My dad and Mr Phil was driving taxis together in Campsie a long time before. He bought all his trains from him he told him. Now he can see the reason is the nose is too long and makes wrong angle. too bad.

Hmmmm ...... maybe not!!

Yeah just a black blank on Firefox
But on Explorer it does a great representation of a piano accordion!

cheers

Hmmmm ...... maybe not!!

http://goodwinalco.com.au/Nose%20drawings.jpg


Sorry guys ........... here's the link.

http://goodwinalco.com.au/Nose%20drawings.jpg


Sorry guys ........... here's the link.

Thanks Allan

Very interesting indeed & from my old farts maths I come up with the following.

Looking at the drawings from the extreme outside of the edge of the nose from the cab to the tip of the hood is 10 3/8" which is the internal corner support bracket but the actual external start or outer part of the edge on the radius its 9 1/4" the radius then at its minimum at its straight section to the middle is 6 3/8".  EDIT in Actually the inner part of the radius is 5 5/8" not as noted 6 3/8"

This means that the most the end of the nose would be from the beginning of the outer radius 5 5/8 with the other on being part of the main radius itself. There is something like 3 3/8" used up in the edge curves, spread over 5 5/16" being the full radius there are 3 points of measurements in the radius of the edge.

In scale terms of HO, being 3.5MM to the foot, the means there would around   2.8 mm from the beginning of the inner radious, to the front of the nose at its extremen edge. From the start of the external radius would be approx 2.8mm from the nose protrusion  but from the end of the radius a 1.76mm difference extension to the nose outer nose end.

Others who are into maths can interprete better, but for me, to get a difference in the length from the outer end of the side of the hood to the overall length being under 2mm in difference is doing ok & it would possibly mean the more noticeable angled models are perhaps the wrong ones.

http://goodwinalco.com.au/Nose%20drawings.jpg


Sorry guys ........... here's the link.

Well that tells a story doesn't it?
Mind you that is a dramatic angle compared to the model.  And not really showing up  on the prototype pictures I can see. Engines this old would have been rebuilt many times over the years. Were their changes?
Or were the engines actually built exactly to plans. Architects design buildings and Engineers come along and have to find a way to build them. Many modifications can take place. The Clyde B Class looks to have an E3 type EMD nose on older drawings I have seen, and don't even go near the VR drawings of the L Class unless you have factory drawings.

I wonder if the 45 Class had the same design shape. If so the Auscision model looks very flat as well ??

Allan the pictures of original Trainorama 48 engineering samples are now not available. Was the nose ok on them?
Cheers
Rod

"Allan the pictures of original Trainorama 48 engineering samples are now not available. Was the nose ok on them?"
I have no idea. I was not involved with that project.

Allan Brown

I'm not going to get into the "mass-debate" on the angle-of-the-dangle and/or how many inches the point of the nose is ahead of the corner etc....

However, looking at the photo inside the cover of the 48 class book as well as the Greg Edwards drawings on pages 40/41, I am completely satisfied with my Trainorama models.

The large, full-spread photo on the end papers is particularly revealing as it shows 48105 on Goulburn turntable plus another 9x 48 class looking on as it is being turned. All those that are "looking on" are facing forward, so by virtue of the shape of the roads radiating from the t/table, you can get a very good aspect of the nose of 10 different 48 class, all from a different angle.

My conclusion, looking at the join between the pointy nose and the footplate, is that they "look" to be virtually flat, despite the obvious angle being displayed if you just focus on the pointy bit. It is almost as though the front hood is pointy up near the headlight and then flattens out a bit as it goes down and finally meets the footplate. This is just an optical illusion (of course).

As I've said earlier....I'm entirely pleased and satisfied with my 2x 48 class and I'm sure I will be with my 830 class when it arrives. If my 7x Auscision 48 class are as good (which I expect them to be), then I'll be very pleased with my purchases.

I sort of feel sorry for any poor, sad "bastard" who can seriously look at a fine model like this and think that he needs to chop and change it...... (no offence meant.....you buy your model/s; you can do as you please with them....of course)....

Roachie

Well that tells a story doesn't it?
Mind you that is a dramatic angle compared to the model.  And not really showing up  on the prototype pictures I can see. Engines this old would have been rebuilt many times over the years. Were their changes?
Or were the engines actually built exactly to plans. Architects design buildings and Engineers come along and have to find a way to build them. Many modifications can take place. The Clyde B Class looks to have an E3 type EMD nose on older drawings I have seen, and don't even go near the VR drawings of the L Class unless you have factory drawings.

