Mark,
Without trawling back through this long post, I do recall somebody mentioning earlier that the 6th axle of their R class was sitting too high above the rail. I didn't bother making any comment at that stage.

However, it brought to mind some modifications a mate and I found necessary to do to a few of his brass models of US outline locos. These locos had 4 wheel rear bogies and he was having problems with derailments when reversing. After extensive slow-motion testing through turnouts etc, I determined that the only way to cure the problem was to perform major surgery to the bogie/s.

In each instance, the troublesome bogie was of the type that had a pivot lug which extended forward of the bogie and was attached to the loco via the rear-most screw that held the drivers' keeper plate in situ. As such, the arc through which the rear bogie travelled, was not allowing the 2 axles to maintain proper contact with the rails.

The fix was to chop off the pivot lug and fabricate a short drawbar. This pivoting drawbar was attached to the centre of the bogie and extended forward, to be attached to the original mounting point screw. This allowed the bogie to move more freely in a lateral plane. Given that these bogies were metal castings, the weight was sufficient to keep them on the rails.

If you do a similar thing to your R class, I suggest you would need to add some weight to the bogie. This assumes, of course, that the bogie is attached as I described above.....it sounds to me as though it must be if the front axle is sitting above the rail.

Roachie

Bill I think you described the rear bogie of the R perfectly. Although I am not yet concerned with its derailment abilities, I have noticed that it is very difficult to rerail, particularly on a broad curve. As you put the 4 wheels on the track invariably you drag the rear drivers or all of them off the track. on my 33" minimum curve out of the bottom  station, the bogie seems to be at maximum deflection. I tugged on the trailing 4 wheel frame gently and the driving wheels slipped straight off as if they were already under tension. I could not easily get all wheels back on and the trailing truck appears to look out of alignment.
I think your suggestion of cutting the lead fixing off and rebuilding the attachment seems to me an excellent idea.  I think I will give it a go
Cheers
Rod.

ok some pics

Mark you are indeed correct Both my R Class have trailing trucks with BOTH wheels off the track!!
barely half the flange holding the rear wheel on






And Bill
I must apologise as I said their was no rear spring holding the rear truck down.. Ok technically I was right but for our purposes their are two spring wipers that press the front of the truck down. I thought they were electrical contacts, didn't think that through very well, did I ?




I think I will look at the diameter of the hole The male bit appears very nearly a flush fit with the female bit (Oh stop it Bill, your imagination is running away with you

Loosening off the long screw does not seem to help, which makes me think it is binding within the two before mentioned connections. Possibly not helped by the angle of the wiper springs pressing down at the front edge either side of the connection.
And it is going to be a pain putting lead weights on it unless you can wrap something around the axels ;(
Cheers
Rod

ok  that coupling I talked about is ok and seems quite loose. Backing the screw off about 2 mm works as you can push the truck down and all wheels now contact the track evenly. i tried to force the wipers up, but did not cause any less pressure to be applied.  The 6 drive wheels all appear to be firmly on the track with or without the rear truck and trying to slip typing paper underneath seems to verify this. Putting it back together I found I had to push the bogie down to again have all wheels on the track. I ran the locomotive backwards and forwards over a crossover with Medium points and double slip and had no derailments (although it was derailing there occasionally before)
After an hour of running my 7 Coaches up and down the helix without any problems apart from heavy wheel slipping, I examined the screw and it had definitely started to vibrate out. So if I decide to just run a long screw as a fix, I might have to find a spacer that clears the hole in the bogie hitch without fouling it, but allowing me to tighten the long screw screw down
Cheers
Rod

Has anyone packed up their R Class and returned it to Ron for a refund?

Having waited 7 years (or thereabouts), this thing has more faults than you can poke a proverbial at.

You're all falling over yourselves to fix basic things with it, at what point should we just say enough-is-enough
and send the thing back as being "not fit for purpose". Add to that the 'as preserved (oh, the day it was set aside) as opposed to
the photos on the website and I'm glad I don't have a need for one.

I'm not knocking Ron, I've got most of Eureka's products and quite happy, but when you've got to start pulling a
brand new item apart to make alterations to it just to perform on the track, something is wrong and the manufacturer
has to take some responsibility.

