Hardly overdesigned, it is a large locomotive and when reproduced in white-metal, that is what it ends up weighing. It does not stall under load, it wheel-slips, which is the desired outcome. What does one of those white-metal 38s weigh, as it would be a comparable model. Roachie?

I have a DJH 38cl, its in getting replacement sound decoder ATM, but will ask the fellow doing the work to see if he can weigh it for information, have to allow for the decoder weight as well as the extra lights on the model, I guess on those counts it will be far too heavy.

........If the SEM model is overweight & that would mean it inhibits its pulling power, I think there would have been comments on RP about it as well, I have not heard of anyone complaining about the various white metal & brass kits from SEM & ARkits with their DJH varieties being over weight & not able to do their job either.

I doubt if BS shares your definition of "overweight".  I have a DJH Garratt that weighs 1.5kg and it has no trouble moving itself and a lot of train.  It is overweight for normal use though but it is not overweight as a drawbar pull competition engine.

Mark

I've relented or given in or similar.  Another EMRC member (who ordered just a few months back) got 727 two weeks back and it's been niggling at me that I should get a different number.  So I e-mailed Eureka this morning asking for a number change (nothing else), a positive response came back a few hours later adding that it would be posted today.  So now I will never know how long it would have taking for 727 to arrive.

If the locomotive gives satisfaction I might get a second, maybe 752.

Mark

I doubt if BS shares your definition of "overweight".  I have a DJH Garratt that weighs 1.5kg and it has no trouble moving itself and a lot of train.  It is overweight for normal use though but it is not overweight as a drawbar pull competition engine.

Mark

i remember when I saw this loco at mt martha.  136 cars that only needed this one engine. we needed 4  austrain C classes or 5 NR's to pull the same train.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYuN76DBrF0

For the record I wish I had a SEM R as it's weight would allow good pulling.  Scale grades and haulage, pah , one would then want scal wheels,  boiler and clyinders along with scale coal and working stoker, perhaps working staff exchanger.  And I have waited for over a week for the R's " in the mail the next day"

When I do get them  I will enjoy them.

Regards,
David Head

I doubt if BS shares your definition of "overweight".  I have a DJH Garratt that weighs 1.5kg and it has no trouble moving itself and a lot of train.  It is overweight for normal use though but it is not overweight as a drawbar pull competition engine.

Mark

Mark

I doubt if he would share in anyone's definition or viewpoint on anything that does not line up 100% of everything that he says.

For whatever reason he seems to think that everyone has to do it his way & that includes the people who are outlaying money for the models that the modeller buys, they take the risks with their money but what risk does he take?  

Also how many modellers have the same layout as he does or frequent the same layouts that he does, who build to his standards?

The reality is that all model differently, model different systems & locations, all are at different levels of experience & expertise, as well as financial capabilities for their hobby.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall at his place when he takes delivery of a new loco model......as far as I know "most" loco models come equipped with RP25-110 wheels (aka: steam roller wheels).

It must be most frustrating being T.F. and having these exquisite new models in your grasp, but knowing that there is NO WAY you can place it/them on your layout until you totally dismantle it/them and replace all those UGLY steam roller wheels with scale AMRA wheels!!!!! hahahahaha

Roachie

But two things you have done with the Bullfrog Snot no matter how thin you have applied it the wheels with the snot on them are now slightly larger in diameter than those without it on, this is not really a good thing. Also what happens when the Bullfrog Snot wears off the wheels You do not want to be replacing the snot ever month or so just to run a prototypical train. Better in the long run to actually fix the locomotive faults to start with and do it once and then enjoy the model.

If you use Bull frog Snot to fix it you might as well use Lima models with traction tyres on the wheels as that is really what it amounts to in the end.

Personally it should move a prototypical load up an average model railway grade though and be designed to do just that. Otherwise it would be like designing a SAR 500B class that could only haul two Auscision E cars up that same grade, not too good in the pulling dept. I thought days of locomotives that had this problem vanished with Traxx model trains actually, the 48/830 had a nice body and detail at the time but could not pull a train to save itself. Nice model shame about the mechanism though.

