The Rigid Chassis Debate -

[whatlep]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

R3 is tight enough and can fit in every garden you just have to build your track to allow for this type of model. If you want toy trains stick with LGB or Bachmann.

Well that's told us hasn't it?? Thinking about some of my favourite railways on this (and previous) forums, Linz Gsdat Bahn, Lazy Grange Bay, Ruritanian Railways, the C&S etc. etc., apparently the inclusion of R1's and largely LGB or Bachmann rolling stock makes them mere toys rather than cracking layouts??????

I think LGB and Bachmann would take some exception to that description of (for example) their Mallets and Shays. I suspect we've all bought something which has proven unwise in retrospect, so let's respect Mel's decision and acknowedge that he might, just might, appreciate a bit of support/ sympathy rather than criticism.

This message brought to you by Ruritanian Railways - "proud to run toy trains":

 

[3Valve]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

R3 is tight enough and can fit in every garden you just have to build your track to allow for this type of model. If you want toy trains stick with LGB or Bachmann.

I'm sure I could've squeezed R3 into my last garden if I basically filled it with track, but it's wifey's garden too so R1's it had to be to fit the space negotiated.

New garden is a different matter though.

 

[stockers]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

I total agree Gareth.

 

[jimmielx]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

My view is that these are all toys. Something we own/build/operate for pure pleasure. At 45mm gauge I'm convinced that I've never seen anything serving any remotely useful purpose beyond giving pleasure to those who own/build/watch them. A model railway (be it comprised of LGB track and plastic stock or finescale rails and highly detailed locos scratchbuilt in metal from original drawings) that serves as a tourist attraction (like Bekonscot) does boost the local economy, but a railway in a private garden -beyond supporting the manufacturers and retailers (not unlike toys) - does not contribute anything beyond pleasure. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all. But I would strongly disagree with drawing an arbitrary line in the sand between R1 and R3. You could equally say that anything running on an oversize electric motor collecting current from the two rails is highly unprototypical and is not to be taken seriously.

Personally I have plenty of R1 curves, I could certainly have R3s but they would further intrude on my small garden which I do not want. This limits me a little, but not much. As to reliability, I do not like anything that derails or stalls - that drives me mad. It is perfectly possible to run ready made, scratch-built, and kit-built stock around R1 curves and points without experiencing any of this, if that is what you want. My railway is automated and I expect the trains (including a rake of scratch built four wheel goods wagons) to be pulled AND pushed through all the points and bends all day without incident. And with care of the stock and line (and no external events) I do achieve this.

I'm quite convinced that if every loco cost something in the region of five grand they could all be made of the correct material with every detail modeled to say the nearest 0.1mm and could be run in and fine tuned by highly paid german engineers. Or we could pay fifty quid for every loco molded from a couple of pieces of plastic and take a punt on the running. Thankfully we live in a world where we have a large range of models at a large range of prices and we get to chose what to buy based on our budget and our expectation, if something does not match one of those then we do not have to buy it. And if after purchasing we discover that something does not match our needs than we can sell on, hopefully making only a modest loss on the purchase. As I expect will happen here.

I hope everyone does enjoy their model trains, however you chose to run them and I look forward to continuing to see the wonderful diversity of styles in the photographs you all post here. Mel, I'm sorry that this loco hasn't worked for you, I hope that you manage to sell it soon, I have enjoyed the photos of it on your lovely line!

 

[bobg]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

I say rule 8 rules, regardles whether we are talking of what we run OR what we run it on. Horses for courses, and compromise. Sometimes called LIFE!

One small technical point however, earlier in the thread there was talk of compensation, when it should have been suspension. There is a great deal of difference.

Suspension allows the wheel/axle to move in a plane that improves the wheel's ability to stay in contact with the track or running surface. Compensation allows the loads created by that movement to be re-distributed more evenly between the remaining axles. The mechanism is vastly more complicated.