Paul

ok some pics

Mark you are indeed correct Both my R Class have trailing trucks with BOTH wheels off the track!!
barely half the flange holding the rear wheel on

And Bill
I must apologise as I said their was no rear spring holding the rear truck down.. Ok technically I was right but for our purposes their are two spring wipers that press the front of the truck down. I thought they were electrical contacts, didn't think that through very well, did I ?

I think I will look at the diameter of the hole The male bit appears very nearly a flush fit with the female bit (Oh stop it Bill, your imagination is running away with you

Loosening off the long screw does not seem to help, which makes me think it is binding within the two before mentioned connections. Possibly not helped by the angle of the wiper springs pressing down at the front edge either side of the connection.
And it is going to be a pain putting lead weights on it unless you can wrap something around the axels ;(
Cheers
Rod

Hey Rod!! I think you're on to something....it's not good to have your male bit almost flush with the female bit.

Without knowing the exact diameter of the female bit, I reckon I would try to use a piece of a Kadee coupler pocket (the side with the shoulder that holds the Kadee in place, if you know what I mean). If the diameter of the protruding spigot is about the same as the hole in the bogie, I'd trim it down a little and use that as a spacer to allow the bogie to sit on the rails better.

I'd also be tempted to try to fashion a lead weight to fit between the 2 axles. It could be attached to a piece of styrene sheet which is glued (or bolted with 14ba bolts) to the fore and aft cross members. You may have to fiddle a bit to clear the axle/s. Alternatively, it may be possible to fit a lead weight between the side frames.....

If that is successful (ie: you can make the bogie a bit heavier without fowling the ability of the axles to turn freely), then I'd be looking at removing those 2 springs. The bogie would then be more likely to sit properly and not impede the tractive effort of the loco.

Good luck with it and make sure you keep the correct relationship between your male bits and your female bits!!

Roachie

ok  that coupling I talked about is ok and seems quite loose. Backing the screw off about 2 mm works as you can push the truck down and all wheels now contact the track evenly. i tried to force the wipers up, but did not cause any less pressure to be applied.  The 6 drive wheels all appear to be firmly on the track with or without the rear truck and trying to slip typing paper underneath seems to verify this. Putting it back together I found I had to push the bogie down to again have all wheels on the track. I ran the locomotive backwards and forwards over a crossover with Medium points and double slip and had no derailments (although it was derailing there occasionally before)
After an hour of running my 7 Coaches up and down the helix without any problems apart from heavy wheel slipping, I examined the screw and it had definitely started to vibrate out. So if I decide to just run a long screw as a fix, I might have to find a spacer that clears the hole in the bogie hitch without fouling it, but allowing me to tighten the long screw screw down
Cheers
Rod

Thanks Rod, I don't feel so silly now having the only wheel off track issue, maybe just leave the screw short of home with a dab of low strength loctite to hold it.  I haven't run it much with minor track repairs (spreader bars coming off points) and work (who would work in a Post Office at Christmas?) to notice any problems with derailments.

Mark

I agree with Paul on this.

I really don't like to complain. I purchased 2 Powerline T class back when they were originally released. Had running problems on both. Didn't do anything about it - just accepted it. But now, several years later I am getting ready to put them on my workbench and suss out exactly what their problem is. May need to change out the motor and/or the decoder as suggested in another post elsewhere. I have learnt from this experience that we should not just accept these problems with model railway items. If it was any other product on the market we would be back to the retailer demanding it be repaired, replaced or money refunded. One should not have to unpack a new item and need to make modifications to it before operating it successfully.  Sure, some modellers out there may be quite confident and proficient at disassembling the loco and "kitbashing" it to make it work as it should, however there are also many who don't have the skills to resolve the problems encountered. It is a lot of money to spend on a loco and then not have it perform in a satisfactory manner

The Australian Consumer Law mentions that an item must be fit for the purpose intended. In this case there are several faults with the R class that would indicate it is not fit for the purpose ie wheel slip/pulling power, derailments etc and I need to mention the advertised photo and the actual delivered product. Definitely not what was expected.
I wanted to order the R707 City of Melbourne fully expecting the correct number plates and name on the side as advertised in the Eureka photo. I was very excited to have this model but at this stage I am glad I held off - for now anyway. Perhaps the problems will eventually be reolved?

Having got that off my chest I will add that I have other products from Eureka. All are very good quality and I am happy with their looks and performace so am very surprised with this model's problems.

Adding weight to a bogie that has no room is always a problem.

Try winding core solder around each axle. Thickness of solder is up to you.

