Oops, sorry Tom, it was a6et who I hoped might share anything we had got right. And Mitch, I think you'll find it was Voltaire who was being quoted by Peter Griffin!

Lyndsay, There are enough items on the model that appear right that for the majority will make them happy, & I have no drama's with that.

Thing is that aside from 3265 which after all is the only low framed 32cl left, there are 3 other 32's that are available for viewing, the LVR engine 3237 has had mods done in order that it conforms with todays standards in regard to accreditation to run over the network. While it would be easy to actually fob off any of the three owing to the frame aspect, the primary thing is that as far as the remainder of the loco's are concerned, being above footplate, pretty well everything on the high framed 32's are identical to what is found or was found on the low framed loco's.  In that regard, those involved in the research would have the abilities to check out the those loco's, & take note of anything that may be different to that on 3265.

As for the funnel, it was initially raised by another person not myself, but certainly on photo's I have seen, its not a good look. The headlight bracket, is something that other manufacturers seem to get ok, & I have not had a headlight fall off through being not robust.

It would however be good to advertise & inform potential purchasers of things like the headlight white lense, more especially the water delivery pipes, after all it was said on the blog that it was being fixed.  The other items I could mention are also not found on other manufacturers models either.  What it seems is that the factory that is being used for this model, & I would hazard a guess that it will also do the 30T, must not be very experienced in the production of steam locomotives when compared to others that are used.

Thing is though, when its said that when input was sought, & was given, much of it was not taken on board, be that from anything I put forward or from others, it was then said that the samples had already been produced & not able to be corrected. In some ways understandable but, not everyone can read the multi coloured drawings either especially to find problems with them, the drawings usually come out looking ok, but its only in the actual translation in the production that the problems are found, by which point of time, it appears to be too late to do anything, especially with molded on items.

in the end as has been found already there is one or two happy modellers with their purchase & no doubt so will a majority of others who buy them.

Here we go again. More rantings from the very few who nitpick over the smallest details. I believe we should all be VERY grateful for guys like Lindsay and Phil who spend countless hours working hard to deliver these projects for us to enjoy, only then to have their hard work criticised over such small details. As Lindsay has said, If you think you could do any better and if you are prepared to lay down a lot of money then whats stopping you. I for one applaud Lindsay and Phil or anyone who in recent times has worked so hard to deliver such complex projects that together we can all enjoy as part of our hobby.

Speaking personally, I always hope that r-t-r models will be as accurate as possible, but, given the problems of getting things done in China, I'm never surprised when things turn up 'not quite right'.

As long as the problems are fixable, or are something that I am prepared to live with because of the benefits of the rest of the model make it worth overlooking (see the recent 'On the Workbench' on the Eureka 50 class!), then I'm prepared to overlook minor mistakes, owing to the 99% of the model being ok and the saving in time and effort involved in not having to scratchbuild (or build a kit, which often have problems too).

In my experience, none of the manufacturers set out to produce an inaccurate model; the problems are caused by the limitations of the manufacturing process, communication difficulties with the Chinese (not just language, but cultural as well) and the use of unintentionally inaccurate source material. On the whole, manufacturers learn from their mistakes and produce a better model the next time around.

Whining and complaining about an already produced model is, to my mind, pretty much pointless. The thing has been produced and it is far too late to do anything about changing anything during production now! The emphasis, as far as I am concerned, once the model becomes available, should change to working out what can be done to fix the problems. Hence the introduction of the 'On the Workbench' section in AMRM (for which, btw, anyone is welcome to contribute), so that ways of improving models can be highlighted, rather than just listing the problems and offering no solutions. From my cursory look over the four review models I have of the Ixion 32, it shouldn't be that difficult for the average modeller to change a few things to take care of the minor imperfections of the model. The model will be featured in 'On the Workbench' as soon as I can get around to 'sorting it out'.

Having been around in this hobby since the early 1970s, I would much rather have a r-t-r model that is 99.5% correct than having to do everything myself from scratch (and end up with a model that isn't as good as what is available 'off the shelf' anyway... )

The reality is that mistakes will be made, despite the best intentions of the manufacturers, and that wining and complaining once the model appears won't change that. Constructive criticism will help the manufacturer produce a better model next time around, certainly, and sharing one's findings and tips for fixing things will help one's fellow modellers end up with a better model once it has arrived, but chucking an online 'tanti' helps no-one.

Perhaps if some spent more time practicing their modelling skills at their workbench and less time perfecting their whinging skills at their keyboards (long after pointing out mistakes could do any good during the manufacturing process), we all might end up with better models...

James,

Thanks for your comment / post

I agree with what you have said here, but surely in 2016 (not withstanding manufacturing limitations and / or "lost in translation" events) is it not possible to get such a prominent item like a steam locomotives funnel correct or at the very least 99.5% correct so that a purchaser need not have to "cut it (the funnel) in half" to reduce its height (and even then, its still not considered correct.....)

Would not NSWGR GA drawings still be held and accessible at NSW State Archives to obtain the correct shape, height and profile of the funnels?

Am sure the respective locomotive Data Sheet drawings produced by Greg Edwards would reference them?

Examples of 50's and 32's exist and are accessible, 3d laser scanning is a reality.

I too would be willing to accept a 99.5% loco for the same reasons as you have noted above as long as the prominent / big ticket / most visible items were produced correctly or as close to as correct as possible.

Not all of us have a better shaped funnel available from a now long ago white metal loco kit or a brass loco spare part in our spares box to "make good" in either instance. (Casula did not have any Classic 50 funnel spare parts avail at Thornleigh).

Regardless thanks be to you James for providing us with your recent article in AMRM on the 50 class, "so that ways of improving models can be highlighted, rather than just listing the problems and offering no solutions".
Perhaps there is now an opportunity for an after-market correct funnel(s) to be produced by someone?

Regards,

Catchpoint

G'day all,

I have definitely started a discussion! Where do I start?