 

[PaulRhB]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

"cheeky" Chas, the Countess' were £850 and a new 2-10-2 would cost you over £1500 with sound now, not several years ago so you have to compare it to current prices.
I haven't seen any accusation that the Countess can't pull, mine handled 10 with ease and no slipping. The 2-10-2 is a completely different loco it weighs more has two motors and traction tyred so I'd be astounded if it couldn't pull a lot more. What this is about is chassis and the 2-10-2 is actually very similar as it has no compensation, where it does have an advantage is articulation and a MUCH shorter effective wheelbase.
Mels beef is not with the potential of the Accucraft loco to haul but it's ability to negotiate his track. Unfortunately due to it not being designed for such sharp curves it's performance hasn't lived up to expectations and as he says it runs beautifully on R3.
There's no point banging on about the Harz loco, Heidi is a much fairer comparison size wise and then you have to take scale of production into account, try the Aster models produced under LGB and youll see all the features you desire at 2-3 times the price!
I'm not knocking LGB as I have the three locos mentioned but feel your comparison is way off the mark. Compare a KISS Harz 060, LGB Heidi, Accucraft Earl and you have a fairer comparison. Rtr is never going to compare price with limited specialist models. Telling someone who likes the W&L to buy LGB because better engineered for uneven garden line only helps if they can use that chassis to build a finescale UK loco and shell out the extra for a body.

 

[trammayo]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

I reckon Mel's problem is unfortunate - but it happens on 12" to the foot lines. Personally, I think if I had his line, I wouldn't change it for the world.

 

[Woderwick]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

Suspension allows the wheel/axle to move in a plane that improves the wheel's ability to stay in contact with the track or running surface. Compensation allows the loads created by that movement to be re-distributed more evenly between the remaining axles. The mechanism is vastly more complicated.

I differ. Compensation also improves the wheel's ability to stay in contact with the track or running surface and is not necessarily "vastly" more complicated. I have always found selecting appropriate springs more difficult that shoving a couple of balance beams in. It effectively performs the same function without springs IMO.

 

[chris m01]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

the Countess' were £850 and a new 2-10-2 would cost you over £1500 with sound now

Having seen Mel's Earl and an LGB 2-10-2 I would say the Earl was better value for money. Accucraft models are built in small quantities and are exquisite models. They somehow capture the look of the real thing in a way which LGB locos generally don't. Just a personal opinion and others arer welcome to differ. Currently I own neither Accucraft or LGB locos but I do admire my brother's Caledonia.

 

[yb281]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

OK guys, I've sat back and watch all this develop but I've bit my lip a few times and decided that discretion was the better part of jumping in with both feet.

First off, can I thank the moderator who marked Mick's post - his post was not only sensible, but also helpful and also touching, thanks Mick.

Some of you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick;
1 The Earl will go around the WGLR, several members of the forum have seen it do so and has only derailed twice.
2 It will go around both my R1's and R2's again without derailing.
3 I'm not in that much of a tizzy about putting it up for sale - it's a shame, but **it happens. As Mick says ( and others in the sales thread) it happens, not only in garden railways, but on the real railways too.

When I bought the Earl I did so with full knowledge of the way Accucraft's electric locos work. Not only Neil's Caledonia, but also James' live steam Countess have visited and run on the WGLR. I must admit that I had reservations over the way it would work on track power (well founded by the lack of centre wheel pick-ups), but I always thought (hoped) that conversion to battery power would result in a loco that would meet my needs. When it became apparent after testing last Monday that it's running qualities were still not what I wanted, that was when I started to think about getting rid. However, I still hung on until Richie's open day on Saturday so that I could prove to myself that it would work satisfactorily given different circumstances. No derailments there either.

I reiterate again that this loco DOES work on my railway, it's just that I am very fussy about such things and I am now of the opinion that to get it running the way I want it to would require yet more money throwing at it and/or my track. There comes a time in any project when you have to decide either that it's going to cost more or it's time to say "OK that didn't work, time to move on". It's up to the individual when that descision is made.

I still wish that Accucraft would ask for a bit of advice when it comes to making electric powered locos, because they're still making the sorts of mistakes they made with the Baguley. By applying live steam standards, they're also severely limiting their possible market. Maybe they should think about making bodies to fit on chassis made by someone who knows what they're doing (in an LGB/ Aster kind of way)? At the very least they might test new products on something other than Peco track layed on a snooker table which is what they appear to do now. That way they might do their reputation the world of good and open up a very open market? BUT having said that, I am still of the opinion that the Earl/Countess isn't bad value for money considering what a great model it is and how it DOES work given a specific type of railway to run on.

