austrains 80 class - some very upsetting things
C. Dewick
This issue has probably been thoroughly hashed out here before, so my
apologies if it's a repeat of a previous thread...
I finally obtained an Austrains 80 class (one of the $125 unpainted ones)
yesterday, and I've just clipped off the body shell to examine the mech more
closely. Right away I have found some design faults which are rather
disappointing for a model which has been touted with so much fanfare:
- there is *no* DCC decoder socket to be found! This is a serious oversight
given that just about all US-prototype HO scale loco models now come with
a DCC decoder socket (and a dummy plug) as standard equipment. The
weighting arrangement of the 80 class chassis is going to make fitting a
decoder rather difficult...
- the wheelsets have a *huge* ammount of sideways play - about 1.5 mm,
which translates to about 125 mm in full size! 1.5mm on every wheelset is
going to be really bad since the model will be able to slide quite a way
off centre when running.
- the drive shafts that fit between the motor and gearheads of each truck
are wickedly thin, and although I don't know for certain, they don't
appear to be made of delrin, but of regular styrene. They won't last very
long if that is actually the case.
That's what I can see right away - I'm sure there may be other things which
come to mind after a bit of running...
Regards,
Craig.
--
Craig Ian Dewick | Stand clear - jaws closing
Send email to cra...@lios.apana.org.au | Visit my Australian rail transport
Professional Train Driver, Cityrail | and rail modelling web site:
and HO scale rail modeller | http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd
Werris Creek
C. Dewick wrote
> - there is *no* DCC decoder socket to be found! This is a serious
oversight
> given that just about all US-prototype HO scale loco models now come
with
> a DCC decoder socket (and a dummy plug) as standard equipment. The
> weighting arrangement of the 80 class chassis is going to make fitting a
> decoder rather difficult...
Sorry Craig, but you are about two years too late on this one.
Those of us who were interested in DCC back then all lobbied for the 80
class to be DCC ready but we lost the argument at that stage. (It is
relatively easy to fit a receiver but it would have been nice for it to be
plug in and run.)
However, Austrains have already announced that locos from the N onwards will
come DCC ready which shows that if you keep up the pressure long enough a
good manufacturer will listen and you sometimes get what you want. (Roll on
44 and 50 classes)
Regards
Werris
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>
>This issue has probably been thoroughly hashed out here before, so my
>apologies if it's a repeat of a previous thread...
>
>I finally obtained an Austrains 80 class (one of the $125 unpainted ones)
>yesterday, and I've just clipped off the body shell to examine the mech more
>closely. Right away I have found some design faults which are rather
>disappointing for a model which has been touted with so much fanfare:
I do not know af any 'design faults' with the Austrains 80 mech.
> - there is *no* DCC decoder socket to be found! This is a serious oversight
> given that just about all US-prototype HO scale loco models now come with
> a DCC decoder socket (and a dummy plug) as standard equipment. The
> weighting arrangement of the 80 class chassis is going to make fitting a
> decoder rather difficult...
Considering less than 5% of Australian modellers use DCC, not a design
fault, just a design option not procceded with. Basically you want 95%
of customers to pay more because you do not want to spend a couple of
minutes soldering wires.
> - the wheelsets have a *huge* ammount of sideways play - about 1.5 mm,
> which translates to about 125 mm in full size! 1.5mm on every wheelset is
> going to be really bad since the model will be able to slide quite a way
> off centre when running.
Most RTR models share this feature eg; Kato, Proto2000, Atlas to name
a few. This is so the models will go around underscale curves, this is
another deliberate design feature. Years of running show this not to
be a problem in most cases. If you have scale curves it is not so hard
to minimise the sideplay.
> - the drive shafts that fit between the motor and gearheads of each truck
> are wickedly thin, and although I don't know for certain, they don't
> appear to be made of delrin, but of regular styrene. They won't last very
> long if that is actually the case.
Again a proven design, no thinner than AR or Kato unirversal shafts.
>That's what I can see right away - I'm sure there may be other things which
>come to mind after a bit of running...
Mechanically they are as good as the best RTR. Ther are always areas
of improvement, that no current mass produced RTR models I know of
have at the moment such as using stainless steel for driving wheels,
free rolling gear boxes as used in the brass 55 and a beter wheel
flange profile.
