nswgr1855
-
Posts
198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by nswgr1855
-
-
I have just uploaded a replacement leading bogie for the 00 scale Hornby P2 locomotive. Further details are at https://www.shapeways.com/product/25V9WVEED/lner-p2-leading-bogie?optionId=153614972&li=marketplace
-
From experience assuming free rolling carriages and locomotives with no spring on the leading or trailing trucks, using 3 foot radius curves, you need to ease the gradient by multiplying your prototype gradient by 1.75 if you want to run the maximum length prototype train length. For example a prototype grade of 1:40, you multiply 40 x 1.75 = 70. Therefore use a 1 in 70 grade on your 3 foot curve. I have found on straights or prototype curves , you can use the prototype grade with plastic bodied RTR, as long as you remove springs from leading and trailing trucks, and adjust the centre of gravity of the loco, adding or removing mass if necessary.
Terry Flynn.
-
21 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:
Real question: What's the min. radius to avoid buffer lock on the 4 and 6 wheelers going to be? I doing some experimenting with tension only couplers.
Andy
It depends what the longest item carriage or locomotive that you wish to couple them to. The minimum radius is about 6 times the length of your equipment for no buffer lock.
Terry Flynn.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, PhilJ W said:
I would like to see round topped doors as fitted to Metropolitan stock. I appreciate that to have the tooling adjusted or new tooling to produce such a variation is just not viable. If I wanted to go down that route I will have to accept either etched or 3D printed replacement sides. What you are proposing, altering both the ends and roof is even less viable.
It's viable as are the extra coaches added to the project
Terry Flynn
-
23 hours ago, truffy said:
If we’re wish-listing variants for Hattons to tool, could I put a request in for a carriage with a giraffe poking its head out of the roof?
I already have one!
Terry Flynn.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Denbridge said:
Find that difficult to believe . Additionally you are wanting Hattons to design and make entirely new tooling for your own requirements, not modify an existing tooling.
No tooling exists at the moment as far as I am aware, so changes to the project are cheap to do. A new roof and ends is not a modification to existing tooling, but a modification to the proposed tooling. Yes it is a different design, but the same tool with extra parts would be used. I'm still talking about a generic coach, not a finescale coach.
Terry Flynn.
-
13 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:
About 25 years ago, I enquired of a manufacturer (low tech) the costs to produce tooling for an HO goods wagon kit.
That was £5,000 back then. So probably about £20,000 now.
Sorry to mislead you into thinking Australia manufactures any RTR model railways these days. Only cottage industry model railway stuff is done here. The 5000 pound extra tooling cost is based on H0 models produced in the last year in China. Manufacturing of RTR today is cheaper in real terms due to computeriseration. 3D cad drawings are cheap to change and easy to check if you have the skill. CAD CAM combined with CNC machining makes it quicker and more accurate to machine. Chinese labor is still relatively low cost. Although the cost to produce an injection moulded kit is less than for RTR tooling the market is minimal compared to RTR and not an efficient way of making any money.
It's not a big cost for Hattons to get a quote for extra roofs at the moment. Even if the extra cost is 10,000 pounds it still is a minimal cost increase per wagon sold.
Terry Flynn.
-
15 minutes ago, Denbridge said:
I'd be interested to know how you came up with a figure of 5000 pounds. I suspect you picked a figure at random, I bet manufacturers would love your system of magical development costs. It would transform the hobby.
An estimate based on costs for an Aussie company to modify existing tooling of similar complexity.
Terry Flynn.
-
On 29/11/2019 at 04:16, Ravenser said:
Point taken, but GN teak 6 wheelers and "something simple" don't go together . We established pretty quickly in the thread that the Hattons coaches weren't going to be convincing for the LNWR and GNR modeller (and there aren't an awful lot of the latter... Bill Bedford did some of the later Howlden bogie stock from the late 1890s as straightforward kits - but they were very short-run resin kits and not cheap. The market doesn't look like it's there )
These Hattons coaches are aimed at those who have bought recent RTR pre-grouping locos released in SECR , LBSCR , and GC livery , not to mention the various MR, GE and NE locos which are/will be available. There are quite a few locos available for each company , and that's clearly what Hattons are aiming at.