Rod mate

I am now 75 and you can perhaps appreciate that it has taken longer for me to get into the internet age with the NBN only just fitted at our premises. I have done more research and bystanding than posting. You accuse me of being destructive, unable to post under a full name and therefore my posts are discredited. Are you just trying for protection for your own interests after the failed Shrike 30T that you were so proudly supporting? That is another story but I don't need you to tell me what I can and can't do. This is a forum for the discussion of model trains and the last time I checked the discussion of pros and cons of a new model is allowed. Perhaps each time Ford release a new vehicle people can't go onto the net and say they prefer Holden because that's destructive against the Ford product. Right? No Commodore vs Falcon? Fair go for all drivers? Right?

Everyone deserves a fair go but being new on the block doesn't mean you are excused from the scrutiny that is given to everyone. Especially when the main researcher from my understanding on this 32 class project has been around for a long time and should be equal to that of other experts such as James. We don't have to badger that person who should know what is right especially when a thoroughly critiqued Trainorama 32 that has its fair share of errors was done 8 years ago. Auscision fairly doesn't receive it because they listen to their customers and produce decent models. Eureka Models got a lot of criticism when they did their 60 class and it was the largest steam loco project probably in the world at that time for mass production. I don't see Ron crying over that.

To a6et (sorry I don't know your name)

Your post is appreciated. I am fully agreeing with you. Thank you.

To Lindsay

Unfortunately it seems I could not chime in before with the opportunity however I am sure there are many more experts than myself who gave advice.

Saying that we should fork out $200k to go do the model ourselves is silly because a product should be done right the first time. Auscision can do that, SDS are fantastic, On Track Models produce great models and Austrains are doing that now too. They don't seem to have the communications barriers especially when the group of factories are shared and in the same area. It is most unusual that the factory had no idea how to correctly model the headlight with its four legs or correctly make a one piece funnel. And unfortunately I wasn't looking for real steam inside the loco, just a model that was accurate and runs well.

To James

If the Eureka 50 class constitutes as 99% accurate then I am extremely concerned about every other steam loco manufactured in Australia. The best two being the Trainorama 32 and Eureka 60 were around the 90% mark and the others falling no where near. I have no idea how I am able to change for example:

1. The three part chimney
2. The dome with a correct join to the boiler and colour to match (ie. maroon)
3. The bufferbeam that is too small and excessively thick
4. The entire headlight

But if there is another workbench AMRM article on correcting these (sorry I am not a master modeller hence I need the perfection first time round) then perhaps I shall give that a go though. I am sure that I can apply new decals to cover those tiny bufferbeam numbers though!

Of course I would rather have 99.5% of the model correct than build one from scratch or perhaps a Bergs 32 from yesteryear but not when the 0.5% actually affects the entire look of the model.

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to apologise to everyone for raising such issues on a public forum as I thought I would generate a good civil discussion without invoking anger. We need robust debate in this hobby. It seems now that it doesn't matter whether or not the product is finished the general standards of steam modelling is declining. I am with a6et.

Have a good night!

Tom Andrews.

Lindsay O'Reilly,
Ixion Models.
Just a quick question; in five to ten years time, are we as modelers be able to get spare parts for your locos, as it has been noticed that all the locos make in China by other manufactures that they dont carry spare parts

G'day all,
I have definitely started a discussion! Where do I start?

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to apologise to everyone for raising such issues on a public forum as I thought I would generate a good civil discussion without invoking anger. We need robust debate in this hobby. It seems now that it doesn't matter whether or not the product is finished the general standards of steam modelling is declining. I am with a6et.

Have a good night!

Tom Andrews.
Hunter3265

Ha!  Welcome Tom Andrews!

Enjoyed your comments, and understood your feelings because you are so well aligned to another old engineman (a6et

But I have learned that our words are able to be sent where we like, because we all believe in freedom of speech.
In retrospect I should have walked away from my friend of many years and not supported him as I did in the Shrike thread. But I am old fashioned, being a war baby, growing up at a time when manufactures respected their customers and customers were easily able to return it in kind. You stood by your friends, maybe not to the death, (but some of us were soldiers)

Freedom of speech has responsibilities, though

And so we do agree but also disagree. Manufactures can treat us like idiots. Growing up in the 50's, we were taught in school excuses were just that excuses, an inability of will or intention to complete a task well, and as a result we took responsibility for our actions. Our manufacturers have forgotten that. It will be right mate, is just not good enough!

Despite all that, if I need a 32 Class to run around my Albury yard, I should not be influenced by some highly knowledgeable critic, (apologies Col and Tom) when the model is still a much better model than perhaps the Lima 38 we all bought 30 years ago. The step up is not as good as could be, none the less most models produced today are far superior to those Lima and Powerline offered us way back then.

We need the 32 class to sell so that we can get the 30T out there and soften the blow that Shrike customers have taken, thanks to the generosity of Lindsay O'Rielly who eventually realised their was a lot of hurt out there, and brokered a way out with the new owner of the dies.

This is a good reason to protect Ixion despite my own personal reservations. If this engine was a VR D3, I promise you all I would purchase at least two of them, and if the models stayed on the market long enough, a few more

Cheers

Rod Young

And so we do agree but also disagree. Manufacturers can treat us like idiots. Growing up in the 50's, we were taught in school excuses were just that excuses, an inability of will or intention to complete a task well, and as a result we took responsibility for our actions. Our manufacturers have forgotten that. It will be right mate, is just not good enough!

Despite all that, if I need a 32 Class to run around my Albury yard, I should not be influenced by some highly knowledgeable critic, (apologies Col and Tom) when the model is still a much better model than perhaps the Lima 38 we all bought 30 years ago. The step up is not as good as could be, none the less most models produced today are far superior to those Lima and Powerline offered us way back then.


Rod Young

Surely the question should be whether it is better than the Trainorama 32 class rather than the Lima 38 class....

There was a lot of "spin" about the Ixion 32 regarding it being a better model than the Trainorama version from the beginning.

