I would like to think that the ride height will be okay, but I fear what we are seeing is what we are going to get, And it is not even remotely close to correct.

To be fair, looking back, every single sample features the same body sitting "too high" over the bogies. These pictures are from April 2013.

Until they arrive it's going to be hard to know for sure the relationship between the fuel tank/running boards/cow catcher/overall body height against the bogie side frames, to know what is correct in relation to the relative heights above the rail top.

Dazz,

I think you're correct...even those pics seem to indicate the loco was sitting a bit too high, but nobody mentioned it before.

The only reason I can think of is that the lighting was "dull" in those pics, as far as highlighting the bogie/body relationship and the fact the recent pics depict the shiny wheels and unpainted metal internal side frames accentuates the height issue.

Fortunately for me I don't even like the look of the 40 class as a loco and have never had any intention of buying any.

Roachie

I really hate being a "basher", easy to sit on the sidelines and "count rivets", but you would think something as obvious as the "height above the  bogies" would be one of the most fundamental things to get right, or as close as possible. Comparing photos to the real thing I would be thinking it looks around a  scale foot (3.5 millimetres) or so too high, which in model terms is huge.

I have always really liked the 40-class, and have one of each colour on order, so I'm really hoping they look better in the flesh.

I really hate being a "basher", easy to sit on the sidelines and "count rivets", but you would think something as obvious as the "height above the  bogies" would be one of the most fundamental things to get right, or as close as possible. Comparing photos to the real thing I would be thinking it looks around a  scale foot (3.5 millimetres) or so too high, which in model terms is huge.

I have always really liked the 40-class, and have one of each colour on order, so I'm really hoping they look better in the flesh.

Dazz

I have a couple of photo's given me that I cannot publish, and shows the blue 40's with the royal train, outside of those pics, I only have one of my own and all my books are packed away so comparisons not possible ATM.
As I compared the Eureka model photo's next to the blue 40cl, the air tank on those actually looks pretty well correct as there was a reasonable gap, same from the top of the bogies, given the photo of the red 40cl and the gaps shown I believe its not that bad."

What seems to make it look worse is the polished wheels and the brass? part that shows above the bogies on #1 end. If the wheels were blackened as well as that brass section it would not look that bad, the other aspect to consider is that the body is simply sitting on top of the same chassis used with each 3 colour schemes.

that's because Montréal Loco Works didn't have to sub-let construction to China!

It would be nice to think that a delivery in August is a reality, I will believe it when mine arrive and are sitting in front of me.

I am betting on a September delivery.  Maybe just in time to go on sale at Liverpuddle.

Happy expectating,

John

PS; I am not really a betting person.  

Looking good for 2nd or 3rd week of September!  Remember 29/09/17 is the deadline for Liverpuddle (excluding airfreight).

Hmmmmm I was hoping to get one or maybe two 40 class locomotives but so far what I have seen does not make a good impression really. Shiny wheels, brass strips not blackened, possibly sitting too high on the bogies and if that is the case possibly also couplers will be to high as well, then there is the painted or decalled vents on the roof and so it goes on. I am not one to really knock any Australian model locomotive but paying top price for a second rate model is just making me sad actually. A job worth doing is worth doing right though.

Yes I know they had to change factories partway into getting the models done but you would think that even using the original tooling like they are supposed to be doing that they could have got it a lot nearer to a decent scale model rather than a almost Tri-ang old fashioned model. A great let down actually to me and now I don't think I will be buying any at all to tell the truth.

I have always wanted a NSW 40 class but I think I will wait now and maybe Auscision or one of the better Australian brands might do it a lot more closer to scale etc.

I honestly thought that things like this on a model died with the old Tri-ang trains brand but it seems not. I must say this though it does seem that Eureka do seem to cop the rotten luck model wise though, so far really not one locomotive they have done is not without a lot of problems.

Well I might just wait now and see what the production run is like before cancelling anything, but if someone can post up on here some photo's of their ordered ones when delivered along with anything else that is really wrong I think most on here would like to hear what you have to say!

Not good to see models done as a sort of half hearted attempt at it though!