Paint it flat black and it is not noticeable.

I have done this many times over the yrs and it works.

Cheers

 Ian

Has anyone packed up their R Class and returned it to Ron for a refund?

Having waited 7 years (or thereabouts), this thing has more faults than you can poke a proverbial at.

You're all falling over yourselves to fix basic things with it, at what point should we just say enough-is-enough
and send the thing back as being "not fit for purpose". Add to that the 'as preserved (oh, the day it was set aside) as opposed to
the photos on the website and I'm glad I don't have a need for one.

I'm not knocking Ron, I've got most of Eureka's products and quite happy, but when you've got to start pulling a
brand new item apart to make alterations to it just to perform on the track, something is wrong and the manufacturer
has to take some responsibility.

Paul

G'Day Paul
Cant speak for others here, only myself
I am 68 years of age. I was 59 when I thought about the promised Eureka R Class and I paid in cash  (visa for two sound models on my 60th BDay.
Now lets make one thing plain. I am all thumbs and unable to scratch built much at all. When I was younger I built many epoxy (poxy??) kits which I was happy with, but that's as far as it goes!
I therefore would not even think about building a SEM R Class and I can barely afford a $600 Eureka one so buying a TB one or a second hand brass one on E-Bay is not going to happen either I guess.
During the long 7 years and 11 months wait, I ranted and raved and stuck needles in Voodoo Dolls and really was quiet upset by Eureka and its way of treating its customers.
Well I have no idea when I am going to fall out of my tree, but the Eureka R is here now, and I am damned if I am going to give it back and wait some more.

So I had to remove a spring, for me the fix worked, but other modellers have found it didn't.

Now I am told my trailing bogie is off the rails. Lo and behold it was, and a 30 minute inspection worked out a fix and it is running more reliably than before.

Can never see myself building a SEM one, but at least I can fix this one so far
Pissed off Yep! sure am...
My advice for others?  If you think you can fix it, do it! If you are even less capable than I am these days, then return it for a replacement and demand the problems be fixed... and prepare to wait another few years

In the mean time some of  us are happy to share our findings, and possibly attract better fixes from other friends sharing here, and eventually we all will be happy with engines that we waited so long for.
Cheers
Rod Young

Hey Rod!! I think you're on to something....it's not good to have your male bit almost flush with the female bit.

Without knowing the exact diameter of the female bit, I reckon I would try to use a piece of a Kadee coupler pocket (the side with the shoulder that holds the Kadee in place, if you know what I mean). If the diameter of the protruding spigot is about the same as the hole in the bogie, I'd trim it down a little and use that as a spacer to allow the bogie to sit on the rails better.

snipped>>>>
Roachie

Hey Bill
I tried it last night but it was a little eh soft?
And Mark, I wrapped a slither of teflon tape around the thread and tightened it up that way. I was thinking about Loktite too but the version I have is thin, and I was worried it might run.

So thanks to both of you   I tightened the  thread and found another brands coupler box that used a heavier centre pin that was rigid, and am happy with the results.
I also like the idea of wrapping solder around the axles, I have a 2mm thick variety here and it does add a lot of weight. Worried it will mess the balance up or cause vibration, but its worth a try, particularly as one here is happy with the results
Cheers
Rod

Hey Bill
I tried it last night but it was a little eh soft?
And Mark, I wrapped a slither of teflon tape around the thread and tightened it up that way. I was thinking about Loktite too but the version I have is thin, and I was worried it might run.

So thanks to both of you   I tightened the  thread and found another brands coupler box that used a heavier centre pin that was rigid, and am happy with the results.
I also like the idea of wrapping solder around the axles, I have a 2mm thick variety here and it does add a lot of weight. Worried it will mess the balance up or cause vibration, but its worth a try, particularly as one here is happy with the results
Cheers
Rod

Aren't these models supposed to be Ready To Run?

Sounds more like Ready To Rebuild to me!

Allan Brown

Once again I am disappointed by the complaining I am seeing about a model that has been produced.

I have purchased one model and intend to purchase a second model. Yes, there are issues with this model that I will have to spend time working on to get it to run how I want it. But I find myself doing that with each model I purchase these days, be it rolling stock or locos.

To those stating that Trainbuilder or Auscision or other manufacturer don't have problems with their loco's I would like to state the following.