I wonder if the 45 Class had the same design shape. If so the Auscision model looks very flat as well ??

Allan the pictures of original Trainorama 48 engineering samples are now not available. Was the nose ok on them?
Cheers
Rod

Rod

There is less than 10 inches from the start of the nose edge to its end, that means under 3mm, what are the angle measurements of the other models compared to that of the TOR one?  The drawings from Allan would be originals, & therefore any damage engines would have been rebuilt to those drawings & codes, I am thinking of a couple on the NW line that had front ends seriously damaged such as the one at Burilda & were returned to service, in later years maybe not.

After seeing the diagram I think the Trainorama model is not angled enough. Using the measurement of 6"3/8, which is kind of an average point on the nose drawing - this scales out to about 1.86mm. When holding a rule across the front of the Traino 48 there is no way there is 1.86mm gap anywhere along the nose. In my opinion the Bergs model and early Powerline models are more correct. They look closer to the drawing and the 1.86mm gap looks very close, well as close as I can measure anyway.

There you go! It looks like Austin's dad is probably right.

Linton

Rod

There is less than 10 inches from the start of the nose edge to its end, that means under 3mm, what are the angle measurements of the other models compared to that of the TOR one?  The drawings from Allan would be originals, & therefore any damage engines would have been rebuilt to those drawings & codes, I am thinking of a couple on the NW line that had front ends seriously damaged such as the one at Burilda & were returned to service, in later years maybe not.

1mm goes along way. At no point on the nose of the Trainorama version is there a measurement of even 1mm between centre point of nose and sides. It's around half the angle of what it should be.

Linton

Thanks Allan

Very interesting indeed & from my old farts maths I come up with the following.

Looking at the drawings from the extreme outside of the edge of the nose from the cab to the tip of the hood is 10 3/8" which is the internal corner support bracket but the actual external start or outer part of the edge on the radius its 9 1/4" the radius then at its minimum at its straight section to the middle is 6 3/8".  EDIT in Actually the inner part of the radius is 5 5/8" not as noted 6 3/8"

This means that the most the end of the nose would be from the beginning of the outer radius 5 5/8 with the other on being part of the main radius itself. There is something like 3 3/8" used up in the edge curves, spread over 5 5/16" being the full radius there are 3 points of measurements in the radius of the edge.

In scale terms of HO, being 3.5MM to the foot, the means there would around   2.8 mm from the beginning of the inner radious, to the front of the nose at its extremen edge. From the start of the external radius would be approx 2.8mm from the nose protrusion  but from the end of the radius a 1.76mm difference extension to the nose outer nose end.

Others who are into maths can interprete better, but for me, to get a difference in the length from the outer end of the side of the hood to the overall length being under 2mm in difference is doing ok & it would possibly mean the more noticeable angled models are perhaps the wrong ones.

The dimension at the top right of the image is the key. The error is in the short hood length, the dimension of 6' 3 9/16" is from the cab wall to the overall point of nose. TOR have used this dimension to the start of the radius, their hood length is therefore about 6 1/2" too long, hence the very flat angle needed to maintain the correct overall length.

1mm goes along way. At no point on the nose of the Trainorama version is there a measurement of even 1mm between centre point of nose and sides. It's around half the angle of what it should be.

Linton

Ok I am wrong.

I guess now all those who have been trying to kill off TOR & its owner can now hold great celebrations about the way they are now going to be off the scene.

Anyway, it this is where the hobby is heading then I'm finished with it, I have put up a lot of my other hobby collection for sale, & for me I am out of here & the hobby.

Seems there is a lot of vindictiveness towards some manufacturers & people that perhaps should be directed elsewhere, that if is if truth be known or thought of being worthwhile.

Suppose now a lot of TOR 48's will hit ebay & old Trax stuff will rake in furtunes.

Ok I am wrong.

I guess now all those who have been trying to kill off TOR & its owner can now hold great celebrations about the way they are now going to be off the scene.

Anyway, it this is where the hobby is heading then I'm finished with it, I have put up a lot of my other hobby collection for sale, & for me I am out of here & the hobby.

Seems there is a lot of vindictiveness towards some manufacturers & people that perhaps should be directed elsewhere, that if is if truth be known or thought of being worthwhile.

