| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/12search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:29 pm
|
| anzac1959 wrote: | | a6et wrote: | | Aaron wrote: | What's an AMRA standard and which RTR manufacturers use them?  |
For me, & I think each has seen my view & posts on the 35, it is obvious that it is not the perfect rendition of a 35, but as I say, show me any perfect model.
|
I built a DJH Garratt and sold it on ebay before the Eureka Garratt came out for around the same money the sound Garratt cost me and certainly not unhappy that i did that.In my eyes its the perfect model and if i wasnt going to get a 38 or 2 i would love to get another Garratt.(Lined).Were there any major mistakes/problems with the Garratt in manufacturing ? |
It all depends on what you are looking for. & as Terry signed off on his post regarding the 35 | Quote: | | In conclusion a thumbs down from rivet counters. |
If I wanted to do a rivet count, then I could list several, yet like those on the 35 they do not really take away from the model.
I also have been deemed a rivet counter, but at least I am prepared to accept the fact that there are limitations & tolerances in modelling. & despite the 35cl problems if I had the money I would get at least a couple more.
It really depends on what you want, & if you have the money, if you are not specific modelling, not wanting a 100% accurate model ( & believe me you will not get one) then you decide, & far be it for me to spoil what you are after.
|
|
 |
NSWGR1855
Locomotive Driver
Joined: Mar 19, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 13, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:05 pm
|
| a6et wrote: | | NSWGR1855 wrote: | Interesting that all here are totally pleased with their NN and 35's. The paint job on these models is lovely however a couple of my rivet counting mates and myself are not so impressed. The detail level is not to the same standard as the Eureka 60 or recent Trainorama and Auscission Diesels. The reported improvement in running is due to stainless steal driving wheels and extra pick ups on the tenders plated die cast wheels. Unfortunately John ignored my warning about excessive drag by using Lima style axle pick ups. Hence the disappointment from one friend about it's pulling abilities. Both models have the poorly shaped leading bogie wheels and the plastic insert spoked driving wheels that are often not correctly aligned with the die cast spokes, both left overs from the 36. On the model I measured the wheel check gauge was set larger than the AMRA standard, which means the model has a greater chance of derailment on Peco turnouts. Another left over from the 36 is incorrectly placed brake shoes for the NN and 35. It comes fitted with uncouple at random plastic knuckle couplers, which are not set to the AMRA, NMRA or Kadee standard height. The tender coupler is also set to close and buffer lock becomes a problem on typical model railway curves. There is a rather coarse lip on the tender and coarse plates under the smoke box. I can only conclude this model is not up to the top standard of recent Australian models from the same factory. I won't bother with the other disappointments on this model, but there are plenty that are difficult to correct. The QSI sound unit is an improvement with cylinder drain cocks, but the sound unit, like all the others still does not allow the user to change the working hard exhaust sound to minimal noise drifting down hill noise, easily on DC or DCC.
In conclusion a thumbs down from rivet counters. |
Terry
I am not sure that everyone here is as you say "totally pleased" with the 35cl, as I had pointed out several features with the model in a semi review of it.
Not everyone is of the same opinion as you on the wheel standards, & having only Peco points, code 100, & one Shinohara, double crossover, not once has the 35 derailed, even going over them at excessice speed.
Yes you are correct with the brake shoe positioning, & I am surprised that the casing for the hangers are now an integrated part of the pplastic keeper plate which was not the case on the original 36 so it will be a bit harde to relocate the shoes.
The disappointing pulling power may also attributed to much the same problem as the 36cl & that was the light plastic body, howerver it is again possible to fit extra lead in strategic places to improve this in much the same way as was done with the 36.
Whilst on that line, the Eureka garratt, also suffers from haulage problems as well. Not forgetting that it also has the poor couplings, & there are several other points with the garratt that could also be raised as well.
The tender coupler length is actually mentioned in the sheet supplied with the model, & I have had no problems on my layout that has a minimum radius of 24" as well as the points are medium Peco, & there is no buffer lock. I also find that the coupler hieght sits perfectly in line with all my rolling stock.
As for the exhaust sound on going downhill, this is probably my pet peeve with all sound equipped models, you cannot turn the exhaust off & have the other "NORMAL" sounds that would heard by a steam engine drifting down a grade, such as blower, safety valve blow off, dynamo, & last but not least the pump, especially when you use the brake feature with the squealing effect.
You can actually take the sound of the exhaust down by setting the speed control on the hand set, & then press F9 the heavy load feature, with that engaged, you reduce the speed on the hand control & the speed remains at the same as it was when heavy load was engaged but, the exhaust goes down to a low volumn. To me any volumn is wrong, & I simply press f8 & mute the whole of the sound when in a drifting mode.
So what is the model up to as far as standards are concerned? Yes there are bloopers, as I pointed out earlier, but are they so bad that the model is a right off? Personally, I don't think so. Could it have been a better model, the answer to that is a yes, certainly had it been made in metal like the TOR is being built it would be better in pulling power.
Now on that score, with the Eureka 38's being (at last accounts) being also made out of Plastic, how will it go in the hauling stakes? TOR made the correct decision in changing to metal construction, which should show out when the 32 is released, so will the other producers do likewise with pending models such as the 57, 58 & 59, the likely 55, & the R & K class steamers, if they are also made in plastic, then we will see a repeat of the garratt, 35 & 36 class pulling problems.