Hmmmmm I was hoping to get one or maybe two 40 class locomotives but so far what I have seen does not make a good impression really. Shiny wheels, brass strips not blackened, possibly sitting too high on the bogies and if that is the case possibly also couplers will be to high as well, then there is the painted or decalled vents on the roof and so it goes on. I am not one to really knock any Australian model locomotive but paying top price for a second rate model is just making me sad actually. A job worth doing is worth doing right though.

Yes I know they had to change factories partway into getting the models done but you would think that even using the original tooling like they are supposed to be doing that they could have got it a lot nearer to a decent scale model rather than a almost Tri-ang old fashioned model. A great let down actually to me and now I don't think I will be buying any at all to tell the truth.

I have always wanted a NSW 40 class but I think I will wait now and maybe Auscision or one of the better Australian brands might do it a lot more closer to scale etc.

I honestly thought that things like this on a model died with the old Tri-ang trains brand but it seems not. I must say this though it does seem that Eureka do seem to cop the rotten luck model wise though, so far really not one locomotive they have done is not without a lot of problems.

Well I might just wait now and see what the production run is like before cancelling anything, but if someone can post up on here some photo's of their ordered ones when delivered along with anything else that is really wrong I think most on here would like to hear what you have to say!

Not good to see models done as a sort of half hearted attempt at it though!

David,

In the past I have been a critic of areas in Eureka's models, and in each case its been in regard to getting things wrong, no different to many other models that come out.  I agree with you in regards to the vented section on the top of the casings, which really is poor and for me I cannot understand why a seperate section was not made as a fit in for that area of the model.

As I replied to Dazz above, I am now not convinced that the model sits too high, the non blackened items are not good but gee they are not the only ones who are producing models like that either.

I have compared photo's of the 40cl that I have and from early ones that I cannot put up here, and believe me they show a fair gap between footplate and the reservoir.  Consider the aspect that Alco type models in the past, 44cl excepted have a reasonable gap from top of bogie to the under frame of the body.

As I also mentioned, I am of the thought that the bodies in the three photo's are possibly not firmly attached to the chassis, possibly all use the same chassis for the photo shots.  I have had one of these models paid for since early days, and I could drop off and get a refund thing is though, I find what I see enough in the model that I am happy with and to the point where any future replacement from another source may come after I'm in a box.

Other aspect is that I am aware of a couple of respected modeller/producers who may be considering doing a replacement roof vent for the model, it would mean some modelling skills so, its likely a path that I will take as well.  That will not be revealed until after the 40cl arrives and its checked out to see how it will can be fitted.

I have looked at a lot of photographs over the past few days, and from what I can see the major issue definitely looks to be the gap between the bogie side frames and the running boards.

Looking at the photograph from Flickr by Don5617, of 4015, which is consistent with lots of other photos, the main thing that stands out to me is the distance between the brake cylinders and the running boards and the lifting point projections (located roughly above the centre wheel on each bogie).

On the actual locomotive, the brake cylinders are very close to the underside of the running boards, and the top of the cylinder is slightly above the bottom edge of the lifting point projections. On the model the brake cylinders are not anywhere close enough to the underside of the running boards. That alone is one of the main reference points that looks wrong.

However, it also appears that the brake cylinders on the model are mounted too low on the side frames, on the real thing it looks that roughly half or two thirds of the brake cylinders are above the top of the side frames. Looking at the real thing the brake cylinders look to be roughly in line with the cylindrical air tank, on the model they are somewhat lower.

It may even be that slightly raising the brake cylinders on the side frame may go some way towards lessening the perceived gap?

It's hard to tell from the photographs, but the gap between the bottom of the fuel tank and rails doesn't look too bad, and none of us are going to know for sure until the models arrive, but I think that the key measurement is going to be the distance from the top of the rails (track) to the bottom of the running boards. You would assume all dimensions from the running boards up are fairly accurate, so if the "body" is X-amount too high above the bogies to begin with, then the overall height will also be that much too high, which can be visually off putting against other locomotives and rolling stock.

Out of curiosity does anybody have a detailed drawing of the 40-class showing the actual height of the locomotive/height of the running boards above track level?

4015 down goods at North Wollongong in 1966 (Don5617) by Don5617 (flickr)

This is another photo from Flickr (photo credit below) showing how the brake cylinders and cylindrical air reservoir are basically in line, which looks very different on the model.