If the clearly visible problems like the headlight and chimney mean that the Ixion model needs work straight out of the box, which the Trainorama model didn't seem to need, perhaps it being better in less visible ways isn't very important.

James McInerney is fairly well known as having turned a Lima 38 into something up to the standard of current models, and I'm sure he can improve the Ixion 32.

But we shouldn't all have to rebuild a model.

Maybe the answer is waiting for a rerun of the Trainorama 32?

After all, I'm not sure why a low framed version is better.

There was one loco in that form from 1911 onward, but most of the others that looked like that came around 1929. The taller (and thicker) frames came into use in 1937, so unless you want to model a particular loco number, either type is suitable for the period from 1937 to date.

The low framed version is only important for the period 1929 to 1937, for which very little other equipment is available anyway.

M636C

Surely the question should be whether it is better than the Trainorama 32 class rather than the Lima 38 class....

There was a lot of "spin" about the Ixion 32 regarding it being a better model than the Trainorama version from the beginning.

If the clearly visible problems like the headlight and chimney mean that the Ixion model needs work straight out of the box, which the Trainorama model didn't seem to need, perhaps it being better in less visible ways isn't very important.

James McInerney is fairly well known as having turned a Lima 38 into something up to the standard of current models, and I'm sure he can improve the Ixion 32.

But we shouldn't all have to rebuild a model.

Maybe the answer is waiting for a rerun of the Trainorama 32?

After all, I'm not sure why a low framed version is better.

There was one loco in that form from 1911 onward, but most of the others that looked like that came around 1929. The taller (and thicker) frames came into use in 1937, so unless you want to model a particular loco number, either type is suitable for the period from 1937 to date.

The low framed version is only important for the period 1929 to 1937, for which very little other equipment is available anyway.

M636C

I am not sure where you would get  the notion that an original framed 32 class is only important for the pre ww2 period. The original framed locos still formed a very substantial group of the 191 in service. Through out the 1950s they were very common - especially at country depots although there were still some in use on trains from larger depots. It was the advent of diesels that started to push the reframed locos to rural depots.

Is it any better than the traino 32? That 32 also had chimney issues with the base being moulded on the boiler casting. If you can get a brass casting, the headlight is a simple fix. remove the plastic one and disconnect the light. The NSWGR strongly discouraged the use of headlights in daylight hours, something that modellers appear to have forgotten. In addition, the buffer beam was pushed forward and thickened to provide more clearance at the front (traino 32) - something that was extremely difficult to correct.

The tender on the Ixion version has far better coal plates - they are actually straight and the maroon livery is correctly applied on this loco rather than the traino fiction.

In summary, yes the original framed 32 is very important. There may be issues with the model (as there were with the Traino one) but they can be rectified to produce a very good model. The main issues on the other 32 could not be easily rectified (coal fence on tender, cab roof and fron buffer beam). So, on balance i consider this a step forward as well as producing an important model that was not available previously.

regards,

Craig w

I am not sure where you would get  the notion that an original framed 32 class is only important for the pre ww2 period. The original framed locos still formed a very substantial group of the 191 in service. Through out the 1950s they were very common - especially at country depots although there were still some in use on trains from larger depots. It was the advent of diesels that started to push the reframed locos to rural depots.

The tender on the Ixion version has far better coal plates - they are actually straight and the maroon livery is correctly applied on this loco rather than the traino fiction.

Craig w

I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear:

Except for someone modelling 938 before 1924 or the class in general between 1929 and 1937, there is no advantage in a low framed model over a high framed model, unless you wish to represent a particular prototype.

Most of the locomotives superheated by the NSWGR had drumhead smokeboxes until the majority of the class were rebuilt as their cylinders needed replacement, generally in and after 1929.

So the Ixion model only represents one locomotive, 3391, pretty much, up until 1929. If you wanted to represent the first Newcastle Express of that year, you'd need a black low frame superheated 32 and a LUB set.

After 1937, when the new frames were introduced, either type would be equally acceptable, unless you wanted to represent a particular locomotive.

My implied point is that the "spin" regarding the Ixion model implied that it would be better than the Trainorama model. While some details may be better, it appears that the overall package is no better for someone who wants to run the model "out of the box".

I believe that it is significant that among those complaining are former enginemen who are very familiar with the details of the locomotive, probably more so than the advisors to Ixion.

It is of course true that only low framed superheated 32 class were painted red, but that didn't stop the red Trainorama model selling out before it arrived. If most of them appear on sale on Ebay now the Ixion model has appeared, clearly most of the people who bought them are willing to make the fixes needed to the Ixion model.

I don't mind a few minor inaccuracies if the overall model looks right. Clearly the Ixion 32 doesn't meet that criterion.

M636C

I am not sure where you would get  the notion that an original framed 32 class is only important for the pre ww2 period. The original framed locos still formed a very substantial group of the 191 in service. Through out the 1950s they were very common - especially at country depots although there were still some in use on trains from larger depots. It was the advent of diesels that started to push the reframed locos to rural depots.

Is it any better than the traino 32? That 32 also had chimney issues with the base being moulded on the boiler casting. If you can get a brass casting, the headlight is a simple fix. remove the plastic one and disconnect the light. The NSWGR strongly discouraged the use of headlights in daylight hours, something that modellers appear to have forgotten. In addition, the buffer beam was pushed forward and thickened to provide more clearance at the front (traino 32) - something that was extremely difficult to correct.

The tender on the Ixion version has far better coal plates - they are actually straight and the maroon livery is correctly applied on this loco rather than the traino fiction.