At the end of the day anyone can find any amount of imperfections with any model that is produced, & I am pretty sure, that despite all the checks that have been made, the model that will set the benchmark will be the 32, & all likelihood, there will be things found with it. The thing is simply how much or far will people go in their efforts to find what is wrong as against what is right. |
My comment about the wheel compatability with the model I measured was also checked by pushing its tender through a number of Peco code 100 turnouts and applying a small side force to it. This test replicates shunting conditions. The wheels jumped the crossing V indicating the check gauge on the model I was playing with had a check gauge problem for Peco track. If the wheel check was within the AMRA or NEM dimensions there would be no problem. Try pushing long trains through your track work, see how your NN/35 goes. May be your model wheels are set closer to the ideal check gauge dimension. My other comments about the 35/NN and 36 wheels are about appearance of the spokes and shape of the leading disc wheel, nothing to do with the wheel standards.
The coupler height problem on the tender is an unnecessary irritation of excessive coupler droop, resulting in a low trip pin. The coupler box for the front on the other hand is to low, an unnecessary design which forces the use of a Kadee low shank replacement to get to standard AMRA,NMRA, Kadee height using the supplied coupler box. The comment about the coupler distance was second hand from a rivet counting mate, why does he think it is to close if it is not?
The poor tractive effort of the Austrains 36 is not because the model is to light, it's because the front truck spring is to stiff. Cut a few turns of this spring and your Austrains 36 can pull more than a prototype load up a prototype grade. With the 35/NN the same would apply, except you have extra drag from the Lima style tender wheel pickups. The solution is to use an electrically split axle and pick up through metal pin point bearings.
The Eureka 60 is the Australian mass produced RTR steam bench mark at the moment, yes the model could have had better tractive effort, but it does pull a prototype load up prototype grades and both the useless couplers are the correct height, making kadee replacement with scale head couplers easy. The Review of the Eureka 60 in AMRM did not find any major errors, and If you line up the Eureka 60 next to DJH and Brass models, all are very similar in accuracy and detail. Comparing the Eureka 60 with any of the Trainorama steam locomotives is chalk and cheese, The Eureka 60 is an accurate and highly detailed model consistent with the modern fine scale modeling view, the Austrains 36,35 and NN are inaccurate and relatively coarse models in comparison. I can see the NN is coarse and inaccurate without putting a measuring device near it. Photographs of the prototype NN indicate the cab sides are the same width as the tender sides, yet the model's cab is wider than the tender sides. It's not the first model Austrains has got the width wrong.
The Eureka 38 with a plastic boiler should have no trouble pulling a scale load up scale grades and should easily out pull the Austrains 35/NN. I know this because I own a plastic bodied 38 on a brass mechanism which pulls far in excess of scale loads. There is a lot of extra space in the 38 to include weight due to its size. The decision to use a metal boiler in the Trainorama model will improve tractive effort, however it cost's more to make die cast bodies. The 32 is also dragging a die cast tender which will negate some of the traction advantage of the metal boiler but I expect the 32 to be as good as the Eureka models as far as accuracy and detail goes.
Finally on the subject of sound, the method you describe to control the volume is far from easy using DCC and my experience using DC it's does not work when you want it to.
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet |
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:45 pm
|
Please note that I have edited in some points in this reply the edited in points are in colour.
| NSWGR1855 wrote: |
My comment about the wheel compatability with the model I measured was also checked by pushing its tender through a number of Peco code 100 turnouts and applying a small side force to it. This test replicates shunting conditions. The wheels jumped the crossing V indicating the check gauge on the model I was playing with had a check gauge problem for Peco track. If the wheel check was within the AMRA or NEM dimensions there would be no problem.
Try pushing long trains through your track work, see how your NN/35 goes. May be your model wheels are set closer to the ideal check gauge dimension. My other comments about the 35/NN and 36 wheels are about appearance of the spokes and shape of the leading disc wheel, nothing to do with the wheel standards. |
Are you pushing the tender by itself using your finger to replicate what you are doing in order to have the engine derail? If so I think it is a pretty poor way of trying to replicate something, certainly I could do the same with any model & reproduce the derailment aspect with any locomotive, tender or any item of rolling stock.
The problem you create with the pushing, is that you have a very uneven balance or, spread of wieght, & it does not allow the model to negotiate smoothly with the even flow of the engine providing the required horizontal movement.
Besides all that, when shunting operations are carried out the regulations provided for a maximum speed of 4mph.
| Quote: | | The coupler height problem on the tender is an unnecessary irritation of excessive coupler droop, resulting in a low trip pin. The coupler box for the front on the other hand is to low, an unnecessary design which forces the use of a Kadee low shank replacement to get to standard AMRA,NMRA, Kadee height using the supplied coupler box. The comment about the coupler distance was second hand from a rivet counting mate, why does he think it is to close if it is not? |
As I mentioned the coupler height on the tender of my model is fine, & sits straight & in accord with a Kadee check height gauge, the trip pin does not hit the metal plate.
Whilst the coupling is short, & is mentioned in the sheet as mentioned, I have no problems going through Peco code 100 medium radius points.