4001 Approaching Tarana by Trent "Raichase" Nicholson (flickr)

Another picture showing the same relativity between the height of the brake cylinders and air reservoir.

4001, 4520 & 44211 at Tarana by Les 'LowndesJ515' Coulton (flickr)

You're all making terrific observations on the 40 class.  I'm learning heaps. Thank you.

I'm also not one to overly criticise model coys for producing HO scale models for us to go and 'play'.

I also ordered a green and an indian red 8+ years ago. Just another question so I have a vested interest in the finished product. Is the gap between the front on the Eureka 40 class bogie and the back of the buffer plate excessive compared to the 1:1 version?  Or is it just the photo angle?

You're all making terrific observations on the 40 class.  I'm learning heaps. Thank you.

I'm also not one to overly criticise model coys for producing HO scale models for us to go and 'play'.

I also ordered a green and an indian red 8+ years ago. Just another question so I have a vested interest in the finished product. Is the gap between the front on the Eureka 40 class bogie and the back of the buffer plate excessive compared to the 1:1 version?  Or is it just the photo angle?

A good question and it does look excessive on the model as well. Is the bogie the right length to start with or  are the sideframes at least the right length might be a better question. Both of these things could affect the gap as shown.

The other thing the bottom of the underframe appears to clear by a large margin the air tank on the model but in the prototype photo it appears that the top of the air tank is partially hidden by the underframe. I also think the body may be too high if you compare the knuckle couplers on the model and notice the un- coupling trip pins are at approx the right height in the model photo. This could mean if you have to lower the body on production versions then you will have to adjust the coupler height as well, one other thing here though if you do have to lower the body to get it to look better will the buffers then be at the right height in relation to other brands of cars with buffers on them.

It could be that the body has just been put on to the chassis for the photograph's to be taken though. But I would think that any manufacturer putting up a model photo of a painted and finished model would at least try to get it to look like a production model though as closely as possible. Just saying though as it seems to be be that models of late of some brands seem to have a lot of errors that are simply seen in photo's of the prototypes. Yes I know that some liberties have to be taken in the manufacturing process and to enable it to run around sharp curves etc!

I am not against them doing a almost scale model like this if all the errors are indeed errors, but I think asking for top dollar for a model that is some what flawed is asking a bit much. A reduction in the price to compensate would not go astray though.

As been said we will have to wait to see a full production model before a real judgement can be made on this model though. Hopefully all that has been said about bodies simply plonked onto a chassis for photo's is true and the production models look a lot better. So far it is not looking as good as what it should be!

Another picture showing the same relativity between the height of the brake cylinders and air reservoir.

4001, 4520 & 44211 at Tarana by Les 'LowndesJ515' Coulton (flickr)

Good shots Dazz, & this is the best way to compare, my pics and memory are packed away and memory does not relate to these aspects.

What I see is that the brake cylinders certainly appear to be too low and should be pretty well in line at a centre point of the MR tanks, especially noticeable in the B&W shot.

I am still wondering though if the body is simply sitting on the chassis as I have suggested.

One thing though if I have to modify another model to correct things, then it will likely be the last one I buy from any importer. It gets me that so many simple and therefore terrible errors are being fobbed off on the buyers out there. If it was a single item in one model its one thing but when noticeable errors are repeated in a consistent manner, it goes beyond the joke.

You're all making terrific observations on the 40 class.  I'm learning heaps. Thank you.

I'm also not one to overly criticise model coys for producing HO scale models for us to go and 'play'.

I also ordered a green and an indian red 8+ years ago. Just another question so I have a vested interest in the finished product. Is the gap between the front on the Eureka 40 class bogie and the back of the buffer plate excessive compared to the 1:1 version?  Or is it just the photo angle?

A good question and it does look excessive on the model as well. Is the bogie the right length to start with or  are the sideframes at least the right length might be a better question. Both of these things could affect the gap as shown.

The other thing the bottom of the underframe appears to clear by a large margin the air tank on the model but in the prototype photo it appears that the top of the air tank is partially hidden by the underframe. I also think the body may be too high if you compare the knuckle couplers on the model and notice the un- coupling trip pins are at approx the right height in the model photo. This could mean if you have to lower the body on production versions then you will have to adjust the coupler height as well, one other thing here though if you do have to lower the body to get it to look better will the buffers then be at the right height in relation to other brands of cars with buffers on them.