Every loco I have ever purchased has required some tuning, some more than others. I have several Auscision locos that will only traverse my layout in one direction otherwise they derail due to balance issues. I have a Trainbuilder loco that has never run smoothly since purchased, another which refuses to go around 28" curve and one which struggles to pull any more than 4 carriages.

I have built SEM locos and have had similar problems which took a great deal of time to resolve.

I have models from other manufacturers which also have problems of their own.

Every model requires some level of tuning for my layout, and sometimes my layout needs tuning for some loco's.

My point? If you are unable/unwilling to find a fix for your rolling stock, return it. Otherwise, post hear to discuss possible fixes and share your solutions. If you simply want to complain about manufacturer X then please take it to another forum as its getting in the way of some good discussions.

Andrew.

Once again I am disappointed by the complaining I am seeing about a model that has been produced.

I have purchased one model and intend to purchase a second model. Yes, there are issues with this model that I will have to spend time working on to get it to run how I want it. But I find myself doing that with each model I purchase these days, be it rolling stock or locos.

To those stating that Trainbuilder or Auscision or other manufacturer don't have problems with their loco's I would like to state the following.

Every loco I have ever purchased has required some tuning, some more than others. I have several Auscision locos that will only traverse my layout in one direction otherwise they derail due to balance issues. I have a Trainbuilder loco that has never run smoothly since purchased, another which refuses to go around 28" curve and one which struggles to pull any more than 4 carriages.

I have built SEM locos and have had similar problems which took a great deal of time to resolve.

I have models from other manufacturers which also have problems of their own.

Every model requires some level of tuning for my layout, and sometimes my layout needs tuning for some loco's.

My point? If you are unable/unwilling to find a fix for your rolling stock, return it. Otherwise, post hear to discuss possible fixes and share your solutions. If you simply want to complain about manufacturer X then please take it to another forum as its getting in the way of some good discussions.

Andrew.

Andrew

While we can appreciate your sentiments, the problem really is that its a sad indictment of the hobby for Australian modellers, & while I do not think modellers from other countries are immune from this, especially with Chinese built models,  I would like to know how reliable in general are Chinese models that are produced in China for Great Britain, Europe & the U.S, & whether they have the same degree of problems that you see people complaining about.

Its one thing to just complain for the sake of it, but the way I see it the problems listed here have been genuine, & in most cases the same with other models from other importers over the years when the complaints, or dare I suggest the highlighting of problems have taken place.

If you have to work on every model you get it nots a good reflection on what we are expected to pay good money for, & while some items may be simple, such as replacing failed junk couplers, which should not be included in the models anyway, given the price asked for the models & the relative cheapness of decent couplers anyway.

To have a problem such as that highlighted & raised by Mark Laidley & others I do not think its fine tuning at all, rather a manufacturing fault, but how would you get the model fixed by the importer anyway? nothing surer than pretty well every other model would have the same fault.

What I believe pointing out these issues does, or should do, is to make it known to any of the importers that there are a lot of modellers quite unhappy about it, whether they get their act together or not is another thing but many are also holding back on purchases for this very reason.

Not sure whether they still place much store on the REVIEWS that are placed in AMRM; but that used to be like a "name and shame" arena where importers/manufacturers would cringe at the thought of placing a new model on the market that was less-than-perfect.

The thing that beats me with these Chinese imports is that they take so, so long to come to fruition....even after we see pilot models and production samples.

From my (limited) knowledge on this topic, I understand that the Chinese factory will build a pilot model/s and send it/them here to Australia for evaluation by the importer. Presumably the importer (ie: Ron Cunningham, John Eassie etc) would not just sit the model on his kitchen table and admire it?

Instead, I have this vision that he would have a small band of trusted associates who would be summoned to look at the model and test it (assuming it is one with a motor etc). Even if it is un-powered, one would imagine that it would be thoroughly and rigorously tested for "rollability", tracking through various curves and turnouts, clearances between loco and tender etc etc.

It therefore seems inconceivable to me that after all the TIME and (presumably) effort that it takes to get a new model to final production stage, that simple things like a rear bogie whose front axle sits too high, can slip by these learned modelers.

I have a look at Trainorama's website and drool over the photos of their long-awaited 48 class pilot model........I'm guessing that that pilot model photo has been available for over 2 years (but stand to be corrected). Again, it seems incongruous to me that when that model finally hits our shores, there may be some fundamental fault/s with it that have not been picked up and corrected over the past several years.