Suppose now a lot of TOR 48's will hit ebay & old Trax stuff will rake in furtunes.

I was not trying to prove you wrong or trying to kill off Trainorama. Sorry if you felt this way. I simply looked at the evidence and stated that the nose does not meet the plan dimensions.

I will be keeping my Traino 48.

We can look at our models and if something is not right, talk about it. I have heard you at times talk about how bad the streamlined Eureka and the Mansfield 38 are, particularly the shape of it's nose. I agree!

There have been many times where people criticise my models and sound projects that I build. I am not packing up my bat and ball and leaving. I have no affiliation or bias towards any manufacturer. I don't care if they all quit to be honest.

If I was vindictive, I wouldn't have bought the Trainorama model. I like you have a 48 with a slightly incorrect nose. Who cares. Are you saying that we shouldn't discuss a model, using actual evidence in-case it hurts sales?

Sorry to upset you Col. That was not my intention.

Linton

I was not trying to prove you wrong or trying to kill off Trainorama. Sorry if you felt this way. I simply looked at the evidence and stated that the nose does not meet the plan dimensions.

I will be keeping my Traino 48.

We can look at our models and if something is not right, talk about it. I have heard you at times talk about how bad the streamlined Eureka and the Mansfield 38 are, particularly the shape of it's nose. I agree!

There have been many times where people criticise my models and sound projects that I build. I am not packing up my bat and ball and leaving. I have no affiliation or bias towards any manufacturer. I don't care if they all quit to be honest.

If I was vindictive, I wouldn't have bought the Trainorama model. I like you have a 48 with a slightly incorrect nose. Who cares. Are you saying that we shouldn't discuss a model, using actual evidence in-case it hurts sales?

Sorry to upset you Col. That was not my intention.

Linton

Sorry Linton

I guess I should not have replied to your post & what I said was not directed at you, or the aspect of your measurements, after all I was looking for them from the earliest part of this thread,  but after watching how this has developed & coming from areas that were discussed in taxi cabs & ranks, I started to wonder about that in the beginning as to where this thread was going to end up, & it certainly has ended up in the direction I suspected it would.

I have never criticised the work you have done, & have helped you in it, & like we go in sound there are compromises in models over the years, its what is allowed in the compromise & what's not that gets to me.  There was a lot more wrong with both Eureka 38's but they got stirling reviews & no real ongoing criticism, it died, yet here is a model that many have been waiting on for years & one that is an excellent one but,  suddenly past ghosts have come up to point out things that are basically minute in scale at least for me anyway.

There are those here who know what I am talking about, & that is not you in that regard.  If this has which I sincerelly hope it does not, as the model should deserve better, affect TOR & the business, then I think the hobby will be the loser as a result & that is what I was pointing to in what I said before.  If this is seen as innuendo, then its got nothing on what I believe is behind this revelation regarding the nose.

So, its not a personal attack on you or the like & again I apologise, I guess I should not be as open as I am, also help as I do in certain areas, but that's me, but a major rethink is going on, & maybe if this is disasterous for TOR again I hope not, then the hobby will be the loser as I said, & those who laud the others will regret it in the long when more competition is brought down.

Sorry Linton

I guess I should not have replied to your post & what I said was not directed at you, or the aspect of your measurements, after all I was looking for them from the earliest part of this thread,  but after watching how this has developed & coming from areas that were discussed in taxi cabs & ranks, I started to wonder about that in the beginning as to where this thread was going to end up, & it certainly has ended up in the direction I suspected it would.

I have never criticised the work you have done, & have helped you in it, & like we go in sound there are compromises in models over the years, its what is allowed in the compromise & what's not that gets to me.  There was a lot more wrong with both Eureka 38's but they got stirling reviews & no real ongoing criticism, it died, yet here is a model that many have been waiting on for years & one that is an excellent one but,  suddenly past ghosts have come up to point out things that are basically minute in scale at least for me anyway.

There are those here who know what I am talking about, & that is not you in that regard.  If this has which I sincerelly hope it does not, as the model should deserve better, affect TOR & the business, then I think the hobby will be the loser as a result & that is what I was pointing to in what I said before.  If this is seen as innuendo, then its got nothing on what I believe is behind this revelation regarding the nose.