In summary, yes the original framed 32 is very important. There may be issues with the model (as there were with the Traino one) but they can be rectified to produce a very good model. The main issues on the other 32 could not be easily rectified (coal fence on tender, cab roof and fron buffer beam). So, on balance i consider this a step forward as well as producing an important model that was not available previously.

regards,

Craig w

Craig,

I think one of the things that may be at issue is that when Ixion announced the 32 & had the CAD drawings on the web they asked for feedback, to my knowledge feed back was provided (not by me but others far more knowledgeable in the subject) and either ignored or not considered important enough (see a6et's post "Thing is though, when its said that when input was sought, & was given, much of it was not taken on board, be that from anything I put forward or from others, it was then said that the samples had already been produced & not able to be corrected. In some ways understandable but, not everyone can read the multi coloured drawings either especially to find problems with them, the drawings usually come out looking ok, but its only in the actual translation in the production that the problems are found, by which point of time, it appears to be too late to do anything, especially with molded on items."), and I think that may be where some of the angst arises.


And then when someone give constructive criticism they are shot down, so do we, as modellers, want a Traino 44 or a Lima 44? because without some modellers pushing the envelope we would not have the quality we have today.


You say "If you can get a brass casting, the headlight is a simple fix." - is such a brass casting readily available, if so from where ?, and even so why should we have to go to that additional expense & hassle of sourcing one.


You also say  "In addition, the buffer beam was pushed forward and thickened to provide more clearance at the front (traino 32) - something that was extremely difficult to correct.", yet on the Facebook NSWGR Steam Era Modelling group you also say about the Ixion 32 "Brendan, the buffer bases are either to large or the plank is to shallow" , so they both appear to have similar problems in appearing to being too thick/large.


Like others, I have a couple of Traino 32's & am happy with them, and I'm hoping to get an Ixion 32 later in the year depending on other model commitments and will make some minor mods (as I've done with the Traino 32 where I puttied the funnel join amongst other things) and like others I'm looking forward  to James's workshop on the Ixion 32.

Regards Alex.

M636,

You did make yourself clear and the logic you displayed is wrong. The Ixion model represents one of the original framed 32 class from the group in the range 3251-3391 as they were running as superheated. It is in a condition that is typical of the class from the 1930s onwards The fact that it is not suitable for the 1920s has nothing to do with anything that I can think of. I did a quick count in Steam Locomotive data and this amounted to over 100 locos that were never rebuilt (excluding the 3201-3250 group which the model does not represent)

Using your logic, if you have a streamlined 38 you do not need a standard 38 or an oil burning 59 if you have a coal one.

I had a look at the model the other night over dinner and have looked at a fair few photographs too. The chimney is not great, but neither was the one on the Traino model. The dome is comparable to the Traino one too.

The Ixion model has the correct cab roof profile, unlike the previous one and the tender has the coal plates (hungry boards in modellers language) modelled upright (correctly) unlike the traino tender where they angled out and did not have a clean demarcation. The water feed lines are modelled after those on 3265 now - it is a shame they did not do the other way round and model the typical obviously.

The fact that a previous (entirely fictional) livery applied to a reframed model sold out has no relevance to this model, it is a far greater reflection of other things.

Alex, if you give Casula Hobbies a call they might still have some headlight castings available. When I was talking about the front buffer beam, I meant the traino model - it has been pushed forward.

I have a reputation for being pedantic and i am concerned a great deal about accuracy. The simple fact is that the issues on this model can be corrected far easier than previous 32 class models. I have reservations about some features of the model from my look (as stated). My greater concern is that it has not been made clear that the model does not represent an original framed loco from the 3201-3250 number range. These locos had a deeper curve in the running plate and under the cab. If you look at the loco buffer beam you will see that on the 3251 onwards locos, the buffers sit at the bottom of the buffer beam and on the earlier locos the buffers are in the centre of the beam. The running plate on the 6 wheel tender does not line up with the valence on the 3251 onwards locos either, being lower to match the earlier locos.

But it also needs to be remembered that the 32 class in later years were two distinctly different loco types and this represents one of them and the traino one represented the other. To state that you only need this model to represent a particular loco is stating the bleeding obvious.

Craig W

M636,

You did make yourself clear and the logic you displayed is wrong. The Ixion model represents one of the original framed 32 class from the group in the range 3251-3391 as they were running as superheated. It is in a condition that is typical of the class from the 1930s onwards The fact that it is not suitable for the 1920s has nothing to do with anything that I can think of. I did a quick count in Steam Locomotive data and this amounted to over 100 locos that were never rebuilt (excluding the 3201-3250 group which the model does not represent)

I have a reputation for being pedantic and i am concerned a great deal about accuracy. The simple fact is that the issues on this model can be corrected far easier than previous 32 class models. I have reservations about some features of the model from my look (as stated). My greater concern is that it has not been made clear that the model does not represent an original framed loco from the 3201-3250 number range. These locos had a deeper curve in the running plate and under the cab. If you look at the loco buffer beam you will see that on the 3251 onwards locos, the buffers sit at the bottom of the buffer beam and on the earlier locos the buffers are in the centre of the beam. The running plate on the 6 wheel tender does not line up with the valence on the 3251 onwards locos either, being lower to match the earlier locos.

But it also needs to be remembered that the 32 class in later years were two distinctly different loco types and this represents one of them and the traino one represented the other. To state that you only need this model to represent a particular loco is stating the bleeding obvious.

Craig W

CraigW,

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean my logic is wrong.

On the other hand, you seem to have a confused view of the 32 class....

You talk about the model not representing the group 3201-3248...

(Remember that 3249 and 3250 were built as three cylinder compounds. They were both rebuilt with a non-standard simple expansion cylinder on the right side with raised footplating over it. I believe 3250 remained in non standard condition with piston valves and superheating until withdrawal, and 3249 remained saturated until rebuilt with new frames. So neither of these two could be represented by a model that matched 3201-3248)

Also, the group 3251-3391 were never uniform.

A batch of P class built by Baldwin in 1905 had flat sloping running plates rather than the reverse curve on earlier locomotives. This was, I think used on Clyde built P class as well, (certainly on those built for the Commonwealth). So 3391 would be the only P class locomotive built after 1905 that had the Beyer Peacock style running plates. This would reduce substantially the number of locomotives correctly represented by the Ixion model, and the relative numbers of post war locomotives that could be represented by the Ixion model compared to the Trainorama model.