Even now, when I see the pics of the forthcoming Auscision 45 class pilot model, I often wonder whether it is powered and if so whether any tests have been performed to check-out the performance etc.

Personally speaking, I don't really mind if I have to undertake some small tasks on any new model; short of re-motoring it! Most of the recent run diesels I've bought (mainly Trainorama 44, 47, 48 and 49 class), I have totally gutted the circuit board and fitted a new sound decoder. Even though they are advertised as "plug-n'play for DCC", I prefer to hardwire a new decoder. The exception has been with the Auscision 422 class and I reckon it will be the same story with the 45.....but this is mainly because of the work of our mate at DCC Sound, who produces the "right" sound decoder for these particular locos.

Anyway, sorry....I've drifted off-topic (how unusual for me!!!!hahahaha)

Roachie

Aren't these models supposed to be Ready To Run?

Sounds more like Ready To Rebuild to me!

Allan Brown

This sums it all up though you should not have to virtually rebuild a new model to get it to work. You buy a new car expecting it to work the first time for you, alright over time faults might show up with it, but any car dealer worth their salt would fix the faults up for you. They would not simply replace the car with probably the same or worse faults than the first!

These models are protected by a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase and here we are only a month or so since they where released and the faults keep coming, not a good bit of advertising for any thing really. I don't want perfection only close to it and some of these models are now just expensive junk or static models. The importers want to make sure that it will work as indicated and do what it is supposed to do. Not slip and slide with a couple of cars behind it.

The importers are the ones who do the design work on them the Chinese only make what they design, yes I know the Chinese have a bad habit of using inferior quality materials and changing things, but the contract that gets signed should stipulate that no changes to specifications are allowed at all unless the Australian importer allows it.  The pre production model wants to be checked against the specifications  to make sure it is accurate to the specs, if not back it goes till it does.And the Australian importer wants to listen to the modellers that might buy one of these locos as to what is wanted in the model as well, good pulling power would usually top the list though. What good is a 38 say if it cannot haul a train that was a prototypical load for the real one. NBG actually and most would agree.


On oversea's models, I have a Bachmann Tornado steam locomotive and it would walk all over a R class model on here for pulling power etc, it looks good, runs nicely and pulls like a bull in springtime, it has plenty of reserve as well to go over prototypical loading as well, not that many would do it though. But having that extra power helps a lot on steep grades found on model railways. I also have a Bachmann GS4 that would also leave the R for dead in the pulling dept. Sure these locomotives are larger than a HO R class but they are virtually lumps of metal and very heavy and above all work well straight out of the box with no modifications needed at all to any wheels!

I have several Auscision locos that will only traverse my layout in one direction otherwise they derail due to balance issues

Balance Issues?.......really?

Every model requires some level of tuning for my layout, and sometimes my layout needs tuning for some loco's.

No mention as to whether you have thoroughly checked your trackwork, a good tradesman does not blame his tools....

The current crop of HO Scale RTR products we are buying should be fit for purpose full stop.

Regards,

Catchpoint

This sums it all up though you should not have to virtually rebuild a new model to get it to work. You buy a new car expecting it to work the first time for you, alright over time faults might show up with it, but any car dealer worth their salt would fix the faults up for you. They would not simply replace the car with probably the same or worse faults than the first!

These models are protected by a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase and here we are only a month or so since they where released and the faults keep coming, not a good bit of advertising for any thing really. I don't want perfection only close to it and some of these models are now just expensive junk or static models. The importers want to make sure that it will work as indicated and do what it is supposed to do. Not slip and slide with a couple of cars behind it.

The importers are the ones who do the design work on them the Chinese only make what they design, yes I know the Chinese have a bad habit of using inferior quality materials and changing things, but the contract that gets signed should stipulate that no changes to specifications are allowed at all unless the Australian importer allows it.  The pre production model wants to be checked against the specifications  to make sure it is accurate to the specs, if not back it goes till it does.And the Australian importer wants to listen to the modellers that might buy one of these locos as to what is wanted in the model as well, good pulling power would usually top the list though. What good is a 38 say if it cannot haul a train that was a prototypical load for the real one. NBG actually and most would agree.


