.

[edcayton]

The turning radius is not a big deal. The Stirling is no different from a 4-4-0 in that respect. Just make the front steps optional.

 

The big deal with any model single is traction. It will be interesting to see Rapido's solution for that problem.

  

Anyone who has seen Mike Trice's brilliant thread about making a very passable Single out of a Bachmann "Emily" will have seen that it is in fact a 4-4-0 with the trailing and driving axles gear-coupled.

 

Ed

[Andy Reichert]

Clive

 

The problem with that analogy is that in terms of tooling that costs nothing as everything is the same, the only difference is in the assembly where the production line put in a blanking plate, DCC decoder or DCC sound decoder.

 

What you are talking about with different tooling costs money. I'm not saying people won't pay for it (I'm sure some will) but I can understand why a manufacturer would be reluctant to do it.

 

Cheers, Mike

 

You are talking about precision cut steel tooling for mass production of injection moulded plastic products. There are other ways of making miniature RTR train products that don't involve such a huge outlay. And also provide far more in the way of options.

 

Andy

[Revolution Mike]

You are talking about precision cut steel tooling for mass production of injection moulded plastic products. There are other ways of making miniature RTR train products that don't involve such a huge outlay. And also provide far more in the way of options.

 

Of course I am - that is the business that the main manufacturers are in.

 

In theory you are right but I haven't seen it done on any sort of scale comparable to that of the current RTR manufacturers. Of course it can be done, but then the question is what price will the market bear?

 

Mike

[Andy Reichert]

Old Dinky toys and currently EFE and Corgi busses, etc., have die cast bodies with moulded glazing and interior parts. Halling trams seem to use a hybrid of some crude shaped (i.e cheap) internal moulded parts and a printed over, possibly vacuum formed, transparent material effectively shaped to be come the ultra modern body. The original Ever-Ready Tube models were pressed tinplate, as were most of the old Hornby Dublo rolling stock.

 

The interesting thing AFAIAC, is that even great etched kits seem to now be less expensive than their plastic moulded counter parts. But the range of options for types and and options of those is two orders of magnitude greater. So there's a another possibility for hybrid manufacturing.

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive

 

The problem with that analogy is that in terms of tooling that costs nothing as everything is the same, the only difference is in the assembly where the production line put in a blanking plate, DCC decoder or DCC sound decoder.

 

What you are talking about with different tooling costs money. I'm not saying people won't pay for it (I'm sure some will) but I can understand why a manufacturer would be reluctant to do it.

 

Cheers, Mike

Mike if you go back a few post you would have read that I also included main range and railroad range, two sets of toolings in use already.

 

And you too seem to have missed the point that I was making manufacturers do make models for different parts of the hobby. So why not chassis that do not need to be run on set track for those who do not have set track.

 

I am sure as a diesel modeller you where impresssed by the Bachmann Deltic with a gap between the body and bogies (making the body too high), the Hornby 50 with too smaller wheels  and the lovely fictional shape of Heljans DP2. 

[edcayton]

Clive, you are capable of high quality scratch-building. Why do you give a #### about rtr anyway?

 

Ed

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive, you are capable of high quality scratch-building. Why do you give a #### about rtr anyway?

 

Ed

Because not everyone is able to scratch build.

 

My eyesight isn't as good.

 

My hands are showing signs of rheumatoid arthritis.

 

Time is against me.

 

Edit  and why shouldn't we try and push the standard of RTR.

[AndyID]

Anyone who has seen Mike Trice's brilliant thread about making a very passable Single out of a Bachmann "Emily" will have seen that it is in fact a 4-4-0 with the trailing and driving axles gear-coupled.

 

Ed

Hi Ed,

 

Yes, that's one way to do it. Did he do anything about the 4-4-0 overhang problem (see my diagrams above)?

 

Cheers!