So to use your statement about types of 32 class, there would be three distinct types of superheated 32 class, two of those with original frames and the two patterns of running plate, and the reframed locomotives.

That should assist your search for accuracy...

On the subject of accuracy, my screen name is M636C, where the C indicates "Century", an M636 with Alco Century bogies. All of these were built in Australia.

M636C

M636C,

Before going any further, I would suggest that you look at the Ixion site and observe that they have done the curved running plate from the 1901 order as well as the revised straight running plate from the Baldwin order onwards. There is a not significant reduction in the number of locos you can do from 3251 onwards.

I did not specifically mention the two compound locos because they are part of the first 50. Apart from those two, the remaining locos from the first 50 are not represented by the Ixion model either because the curve in the running plate is approx 2" deep at the front and under the cab rear. If you look at photos you will see the buffer positions are different. There are exceptions of course and at least  3202 was modified with a straight running plate at some point, although I dont know if the curve under the cab was reduced.

regards,

Craig w

I was about to reply to CraigW's response to my post when it vanished.....

I was unaware (or had forgotten) that the Ixion 32 catered for both types of forward running plate, so that part of my post is indeed wrong.

I have my own photos of locomotives in the 3201-3250 range.

3249, of course, had flat sloping running plates at the front when I saw it....

One thing I have noticed is that the first 50 32 class, including the compound locomotives had cabs with less overhang of the cab roof at the side. This changes the appearance of the cab somewhat.

M636C

I am puzzled by the commentary on the 32 Class and 50 Class chimneys. I am not an NSWGR modeller and cannot comment, myself, on the accuracy of the HO Scale representations of the chimneys. However, I am curious to learn how the chimneys were researched by the companies contracting model production in China.

Original Source Data

Drawings would have been produced for the chimneys. Beyer, Peacock, North British, etc would have either been issued drawings from NSWGR or produced their own for NSWGR review and sign-off. The NSWGR steam drawings I understand have been archived but are accessible. Many years ago I dealt with Victor Poljanski, SRA Archives, in procuring NSWGR steam loco drawings (not for modelling purposes) and had no problem sourcing the detail drawings I needed. The Beyer, Peacock NSWGR drawings are still held in the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.

Producing an Autocad drawing for HO scale from an NSWGR or other original is a doddle.The original drawing will take all the guess work out of radii, height, diameter etc. Review of the HO scale Autocad representation against an original is simplicity itself and there is no reason why you cannot get the shape exactly right.

If OEM drawings are not available a prototype chimney can be measured but I know from first hand experience that trying to measure a compound curve with a tape measure/scale etc is difficult. Laser digital measurement is a possibility but being perched on top of a smokebox/boiler presents its own challenges

Secondary Sources

James, I was horrified by your review of the 50 Class when the only reference you used in determining the accuracy of the chimney appeared to be Greg Edward's Data Sheet. To get dimensions you must have scaled off the HO Data Sheet. I was always taught to never scale off a drawing. In my days as a Motive Power Engineer and Manager of a Rolling Stock Drawing Office such practice was verboten. Greg may - or may not - have accurately portrayed the 50 Class chimney on his drawing. To make a value judgement as you did you should refer to original source data and preferably provide a drawing showing the discrepancies. Using secondary sources without a paper trail providing unimpeachable provenance is fraught with danger.

Of course, Autocad makes scaling off a drawing perfectly legitimate.

I would appreciate a response from Ixion, Trainorama or Eureka as to just what data was provided to their Chinese contractors to enable a representation of their various chimneys on their HO scale models ..... it doesn't seem, from the discussion above, that original source data was used.

TW

TW,

Please be advised that my previous comments above in regards to Data Sheets and Greg Edwards were in no way made to bring the work that he does for us modellers into disrepute nor suggest in anyway that his drawing are inaccurate.

My understanding is that when a NSWGR drawing / information has been used as a reference to create his Data Sheets drawing he generally cites the information or source on the respective drawing. I do not have a 32 or a 50 class locomotive Data Sheet to hand to see what he cites, perhaps other have and can comment here.

Perhaps James cited the the 50 class Data Sheet drawing because it cites the respective source information of the NSWGR and was what he had to hand when undertaking his review?

As a professional working within the construction industry in NSW, I concur with your comments that physically "scaling from drawings" is considered not to be good practice to the point that all of our drawings / sheet files from our office are clearly provided with the note "Do not scale drawing - figured dimensions govern".

I too look forward to clarification as to what information was used to produce two incorrect looking chimneys on two separate models

Regards,

Catchpoint

As an adjunct to TW's comments, laser scanning of a 32 class chimney "in situ" should be possible using platforms to locate the scanner in appropriate positions around and above the chimney. An alternative would be digital photogrametry which would still need a platform to do "in situ" but otherwise re-positioning the camera would be easier than the laser scanner. With care and a fairly substantial amount of computing power a highly accurate 3d model of the chimney could be made.

This could be then manipulated into whatever form you need. It is claimed that you can "easily" turn 3d model into  something that can be 3D printed (but how? I am doing a course soon to learn this mystery and then can flood the worlds with 3D printed archaeological sites) and this may provide a solution to those who feel that their chimney is inadequate.

Thia assumes, as TW will also note, that the surviving 32 class chimneys are the original ones. With so much alteration of original fabric on surviving locomotives it is possible that the chimneys are not original or to the original pattern.

Cheers

Iain

As an adjunct to TW's comments, laser scanning of a 32 class chimney "in situ" should be possible using platforms to locate the scanner in appropriate positions around and above the chimney. An alternative would be digital photogrametry which would still need a platform to do "in situ" but otherwise re-positioning the camera would be easier than the laser scanner. With care and a fairly substantial amount of computing power a highly accurate 3d model of the chimney could be made.