On oversea's models, I have a Bachmann Tornado steam locomotive and it would walk all over a R class model on here for pulling power etc, it looks good, runs nicely and pulls like a bull in springtime, it has plenty of reserve as well to go over prototypical loading as well, not that many would do it though. But having that extra power helps a lot on steep grades found on model railways. I also have a Bachmann GS4 that would also leave the R for dead in the pulling dept. Sure these locomotives are larger than a HO R class but they are virtually lumps of metal and very heavy and above all work well straight out of the box with no modifications needed at all to any wheels!

The problem that faces the Oz, & probably the other countries models that are built in China is that the factories hold the loaded gun.

Unless things have changed they want monies up front at each stage of the next development, any alterations also have to be paid for.  Prior to going to final production & assembly then delivery, all those costs are also required up front, this has been discussed on RP before, & short of the importers being at the factories themselves & physically checking every model, its left to the factory to provide the product/model as per contract & agreements.

Sadly, they take the short cut, & once money is paid they just seem to produce what they have already done with the toolings, the assembly lines who knows if there are in house checks for quality, in the end they are not modellers at any level & are in it for the business & employment.  When finished, packed & sent here both modeller & importer are faced with whatever is received both good or bad, & if bad, what is the recourse for the importer & of course the modeller?

Check the problem out that SDS had when their first lot of RTC's arrived http://www.sdsmodels.com.au/onews4.htm & the offer they received from their then factory.  Cop a partial refund & they would junk the models or accept & the end user got the chance to buy at reduced price.  I would say that the offer from that factory would be close to standard fare from them all, especially if they do not care whether they have the business or not.

If the Rclass was built at the old factory, then they are likely to not care one bit as they have booted so many of their old clients anyway, & what other re course does Eureka have?  Maybe in good faith a reduction in price, or some other recompense may help to ease some of the pain.

The big thing though is that the old factory let down pretty well all of our importers who used them, & all we do in many ways is to hope the moves elsewhere will be better for the future.  Although many modellers will likely hold their wallets in closed positions until they see what the loco's out of the new factories are like.

The problem that faces the Oz, & probably the other countries models that are built in China is that the factories hold the loaded gun.

.....

If the Rclass was built at the old factory, then they are likely to not care one bit as they have booted so many of their old clients anyway, & what other re course does Eureka have?  ......

This is pretty much my take on what appears to be emerging as a straightforward "fit for purpose" issue. I simply cannot believe that with the various test and pre-production models that Ron would have received that a apparent problem with its pulling power would not have been picked up. My suspicion is the old factory really didn't care what final production model they produce and more than likely have cut a few corners such as adding weight. And because its the old factory, Ron/Eureka would have bugger all comeback.

With deposits down on two 59s I'm certainly hoping that the 59s will not come out of the old factory.

Tony

ok some pics

Mark you are indeed correct Both my R Class have trailing trucks with BOTH wheels off the track!!
barely half the flange holding the rear wheel on

And Bill
I must apologise as I said their was no rear spring holding the rear truck down.. Ok technically I was right but for our purposes their are two spring wipers that press the front of the truck down. I thought they were electrical contacts, didn't think that through very well, did I ?

I think I will look at the diameter of the hole The male bit appears very nearly a flush fit with the female bit (Oh stop it Bill, your imagination is running away with you

Loosening off the long screw does not seem to help, which makes me think it is binding within the two before mentioned connections. Possibly not helped by the angle of the wiper springs pressing down at the front edge either side of the connection.
And it is going to be a pain putting lead weights on it unless you can wrap something around the axels ;(
Cheers
Rod

The designer of the R has not allowed for sharp model railway curves. With a small round file slot the truck pivot hole so there is as much side movement as possible. Back off the screw as others have suggested to allow sufficient vertical movement. If the truck still does not track properly on sharp curves, decrease the side play in the locomotive driving wheels using Kadee fiber washers with a section cut out, so you can slip them on the axles. Vertical clearances look prototypical on this model, so the trailing truck may be a problem with layouts with rough track work, no matter what you do.

The tractive effort solution is as I said at the beginning of this subject is to remove the springs.  Add extra weight to the model as others have already done if you want more traction. In the case of the trailing truck, try bending the springs up first. If this is not enough cut the springs off, however as this is a non reversible solution do this last, after any tracking problems are solved.  Add a little mass to the trucks if they bounce of track work at high speed after the springs are gone.

Terry Flynn.