The frustration arises from Terry's insistence that accurate RTR coaches for the Single must be the key focus for Hattons, and disregard every other company - when everyone this end had already concluded this project wasn't really going to suit the LNWR and GN
Although I always prefer accurate models, in this case I have been suggesting that a GNR roof profile and ends be done, using the generic tooling . That would result in generic models with a GNR roof. The extra cost to do this could be as low as 5,000 pounds to do the 6 wheel coach roof and ends . Considering there would be over 2000 RTR Stirlings , and we assume 500 Stirling owners buy 7 generic 6 wheel coaches (based on a picture published in Single Wheeler Locomotives by Charles Fryer) then the extra cost per GNR 6 wheel coach is only 15 pence.
Terry Flynn.
-
On 27/11/2019 at 04:00, Dunsignalling said:
The definition of a generic model is one that draws elements from a number of prototypes without claiming to accurately represent any one of them. Hatton's will not be making GNR coaches, just generic (effectively freelance) ones, some of which will be finished in a representation of GNR livery. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?
Therefore no generic model should (other than by sheer coincidence) look exactly like any prototype. One that did, would not be generic!
All versions of these coaches will be "wrong" to a greater or lesser degree. Some will be lucky and get models that are reasonably close to their desired prototype. Others (like you) will be offered items that are too far off to be acceptable, but nobody is forcing you to buy them.
I'd suggest that you have been hammering away at Hatton's plenty long enough for them to capitulate if they were ever going to and, as you evidently want coaches to run with a loco produced by Rapido, maybe you should be chasing them for something more appropriate?
John
Well if you had read what I have said I have been actually suggesting they spend a little more and do the correct roof for GNR, still using the existing generic sides and under frame. Then the GNR repaints would look closer to prototype from a 2m viewing distance.
Terry Flynn.
-
2 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:
The word generic also seems to be a concept that some people
seem to have difficulty understanding!
There is very little that is generic in a repaint that looks nothing like the prototype it is supposed to represent. The current proposed Hatton project is inappropriate for a number of railway companies, the GNR being one of them. You could consider the terms false and misleading to describe the GNR version as generic.
Terry Flynn.
-
16 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:
Scale is a size ratio of a model to its original. If that ratio is different in some parts of a model compared to others, then it isn't a scale model by definition. The terms fine and coarse are relative adjectives for size, substance or value, that don't affect an abstract mathematical ratio. 1:76 is neither coarse nor fine, just bigger or small than some other ratio.
I'm not sure what's coarser or finer than out of the box RTR, unless someone changes the original RTR parts to make them relatively less or more admirable. (Somehow, I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the former
). RTR is either, or both, coarse and fine, depending on the attitude of the viewer.
Regardless of other attributes, All common forms of RTR in the smaller scales have wheel flanges that are considerably overscale compared to the scale of the body. I've seen a lot of published hobby material where that is used as a definition of coarse.
Andy
I consider the terms fine and coarse to refer to the tolerance the designer has decided to apply to the scale they are using. Thus coarse models deviate considerably from nominal dimensions, and fine means the deviation from the nominal dimensions is smaller, therefore closer to scale overall.
A basic concept many seem to have difficulty with.
Terry Flynn.
-
2
-
-
Just now, truffy said:
But closer to your prototype means further from all the others, with a potentially larger loss in sales than gain. If you really want something closer, try a kit (bash).
I have consistently stated to do more than one roof profile. That means more coaches that look right. Kits are irrelevant to RTR sales. I have no intention to purchase unmade UK kits. I have enough unmade NSWGR H0 kits to satisfy my kit building urges.
Terry Flynn.
-
2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:
So, if Hatton's just drop the idea of selling any of these in GNR livery, you'll presumably be happy? I'm sure there'd be plenty of new potential buyers out there to make up any loss of sales were their favoured liveries to be produced instead.
John
No I will be happy if they do a GNR shaped roof for their generic GNR coaches. Closer to prototype means more sales.