This could be then manipulated into whatever form you need. It is claimed that you can "easily" turn 3d model into  something that can be 3D printed (but how? I am doing a course soon to learn this mystery and then can flood the worlds with 3D printed archaeological sites) and this may provide a solution to those who feel that their chimney is inadequate.

Thia assumes, as TW will also note, that the surviving 32 class chimneys are the original ones. With so much alteration of original fabric on surviving locomotives it is possible that the chimneys are not original or to the original pattern.

Cheers

Iain

With 4 still surviving, albeit 3 are high frame, the funnels would or should all be the same. The most likely ones to be different would or could possibly those on 3237 & 3265, more so 65.  3237 went direct to Cowra in the same condition as it retired in.

Thia assumes, as TW will also note, that the surviving 32 class chimneys are the original ones. With so much alteration of original fabric on surviving locomotives it is possible that the chimneys are not original or to the original pattern.

Cheers

Iain

With 4 still surviving, albeit 3 are high frame, the funnels would or should all be the same. The most likely ones to be different would or could possibly those on 3237 & 3265, more so 65.  3237 went direct to Cowra in the same condition as it retired in.

I suspect the chimney and dome problems are more to do with how they have been manufactured: not one piece, and the way they are mounted to the boiler/smokebox.

As for finding a correct chimney to scan, most of them are marked with the locomotive class cast on the front “C 32”, “D 50” etc. 3237's is certainly so marked.

TW, When I look at the funnel of the three models you mention, I really wonder about them, & which one is the worst & which the best.  None of them are accurate just to the eye, let alone when laying down a photo next to them. Each are more akin to a stove pipe with flared top & bottom.
Perhaps the least wrong of the 3 is the TOR one, I must have been lucky, as my one had a gap in it where the two joins were, it was a bit noticeable & I was not too happy, but as I turned it over, I used my index finger & thumb to hold the model between them on the top of the funnel & under the front bogie, low & behold I felt a movement on the funnel, I had a fear I had broken something but when I looked the funnel had actually been pushed down & the gap was no longer visible.
While that fixed the gap, it still looked a bit too much akin to a two ended flared stove pipe funnel but not as bad. Therefore it comes in at 3.  I would suggest the Ixion one looks the worst because of the two gaps.  Now these three models are built in an era that has technology available that should reduce those errors or really eliminate them as you have suggested with Cad controlled cutting devices common place in many areas.
Wednesday night just passed I was at a MR meeting, & the topic of the Ixion 32came up, & it was not raised by myself, it led to the 50cl which was on show at the fellows home layout, but in his showcase he had a brass 55cl, the owner could not remember how old it was or the brand, but my eyes were drawn to the funnel firstly & the dome secondly. Both were from my eye perfect in replication, the funnel had the nice curve flares at the top & base, along with the noticeable slight curvature that took away the stove pipe look. The base flare's dare I suggest were very much akin to perfect scale replication as you just barely distinquish the lips on both funnel & dome at where they sat on the smokebox & boiler tops.  That was possible how many years ago, I also have a defective DJH 50cl funnel, defective from a casting mishap, it was replaced by Al Cutmore, & I have been able to keep it.
From what I have seen especially at the LES in its normal operations days, the funnels as found on the 32cl are also the same as found on the standard goods loco’s, domes were also the same or very much similar. Superheated 30T’s also had the same funnel, thing was though that while many of the snotty nosed variety’s had the same but they also had a slightly taller version as well.
IIRC that kit came out sometion in the early 80's or close to it, meaning it dates to around say 30+ years ago, & they got them right as well. The kits are a bit dated now though, well I used to think so.
I actually had a good laugh re the reasoning behind the white headlight. When Lindsay said the Phil Badger had spent. How long was it? trying to explain to the Chinese what he wanted, or meant with the Translucent headlight.  Why did I laugh?  Well I know quite a few Chinese people & dealt with quite a few others as well on my trips over the years to China, where I learnt pretty quickly in regard to how many of the words we use, are so much mystery to the Chinese as there is no real word in either Mandarin or Cantonese for words like that.  Learn something about what they understand through translation or, the simplest & easiest way is to take a sample of what you want.  Best case is perhaps the TOR 32cl headlight from your own model or borrow one, or even off an Austrains 35 or 36cl the pigs headlight is more the same type than the 35cl.
Best though is the TOR 32 as it has a green board in it, not that you can notice it really, but then again there is black circuit board available in China that could be used.  Thing is that you showing them how you want it, with the clear glass lense. They would see what you want, & easily understand it.  The Chinese understand American English more so than Pommy or our more Australian versions of the English language. Which I found out in China quite quickly.  What helps me, & has for some time is that I have several close Chinese friends both in Sydney & now where we live since moving, one family were Cantonese speaking from Guan Zhou, the others were from other regions including Bei Jing, & Chi Feng, who spoke Mandarin.
I do not intend going any further with this discussion, but to say I am disappointed is to say the least, & want to add that when Ixion advertised on their blog site with accompanied CAD drawings in January 2015 asking for input from anyone regarding any items that were seen to have problems or were wrong, I emailed them with a list of items I found, at least from my limited experience in the reading of the CAD drawings.  I received responses to the emails & as a result forwarded several of my personal photo’s showing the areas on the locomotives I was reffering to. As the correspondence was between Ixion & myself I am not at liberty to make it public, I still have the emails.
From what I have seen of the model both photographically & at the Brickpit, I cannot see any items that I had mentioned & in the email discussion that were changed in the eventual models arrival.
The one thing that has come of this & from my perspective anyway, there appears to be no point in responding to requests for assistance anymore, so for me, my limited money resources will only be used on items that I consider worth the initial cost. My only other concern is how the 30T may arrive, that is if it does as to how it ends up, as I am one of those poor fools after having a very good look over the production sample of it last year at Liverpool, along with the earlier sample that needed fixing, that the model I checked over & said to be the production version will actually be what comes, if not, as I doubt I could get a refund, it will go on Ebay & hope to at least get my investment back.
This is not an attack on Ixion as such, but for me a decision based on disappointment over a model that has arrived that should have been better. I would say the same about the model no matter what label it came out with. I am not a nit picker in any shape or form, I am willing & have made alterations to models in the past & have no problems in doing that, I take the risk of damaging it, then I cop the blame for myself. However its easier when you can spend money on a basic model at a fairly basic price, & even when you spend say 10 – 30% more to fix it is not that bad on models up to say a $100.00 adding up to $30.00 to the original price, but when something arrives at close to $600.00 or more to have to outlay up to the 30% is asking a bit much for this person.
For years I supported & in some ways still do the concept of EB prices & paying off models, however, the way things are heading these days, Still, its a big ask & risk & one I for one are not willing to take.

