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

OOPpPS! so long since my garratt was out of the box that I forget how it ran.  The aspect though is that this did allow a more floating aspect to the bogie.

Still it all comes back to how the model was designed, & while I will not be getting one, given the time its taken for it to get here, as others have said, its something that should have been worked out in that time.

Still it all comes back to how the model was designed, & while I will not be getting one, given the time its taken for it to get here, as others have said, its something that should have been worked out in that time.

The length of time since it was announced and delivery has nothing to do with it. do you really think someone has spent that entire time working on the design? Seriously flawed logic there.

The length of time since it was announced and delivery has nothing to do with it. do you really think someone has spent that entire time working on the design? Seriously flawed logic there.

My side of this "argument" is that there are various pilot models sent to Australia during the time between the announcement that a model will be produced and when it actually becomes commercially available.

With the R class, we were allowed to see a pilot model (or pre-production sample) running around on a layout at a couple of exhibitions earlier this year, as I understand it. I say this having only read about it on these internet pages, but not having attended such an exhibition. So, I am now wondering whether the front wheel set of that R class was firmly on the rails?

Likewise, (as I spoke about previously), there has been a pilot model of the Trainorama 48 class on display for a couple of years, and now we find that Auscision have various pilot models on display at exhibitions and on their Facebook site and Blog site etc.

So, whilst I don't doubt for a minute that there isn't a dedicated band of Chinese workers turning up at the factory every day, slaving away over the 48 for Trainorama or the various other models for Auscision etc, one would imagine that when they DO get around to doing some work on those models, that they would be rectifying the various faults that have been identified by the boffins here in Australia who should be poring over every millimeter of the pilot model/s.

Roachie

The length of time since it was announced and delivery has nothing to do with it. do you really think someone has spent that entire time working on the design? Seriously flawed logic there.

It would seem as such, I guess.  However, my reasoning is no more than to wonder what happened over the years, especially with the many & varied announcements regarding it, also there has been samples around for a while, surely amongst those samples there would have people in the Eureka camp that were involved in checking them as they received them?  

Certainly not all spending the entire time on them but there would have been sufficient to get this sort of thing right.

update 17/12 - weathered R and mailout status.  http://eurekamodels.blogspot.com.au/

All issues aside, that weathered R does look great.

As per usual regarding the update, it would seen there is nothing wrong with the model as only compliments are mentioned.

Thank you Bill
That's a good report and fix and your experiences are well shared

About 30 years ago, I was shown some lost wax parts from a Club meeting in Melbourne. Several members were actually casting short runs at home.
And a couple of Hobby shops were selling side frames for T and B / S Class Diesels. As well they supplied metal replacement chassis to convert Athearn mechs to fit under Lima Body shells The white metal was not 'soft' and was heavy enough to add weight to both front and rear trucks.

The Hobby shops are long gone, and the Modellers are likely to have gone too. Although a younger one now actually imports white metal engines and so probably has no interest in helping get other manufacturers items working as they should.

My question is then, Have any of our younger modellers learned how to cast in metal / pewter and would they be interested in building us metal replacements, more suitable than the ones supplied?
Cheers
Rod

Well after tbose "not serious" videos, have taken many more, but only uploaded two last night, more to come.

http://dth.railpage.org.au/trainroom/movies.htm

( dated 14 dec 2013 )

Regards,
David Head

Well after tbose "not serious" videos, have taken many more, but only uploaded two last night, more to come.

http://dth.railpage.org.au/trainroom/movies.htm

( dated 14 dec 2013 )

Regards,
David Head

Evening guys,
Having just watched one of David's video, showing the R slipping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aK3oMPczAg

It seems that the front is lifting off the track as the wheels rotate. It is almost seems to be bouncing on the front pony truck spring.
I suggest that the issue is the weight of the loco, its needs more to have the drivers pushed down. (waiting for the response from Terry as to the reasons why we can't).

My two cents worth anyway. Certainly the R is a nice looking model, for a mexican anyway.

Strewth
And I worried about throwing a connecting Rod
What was the Diseasel doing on the rear?  Surely it would have handled the lot?
Cheers
Rod

Evening guys,
It seems that the front is lifting off the track as the wheels rotate. It is almost seems to be bouncing on the front pony truck spring.
I suggest that the issue is the weight of the loco, its needs more to have the drivers pushed down.

Yes, it will bounce up and down to some extent because, unlike the prototype, there is nothing to balance the rotating mass of the connecting rods. The wheel counterweights are purely cosmetic.

The loco needs more weight over the drivers, as you say.

Think of the R Class model as one half of a six axle diesel. All the other bits have nothing to do with pulling the model along. This is why the average diesel model will do better in pulling power.

Yes, it will bounce up and down to some extent because, unlike the prototype, there is nothing to balance the rotating mass of the connecting rods. The wheel counterweights are purely cosmetic.

The loco needs more weight over the drivers, as you say.

Think of the R Class model as one half of a six axle diesel. All the other bits have nothing to do with pulling the model along. This is why the average diesel model will do better in pulling power.

Excellent point!
I asked John Sargent why he opted to add a powered carriage rather than power the tender, to get his steamers to pull, as they were they were awful!! Of course one of his E Cars weighed as much as 7 Powerline cars At the time sound was not an issue, as it is today (tender)
His answer was that powering the tender had created many other problems, and had not  been gone on with. but I don't remember if he told me what they were.  Anyway I saw the R Class pull a brass 7 car E set with a powered box van behind the tender easily. The noise was a bit of a turn off for me as I recall. However today it is still a good option, I guess?
Rod Young

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzIBiX_8DUY

Well, I'm happy with the pulling power!

Strewth
And I worried about throwing a connecting Rod
What was the Diseasel doing on the rear?  Surely it would have handled the lot?
Cheers
Rod

No diesal assist on any of my videos of the R    . but that is a good idea, see what  diesal can pull he same train as the "hopping R" - The X/B/S can, will try the T's and the Y  when I return.  Blacksmith I think you are very right in the hopping effect, you explain it well.

The R is a good model, we all just want to improve it

Regards,
David Head

(more videos added last night too)

http://dth.railpage.org.au/trainroom/movies.htm

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

Sending it back would be a big over-reaction.  It's a good looking model that sounds great.  Do you even have one to know what you are talking about?

Mark

Sending it back would be a big over-reaction.  It's a good looking model that sounds great.  Do you even have one to know what you are talking about?

Mark

Yeh, "good looking", "sounds great", and runs like cr@p.

I want my locos to run on my layout, not spin their wheels at the drop of a hat.

I don't have one as I model NSWGR (I did state that I didn't have one).


Paul

....(I did state that I didn't have one).


Paul

I read your statement carefully and you did not say that you don't have one.

Mark

I'm pretty sure that "I'm glad I don't have a need for one." is saying he does not have one.

I'm pretty sure that "I'm glad I don't have a need for one." is saying he does not have one.

You could read that as "I bought one, but I'm glad that I don't have the need for one, so don't have to run it."  Perhaps, if you think laterally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBzVIXfzPEc



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdv_D09DaCw

Obviously the issue with the front wheel set of the trailing bogie doesn't affect every model; both of those in David's double-header video appear to be well and truly on the rails.

Roachie

Both R's come off more than the 38 for any bit of track, Bad trackwork is a  lot of the cause. Not examines the R for wheel heights etc, And the locos do derail a fair bit.

Regards,
David Head

PS Sorry Roachie, deleted your post to keep the R class stuff here...........

You could read that as "I bought one, but I'm glad that I don't have the need for one, so don't have to run it."  Perhaps, if you think laterally.

And maybe I just said that I didn't have one, just maybe, huh? Do you think we can run with that idea?

Paul

Been experimenting a bit with mine over the last couple of weeks.  As delivered it weighed about 220g and was next to useless as far as pulling power up any sort of grade was concerned.  So I've added some lead weight to bring it up to about 270g.  It can now pull a four car set of Auscision E cars up the 1 in 46 grade on my layout.  Still can't handle the 1 in 30 grade, so I'll have to see if I can add a bit more lead somewhere.  It's a great looking and sounding loco, but there's a lot of similar sized British locos that are far heavier and can therefore pull a bigger load.  It really should have been made with heavy diecast chassis.

Recently, a large number of Railpage members purchased the new Holden Commodore FU sedan.
However, at the first sign of rain, most members reported that the windscreen wipers would hover approx 8mm above the windscreen glass and vibrate back and forth.

14 Railpage members immediately disassembled the windscreen wiper, blade and motor components attempting to fix the problem and saying that this was what buying a new car was all about, and some found it neccessary to disassemble portions of every single car they had ever bought and found it to be quite normal practice.

Railpage member 'SecondStopRedfern' dared to suggest that maybe the cars should have been returned to Holden as they weren't fit-for-purpose and that he actually drove a Toyota.

Many members scorned 'SecondStopRedfern' for such heresy, saying that they had intended to take the windscreen wipers off as it rarely rains in their neck of the woods anyway, and that 'SecondStopRedfern' 'probably meant' that he DID indeed have the Commodore FU but didn't need to drive it because the wheels were too wide for his NSW based driveway.

Meanwhile, Railpage member Prof Flunk notified the assembled crowd that he didn't need the Commodore FU because he already had already received a number of FU's (ain't that the truth) from other manufactures and that the Suzuki Swift was in fact the only car that had the correct fine-scale wiper blades, other wiper blades only being suitable to rolling road material and cutting Italian food.

Despite this, ALL manufacturers worldwide of any form of wiper blade to fit any form of transport (land, sea or air) did in fact abide by Prof Flunk's Universal Wiper Blade Standard.

So next time you go into Repco, ask for a Wiper Blade. When they ask which brand, tell them 'FU' ('Flunk Universal Wiper Blade') to fit anything from a VW Beetle to an A380 Airbus or Bulk Ore Carrier.

Merry Xmas everybody!

Paul

I have been thinking to sort of case that could be mounted under "not fit for purpose" witrh various QC's arguening over whether hauling 4 Asucision E cars up a 1:50 grade is "fit for purpose" given the grades typically found on the Victorian Railways. It seems the R is repeating a similar historical pattern to the original R's that had to spend a few weeks in the shops being fixed up prior to being issued for service.

Iain