>Regards,
>
>Craig.
>--
> Craig Ian Dewick | Stand clear - jaws closing
> Send email to cra...@lios.apana.org.au | Visit my Australian rail transport
> Professional Train Driver, Cityrail | and rail modelling web site:
> and HO scale rail modeller | http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd
Terry Flynn
For up to date HO scale model railway standards go to
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/trainstandards/index.html
Includes extra finescale standards improved P87 and correct wagon weight formulae.
C. Dewick
Hello Terry. 8-)
>I do not know af any 'design faults' with the Austrains 80 mech.
>> - there is *no* DCC decoder socket to be found! This is a serious oversight
>> given that just about all US-prototype HO scale loco models now come with
>> a DCC decoder socket (and a dummy plug) as standard equipment. The
>> weighting arrangement of the 80 class chassis is going to make fitting a
>> decoder rather difficult...
>Considering less than 5% of Australian modellers use DCC, not a design
>fault, just a design option not procceded with. Basically you want 95%
>of customers to pay more because you do not want to spend a couple of
>minutes soldering wires.
There's no reason what a DCC decoder socket option would cost more if
included in the original design specifications. All it means is the existing
powering, lighting, etc. would be reworked so it was on a removable PCB,
which could be pulled out and a DCC decoder dropped in it's place should the
modeller want to do so.
The downside of not having a DCC decoder socket in the design is that less
people will in turn decide to take up DCC, so any decision taken at
design-time always has both good and bad effects.
>> - the wheelsets have a *huge* ammount of sideways play - about 1.5 mm,
>> which translates to about 125 mm in full size! 1.5mm on every wheelset is
>> going to be really bad since the model will be able to slide quite a way
>> off centre when running.
>Most RTR models share this feature eg; Kato, Proto2000, Atlas to name
>a few. This is so the models will go around underscale curves, this is
>another deliberate design feature. Years of running show this not to
>be a problem in most cases. If you have scale curves it is not so hard
>to minimise the sideplay.
My Atlas/Roco RSD-4/5 mechs (and I have about 10 of them under various HO
scale loco's, mostly a bevy of Rodney's AR 45 class locos, and a couple of
40 class units) don't have side play to the same degree - perhaps 1 mm at
worst - not 1.5 to 2 mm. But I have yet to do much running of my 80 class
off my own small layout, so an exhibition-style trial will be needed to
determine how it handles different situations.
>> - the drive shafts that fit between the motor and gearheads of each truck
>> are wickedly thin, and although I don't know for certain, they don't
>> appear to be made of delrin, but of regular styrene. They won't last very
>> long if that is actually the case.
>Again a proven design, no thinner than AR or Kato unirversal shafts.
It's just that the material used does not appear to be Delrin
or another hard-wearing acetal polymer at first glance. A personal view
nonetheless.
stea...@webtel.net.au
wrote:
>In <37ea045c...@news.webtel.net.au> stea...@webtel.net.au writes:
>
>Hello Terry. 8-)
>
>>I do not know af any 'design faults' with the Austrains 80 mech.
>
>>> - there is *no* DCC decoder socket to be found! This is a serious oversight
>>> given that just about all US-prototype HO scale loco models now come with
>>> a DCC decoder socket (and a dummy plug) as standard equipment. The
>>> weighting arrangement of the 80 class chassis is going to make fitting a
>>> decoder rather difficult...
>
>>Considering less than 5% of Australian modellers use DCC, not a design
>>fault, just a design option not procceded with. Basically you want 95%
>>of customers to pay more because you do not want to spend a couple of
>>minutes soldering wires.
>
>There's no reason what a DCC decoder socket option would cost more if
>included in the original design specifications. All it means is the existing
>powering, lighting, etc. would be reworked so it was on a removable PCB,
>which could be pulled out and a DCC decoder dropped in it's place should the
>modeller want to do so.
About $5 extra RRP.
>The downside of not having a DCC decoder socket in the design is that less
>people will in turn decide to take up DCC, so any decision taken at
>design-time always has both good and bad effects.
Most will not go DCC due to current cost.