Iain,

Each of the four C-32s wear their last in service chimney.  To date, I am not aware of any new made, replacement chimneys for any extant ex-NSWGR steam locomotive.  What you see when you gaze upon 3203, 3214, 3237 & 3265 is original fabric, original to each particualr locomotive.

The only 'traffic' ex-NSWGR steam locomotive to have a replacement chimney is 3526, its cracked 'original' was replaced circa 2006 with a used one taken from one of the other 34 less fortunate ones, held in spare parts at Thirlmere.  Yes, I know about 1243, 1709, 1307, 1076 and 1803, but they don't feature in anyone's plans to return to service, at least in the next few years, with the possible exception of 1076.

***


A6ET, each of the Thow or Thow based 'standards' had diffierent chimenys.  C-30, C-32, Standard Goods chimneys are different even if they appear very similar to each other.  As you go up a class number, the chimney becomes squatter and the base radius increases as the smokeboxes peculiar to each of the three families becomes larger.

***


Measuring each of the three chimeny types should be relatively easy, as spares of some of these chimneys are held at at least two sites in NSW (Thirlmere and dare I say it, Dorrigo) and if neither have a C-30 Class chimney, a polite question to ARHS (ACT Div) should gain permission for access to that currently unbolted from 3013.  Each of these three groups have proven to be very sympathetic to modellers, either individual or company.

***


With the faults that people are picking, perhaps some of them can be disguised with a weathering job.  I don't have an opinion either way on the Ixion C-32, except that I intend to own more than one in the future.

G'day all

Good to see the discussion so keep it up. The chimney on the Ixion is definitely not up to any modern standard and makes the Eureka 50 and Trainorama 32's ones look perfect in comparison.

To Craig

As the one responsible for providing the non stop critique on the Trainorama 32 7 years ago you go awfully quiet when it comes to the Eureka 38 or 50 or Austrains 35 or the Ixion 32. Perhaps the lack of true expertise is precisely why they masked your review in the magazine as Staff only. The level of critique offered by you here is laughable and correctly put down by M636C and a6et. As someone who actually worked on the things and along with a6et we would be far more qualified to comment on such matters.

For example

The Trainorama 32 has a too skinny stack and lip that didn't taper correctly on the top. Yet the die cast design has not been thought of by anyone for traction and weight and that is the limitation of such a design that would be at least 10 years old now.

The Ixion 32 has an even worse 3 part design that also has the wrong taper and width. Neither model can be compared to the brass 55 that had it spot on.

The headlight can't be fixed on the Ixion 32 without major work. There are no spares of the correct headlight and will be difficult to get the lights working then sealed with a clear lens. The Trainorama one is correct. Just because NSWGR didn't get them to use it back in steam days (I certainly never switched mine on back as an engineman) is no excuse for getting such an important item wrong because it's the face of the loco. But Craig glosses over it like he does to every product except the Trainorama one. Again, bias on show.

The tender plates and overall tender are correct on both versions of the models right down to the rivets so well done there.

The buffer beam is pushed only around 0.5mm forward to allow for clearance of the large pony truck. That is acceptable because it did not affect the look of the loco. The buffer beam is correct.

It is however impossible to correct the awfully thick and narrow buffer beam on the Ixion 32. It is so out of proportion it is crazy! Even the Austrains 36 has a more accurate buffer beam and we are talking technology back in the 90s. Again, Craig and his bias and incorrect reporting.

The cab roof is bent well on the Ixion 32 and is a better depiction of the 32 class in general. While the Trainorama 32 was not wrong it was too flat for my preference because I prefer the more common style. Yet the Ixion 32 doesn't look like it has the canvas or glazing and that's not parts that you can get to look factory-made. Attention to detail would be great here especially when it has been done before.

The dome on the boiler is too small on the Trainorama 32 but too big and complete out of proportion on the Ixion 32. Would rather the smaller one because at least it joins the boiler correctly rather than leave a gap and look so wrong on top. Again, no easy fix here.

The maroon colour scheme is a faithful representation of the preserved version on the Ixion 32 but not to my memories when I was back at school and early in my life. The Trainorama 32 is slightly too deep but it is on the wrong frame anyway so it's a complete fiction. Interesting how that sold out when it was not right.

On balance the Trainorama 32 provides a far more acceptable number of errors that doesn't affect the overall look of the model in comparison after a detailed study of photos that I've been provided. But of course I can't argue with Craig because his work goes in the AMRM and not mine. But what this forum has given to me is an opportunity to see facts in a balanced light and I will provide that too with my knowledge of steam. Memory of course will fade as I get even older but I will always miss waking up on an icy morning ready for my next trip whether it be a 32 or a different loco.

To all,

There is no way that the chimney will have changed on the current preserved ones as they will have left the NSWGR with those ones and to the best of my knowledge they are still the original ones though it was not unheard of to have changes between locos.

To M363C

Yes there were 32s with the thinner cab roof overhang and 3246 comes off the top of my memory as being one. Original curved frame.

Have a good evening

Tom

We could do without the personal attacks on CraigW. How AMRM treated his review and whether he gets published in AMRM is up to the Editor not him.

Of course you don't get published in AMRM if you don't submit.