I comment on this bit re the front coupler pocket. Personally, whilst I can understand the reason for it, to satisfy those who want to fit a kadee or other to the front, it does nothing for me, & actually spoils the look of the buffer beam with the edges on show, especially for those who only want the natural hook on show (not to mention the well made screw link coupling that is fitted). As such I think those who want to modify their models to have them, should do so in their own way, & therefore there should not be any criticism, as having a full flat buffer beam is better especially to satisfy those who don't want kadee's there & to shut the rivet counters up on another issue.
Terry, why would you take the word from someone else on something without first verifying it for yourself? Everything I am saying is relative to the model that I have & can base my comments on that particular model, & no one elses.
| Quote: | The poor tractive effort of the Austrains 36 is not because the model is to light, it's because the front truck spring is to stiff. Cut a few turns of this spring and your Austrains 36 can pull more than a prototype load up a prototype grade. With the 35/NN the same would apply, except you have extra drag from the Lima style tender wheel pickups. The solution is to use an electrically split axle and pick up through metal pin point bearings.
The Eureka 60 is the Australian mass produced RTR steam bench mark at the moment, yes the model could have had better tractive effort, but it does pull a prototype load up prototype grades and both the useless couplers are the correct height, making kadee replacement with scale head couplers easy. |
Actually I had to add some styrene at the bunker end of my garratt to correct a sag on that coupler.
I did cut the spring on my original 36, & it still had traction problems. The question of correct loads or prototypical loads be it on the 35, 36 or garratt is hard to gauge when its all said & done, how do you measure the load for these models?
For example, a garrat running Enfield to Goulburn was able to haul a load of 900tons. Or it could haul a block load of 29BWH + Brake van. Grade being 1:75 ruling, place that load on a model layout, with 29 of the TOR BWH & a TOR NHG or similar, bearing in mind that they are free running vehicles would the Eureka garratt haul that amount on a scale 1:75 grade?
Likewise the 36cl had a load of 575tons, at a length load of 45x 4wheel wagons, even with the sprig cut it would not haul that. In theory as we had no load for the 35 on the south in WTT's in the 60's, yet they were classed in the same as a 36cl, & certainly the model would struggle.
With the pending 38's the same load applied but with a length of 55x 4 wheel wagons, will they haul that amount of load/wagons?
Now all of this is subjective isn't it. because are the TOR BWH hoppers weight based on a scale ratio of loaded or empty? That is the determining factor isn't it? So in the end, we as modellers fudge the trains & loads
| Quote: | | The Review of the Eureka 60 in AMRM did not find any major errors, and If you line up the Eureka 60 next to DJH and Brass models, all are very similar in accuracy and detail. Comparing the Eureka 60 with any of the Trainorama steam locomotives is chalk and cheese, The Eureka 60 is an accurate and highly detailed model consistent with the modern fine scale modeling view, the Austrains 36,35 and NN are inaccurate and relatively coarse models in comparison. |
Without wanting to portray the garratt in a poor light, I could if I so desired level a good deal from a rivet counters perspective, more so than you may like, but in the end the model is a good model, but is let down by some features that were & are poor choices & hopefully wont be replicated in the 2nd run.
As far as the 2 reviews go, they were in my opinion, which is no better, nor worse, then your expressed opinions on it. From my perspective, I think they were quite friendly towards the model, & probably because of the step forward in the hobby & model making scope.
In fact the 2 huge reviews were so positive that one must compare them to the review years ago that sung the praises of the Austrains 36cl on its arrival. What is interesting in that review was that there was only one done on the round boilered version & then for the Belpair version an arrival notice was given with points relating to the previous released round boilered version.
| Quote: | | I can see the NN is coarse and inaccurate without putting a measuring device near it. Photographs of the prototype NN indicate the cab sides are the same width as the tender sides, yet the model's cab is wider than the tender sides. It's not the first model Austrains has got the width wrong. |
When people review a model, do they do so with nil preconceptions, or with them. Is the person looking to find faults with the model for the sake of it? Or if being fair minded, & not coming from the extreme ends of rivet counters, or nit pickers is that what is being looked for?
I have just gone over datasheets plans of the 35cl, & it shows the blocked in hand rails at a line just inside the outside of the side of the cabs. Whilst the tender sides are actually in line with the valance. The plan actually looks as if the top of the hungry boards are at the same width as the valance, & if you do a check of the actual tender side (external water sides) you will note that they actually line up with the top rounded inserts of the internal rear patition of the cab, which were above the crews head & therefor their side saddle backrest.
People tell me, not do my defence based on my actual working knowledge of these & other steam engines, also don't rely on photographs to support all of your view or as being the real evidence for such support, get plans of what you are talking about.
Photo's are most helpfull when you are detailing & wanting to model a specific numbered locomotive in order to pick anything that is different & to ensure the closest possible modelling of it, but it is often hard to pick other issues up, such as your claim about the width of cab/tender etc
| Quote: | | The Eureka 38 with a plastic boiler should have no trouble pulling a scale load up scale grades and should easily out pull the Austrains 35/NN. I know this because I own a plastic bodied 38 on a brass mechanism which pulls far in excess of scale loads. There is a lot of extra space in the 38 to include weight due to its size. |
You are in all probability correct on that, & as such we can only hope you are right & when they arrive we will see.
| Quote: | | The decision to use a metal boiler in the Trainorama model will improve tractive effort, however it cost's more to make die cast bodies. The 32 is also dragging a die cast tender which will negate some of the traction advantage of the metal boiler but I expect the 32 to be as good as the Eureka models as far as accuracy and detail goes. |
Sounds like you are trying to play two up or having an each way bet on this. Had TOR decided to stick with the plastic body, we would all be going through the disaster zone of how much or little it hauls. The extra cost of the metal body was in a large degree caused by having to start from scratch in the planning & production of the model.