Andy

[brianusa]

Obviously we are all different in our interpretation of our railways.  Size, gauge, electronics, etc, but we should agree that the subject is the reason; we all like trains!  Most of us have dabbled in other types of layouts; I happen to have settled on tinplate.  I have the same problems as those in other scales and gauges and the same solutions hopefully which is why I am here, a minority surrounded by scale enthusiasts and builders who might not be very interested in my trains.  But I have learnt a lot which applies to my situation about scenery, rolling stock and general railway info that I knew nothing of.

 

 Obviously, most of my trains are out of  boxes and little of my handiwork shows up on my layout and while tinplate doesn't usually compare in detail with other scales, a lot of new items are a far cry from the old Hornby trains most are familiar with.  Also, as Clive mentions, those of us of a certain age may not be as dextrous as others and O gauge is certainly better  in those circumstances.

 

Brian.

[brianusa]

That's impressive. Was the chassis articulated?

 

Yes - a Lionel, actually its a 4-8-8-2 with about a couple of inches overhang but if you allow for the scenery, works OK!

 

Brian.

[Andy Reichert]

One aspect RTR manufacturers may not be as aware of is the lowering of sales because they overdo or hide the sillier RTR aspects.

 

I too bought a couple of the US Broadway Limited (BLI) SP cab forwards as "highly detailed scale models" to use as the correct era moving scenery on my Pacific Electric layout. But when they arrived, I was surprised and dismayed to find than even though these were massive 4-8-8-2 locomotives with loads of room for even more weight. they had been fitted with traction tyres on the ends of BOTH of the 8 wheeler sections. When I checked the ad it said in the small print spare plain wheels were included , but a call to customer service said they weren't (sorry!) and extra of the ordinary plain wheels were not even available as spare parts. So unlike any proper model, I cannot simply lathe turn all the existing wheels down to P:87 standards. I would need 4 more per locomotive.

 

Since I have my own milling machines and lathes, I kept the models for the sake of the bodies. And one day I will make my own wheels. I just have a lot of higher priority things to finish first.

 

But the damage has been done. My confidence in BLI mechanism design competence is zero. How could locomotive with such centrally placed weight possibly need tyres? Which has the effect of my forcefully not recommending any of that manufacturers models.

And how about the lack of spares?  Yet another injection moulded "limited edition" with no plans to make them continuously available or have spares - so when anything breaks for normal users. . . . . . they're either suddenly far less detailed, or completely blown.

 

Are you planning to include buying a stock of spares for your latest efforts, Red Death?

 

Andy

 

.

[newbryford]

I don't buy much RTR at all, unless it happens to overlap what I'm looking for to convert to my wheels and mechs.. I certainly don't buy a DCC fitted version, because I already have much better chips than the ones included and I don't want tinny sound or duplicate R/C under any circumstances.

 

I find it very difficult to link the word "modeller" to the idea that buyers flock to the latest RTR offerings, regardless of their own layout plans, just because they are "Wow and great detailed models".

 

That's why I'm convinced I have a different hobby.

 

Andy

 

 

Andy,

I'm afraid that your posting is drifting into the realms of elitism and snobbery. Like you, I will buy RTR when it suits my needs, and in my particular case, much of my stock is RTR, albeit modified/repainted or otherwise not straight out of the box. There are a great many out there who use a large proportion of RTR as the base for their layout, and many of those layouts are excellent examples of railway models (and by default, they are "modellers"). Do not denigrate them by saying that you have a different hobby.

 

I used to build DJH (and other) kits to represent the steam locos that weren't available RTR. Now, I can buy a RTR item for less than the kit/wheels/motor that is better detailed and doesn't take hours to build (Typically 40-50 hours to make a DJH kit into a well-detailed model).

I used to glue MTK etched sides and ends to Hornby Class 25's to represent 25/3's, but I no longer need to do this, but that hasn't stopped me "modelling". It's just that I now have more time to model other stuff......... unless, by using RTR, I'm no longer a modeller in your eyes.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

edit: typo