Andrew

While we can appreciate your sentiments, the problem really is that its a sad indictment of the hobby for Australian modellers, & while I do not think modellers from other countries are immune from this, especially with Chinese built models,  I would like to know how reliable in general are Chinese models that are produced in China for Great Britain, Europe & the U.S, & whether they have the same degree of problems that you see people complaining about.

Its one thing to just complain for the sake of it, but the way I see it the problems listed here have been genuine, & in most cases the same with other models from other importers over the years when the complaints, or dare I suggest the highlighting of problems have taken place.

If you have to work on every model you get it nots a good reflection on what we are expected to pay good money for, & while some items may be simple, such as replacing failed junk couplers, which should not be included in the models anyway, given the price asked for the models & the relative cheapness of decent couplers anyway.

To have a problem such as that highlighted & raised by Mark Laidley & others I do not think its fine tuning at all, rather a manufacturing fault, but how would you get the model fixed by the importer anyway? nothing surer than pretty well every other model would have the same fault.

What I believe pointing out these issues does, or should do, is to make it known to any of the importers that there are a lot of modellers quite unhappy about it, whether they get their act together or not is another thing but many are also holding back on purchases for this very reason.

All good points, mate.

Particularly like the bit
"I would like to know how reliable in general are Chinese models that are produced in China for Great Britain, Europe & the U.S, & whether they have the same degree of problems that you see people complaining about." (here)
As I do read the US and English Forums a little, and have seen many problems(suggesting a general Chinese incompetence). However the Pomms and the Yanks appear willing to fix, replace and more importantly, rectify the problem at the Factory and much more readily than down here.
Is this a "real problem" of population density rather than the furphies the Manufacturers, here do throw around?
Cheers
Rod
(David this is really ready for its own thread? We are getting away from Eureka's R and becoming general)

Seeing as the latest post by Terry has shown up the photo's from Rod larger. While a mute point at this stage, I actually wonder if the rear bogie may have better produced with the same screw fitting as found on the leading bogie, that is rather than the small connector lug on the bogie & screwing into the rear part of the chassis, the bogie have a centre cutout section allowing for lateral play on its own, rather than the more rigid connection to the chassis.

While it may not be a prototypical method, it could well have been a better option after all it is a process used in other models before.

As for its design regarding what size minimum radius it was designed for, I would be interested to know if there was such a minimum shown in the advertising of the model at any time, IIRC like all models it was mentioned that it would run on 18" curves.

The designer of the R has not allowed for sharp model railway curves. With a small round file slot the truck pivot hole so there is as much side movement as possible. Back off the screw as others have suggested to allow sufficient vertical movement. If the truck still does not track properly on sharp curves, decrease the side play in the locomotive driving wheels using Kadee fiber washers with a section cut out, so you can slip them on the axles. Vertical clearances look prototypical on this model, so the trailing truck may be a problem with layouts with rough track work, no matter what you do.

The tractive effort solution is as I said at the beginning of this subject is to remove the springs.  Add extra weight to the model as others have already done if you want more traction. In the case of the trailing truck, try bending the springs up first. If this is not enough cut the springs off, however as this is a non reversible solution do this last, after any tracking problems are solved.  Add a little mass to the trucks if they bounce of track work at high speed after the springs are gone.

Terry Flynn.

I like the idea of slotting the trailing bogie to increase lateral movement. Unfortunately their is probably not enough material to gain the movement I think it needs.
Terry, you seem to have something to do with standards in NSW.
Can I develop the standards one step sideways please?
So far we have found several things that have detracted from an otherwise great model.
My opinion is that it is fixable.
What if a recognised builder like Bill Roach (built many white metal kits (100's for Tom, I believe?), was to modify a locomotive for Eureka and correct the problems?   I am guessing at this stage it is simply replacing front and rear trucks with heavy copies and adjusting the swing of the trailing truck??

For the record ..Do you think Eureka should fix the problem and make sure replacement parts were available to Eurekas customers?  And if not...why not?
(Of course I direct this to all our model manufacturers, Auscision,Austrains Trainorama etc. etc. )

Cheers
Rod

Whilst a good idea to get someone to try and correct the problems with the R class or any class of locomotive from any manufacturer, that is really going to be a full time job for someone at each manufacturer and I for one would not like to be the person that has to correct what are supposed to be Ready To Run models in the first place! Would be a never ending job though!