Being all wheel drive, will IMHO more than compensate for any tender weight or drag. Remember where we are on what they haul.
Also had TOR stuck to the plastic body over the metal body, how much less would we have paid for the end model? So for what its worth, just like the Eureka Garratt stepped into a new world, so will the TOR 32. & whilst the plastic 38 has the space for extra wieght to compensate, will the forthcoming 59cl & eventual 55cl be plastic or metal?
Realistically if either or both of them come out with light plastic, then we will see a repeat of the 35. 36cl. The 59 cl is not a big model like the 38, has higher wheels & as such, just like their real life versions were quite prone to slippage & wheel spin. Time will tell.
| Quote: | | Finally on the subject of sound, the method you describe to control the volume is far from easy using DCC and my experience using DC it's does not work when you want it to. |
In the end, I would have to agree with you on this, but, if we want sound then we have to live with the limitations that exist at the present time. & I certainly do not like the method of control, & the reason I mute the sound when drifting downhill, & pick the sound up again at the base of the next grade in exactly the same way we did on the real versions.
To me, I am wondering about the question of OEM sound especially for DCC models. Purelly for the reason, that I await some answers regarding the features for an OEM equipped model against the equally priced QSI Revolution that adds a lot more features.
& that is the way that any of the model producers who are offering the sound option should be going.
In the end for me. I am totally for models that are as accurate as they can be, I also can find a heck of a lot more things than many reviewers can find, especially as I get time with a model. & as I said, the garratt does have a list of items that could & should have been done to it if we are to take your reference points & the other rivet counters viewpoints.
If we really want to take the rivet counters side of things, then why do many of them insist on having the unprototypical Kadee couplers on the front of engines that never had them? Certainly a black mark against them.
Certainly the 35 & 36 has there problem areas, but, would Eureka or TOR produced them? Or are we better off not having them at all?
For me, the 35 does have its problems, as I have stated right from the beginning, but are they enough that has come to rivet counting displays of the thumbs down & in last line of questions, will they within the batch of those you refer to, ever be satisfied?
Last edited by a6et on Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Aaron
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
Location: University of Adelaide SA
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:56 pm
|
| NSWGR1855 wrote: | | My comment about the wheel compatability with the model I measured was also checked by pushing its tender through a number of Peco code 100 turnouts and applying a small side force to it. This test replicates shunting conditions. |
Of course it does, I know I ALWAYS shunt wagons whilst applying lateral force to the tender on my locomotives...
I find the best test to replicate shunting conditions is to actually get a couple dozen four wheelers and shunt them... 
| NSWGR1855 wrote: | | The wheels jumped the crossing V indicating the check gauge on the model I was playing with had a check gauge problem for Peco track. If the wheel check was within the AMRA or NEM dimensions there would be no problem. |
Or you could simply stop applying a lateral force.
| NSWGR1855 wrote: | | Try pushing long trains through your track work, see how your NN/35 goes. May be your model wheels are set closer to the ideal check gauge dimension. |
It worked fine on the model I saw in action, and that thing backed the whole train a full around the layout, some 20 odd metres of mainline loop traversingmore points than I can bother to count and a scratch built x-over. I have done similar with my Eureka AD60, it survived too.
| NSWGR1855 wrote: | | The Eureka 38 with a plastic boiler should have no trouble pulling a scale load up scale grades and should easily out pull the Austrains 35/NN. |
Yeah, a 38 vs 35/NN is hardly a fair fight in any scale HO or 12" to 1'
| NSWGR1855 wrote: | | Finally on the subject of sound, the method you describe to control the volume is far from easy using DCC and my experience using DC it's does not work when you want it to. |
What so activating one function is too hard?
|
|
|
alltrainzfan
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Sep 19, 2005
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
Location: At Many of Places Yet Nowhere
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:01 pm
|
I took my C35 for a run onto perhaps a really poor set of points: the Hornby standard radius 1 point. Connected to it was an 18 inch curve. The C35 performed flawlessly when pushed and pulled on the sharp curve, and also when pulled along the points. However when you push the loco backwards over the set of points, the tender will derail. The tender is very light, and without the extra weight, will derail over the set of catchpoints. However if it is a larger radius point, maybe it will be different.
However I am more than happy with my C35, and runs perfectly on my very basic track at the moment. 
|
|
|
NSWGR1855
Locomotive Driver
Joined: Mar 19, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 13, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:59 pm
|
| alltrainzfan wrote: | I took my C35 for a run onto perhaps a really poor set of points: the Hornby standard radius 1 point. Connected to it was an 18 inch curve. The C35 performed flawlessly when pushed and pulled on the sharp curve, and also when pulled along the points. However when you push the loco backwards over the set of points, the tender will derail. The tender is very light, and without the extra weight, will derail over the set of catchpoints. However if it is a larger radius point, maybe it will be different.
However I am more than happy with my C35, and runs perfectly on my very basic track at the moment. |
No the reason why the tender derailed is because the tender wheels check gauge is larger than the track check gauge you are using. You have confirmed the fact the check gauge on some of the Austrains models is not ideal for some Peco track work. My test was on a Peco curved point, inside radius about 900mm.