Terry Flynn,
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:
Yesterday I spoke to one of the Hattons staff at Warley and I asked him about other types of four and six wheelers (saloon and milk van specifically). He said that they are seriously looking at a saloon version and that it would be relatively simple to produce as the sides will be separate mouldings. This of course opens up the possibility of aftermarket replacement sides such as produced by Shires for the Ratio four wheelers.
Did you ask them about doing different roof styles?
Terry Flynn.
-
1
-
-
On 24/11/2019 at 06:26, Andy Reichert said:
I rest my case for finescale being a bit accurate meaningless name.
I do applaud Hattons for being honest about building detailed models of historic past coaches that are a quite attractive mix of the characteristics of real prototypes, without actually being exactly one of them. The big advantage is that they will seem reminiscent of what we younger folk imagine they were like, and thus likely provide acceptable substitutes for the modelling purposes of many.
Andy
The problem for me is the Hattons offering does not have the characteristic roof profile of the GNR, thus they are unacceptable for those of us non experts who have noticed this significant easily observed difference. They will loose sales because of this.
Fine scale means its not coarse scale.
Cheers,
Terry Flynn.
-
6 hours ago, Zunnan said:
No, it really would not. I wouldn't touch a GNR coach tarted up in GNR livery let alone in a fictitiously applied LNWR/MR/South Staffs/LMS absorbed 'unknown'. Likewise I wouldn't touch a Midland coach in LNWR livery or vice versa although in LMS livery I would in either case...but I certainly wouldn't foist an LMS constituent diagram on an LBSC or SECR modeller in their house colours. But as you clearly know better and have the friend in the appropriate R&D background with SDS, perhaps you would like to convince him that GNR coaches painted in Taff Vale livery would be a sure thing money spinner. Pre-grouping railways are much like football teams and their supporters, you love your own, tolerate some and wouldn't spit on the others if they were on fire.
Then I assume that you will not be buying any of the Hattons offerings, unless they are accurate representative of the prototype you model. I will not be buying any Hattons GNR repaints unless they look like a GNR coach. To look like a GNR coach they need the correct roof for starters. As for SDS models, they specialise in accurate finescale RTR H0 scale Australian prototype models. The Australian market is a tenth of the UK market yet SDS makes enough money to continue developing new prototype specific finescale RTR models.
Terry Flynn.
-
7 hours ago, Oldddudders said:
No it wouldn't. The accurate models would sell well to those who model that company, but few of us would want, say, LNWR coaches painted as LBSCR or Southern. People buy Tri-ang clerestories and butcher them to be more like their prototype. They do not often buy them and just repaint.
Have you read all 60+ pages of this thread?
Well that is what Hattons is not quire offering, They seem to be based on a one company's styling, the rest are just repaints. The Triang clerestories have been offered in incorrect colours for those happy with incorrect models.
Terry Flynn.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, HonestTom said:
This discussion has come up approximately 2.5 million times on this thread already (I lost count), but the basic argument against is:
1. Increased cost of R&D in order to produce a model that is accurate enough to satisfy those who would be interested in the specific prototype. The tooling would likely have to be more detailed than the generic coaches would be, because you're serving the people who are only happy with accurate models, so that would also drive up costs.
2. Accurate models for one company would only satisfy those who model that company, which is a fraction of a fraction of the market. As evidenced by this thread, many of those modellers would have been happy with a generic coach. Which company do you choose to maximise your returns? Which of their coaches?
3. If you don't model the company Hattons chooses, then what you have is a set of coaches that aren't accurate for your company, and cost significantly more than £30 apiece.
In other words, there's a strong possibility that Hattons could actually lose sales by producing accurate models.
I disagree. R&D is relatively cheap to do because there are plenty of model railway enthusiasts who will provide this information for next to nothing.
It would cost no more to produce a set of accurate coaches for one company and then paint extras the colours of other companies (the generic range). This would result in increased sales of the accurate company models, and the same sales for the 'generic' repaints.
Terry Flynn.