It could be that the body has just been put on to the chassis for the photograph's to be taken though. But I would think that any manufacturer putting up a model photo of a painted and finished model would at least try to get it to look like a production model though as closely as possible. Just saying though as it seems to be be that models of late of some brands seem to have a lot of errors that are simply seen in photo's of the prototypes. Yes I know that some liberties have to be taken in the manufacturing process and to enable it to run around sharp curves etc!

I am not against them doing a almost scale model like this if all the errors are indeed errors, but I think asking for top dollar for a model that is some what flawed is asking a bit much. A reduction in the price to compensate would not go astray though.

As been said we will have to wait to see a full production model before a real judgement can be made on this model though. Hopefully all that has been said about bodies simply plonked onto a chassis for photo's is true and the production models look a lot better. So far it is not looking as good as what it should be!

David you have a chord with me in what you have said, it goes to a point when a model is long overdue and had to be basically retooled as it would seem has or possibly happened since the order to the previous factory was announced to go ahead with production, and now to find what seems to be simple errors have surfaced in another model from same brand, and its early days and hopefully as I suggested in the beginning that the body may be just resting on the chassis is all the problem is.

I have several models that I purchased after a change of heart and now simply regret it as the errors are so much that I cannot stand the look of them as its all I can see when I place them on the layout.  In the past I thought a tolerance level of a set percentage was acceptable but when translated to scale verses the 1:1 scale it would be horrendous and very visible to the eye.

I just hope that my thinking regarding the body and chassis relationship is actually right, if not having to have the model as it is after paying for it in full near 10 years ago is gunna hurt big time, as I can only imagine what I could have got in interest, even the paltry amounts of offer over a ten year period

One hopes that it is just the fact that the bodies were just plonked onto a chassis to photograph them though, but as previous people have pointed out it seems every Eureka locomotive seems to have huge errors in them that either stand out or make the model useless to run. Body errors can be fixed easily enough with a bit of surgery in most cases but wheels moving on axles is not what an average modeller can fix. But getting back to the model at hand if it is going to come out looking like that I think a lot of people that ordered it will simply ask for a refund of their money. You could not really blame them.

It all comes down the errors in them that is to bad or inadequate research into the models. Other brands even with some small errors here and there at least look like a scale model not a kids toy train. I don't like knocking a brand and they all have some errors in them but Eureka of late seems to cop a lot more than other brands for some reason and they are usually easily seen errors as well. So it is not like we complain over nothing at all, if we the average modeler can see them then the experts in their fields that draw them up or design them should be able to see them.

Alright you have to go with what the factory can make but personally if it is not near the drawings or specifications etc submitted then sorry we don't want them. If they have been made to the drawings provided then I would say that the drawings or renders are way out and that comes back to inadequate research on someone's part.

Well I will be waiting fingers crossed, but I am not going to hold my breath though!
Like I said I would like a 40 or two but they have to be a lot better than what has been photographed so far!

Is the gap between the front on the Eureka 40 class bogie and the back of the buffer plate excessive compared to the 1:1 version?  Or is it just the photo angle?

looking at lots of photos, I'm happy to say that I don't think the position of the bogies is incorrect, nor the gap between the end of the  bogies and the back of the pilots/buffing plates.

This may seem like a very odd way to put your mind at rest, this basic diagram is from the brilliant Datasheets web site, and whilst it is an un-dimentioned line drawing, it would still be indicative of the bogie placement, which very  much matches lots of photographs, showing the bogie frames ending well inside where the hoods of the body end.

there is a valid reason for the space between the bogie frames and the pilot/buffing plates, the 40-class is basically an American RSC-3 (or variants there of), the cabin reshaped to fit out tighter loading gauge, slightly different fuel tank arrangement, but the main point is that the RSC has steps at either end of the running boards, which are not present on the 40-class.

You can see by the picture, the steps are quite wide and so once removed leave quite a gap between the end of the bogies and where the pilot/buffing plates would be on the 40-class.

Is the gap between the front on the Eureka 40 class bogie and the back of the buffer plate excessive compared to the 1:1 version?  Or is it just the photo angle?

looking at lots of photos, I'm happy to say that I don't think the position of the bogies is incorrect, nor the gap between the end of the  bogies and the back of the pilots/buffing plates.