So, its not a personal attack on you or the like & again I apologise, I guess I should not be as open as I am, also help as I do in certain areas, but that's me, but a major rethink is going on, & maybe if this is disasterous for TOR again I hope not, then the hobby will be the loser as I said, & those who laud the others will regret it in the long when more competition is brought down.

No worries Col. It's just that the reply was against my post so I thought it was aimed at me a little.

If you did leave the hobby behind that would also not be good for the hobby in general. I need your steam driver ear so you can tell me when I have got that 57 class sixth beat wrong.

I was a little harsh in saying that I don't care if all the manufacturers quit, however the hobby felt more real when it was smaller and less political. Perhaps it has always been like this and I was just oblivious. There were no forums or Facebook updates to keep you in the loop I suppose.

As I sit in my modelling room, building a beautiful Ian Lindsay EHO kit, developed by Mike McCormac. It hammers home just how far the hobby has wandered off course.

Linton

Oh my goodness, everyone seems to have forgotten what this hobby and modelling are all about.

Who is going to be the first to correct their Trainorama 48?

The way I see it, the most difficult part would be patching and finishing the paintwork.

Number boxes might need a little care.

I’d have no hesitation buying a Trainorama 48 and taking to it with a fine-toothed saw.

There’s also an opening for a cottage industry to produce a replacement nose section.

"me thinks" their are too many people with brightly lit showcases, and not enough people running trains on layouts

I am sad that any error was found because I know the Trainorama Principals were so proud of what the factory had produced.

Rod Young

I stand by what I said earlier.....look at the photo on the end papers of the 48 class book..... there is virtually no discernible angle when you look at where the front meets the footplate.

Crikey!!! I think some people just like to look for faults for sake of getting "one-up" on somebody else.

You pays your maoney and you makes your choices!!! If you don't like the Trainorama 48 class, then please don't buy it....simple!!!

Sheesh!!! (exasperated).

Roachie

I stand by what I said earlier.....look at the photo on the end papers of the 48 class book..... there is virtually no discernible angle when you look at where the front meets the footplate.

Crikey!!! I think some people just like to look for faults for sake of getting "one-up" on somebody else.

You pays your maoney and you makes your choices!!! If you don't like the Trainorama 48 class, then please don't buy it....simple!!!

Sheesh!!! (exasperated).

Roachie

'me thinks' some people just can't admit it when they are wrong.

On the bright side TrainOrama have used real Kadee couplers and have metal handrails and brass etch air filters unlike Auscision's 45s which people would say are the standard in the hobby today. Heck they even had to put in replacement plastic handrails in the box. Which manufacturer still does that these days? The chains on the Trainorama 48 are slightly overscale but is a good compromise being metal and realistic because the plastic chains on the Auscision 45, especially the ones on the bogies look awful and terrible. Will definitely be doing some modifying there.

Running qualities of my 48 are similar to my 45 but I prefer the motor inside my 48 because it's quieter and smoother. But a sound decoder shall fix that for both my models!

Happy Alco times!

On the bright side TrainOrama have used real Kadee couplers and have metal handrails and brass etch air filters unlike Auscision's 45s which people would say are the standard in the hobby today. Heck they even had to put in replacement plastic handrails in the box. Which manufacturer still does that these days? The chains on the Trainorama 48 are slightly overscale but is a good compromise being metal and realistic because the plastic chains on the Auscision 45, especially the ones on the bogies look awful and terrible. Will definitely be doing some modifying there.

Running qualities of my 48 are similar to my 45 but I prefer the motor inside my 48 because it's quieter and smoother. But a sound decoder shall fix that for both my models!

Happy Alco times!

If your Auscision 45 is one that is sold out and you are not happy with it I'll gladly take it of your hands for the price you paid for it and a 25% premium on top. I'll have no trouble off loading it for a handsome profit.

If your Auscision 45 is one that is sold out and you are not happy with it I'll gladly take it of your hands for the price you paid for it and a 25% premium on top. I'll have no trouble off loading it for a handsome profit.

Is that a bit of Déjà vu?  
Or did you simply copy what the fellow said 5 or 6 posts up with the Auscision cheer leader in charge slant!
Woa wave those pom poms!!

It is disappointing when a new model is found to have an error not in an earlier model.

The Trax/Powerline model was always said to be basically correct in shape and scale and there have been a number of articles on improving it in detail.

I'm surprised that there has been no direct comparison between the shape of the current Powerline model and the Trainorama model.

Now we have the drawings, there can be no doubt about the actual shape.

One feature of the nose that hasn't been discussed is the mounting for the NSWGR crest (or the SAR crest) on the angled nose. The angled nose was the only reason for the mounting base was that a flat crest could not be mounted on the angle. There was no base required on the rear end which was flat, nor on either end of the 45 class. The crest base on the Trainorama model illustrated in Austin Nicholl's post doesn't have an angled shape that matches the real thing, since the nose is too flat. These crests were removed from 48 class when the organisation title changed and from 830 class with the AN merger. A number of locomotives ran with the base in place but the crest removed. The three standard gauge 830s leased to NSW, 847-849, had the SAR crest removed for the whole period in NSW.

The nose design used for the 48 and 830 was standard on Alco and MLW built locomotives of models DL 531 (six axle) and DL 532 (four axle). The Australian built locomotives had a frame 18" longer than the US and Canadian locomotives. Surprisingly the Australian built EMD G8 and G12 models had the same modification. In both cases it allowed a larger fuel tank.

Because the Alco and MLW units often had simpler ends (no walkway, no number boards and so on), the actual shape of the nose is clearer.

Here are some examples:

http://alcoworld.railfan.net/jamaica.htm

http://alcoworld.railfan.net/a-201ser.htm

In both cases the angle can look different depending on the angle of view and the lens focal length.

M636C

Is that a bit of Déjà vu?  
Or did you simply copy what the fellow said 5 or 6 posts up with the Auscision cheer leader in charge slant!
Woa wave those pom poms!!

Nothing more than a genuine offer Rodney.

On the bright side TrainOrama have used real Kadee couplers and have metal handrails and brass etch air filters unlike Auscision's 45s which people would say are the standard in the hobby today. Heck they even had to put in replacement plastic handrails in the box. Which manufacturer still does that these days? The chains on the Trainorama 48 are slightly overscale but is a good compromise being metal and realistic because the plastic chains on the Auscision 45, especially the ones on the bogies look awful and terrible. Will definitely be doing some modifying there.

Running qualities of my 48 are similar to my 45 but I prefer the motor inside my 48 because it's quieter and smoother. But a sound decoder shall fix that for both my models!

Happy Alco times!

Huh?

I'm looking at my 45's now and the air filters are definitely brass etchings and the handrails are metal also. The rails along the top of the model are soft but a small scratch i made on one reveals they are actually metal. Those replacement plastic parts arent handrails; i don't know what they're called but they are in the long hood end at about engine level. Perhaps it was a just in case compromise? don't know.

Again, the chains on each end of the loco arent plastic. The ones on the bogies are indeed plastic though, each to their own but i dont think they are bad at all.

Havent run it yet and dont have (and unless they bring modern version out, wont be buying) a traino 48 to compare running qualities but if its anything like the other Auscision products it will be smooth and quiet. similarly if the traino 48 is like their previous releases (all those years ago) then the running qualities will be fantastic (broken gears aside).

The horns on the 45 are also brass castings. I guess the traino ones are made from super duplex stainless steel or tungsten though?...

-Mitch

If your Auscision 45 is one that is sold out and you are not happy with it I'll gladly take it of your hands for the price you paid for it and a 25% premium on top. I'll have no trouble off loading it for a handsome profit.

Of course not, because I intend on taking to it with a hacking saw to practice my modelling skills! Haha.


"I'm looking at my 45's now and the air filters are definitely brass etchings and the handrails are metal also"

Air filters are plastic. The radiator grille is brass etch.

"Those replacement plastic parts arent handrails; i don't know what they're called but they are in the long hood end at about engine level. Perhaps it was a just in case compromise? don't know."

Sorry I should have said handles for the hood. Don't understand how they can't be brass. People normally pick up their models by the body and these things are very flimsy. Something for the aftermarket perhaps? Same for those chains on the bogies .

I remember years ago when the Austrains Ts came out and when the Powerline 48s came out that people were up in arms about plastic handrails and detailing. The 45 somehow missed this, but at least they have brass horns like the TrainOrama 48. These are important things that need to be improved upon from all manufacturers. Importantly we have great running qualities from all models. Sound is getting easier to put in (yay!). They also sit at the right height unlike some of the new models we have just seen on the market.

We have a good crop of Alcos coming to us today.