-
1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:
The idea that it would be a simple procedure to produce different roof profiles overlooks the fact that each would require a completely different end moulding as well, and, depending on how Hattons propose to configure the body moulding, this could mean doubling the costs.
it is interesting that Terry considers the roof profile is more important than the panelling style. I suspect everyone really needs to see the models in the flesh and use their own judgement, based on their understanding of the prototype and personal preferences, to decide whether or not there are compromises, and, if the latter, whether they are acceptable or not. I have been surprised by the enthusiasm for the LNWR and SECR liveries, as I consider the Wolverton style of panelling is so different from this generic design as to being completely awry, but that is obviously my perception, and not shared with those who have eagerly pledged their backing.
Adding extra roof profiles will not double the cost of tooling, as you still could have the same number of tools, with only extra cavity mould inserts for the roof and ends. I know this because I am good friends with the design engineer for SDS models http://www.sdsmodels.com.au . I only consider the roof profile more important than panel moulding simply because from a distance the roof shape is clearly observed. For paneling to be seen, a closer viewing distance is required. I would prefer accurate models, but that is not what is being proposed and that would be an extra cost again.
Terry Flynn.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, gr.king said:
Very much agreed. The panelling is so much further adrift from GNR style than it would be for quite a lot of other companies, that a roof of the right shape doesn't even make the coaches vaguely like a GN vehicle. For the less pedantic among us however, the panelling will at least pass a casual inspection of fitness for purpose for some other companies. Unless one is extremely inobservant, or devoid of a large part of one's eyesight, the only way to pass these vehicles off as a reasonable train behind a Stirling Single or Ivatt Atlantic is to portray a through service or excursion made up of stock from other companies (or other areas of the LNER for a post-grouping Atlanic hauled train).
Yes, I understand a correct roof will not make it a close to accurate GNR model, but from a viewing distance of 2m, it should look the part. With the wrong roof as proposed it will look totally wrong. I would prefer the correct paneling on these models, but it appears there is little chance of this happening for this project.
Terry Flynn.
-
2 hours ago, Ravenser said:
For the record , the GNR N2 dates from 1921 . It was a suburban tank , pulling clapped-out 4 wheelers close-coupled for a couple of years (one of the LNER's major capital investments in the mid 1920s was complete replacement of the GE and GN suburban fleets with Quad-Artic and Quint-Artic sets) . Most N2s were built after the Grouping
You can't run it with a Stirling Single - Gresley scrapped the GN's last singles in 1918 in one fell swoop (they'd been used for the faster trains on the E Lincolnshire line - which was flat as a pancake and straight as an arrow). The Stirling 8' singles went earlier still . Ivatt moved rapidly away from 6 wheelers when he took over - for a C1 Atlantic you need Howldon bogie stock (Mousa Models did some kits, resin cast, in small numbers ) or early Gresley bogie stock - for which you're talking etched kits
The market for C1s and N2s is essentially the LNER modeller (plus BR (E) modellers for the N2 - the C1's went in 1951). The interwar LNER modeller of lesser branches will be very glad to have approximations of GE and GC (ex MSLR) 6-wheelers to be getting on with... There are considerably more ex GE and ex GC locos available RTR than GN [ I know 3 of the original versions of the A3 appeared just before Grouping , but these coaches are certainly not appropriate for them] And most people modelling ex GN lines are actually modelling the East Coast Main Line
Absent a C12 as RTR, or the motley assortment of Stirling 2-4-0s , 0-4-2s , and 0-4-4Ts that actually worked GN secondary trains before WW1 , the demand for GN coaches won't be great
Rural E Anglian branches are a popular subject and we are just short of a RTR Buckjumper (which must come) and Gobbler (2-4-2T) to have all the key loco types RTR to model town or country. 6 wheelers lingered there until 1940 in some places (and on two lines until 1949-50)
Similarly , we've had 5 SECR locos RTR in OO and (I think) 4 LBSCR . Both had rural branches and intensive London suburban operations - we've got the locos , we just need the coaches (and they were neighbours so overlapped..)
That's where I see the demand for these coaches
Thank you for the prototype information. One assumption you have made is a person purchasing RTR GNR stock is sticking with a particular era and location. In my case my Stirling is simply a model I display on a shelf, and most RTR models are sold to people who are collectors or people who simply run any thing they like on their layouts. I know lots of rail enthusiasts with a room full of models and no layout. It is these groups of model train "collector" who makes up the majority of RTR sales.