This may seem like a very odd way to put your mind at rest, this basic diagram is from the brilliant Datasheets web site, and whilst it is an un-dimentioned line drawing, it would still be indicative of the bogie placement, which very  much matches lots of photographs, showing the bogie frames ending well inside where the hoods of the body end.

Dazz

That is likely one of the old direct drawings that were released by the old PR section of the NSWGR, from the old Green House in York St.

I purchased a stack of them that were of steam loco's, all the early ones were signed off by Lucy, they were basic outline drawings for the drivers side, not really of scale & not sure of the reasoning behind them except perhaps to form a basic authorised drawing to potential contractors as to what was needed.

Your point with the next photo re the steps is a good one and as the U.S versions were deemed road switchers their shunters, or yard men would stand on the steps during engine only movements.

This is probably one of the better pictures from almost dead side on at foot plate level, showing the distance between the front of the bogie side frames and the pilot/buffer beam.

Looking at the relativities between the bogies and the body, the front axle centreline is slightly ahead of the front of the battery boxes (that is what they are isn't it?) in front of the cabin, the centre axle is almost directly below the lifting point projection under the front edge of the cabin, and the rear axle is just inside the back edge of the cabin, which all look pretty much the same as the model.

This is probably one of the better pictures from almost dead side on at foot plate level, showing the distance between the front of the bogie side frames and the pilot/buffer beam.

Looking at the relativities between the bogies and the body, the front axle centreline is slightly ahead of the front of the battery boxes (that is what they are isn't it?) in front of the cabin, the centre axle is almost directly below the lifting point projection under the front edge of the cabin, and the rear axle is just inside the back edge of the cabin, which all look pretty much the same as the model.

That is a good photo Dazz, yes the plate above the middle axle is the lifting section, what this photo also shows to me is that the brake cylinders are also at the correct height and relationship with the bogies.

Which therefore may also confirm that the photo's of the sample models are simply resting on top of the chassis, if I am correct on that once the body is secured in place the MR cylinder will get closer under the footplate and the whole model will look right.

While I mainly have steam models, all of them including the Auscision 43 and the TOR 42, and 44 sit high on the chassis until either clipped, or screwed in place to the frame.

I am surprised that no mention has been made of the downward slope of the buffers and coupling on the short hood end of the three models shown on Eureka Blog photos ?

there is a valid reason for the space between the bogie frames and the pilot/buffing plates, the 40-class is basically an American RSD-4 (or variants there of), the cabin reshaped to fit out tighter loading gauge, slightly different fuel tank arrangement, but the main point is that the RSD has steps at either end of the running boards, which are not present on the 40-class.

You can see by the picture, the steps are quite wide and so once removed leave quite a gap between the end of the bogies and where the pilot/buffing plates would be on the 40-class.

The 40 class is an RSC-3

The RSD-4 and RSD-5, while the same overall length, had bogies that were entirely different, with three motors each and with pivot points that were much closer to the ends. These should not be used for comparison.

Peter

I am surprised that no mention has been made of the downward slope of the buffers and coupling on the short hood end of the three models shown on Eureka Blog photos ?

I'm not sure there's much of a slope on the buffers the green 40cl does appear to have a slight angle on the coupler but it is taken at a slightly different angle.  While a mute point, I don't think that the Eureka 40cl is alone in that arena, as I wouldn't mind a dollar or two for every model I have purchased that has a drooping set of buffers &/or coupler on them.

Hi all,

I do not think there is any significant droop on the buffers and couplers.  The photo angle is not right to give an accurate impression.   Remember that Turton type buffers have a reducing casing diameter as you move from the frame to the buffer head.   Additionally the coupler glad hand can give an incorrect impression of the coupler alignment.

With reference to the body height issue, please refer to the blog photo taken on Ray Pilgrim's Bylong layout and posted on 05/05/16.
Link - https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5fEp5LZLub4/Vyn3Ywk4SrI/AAAAAAAAAoI/BNt4nOwiQI0yLlu4GGyVzl3lPJxehxhMwCLcB/s1600/4010%2Bon%2BHUB%2BSet.jpg
In this photo the buffers, brake cylinders and air reservoirs are all in line.  If the model is produced in this format I, for one, will be content.

Happy alcoing,

John