Iain

G'day all

Good to see the discussion so keep it up. The chimney on the Ixion is definitely not up to any modern standard and makes the Eureka 50 and Trainorama 32's ones look perfect in comparison.

To Craig

As the one responsible for providing the non stop critique on the Trainorama 32 7 years ago you go awfully quiet when it comes to the Eureka 38 or 50 or Austrains 35 or the Ixion 32. Perhaps the lack of true expertise is precisely why they masked your review in the magazine as Staff only. The level of critique offered by you here is laughable and correctly put down by M636C and a6et. As someone who actually worked on the things and along with a6et we would be far more qualified to comment on such matters.

For example

The Trainorama 32 has a too skinny stack and lip that didn't taper correctly on the top. Yet the die cast design has not been thought of by anyone for traction and weight and that is the limitation of such a design that would be at least 10 years old now.

The Ixion 32 has an even worse 3 part design that also has the wrong taper and width. Neither model can be compared to the brass 55 that had it spot on.

The headlight can't be fixed on the Ixion 32 without major work. There are no spares of the correct headlight and will be difficult to get the lights working then sealed with a clear lens. The Trainorama one is correct. Just because NSWGR didn't get them to use it back in steam days (I certainly never switched mine on back as an engineman) is no excuse for getting such an important item wrong because it's the face of the loco. But Craig glosses over it like he does to every product except the Trainorama one. Again, bias on show.

The tender plates and overall tender are correct on both versions of the models right down to the rivets so well done there.

The buffer beam is pushed only around 0.5mm forward to allow for clearance of the large pony truck. That is acceptable because it did not affect the look of the loco. The buffer beam is correct.

It is however impossible to correct the awfully thick and narrow buffer beam on the Ixion 32. It is so out of proportion it is crazy! Even the Austrains 36 has a more accurate buffer beam and we are talking technology back in the 90s. Again, Craig and his bias and incorrect reporting.

The cab roof is bent well on the Ixion 32 and is a better depiction of the 32 class in general. While the Trainorama 32 was not wrong it was too flat for my preference because I prefer the more common style. Yet the Ixion 32 doesn't look like it has the canvas or glazing and that's not parts that you can get to look factory-made. Attention to detail would be great here especially when it has been done before.

The dome on the boiler is too small on the Trainorama 32 but too big and complete out of proportion on the Ixion 32. Would rather the smaller one because at least it joins the boiler correctly rather than leave a gap and look so wrong on top. Again, no easy fix here.

The maroon colour scheme is a faithful representation of the preserved version on the Ixion 32 but not to my memories when I was back at school and early in my life. The Trainorama 32 is slightly too deep but it is on the wrong frame anyway so it's a complete fiction. Interesting how that sold out when it was not right.

On balance the Trainorama 32 provides a far more acceptable number of errors that doesn't affect the overall look of the model in comparison after a detailed study of photos that I've been provided. But of course I can't argue with Craig because his work goes in the AMRM and not mine. But what this forum has given to me is an opportunity to see facts in a balanced light and I will provide that too with my knowledge of steam. Memory of course will fade as I get even older but I will always miss waking up on an icy morning ready for my next trip whether it be a 32 or a different loco.

To all,

There is no way that the chimney will have changed on the current preserved ones as they will have left the NSWGR with those ones and to the best of my knowledge they are still the original ones though it was not unheard of to have changes between locos.

To M363C

Yes there were 32s with the thinner cab roof overhang and 3246 comes off the top of my memory as being one. Original curved frame.

Have a good evening

Tom

Tom, IIRC there was a fair bit of debate here on RP on the Austrains 35, & if remember it correctly Craig did make a comment at the time that it was not a model that he was interested in, owing to his preferences.  In the past Craig has done some excellent modeling articles on how to modify goods R/S.

One writer being most concerned about the wheels, being replica's from a steam roller, interesting in that I never saw a steam roller with spoked & wide flat wheels either.

Re the headlight.  No headlight except 2 that I ever found was any good, but even on one of them the stones type on the garratt was very dependent on the electrical equipment officer responsible for them had to set the focus point in them, when focused they were exceptional same thing with them on the 46cl, when not focused correctly, all you got was a crescent moon shape at the lower part to reflect out.  I worked on 5917 one evening in 1968 on a through trip Enfield - Bmd & when the headlight was turned on it astounded me owing to the amount of light it put out, there was no dull spots at all.  On tacking Water at Gosford I walked to the front & noticed it had a slightly frosted outer rounded glass lens. a feature I saw on drawings for the 59cl & also noticed on Chinese Steam locomotives, which had the same lense usually with green tinted thick glass.

Usually it was a waste of time using the headlight, only thing it ever attracted was a train coming the other way, as it looked much brighter even when covered in black dirt & muck.

The fitting of a single sealed beam globe into 3237 by the staff at Dubbo was another matter altogether & certainly a lesson that could have been learnt by those who did the ugly fit to 3801 & 30.  The manner in which it was fitted had the end of the globe sit flush with the reflectors on the inside, giving it a very very good high beam through, in fact when I saw it, I considered that it was the equal to the twin sealed beams on diesels, it also did not look out of place.

Of interest though & for the prototype hounds is that the rules for headlight operation, & for that matter marker lights had the provision On single line workings, the marker lights on the front of the locomotive are to be turned off when traversing the single line sections & when passing stations/signal boxes.  The headlight is to be turned to dim between Home signal & in station limits.
If crossing trains the marker lights were to be turned on with correct crossing light settings.
I queried the reason & it was that the marker lights were at a height that they had caused signalmen/ASM's to drop their staff owing to the lights being in line with eyes, with the type of stepped lens giving a magnifying effect.  Thing was the only area I saw this apply was on the Single lines on the Main Northern line to Werris Creek. Prior to the Lake Liddel diversion mail trains would turn them off at Singleton.
Many signalment along the section would step back & not exchange if the markers were turned on, but never had one step back when changing at speed, opposite was found on the West Line past Bx though.