 

[hornbeam]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

What's peoples views on sprung or compensated bogies?

 

[stockers]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

All people deserve thier toys, trains, sports cars, fast women - you pay your money and take your choice.

 

[bobg]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

Where do I sign up for the fast wimmin. Yeah yeah yeah!!!!

 

[Rob s]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

WOZA
On Saturday i spent a cracking afternoon watching and running some loverly models out of the box (big and small manufacturers), re-modeled, scratch built, kit bashed, you name it, all run round a very fine layout.
With some very interesting, friendly and really nice folks all of them were there i hope to enjoy the day.

Now some one tells me i came home from work and spent a pleasent hour in the evening sun doing the same but today they are just TOYS

That has got to just about take the biscuit
(McVites or Euro shopper) they are all biscuits.

I have looked long and hard and can't for the life of me find any true scale models of the real full size loco's and if i did i would supect they would be a life times work and cost the earth.

WAKE UP-GROW UP - boys and girls its a hobby it should be fun and relaxing and enjoyable - if its not - why not take up some other hobby.
I have a mate who carves figures in the end of match sticks, now that sound fun don't it.

 

[Rhinochugger]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

One small technical point however, earlier in the thread there was talk of compensation, when it should have been suspension. There is a great deal of difference.

Suspension allows the wheel/axle to move in a plane that improves the wheel's ability to stay in contact with the track or running surface. Compensation allows the loads created by that movement to be re-distributed more evenly between the remaining axles. The mechanism is vastly more complicated.

Ah, I was thinking of the sort of compensation sometimes used in the smaller scales which allows a bit of vertical movement in one, or two axles. It only gets complicated and expensive when you do try to balance it all out.

Apologies if I've abused a technical term.

To tyry and get away from any more mudslinging, the other issue we haven't addressed is scale. My understanding is that Accucraft (BMS) locos are 16mm : 1 ft. the more common 1:22.5 equates to about 13.5mm : 1ft. now that would make a lot of difference in both wheelbase and wheel size, both relevant factors when flange grinding on tight radius curves.

Dear Mr Accucraft, can you make one for Mel in 1:22.5?

 

[bobg]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

One small technical point however, earlier in the thread there was talk of compensation, when it should have been suspension. There is a great deal of difference.

Suspension allows the wheel/axle to move in a plane that improves the wheel's ability to stay in contact with the track or running surface. Compensation allows the loads created by that movement to be re-distributed more evenly between the remaining axles. The mechanism is vastly more complicated.

Ah, I was thinking of the sort of compensation sometimes used in the smaller scales which allows a bit of vertical movement in one, or two axles. It only gets complicated and expensive when you do try to balance it all out.

Apologies if I've abused a technical term.

To tyry and get away from any more mudslinging, the other issue we haven't addressed is scale. My understanding is that Accucraft (BMS) locos are 16mm : 1 ft. the more common 1:22.5 equates to about 13.5mm : 1ft. now that would make a lot of difference in both wheelbase and wheel size, both relevant factors when flange grinding on tight radius curves.

Dear Mr Accucraft, can you make one for Mel in 1:22.5?

No apology needed as far as I'm concerned, I was merely trying to make the terminology a little clearer for those with less knowlege.

 

[pugwash]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

Dear Mr Accucraft, can you make one for Mel in 1:22.5?

While we're at it how about ''Dear Mr Accucraft, please employ Mel in R&D''

 

[Westcott]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

Thanks for explaining what 'compensation' is in a locomotive context (rather than no-win-no-fee), I've always wondered.

Hornbeam, for some reason I keep thinking that your name is part of a compensation/suspension system.

 

[whatlep]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

Dear Mr Accucraft, can you make one for Mel in 1:22.5?

While we're at it how about ''Dear Mr Accucraft, please employ Mel in R&D''

 

[hornbeam]

Re:The Rigid Chassis Debate - on Mel's behalf

WESTCOTT,

hummmmm not sure what to make of that

my old railway was called the Hornbeam and beechwood, hence the name.... could also be that i'm think as two short planks.... cant see the wood for the trees.... keep barking up the wrong tree.

take a leaf out of my book and just take the stick.