I like the idea of slotting the trailing bogie to increase lateral movement. Unfortunately their is probably not enough material to gain the movement I think it needs.
Terry, you seem to have something to do with standards in NSW.
Can I develop the standards one step sideways please?
So far we have found several things that have detracted from an otherwise great model.
My opinion is that it is fixable.
What if a recognised builder like Bill Roach (built many white metal kits (100's for Tom, I believe?), was to modify a locomotive for Eureka and correct the problems?   I am guessing at this stage it is simply replacing front and rear trucks with heavy copies and adjusting the swing of the trailing truck??

For the record ..Do you think Eureka should fix the problem and make sure replacement parts were available to Eurekas customers?  And if not...why not?
(Of course I direct this to all our model manufacturers, Auscision,Austrains Trainorama etc. etc. )

Cheers
Rod

The lateral aspect was adopted with the Eureka garratt on the mid bogies, in affect the engine itself is more a 4-8-0 + 0-8-4 with the boiler riding on the 2 trailing bogies rather than the engine frames, a point also made in the AMRM review of the model.

Looking at the photo's of the R, there is a sloping section seen on the side shots of what would be the firebox, but also a straight horizontal section as well.  In the underneath shot, the horizontal section appears as a channel, how hard would it be to set a plate across the channel to support the screw fitting?

The bogie should have enough room between the wheels to have a mid plate to provide for lateral movement.  The question though is what is the wheel base distances from axle to axle, also how much available gap at the top of the bogie frame to fit such a lateral plate?

Of course the other option may also be to fit slightly smaller diameter wheels to see if that helps solve the problem.

The lateral aspect was adopted with the Eureka garratt on the mid bogies, in affect the engine itself is more a 4-8-0 + 0-8-4 with the boiler riding on the 2 trailing bogies rather than the engine frames, a point also made in the AMRM review of the model.

Looking at the photo's of the R, there is a sloping section seen on the side shots of what would be the firebox, but also a straight horizontal section as well.  In the underneath shot, the horizontal section appears as a channel, how hard would it be to set a plate across the channel to support the screw fitting?

The bogie should have enough room between the wheels to have a mid plate to provide for lateral movement.  The question though is what is the wheel base distances from axle to axle, also how much available gap at the top of the bogie frame to fit such a lateral plate?

Of course the other option may also be to fit slightly smaller diameter wheels to see if that helps solve the problem.

Sorry mate, gotta disagree about the inner bogies of the Eureka 60 class. They only pivot in one spot and have no lateral movement available to them.

With regard to the R class rear bogie, my idea (as stated in my first response earlier in this thread), would be to attach a lateral cross member between the 2 side frame with a central hole to accept a M2 bolt. Then I would fabricate a short drawbar.....the distance between the 2 holes being the distance between the existing/original mounting hole and the new lateral mounting hole. This drawbar may possibly need to have a slight goose-neck in it so that it clears the front axle (either above or below). This is the way I cured my Canberra mate's brass C&O locos several years ago. He had various articulated and non-articulated brass locos with rear bogies identical to the one shown in the pics of the R class on this thread (except that they were heavier, being brass castings). Once I made the drawbar, it was just a case of slicing off the original forward protrusion of the bogie.

Ideally, it would be preferable fit a white metal bogie from a kit (SEM?) so that the adding of weight would not be necessary.

If the owner would rather do it the way Terry Flynn described (ie: elongate the original hole laterally), then I have another idea......

This 2nd option would also require the original hole to be sliced off altogether. Once that portion of the bogie is removed, I would fabricate a new piece (either styrene, brass or preferrably lead). This new piece would have a roughly rectangular shape and three holes. Two of the holes would be very small; to accept 14ba bolts. The third hole is the new mounting section, and would have the slightly elongated lateral hole to fit the original mounting point on the chassis. This new piece would then be bolted to the top of the bogie (to the front cross member just behind where the old hole was cut off) using 2 14ba bolts. This modifications solves 2.5 problems:

(1) it addresses the height issue, by having the new lateral hole situated ABOVE where the original bogie hole was, thus lowering the front of the bogie so the front wheels will rest on the rails .
(2) the lateral hole will allow the bogie to find it's own "happy place" on the track without needing to trail EXACTLY behind the 3rd set of drivers.
(.5) the weight of this new piece (if you use lead flashing) will go part way to adding some weight to the bogie. You would still need to attach some extra lead flashing to the rear cross member.

Roachie