>
>>> - the wheelsets have a *huge* ammount of sideways play - about 1.5 mm,
>>> which translates to about 125 mm in full size! 1.5mm on every wheelset is
>>> going to be really bad since the model will be able to slide quite a way
>>> off centre when running.
>
>>Most RTR models share this feature eg; Kato, Proto2000, Atlas to name
>>a few. This is so the models will go around underscale curves, this is
>>another deliberate design feature. Years of running show this not to
>>be a problem in most cases. If you have scale curves it is not so hard
>>to minimise the sideplay.
>
>My Atlas/Roco RSD-4/5 mechs (and I have about 10 of them under various HO
>scale loco's, mostly a bevy of Rodney's AR 45 class locos, and a couple of
>40 class units) don't have side play to the same degree - perhaps 1 mm at
>worst - not 1.5 to 2 mm. But I have yet to do much running of my 80 class
>off my own small layout, so an exhibition-style trial will be needed to
>determine how it handles different situations.
In fact you are better off without most of the sideplay.
>>> - the drive shafts that fit between the motor and gearheads of each truck
>>> are wickedly thin, and although I don't know for certain, they don't
>>> appear to be made of delrin, but of regular styrene. They won't last very
>>> long if that is actually the case.
>
>>Again a proven design, no thinner than AR or Kato unirversal shafts.
>
>It's just that the material used does not appear to be Delrin
>or another hard-wearing acetal polymer at first glance. A personal view
>nonetheless.
>
>Regards,
>
>Craig.
>--
Terry Flynn
James Brook
a few Lima B's and S's (with extra detail added and the fitting of kadees) and a
couple of Black Diamond T's. We can run two trains simultaneously over single line
with three passing loops. We don't use any form of DCC due to the cost of it. We have
constructed two simple hard-wired computers to switch the blocks between two
controllers. We place magnets on the bottom or in the fuel tank of each locomotive.
The magnet operates a reed switch under the track. For us this is a much cheaper and
easier to implement option than DCC. We can also easily use the locomotives from our
layout on other people's layouts because the only modification is the fitting of a
magnet. Most Australian modellers don't use DCC, because the cost doesn't justify the
benefits. I'm not sure about this but some Australian locomotives are probably too
small to fit DCC equipment into. The two flat top T's can barely fit the motor inside
them let alone anything else. American locomotives are much larger in design than
Australian locomotives. I would assume that Austrains decided that the extra cost of a
DCC socket was not wanted by most Australian modellers, since only a handful use DCC.
stea...@webtel.net.au wrote:
--
- James Brook -
----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:
mailto:ajmb...@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ajmbrook/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Werris Creek
James Brook wrote
<Big snip>
. I would assume that Austrains decided that the extra cost of a
>DCC socket was not wanted by most Australian modellers, since only a
handful use DCC.
As previously reported, Austrains have already announced that all
locomotives after the 421 will come with a DCC socket as standard presumably
because the hundreds of DCC users in Australia have asked for it.
Werris
yee
> This issue has probably been thoroughly hashed out here before, so my
> apologies if it's a repeat of a previous thread...
>
> I finally obtained an Austrains 80 class (one of the $125 unpainted ones)
> yesterday, and I've just clipped off the body shell to examine the mech more
> closely. Right away I have found some design faults which are rather
> disappointing for a model which has been touted with so much fanfare:
>
> given that just about all US-prototype HO scale loco models now come with
> a DCC decoder socket (and a dummy plug) as standard equipment. The
> weighting arrangement of the 80 class chassis is going to make fitting a
> decoder rather difficult...
>
> which translates to about 125 mm in full size! 1.5mm on every wheelset is
> going to be really bad since the model will be able to slide quite a way
> off centre when running.
>
> are wickedly thin, and although I don't know for certain, they don't
> appear to be made of delrin, but of regular styrene. They won't last very
> long if that is actually the case.
>
> come to mind after a bit of running...
>
>
> Craig.
> --
> Craig Ian Dewick | Stand clear - jaws closing
> Send email to cra...@lios.apana.org.au | Visit my Australian rail transport
> Professional Train Driver, Cityrail | and rail modelling web site:
> and HO scale rail modeller | http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd