Getting started in Gauge 3 (how to encourage newcomers young and old)

[MikeWilliams]

Since others have mentioned my name, may I say that if somebody wants to come up with a design I'd be very happy to give a cost price for parts which are within my abilities.  I am not the only supplier and don't have a monopoly here, nor would I wish to do so.

It will take enthusiasm and time to produce an engine, so if just a little of both can be harnessed now by somebody doing a few sketches and a complete parts list, then we have a basis to discuss costs, methods and assembly.  If we don't have the resources even for that stage, then I suggest its a non-starter.

If it helps to use a few standard Venture bits I'll gladly tell you what they actually cost me and a tank engine could probably be designed around them.

OR, what not just take Ian's approach and a group of members co-ordinated by the Society lobby somebody like: http://tower-models.com/ to up-scale their kit (sorry John, its a Pug!).  With a price under £500 for Gauge 1, we might get a Gauge 3 version for £700?  And with no effort or risk by us at all.

Mike

[cabbage]

I will cheat and draft up some parts and costs for an LMS 1831 -as it looks like "Daddy" will have to anyway....

I will do this over the weekend. It should be ready for you by Sunday night.

regards

ralph

[MikeWilliams]

Thanks Ralph, but please remember this is for an RTR model, so a materials list with costs is a start, but it all needs to be cut, machined, assembled etc, all at commercial rates in order to give Joe Public an almost-RTR engine.  This is not aimed at you or I.

Mike

[John Candy]

I am not sure 1831 would make the ideal train set loco.
It is a bit of an "oddball" being an experimental loco employing the frames of a Midland 1F tank to produce a diesel hydraulic shunter.
An ugly brute which lasted only 6 years and described as only "moderately successful".
The body has quite a few rivets and louvres and the roof-mounted radiator is a large mass of pipework which could prove a challenge to reproduce as a casting.
Unfortunately, the only photo I have is accredited to Henry Casserley and the book is still within copyright period.

If anyone has access to "British Rail Fleet Survey Part 7 Diesel Shunters", there is a photo on page 4.

John.

[cabbage]

http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxrailt.htm

John...

Why is it you always seem to have to choose the most difficult options??? I was going to stick 14 radiators on the roof and then link them with "pipework".

We are using the 4mm scale drawing from PDH.

Excuse me I have been pre-empted!

regards

ralph

[IanT]

Well, I agree that the 'smileys' can be annoying (especially when abused) but it is sometimes very hard to post (or email) a comment and make sure that all of the recipients will understand its "tone". So I will admit to using them to make sure my remarks are taken in the way I intend them to be 'heard' and to try to remove any unintended sting.  Anyway, back to RTR...

I still think that there is a large hole in the practicality of the whole RTR concept unless you have a radical way of undertaking the assembly work required. I'll repeat that I think there are simpler, much more effective ways of encouraging G3 uptake. I'll give two possible alternatives - I'm sure there are many, many more.

First – Find a low risk way of getting an existing manufacturer 'onside'

One of the best names in 16mm live steam is Roundhouse. They currently have locos that are dual gauge (45/32mm) but they tend to be narrow gauge in nature. Could RH be persuaded to produce a small industrial loco (G scale) that was dual gauge for 45mm AND 63.5mm?

If this could be achieved, then you would have the reach and leverage (e.g. reseller outlets, modelling press exposure, migration possibilities for existing 16mm modellers etc) that this relationship would bring. The risk to us is low. It starts with a chat with Roundhouse to see if they would be interested AND to explore what might entice them into our gauge in this fashion?

Second – Design a very low-cost (e.g. simple electric) G3 engine & create a cottage industry

If there was a very simple loco 'kit' available, that could be simply assembled, then maybe a secondary 'cottage industry' would emerge that could provide a finished RTR product. As a rule of thumb – I would say that the component costs should be one third of the RTR cost. I think that if the parts cost under 100 pounds, then there might be a few people willing to make a little 'hobby money' and build very low volumes of the loco (or to order) if they could be sold at about 300 pounds in a basic RTR format. But it would be essential to make sure the design was both "easy-build" and resulted in a good looking (e.g. attractive) end product. The 'kit' could of course, also be used by those who are happy to build their own kits. I think steam outline would be most popular, but why not share a 0-6-0 or 0-4-0 chassis with a simple steam & diesel outline?

I can see these 'sample' approaches as being achievable. I would see them as being the kind of 'small steps' in the right direction we need as the G3 market develops.

However (and I will resist using a smiley here) if anyone on this Forum really wants to get stuck in and bring out a G3 RTR Train Set, then I will most certainly be delighted to write the first review of it!   

[John Candy]

I agree it would be nice if an existing manufacturer could be persuaded to "come on side" but it has to be a low cost product.

Roundhouse is suggested as one possibility but I think (with one exception) all their products are live steam and over 1000GBP. Such a loco would probably not be suitable for indoor use and not safe for children.

The obvious option for a low cost loco from an established supplier is GRS. Their GER tram engine is supplied with RTR mechanism (a bogie from an American diesel re-gauged from 45mm) and the body consists of two principal components plus a reasonable amount of detail to be fitted internally and externally. John Witts has an electrically powered example (I have three which have been adapted with re-gauged Cheddar live steam chassis).

For those hooked on "Thomas" it will provide "Toby"! Toby was a J70 but visually there is little difference between the Y6 and J70, since the "works" are concealed by the tram skirts. The skirts are a slightly different profile, the condenser pipe follows a different track across the roof and the J70 loco is very slightly longer (from memory only a few inches).

This kit could be easily assembled as the "cottage industry" product.....I would suggest that, with practice, the assembly could be completed in an evening and the paint finish in a couple of hours (spread out to allow drying time between coats). I am quite willing to buy the electric version and build it to prove the point!
Another advantage of this prototype is that it has plenty of room to be fitted with batteries and radio control. The kit costs just 215GBP.

John.

[cabbage]

Ok in the time remaining until I have to light the candles! I will post what I have got.

This is Matthews balsa and lollipop stick bodywork for his 1831 and has been constructed using UHU and the kitchen scissors, (he is currently 10).



The GRS 1F chassis which it will sit on.



Cambrian Models


NA16 Simplex Radiator       10 rqd      £10.50p
NA23 Radiator Panel               2 rqd         £1.90p
NA7 Rivet heads                 2 rqd         £3.00p
NA3 Coach door handles      1 rqd         £1.75p

GRS

Fowler 1F chassis         1 rqd                 £7.50p
SLD 47 1F wheels         3 rqd                 £108.69p   (!!!)

Alan H  wheel num. 6114 is a possible?

As you can see the basic locomotive is easy enough for a 10 year old to manage to produce a reasonable and recognisable looking "impression" of it using 4 weeks pocket money and left over lollipop sticks from other kids... I think it is do-able in the "Cottage Industry" manner.

regards

ralph

[John Candy]

Well, I started this topic under the board heading "Start a Project : Join a Project".

We have seen a lot of fascinating ideas and opinions expressed over the past few days but the point of the exercise is to get the project moving forward.

So I will now ask the question, who is prepared to JOIN a project to seek to produce (in whatever form and by whatever means) a RTR locomotive?

There is no fixed timescale and it is not the end of the debate so far as the Society's possible involvement is concerned but it is the point where those who are interested in contributing their time to the project join forces to produce a plan. This may consist of several options for nothing is ruled either in or out.

It may all come to nought but at least we will have tried!

John.

[IanT]

Just arrived back home (no Bishops Finger tonight I'm afraid!)

Had a thought whilst I was out, an extension of my previous Roundhouse/Low Cost Design ideas. It may sound pretty stupid to you (or not) but here goes anyway.

When you design your G3 RTR loco - why not make it a dual-gauge design? That is one capable of being built as a 63.5mm or a 45mm gauge engine? You'd have your RTR G3 loco but also be able to offer it to a much wider potential client base - that is 'G' (1:22.5) scale modellers who are looking for British outline stock to run on 45mm track. I'm not an expert on the 'G' scale modelling scene but I don't think there is so much choice in this area, being dominated by either 16mm NG stuff or US/Continental engines.

Just a thought.

I'll let you get on with your other ponderings now.

Regards,

IanT

[John Candy]

Ian,

That is a useful suggestion and could be quite simple to put into practice.
GRS have used (and may still use) re-gauged "USA Trains" 45mm parts to power the Y6 tram loco and GWR AEC diesel railcar.

"USA Trains" offer a comprehensive spare parts service covering their entire range. In fact I had been researching their products and prepared the following before I went to bed last night but decided not to post it.

On the subject of components, GRS have used (and may still use) re-gauged drive parts from "USA Trains" a G-scale manufacturer. I believe the bogies for the GWR railcar and the chassis for the GER tram loco have come from that source.

I have just looked at USA Trains website and they offer a comprehensive spares service which covers most parts for their entire range of locos. As an example, a full set of 0-6-0 driving wheels is less than US$25 (that's 3 axles).
They offer motor/gearboxes for under US$20 and all the components are low cost.

The chassis for the 0-6-0T looks as though it might (with some modifications) be suitable to power a British prototype. What sprang to mind when I saw the tank is the USATC locos which ended up with the SR.
There are significant differences (e.g.saddle not side tanks, no outside Walschaerts valve gear) but items such as cab and chimney are available as spares and look to be very similar to the USATC locos.

John

http://www.usatrains.com/r20050parts.html

Returning to the present, the only problem with re-gauging is the huge space left outside the frames but with the Y6 that does not matter, since the skirts hide the "works".
The dual gauge alternative becomes simple : Use the untouched "USA Trains" power bogie for the 45mm version and the GRS re-gauged version for the G3 version.

With the GRS G3 kit costing 215GBP, it will require only a few extra Pounds (glue, paint and perhaps etched numberplates) to produce the finished, track-powered, loco.
Looking again at the G3 starter train set, add a couple of low cost wagons, 17 yards of track (an 8ft radius circle) and a low cost power supply and the whole set might be produced for c.700GBP (plus the cost of packaging).
The ultimate retail price would depend upon whether the "co-operative" is prepared to donate services and whether the Society is prepared to cover marketing, accounting and insurance aspects.

Regards,
John.

[IanT]

I'll go and find USA Trains John - I've not looked at them before.

When I said "design for dual gauge" - I had in mind a 0-6-0 inside cylinder setup (e.g. no external cylinders) where the only "parts" difference would be that you had two alternate axle lengths. The frame would be designed to be assembled for the appropriate gauge. In other words, it would not simply be a matter of moving the wheels on the axle. An engine would be built to a specific gauge with the frames at the correct width. But the difference in the parts required could be very small (e.g. two different lengths of axle and (perhaps) frame spacers).

I was also thinking about assembly methods earlier this morning.

Given the RTR nature of your "product" and that it would not be primarily designed for one-off DIY assembly - but rather small limited run productions - I think this would impact the design. For instance, wheel quartering would be by 'jig' rather than providing "ease of build" features such as 'squared' axle ends. I was wondering how you could (best) quickly assemble the frames and platework under these different build requirements - for instance if simple assembly jigs were to hand?

Anyway, I think I should shut up now and let you guys get on with it!   

[cabbage]

It looks like this is going to be a "Hoe and Handle" operation -who is going to do the woodwork and who is going to do the metal work...  The multi gauge idea is better suited to an outside framed loco using square shafts with sheaves in the bearings -a typical Henshel und Sohn trick. The shaft had holes in it and the shipper simply moved the wheels apart until he got the correct gauge and pushed the bolt through the holes.

For small scale runs a set of jigs is going to have to be built.

It is interesting that the designs seem to be turning towards a box on a chassis!

regards

ralph

[John Candy]

Ian,

Your suggestions are most welcome and, yes, jigs would be required for even small batch production.
I latched onto the GRS Y6 as the example simply because all the parts are available and ready to be screwed together.

An 0-6-0T (perhaps NER/LNER J72) would be preferable (even a larger tank such as a GN 4-4-2T /LNER C12) but complexity will increase component costs and require more assembly time and we have to get the body parts either built or as a kit of parts for us to assemble.

When (perhaps I should say if) a group does come together then clearly there  are a lot of ideas to be kicked around before a decision is reached.

It all depends upon volunteers coming forward, otherwise nothing will happen.

Enjoy the Lake District.

Regards,
John.

[John Candy]

Ralph,

The tram engine is my favourite solution since the parts are available "off the shelf".

Unfortunately (apart from early GW pannier tanks and some ancient Midland Kirtley tanks and similar mid-to-late 19th century locos from the other companies) I cannot for the moment think of any reasonably modern outside (or double-framed) British locos with straight running plates.

There were some very attractive MS&LR Sacre locos and Midland Kirtley locos (as well as GW Bulldogs and the like) which I wouldn't mind owning but the running plates are like a "roller coaster" and would be a devil to produce (Mike is working with the same challenge on the LNWR Cauliflower).

Even the straight plate locos have complicated springing details.

A Midland "Spinner" would be very nice and would possibly sell well (as might a "single" from any of the other companies).

Regards,
John.