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet |
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:24 pm
|
Tomorrow without fail, I will go & test my 35 on the 3 types of Points, as well as the Shinohara set of points I have on my layout.
These consist of medium standard L&R hand turnouts, Large standard L&R, & Large Curved L&R, & will report back as soon as the test is finished.
I will conduct the test based on a shunting movement & use the test with & without various vehicles attached to the tender. Now as 35cl had only a hook type coupling the theoretical test should only be done using a buffered cover truck, but I will do a non rivet counters test using other vehicles, such as RU's BWH, K MLE, BBW etc as well as a tender first LE movement & one with an S as the cover wagon.
Hopefully the tests may satisfy some.
PS, Terry if the model you have is so bad, what would you consider selling it for & surelly if it is so bad, you could only want the percentage of the new price based on your rating?
|
|
|
nadnerb_2000
Chief Commissioner
Joined: May 07, 2004
Last Visited: Nov 20, 2008
Location: between my hat and my shoe soles
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:12 pm
|
| alltrainzfan wrote: | | The tender is very light, and without the extra weight, will derail over the set of catchpoints. |
So don't run through a set of open catchpoints 
After all its not just C35 tenders that derail on those . . .
|
|
|
rumbleman
Junior Train Controller
Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:44 pm
|
I was about to say.... 
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:29 am
|
Achtung! Achtung! Achtung!
As promised, undercover secret experiments carried out on undentified layout in the woods of somewhere in the outskirts of Sydney. Victim to be tested, the enigmatic tender of disgraced Austrains model locomotive # 3528 to see if the model was suffering from a desease that could render it into a terminal condition. 
Test # 1: Obtain metal track & wheel guage, test on flange spacings.
Result = ALL wheel flanges shown to be exact to the guage, ALL wheels show identical spacing without any differences whatsoeve.
CONCLUSION = NUTHINGGG wrong with Wheels.
Test # 2: Push tender through a series of crossover, using aged hand, then finger, pressure used at various levels. Plastic coal load removed & finger used in middle of coal deck & on the inside of coal tender backplate.
Point #1. Peco Inusulfrog right hand Medium SL-95 Tender went through & over check check rail, frogs without derailing in either direction on both straight & curved track leading into a private sideing.
Point #2 Peco Inusulfrog left hand Medium SL-96 Same test & result as above.
Note the turnout to the sidiing is into a siding that has a reverse curve that has been imbeded into the layout using a slurry of Cornice cement to replicate a dirt siding. Tender did not derail on the reverse part of the track which starts right at the connections, a good test, as it is not a real smooth flow.
Point # 3 Peco Inusulfrog right hand large Straight SL-88 Same test, & results as with SL - 95 in both the curved rail & straight rail sections
Point # 4 Peco Inusulfrog left hand large Straight SL-89 as above.
Point # 5, & # 6 Peco Inusulfrog right hand large Curved SL-86 & Left hand Curved SL- 87. Tests the same as above along with identical results.
These points are used on the main line & to loop line access as weall as into storing/staging yards.
Point # 7 Peco Inusulfrog Double slip switch SL 90. Again same tests as above using the 4 directions attainable using this switch point & again no problems.
Point # 8 Shinoharra insulated double crossover. Same tests as above with same results.
Point # 9. I discovered a large course Altas insulfrog type point in one location in my staging yard. These points have a huge section of plastic in the Y frog area, & has wide gaps. I only used the point as it was given to me, but had concerns about it.
Result was that whilst the tender did not derail, it confirmed to me that this point will have to go owing to nothing more than the rough travel over it. The plastic is much harder than the Peco points & I noticed a couple of chips out of the plastic in a couple of areas. As this was a brand new point & the price was right I always wondered about it, & after testing with the tender I did some more with other items of R/S which some derailed on including TOR RU's & some other Pax carriages using SEM fine scale wheels, so it is going.
The thing is though, the 35 tender & with only a couple of exceptions no derailments occured.
TEST # 3. This is my throw test. NOT AGAINST THE WALL DUMMIES 
In this test I use on all models to test there free running abilities. It is used by setting the test vehicle on the track, & pushing it hard at a distance back to see how fast it will go, & how far it will roll.
I did this with the 35cl tender, with the express aim of it going arond the curved section or turnout portion of the point, although I did the same along the straight. Now I must admist to a bit of concern on this one as I did not want to have a damaged tender, as I don't think that it would be covered under warranty.
I did this test at 3 speeds, slow, medium & fast, & again the tender stayed on the rail & then repeated it in the opposite direction with the same results.
The final test was conducted on the Shinoharra cross over. This crossover is located at the foot of my hardest & steepest grade, 1:40 at the bottom of a straightish section off a 24' radius curve. This grade is the test for my models which everyone comments on.
The crossover is accessed over a trailing Peco SL-96 point on the straight section & then straight onto the Shinoharra point.
This test was carried out in the same 3 ways as the above throw test, with the exception of the distance from the points & not pushed for momentum. The fast test was to have the tender start at the top of the grade which is around 2.3 mtrs in length.
Whilst I had some concerns owing to the speed causing a derailment that did not occure. as the tender went through the lot without any but one problem.
That problem was that the fireman had volounteered to ride the tender to use the hand brake if required, but owing to the excessive speed over the points he was thrown off the tender & killed, he will be buired on location, & the driver has been dismissed the service. A new crew will be employed.
Finally owing to the scientest not being able to find the patient being terminal, has been sent to a high security camp for peramnent internment.
I admit to not doing a test attached to the locomotive itself, nor with any R/S attached. The reason being I did not see need owing to there being no problems whatsoever (fatality aside) Had any problems shown up, I would have taken the steps to have vehicles & the model joined. But as I have not experienced any problems operationally in all directions I thought whats the POINT.
As such, I think & based on my model, the accusations are well if nothing else    
|
|
|
NSWGR1855
Locomotive Driver
Joined: Mar 19, 2007
Last Visited: Nov 13, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:35 pm
|
The problem with your testing is you only have one model, which according to your gauge the wheels are in gauge, therefore no problems should be expected. The model of the Austrains 35 I had a loan of , according to my measurements had a check gauge to large for reliable running through some Peco Turnouts, as evidenced by the resultant derailment under limiting conditions. My test results are consistent with this over gage fact. The fact your sample of one shows some are OK, and my and another independent members results shows some are over gauge. A sample of 2 means our results have a better uncertainty compared to your result. The derailment problem is typical of what I have observed for models using NMRA check gauge combined with Peco track.
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet
| a6et wrote: | Achtung! Achtung! Achtung!
As promised, undercover secret experiments carried out on undentified layout in the woods of somewhere in the outskirts of Sydney. Victim to be tested, the enigmatic tender of disgraced Austrains model locomotive # 3528 to see if the model was suffering from a desease that could render it into a terminal condition.
Test # 1: Obtain metal track & wheel guage, test on flange spacings.
Result = ALL wheel flanges shown to be exact to the guage, ALL wheels show identical spacing without any differences whatsoeve.
CONCLUSION = NUTHINGGG wrong with Wheels.
Test # 2: Push tender through a series of crossover, using aged hand, then finger, pressure used at various levels. Plastic coal load removed & finger used in middle of coal deck & on the inside of coal tender backplate.
Point #1. Peco Inusulfrog right hand Medium SL-95 Tender went through & over check check rail, frogs without derailing in either direction on both straight & curved track leading into a private sideing.
Point #2 Peco Inusulfrog left hand Medium SL-96 Same test & result as above.
Note the turnout to the sidiing is into a siding that has a reverse curve that has been imbeded into the layout using a slurry of Cornice cement to replicate a dirt siding. Tender did not derail on the reverse part of the track which starts right at the connections, a good test, as it is not a real smooth flow.
Point # 3 Peco Inusulfrog right hand large Straight SL-88 Same test, & results as with SL - 95 in both the curved rail & straight rail sections
Point # 4 Peco Inusulfrog left hand large Straight SL-89 as above.
Point # 5, & # 6 Peco Inusulfrog right hand large Curved SL-86 & Left hand Curved SL- 87. Tests the same as above along with identical results.
These points are used on the main line & to loop line access as weall as into storing/staging yards.
Point # 7 Peco Inusulfrog Double slip switch SL 90. Again same tests as above using the 4 directions attainable using this switch point & again no problems.
Point # 8 Shinoharra insulated double crossover. Same tests as above with same results.
Point # 9. I discovered a large course Altas insulfrog type point in one location in my staging yard. These points have a huge section of plastic in the Y frog area, & has wide gaps. I only used the point as it was given to me, but had concerns about it.
Result was that whilst the tender did not derail, it confirmed to me that this point will have to go owing to nothing more than the rough travel over it. The plastic is much harder than the Peco points & I noticed a couple of chips out of the plastic in a couple of areas. As this was a brand new point & the price was right I always wondered about it, & after testing with the tender I did some more with other items of R/S which some derailed on including TOR RU's & some other Pax carriages using SEM fine scale wheels, so it is going.
The thing is though, the 35 tender & with only a couple of exceptions no derailments occured.
TEST # 3. This is my throw test. NOT AGAINST THE WALL DUMMIES
In this test I use on all models to test there free running abilities. It is used by setting the test vehicle on the track, & pushing it hard at a distance back to see how fast it will go, & how far it will roll.
I did this with the 35cl tender, with the express aim of it going arond the curved section or turnout portion of the point, although I did the same along the straight. Now I must admist to a bit of concern on this one as I did not want to have a damaged tender, as I don't think that it would be covered under warranty.
I did this test at 3 speeds, slow, medium & fast, & again the tender stayed on the rail & then repeated it in the opposite direction with the same results.
The final test was conducted on the Shinoharra cross over. This crossover is located at the foot of my hardest & steepest grade, 1:40 at the bottom of a straightish section off a 24' radius curve. This grade is the test for my models which everyone comments on.
The crossover is accessed over a trailing Peco SL-96 point on the straight section & then straight onto the Shinoharra point.
This test was carried out in the same 3 ways as the above throw test, with the exception of the distance from the points & not pushed for momentum. The fast test was to have the tender start at the top of the grade which is around 2.3 mtrs in length.
Whilst I had some concerns owing to the speed causing a derailment that did not occure. as the tender went through the lot without any but one problem.
That problem was that the fireman had volounteered to ride the tender to use the hand brake if required, but owing to the excessive speed over the points he was thrown off the tender & killed, he will be buired on location, & the driver has been dismissed the service. A new crew will be employed.
Finally owing to the scientest not being able to find the patient being terminal, has been sent to a high security camp for peramnent internment.
I admit to not doing a test attached to the locomotive itself, nor with any R/S attached. The reason being I did not see need owing to there being no problems whatsoever (fatality aside) Had any problems shown up, I would have taken the steps to have vehicles & the model joined. But as I have not experienced any problems operationally in all directions I thought whats the POINT.
As such, I think & based on my model, the accusations are well if nothing else |
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet |
|
|
bjviper
Assistant Commissioner
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
Location: Brisvegas
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:09 pm
|
|
Terry, can you please not add your signature to your post twice! Once is more than enough to sprout your webpage and stuff.
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:51 pm
|
| NSWGR1855 wrote: | The problem with your testing is you only have one model, which according to your gauge the wheels are in gauge, therefore no problems should be expected. The model of the Austrains 35 I had a loan of , according to my measurements had a check gauge to large for reliable running through some Peco Turnouts, as evidenced by the resultant derailment under limiting conditions. My test results are consistent with this over gage fact. The fact your sample of one shows some are OK, and my and another independent members results shows some are over gauge. A sample of 2 means our results have a better uncertainty compared to your result. The derailment problem is typical of what I have observed for models using NMRA check gauge combined with Peco track.
Terry Flynn
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates
DC control circuit diagrams
HO scale track and wheel standards
Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet
|
Terry
The problem seems to be that you seem to have found an excuse to find fault with the 35cl no matter what. Whilst you are possibly part of a team that does checks on models with a certain producer, you also seem to be bias against any others at the same time, not wanting to accept that only others have problems with their models. Tell us on this forum how many models of the garratt were produced & how many have had problems.
I wonder also if part of the problem is because John had the shameful audacity & not heed your advice as you originally suggested.
Are you actually upset that there may be a model of the 35cl that does not fit into your category or what? Will it matter how many tests are carried out to prove you wrong, by myself or others? The sad part really is that you seem to be incapable of accepting the fairly rigorous tests that I carried out, with the potential to actually wreck the tender.
How many others out there in model land have a 35 cl that is the same as mine, with no operating problems, all we need is one more to come forward & it equals your 2. In fact I know of at least 5 others who have the models & have no problems with them.
You also made comment about the metal tender on the forthcomming TOR 32 which may be a hindrance over the extra weight, well I have it on good independant authority that you are going to be in for a rude shock regarding this little P & what it can actually do.
As I said in the very beginning & I got lamblasted by some for daring to comment on problems with the 35cl & not saying what they were, yet you come on late in the bit, & level similar accusations, but then hide behind your pet peeve, regarding wheels, without naming the other items.
That aside not everyone has such a wonderfull view of your AMRA standards & desire to have them pushed onto the modellers here. & tell us also, if the wheels on the 35, are the same as those on the Austrains 36cl, & are an actual improvement on those nasty old wheels on the original Austrains 36cl why are those old nasty original 36 still running around on so many layouts without much of a problem?
Not just that aspect, but also there are a few people out there who went down the alternative route & purchased the DJH kits, & not mentioning the brass models that have had their fair share of problems.
I still give you the offer of purchasing the models off you, based on the percentage value you determine as being the poor value & problems with the model.
Now, seeing that I have such a rare & wonderfull model, that is indeed a rare bird, I will do some hand stands & put up for auction on Ebay, & gee I should get a remarkable price for it as it could be a collectors item.
Now if I can get such a price for it, I may actually be able to 2 or 3 35cl instead of having to make do with one at the moment.
|
|
|
Aussielgb
Station Staff
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Last Visited: Aug 26, 2008
Location: Gulmarrad Station
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:39 pm
|
It has been interesting to read all that has been said about the 35's. Having had one for week now and putting it through its paces on our layout it is an excellent model and runs well. However with a few little problems.
First of all the locomotive has a couple of glaring mistakes and I am surprised that no one has picked them up right through the various photo's of pre production models and even here given the history that has been given and recollections of the locomotive.
I am not a rivet counter but I like to have things right and I have put a lot of research into building DJH kits and scratch building in HO and even in our live steam.
The first question I ask, has any one considered how you blow the whistle?
There has been comment about the finely detail safety valves. Has anyone looked at the 3? of them common to most NSW locomotives.
There was talk about the firehole door and the shoveling plate missing. Have you looked at the leading edge of the tender around the handrail on the 35's?
Finally the interesting tender water filler also needs to be looked at.
The rear tender lamp brackets were mentioned but not the rear of the tender being devoid of rivet lines completely.
Running of the locomotive has created a few problems and our 35 if looked at closely appears to have the leading tender wheels leaving the track because of the rigitity of the tender plug coupling. A piece of lead placed under the coal reduced derailments, particularly working tender first.
Finally, mention has been made of the sound, particularly the pump, but of interest is that the sound of the locomotive used has a slight valve timing problem which gives it an interesting chuff sound especially when working hard.
As I said the 35 is an excellent model and runs well and is a welcome addition to the NSW steam locomotive fleet. Despite all the obvious faults and not so obvious, it has been interesting that none of the above have been picked up where as some of the really hard to look at ones were.
Our 35 will still be a regular locomotive on our roster and as said before is a welcome addition to the NSW fleet.
Greg
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:37 pm
|
| Aussielgb wrote: | It has been interesting to read all that has been said about the 35's. Having had one for week now and putting it through its paces on our layout it is an excellent model and runs well. However with a few little problems.
First of all the locomotive has a couple of glaring mistakes and I am surprised that no one has picked them up right through the various photo's of pre production models and even here given the history that has been given and recollections of the locomotive. |
Each of the producers have their teams that check details, & they are the ones that end up signing off on a model. Also, another point is there comes a point where costs can escalate to such a degree to make the whole project not worthwhile & pretty well cost prohibitive.
The 35cl was propossed many years ago & I wonder how much of the origninal tooling was used in the model with reasonable cost associated improvements. Beyond what was done, it could well have been a complete new moulding & with the amount of or, lack of interest in a 35cl it was likely a fairly borderline model, so had more money have been needed I wonder if we would have got it at all.
| Quote: | I am not a rivet counter but I like to have things right and I have put a lot of research into building DJH kits and scratch building in HO and even in our live steam.
The first question I ask, has any one considered how you blow the whistle |
I think that most modellers are not much different to you on that.
First off I had highlighted several of the items after rudimentary checks. But after further checks, there are more than first found. I have the advantage/disadvantage in that I worked on them on several occassions, but, who else has brought problems to the fore?
As I also mentioned the 35cl is not perfect by a long shot, & I could raise more with it than has been raised, but how far do we go? are we as modellers so hell bent in the case of this model that we will not see another steam model produced by Austrains? Personally I hope not.
I also said that if I wanted to I could raise a heck of a lot of things with the garratt as well, but again for what good reason?
Anway, Whistle, yes there is no cord, but how fine & consider the critics about the amount of detail on models & especailly how fine many of them are, how could you get a fine whistle cord in genuine 1:87 scale when the cord was quarter inch coiled wire?
| Quote: | | There has been comment about the finely detail safety valves. Has anyone looked at the 3? of them common to most NSW locomotives. |
3 of them? Are your referring to the later fitted pop valves or the Spring pressure type Ramsbottom type as fitted to the model. The Ramsbottom type was the common safety valve on all the early types of steam locomotives with the exception of 36, 38, 57, 58, 59 & 60classes, up until circa 1963. From around that date or maybe a bit earlier they were progressivelly fitted with the pop type valves owing to them being slightly more reliable but mainly because they were easier to maintain.
The ramsbottom type was in a 3 type position, with springs on each end, valve pivot handle in the middle & steam valve rod in a sort of horizontal position at the top.
With this in mind, realise what I said that the model is actually more of the pre 63 type, especially with the smaller cut away in the valance. & for those wanting to emblaze with red lineing around the cab windows, that was generally rare, until once again after circa 63, or more 64. Although there were exceptions to that, but not a lot.
| Quote: | | There was talk about the firehole door and the shoveling plate missing. Have you looked at the leading edge of the tender around the handrail on the 35's? |
Here is a problem when trying to produce a model of a locomotive that spans a wide area of history & modifications. The tender as is, is of the original type as used on the 34 & early non rebuilt 35cl. When they were rebuilt the cab hand rails were set out to just inside the cab line, which the more modern type cabe being wider than the original.
So had the modern type been built it would be wrong for the original. Some bits are not too hard to modify with some styrene angle. We should not have to do that, but the early day modellers have it correct.
| Quote: |
Finally the interesting tender water filler also needs to be looked at. |
same as the hand rail its of the early type.
| Quote: | | The rear tender lamp brackets were mentioned but not the rear of the tender being devoid of rivet lines completely. |
I did miss that, & I am actually accused also of being a rivet counter, now my copybook is really blotted. Or should I say, blottoed?
| Quote: | | Running of the locomotive has created a few problems and our 35 if looked at closely appears to have the leading tender wheels leaving the track because of the rigitity of the tender plug coupling. A piece of lead placed under the coal reduced derailments, particularly working tender first. |
The coupling of mine is relativelly loose, did your try easing the screw off a bit
| Quote: | | Finally, mention has been made of the sound, particularly the pump, but of interest is that the sound of the locomotive used has a slight valve timing problem which gives it an interesting chuff sound especially when working hard. |
All steam had a harder beat on what some call the 4th & others the 1st stroke of the revolution. The slower the passenger engine worked, the harder the overall beat/exhaust sounded, with the resultant harder stroke being harder or more pronounced still.
This was especially so when below their main or considered slowest speed, in the case of 35, 36, & 38 class was 18mph.
I personally consider the exhaust sound overall is a bit too sharp & more akin to a 36cl as the 35cl was a particuarly soft engine.
| Quote: | As I said the 35 is an excellent model and runs well and is a welcome addition to the NSW steam locomotive fleet. Despite all the obvious faults and not so obvious, it has been interesting that none of the above have been picked up where as some of the really hard to look at ones were.
Our 35 will still be a regular locomotive on our roster and as said before is a welcome addition to the NSW fleet.
Greg |
My feeling exactly. Whilst I don't like spending $500.00 on a model to then have to go & do work on it, I do find that most of the issues can be readilly fixed, & improvements made quite readilly.
Did you have any of the assserted problems with the tender derailing? Or would you mind doing a test to see if I am the only one that has a tender without problems. Pretty Please.
As I say slightly loosen the coupling screw & if you can do a test with the tender on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
|