Terry Flynn.
-
46 minutes ago, Ravenser said:
There is effectively 1 RTR GNR loco available (the 8' single) . We are talking about small fractions of small fractions here.
These Hattons coaches are aimed at the casual purchaser - who has casually purchased a RTR loco in a pretty pre-grouping livery and has nothing even vaguely suitable to put behind it. However they will also provide a near(ish) representation of coaches from a number of pre-grouping companies. The LNWR and GN are the obvious exceptions....
There is a GNR atlantic RTR from Bachman and Hornby also did a RTR GNR N2 , so the market for GNR is there. Do a GNR roof and you have a near enough solution for a 7 car train behind my Stirling.
Terry Flynn.
-
33 minutes ago, Ravenser said:
GN non-bogie stock generally had visibly pretty flat roofs. They were quite visibly different from GWR and NBR stock. The GN was a big user of 6 wheel stock, some of which survived as late as 1938. The GW didn't like 6 wheelers and had almost entirely 4 wheelers. GN 6 wheelers seem frequently not to have been 32' long
We had effectively established that these vehicles won't really do for the LNWR and one or two small allies who aped its coach style ( very different panelling style and many vehicles to 30'1" length) and for the GNR , on roof profile side panel style and length. For the LNWR your only real approach would be to use the Hattons coaches as donors and apply etched sides for 32' stock - if you can source them
They might well pass for some types of GE or GW or SECR coaches, they are getting close for MSLR, and some Midland and NER , and they appear to be pretty close to LBSCR stock. The 6 wheel full brake appears to be a dead-ringer for a GSWR full brake
Since there are quite a few SECR and LBSCR locos available RTR, the Hattons coaches will suit quite a few people
If you want good accurate GNR stock this may be a better route
I used the semi elliptical description to describe the GNR roof style to distinguish it from the simple cured roof Hattons will be doing. Yes the GNR roof is fairly flat on top but is made of of more than one curve, and noticeably different to the simple curve variety. I personally would be happy to use the generic wagon if it has the correct roof profile, the paint job should give the illusion of correct paneling. If Hattons does 3 roof profiles, then at least most of the range would look right from a distance.
Terry Flynn.
). RTR is either, or both, coarse and fine, depending on the attitude of the viewer.
H0 16.2mm Gauge Crossings
in Handbuilt Track & Templot
Posted
Gentlemen,
A bit late but here is my explanation as to the different track minimum dimensions in the fine tolerance AMRA standard. 16.2mm is minimum track gauge allowed any where. The maximum track gauge allowed any where is 16.8mm, the same as NOROP. These are refereed to in the AMRA standard as limits. The average of these dimensions is 16.5mm, that is the nominal H0 / 00 value. Now you can have your track any value between the limits and get reliable running. Gauge widening is not a problem, If you stick to the AMRA minimum radius standard. You can build a crossing V with the minimum of 16.2mm and fully comply with the standard. It would simply mean you have different flange way values compared to the recommended AMRA values. If you build your track to the 00-SF / EM-2 standard, you are complying with the AMRA standard. The "RECOMMENDED" AMRA minimum track gauge for FINE TOLERANCE crossing V's is 16.25, and the maximum is 16.3mm. This range allows flange ways between 1mm and 1.05mm. These values allow for a practical tolerance and results in dimensions suitable for V and K crossings. Its long proven the standard results in derailment free smooth running with most RTR H0 and 00 models. I have successfully built diamond crossings with curves in them which I can push 30 4 wheel wagons through without any derailments. I have run a model of a Lima TGV Duplex at scale 200+Kmh pushing and pulling. Yes Martin is 100% correct, the check gauge is critical, at 15.2mm minimum for track. This is the check gauge PECO uses. Unfortunately the NMRA decided to make their check larger and this has mislead many to publishing and using standards that are not compatible with the majority of RTR track manufacturers. The original NMRA track check gauge was 0.6" =15.24mm, close enough not to be a problem.
Cheers,
Terry Flynn.