I have two US Locomotives produced by BLI, who are providing models to the US market produced in the same factories we are using for Aussie models. ( A cab forward articulated cost me $360 US)
I was very surprised to see extra driving wheels included in the packaging, that were to be used to replace the traction tired ones actually used on the models.
Perhaps this is the way to go Eureka?   Fit traction tyres and double the load and for a dollar extra supply plain axle sets for the purists who think traction tyres are an unfair advantage.
Many years ago we found a supplier of traction tyres that were shaped like a washer. I seem to remember they were thinner on the inside edge of washer.(and so perhaps the mechanics of rolling the washer on actually caused it to stretch thin) You discarded the original Lima tyres and rolled these on its place.  The Lima tyres were very cheap. They were not very even and tended to cause the wheel to be out of round. They absorbed oil and stretched allowing the wheel to rotate inside them, and were quickly thrown.
Our modification overcome these problems, so much so, that the only way others knew you still had tyres fitted was the pulling power you still had. The tyres fitted Powerline G Class as well. (Roco??)
The BLI fitted tyres are very well made and the recent cab forward I purchased shows little movement over the tyres, and I have decided to leave them on.

Cheers
Rod Young

One thing absent from all the discussion about accuracy is the gauge, even the most profound accuracy modeller still uses "Toy Train" curves (to coin a phrase), then throw in the gauge discrepancy, I do have to question some of the "It's not to scale or performing to scale" expectations, statements.

As a for instance, the Steam Roller wheel situation, the comparison between the three hopper cars shows up the oversized aspects of the model (ie, handrails, steps etc) when 100% (if there is such a thing) wheels are installed. (EDIT: My apologies, I thought the photos were in this subject, but the comment is still relevant).

Not trying to cause a stir, just curious as to what people really deem accurate, these are after all 'MODELS' "plastic and some forms of metal" and in the case of locomotives "driven by electric motors".

As an ex NSWGR's engineman, I can assure you, the real thing was not as glamorous or reliable as some may think (I'm talking 1960-70's) a plastic boilered, electric powered steam locomotive would have been very unsuitable, there are also infinite possibility's for accuracy 'or' inaccuracy.

I also note with regularity that when we see equipment photographed for the sake of discussing accuracy or otherwise, it is generally on a plywood central.

But two things you have done with the Bullfrog Snot no matter how thin you have applied it the wheels with the snot on them are now slightly larger in diameter than those without it on, this is not really a good thing. Also what happens when the Bullfrog Snot wears off the wheels You do not want to be replacing the snot ever month or so just to run a prototypical train. Better in the long run to actually fix the locomotive faults to start with and do it once and then enjoy the model.

If you use Bull frog Snot to fix it you might as well use Lima models with traction tyres on the wheels as that is really what it amounts to in the end.

Personally it should move a prototypical load up an average model railway grade though and be designed to do just that. Otherwise it would be like designing a SAR 500B class that could only haul two Auscision E cars up that same grade, not too good in the pulling dept. I thought days of locomotives that had this problem vanished with Traxx model trains actually, the 48/830 had a nice body and detail at the time but could not pull a train to save itself. Nice model shame about the mechanism though.

This is all true. I have posted before that I don't think the drivers are "level" and that 4 of the 6 were only in contact with the rails at any one time so the "traction tyre" has actually leveled my model up. Plus I have loaded it with as much lead as will fit, mucked around with springs etc etc etc. The snot fixed the problem , for me, of it not pulling a load up a hill. Will I have to reapply it? Well yes I guess. Am I happy that I have had to spend so much time and effort on a model I paid over $600 for 7 years ago, no. However at least I can now now run it.It was useless before. I hope it gets a scathing review in the press and the second run fixes the issues. I have issues with everything I have bought from Eureka. The tank wagons derail and need new bogies the Garrett had issues, Like I said I will not buy another product from Eureka until I can see it run successfully in a shop.

Mark

I doubt if he would share in anyone's definition or viewpoint on anything that does not line up 100% of everything that he says.

For whatever reason he seems to think that everyone has to do it his way & that includes the people who are outlaying money for the models that the modeller buys, they take the risks with their money but what risk does he take?  

Also how many modellers have the same layout as he does or frequent the same layouts that he does, who build to his standards?

The reality is that all model differently, model different systems & locations, all are at different levels of experience & expertise, as well as financial capabilities for their hobby.

Woops, make that "I doubt whether anyone would share your definition of overweight (ie won't move itself)".  Obviously I don't.

Mark

Received my R707 yesterday.  Two City of Melbourne boards were included in a small bag, along with a sheet explaining that the model represents the locomotive as it entered preservation.

Woops, make that "I doubt whether anyone would share your definition of overweight (ie won't move itself)".  Obviously I don't.

Mark

Mark

Sort of right, however, if he comes up with a weight or other concept that he promotes as being correct, as the old competition rules state.  Decision is final & no correspondence will be accepted nor entered in to.

Mark

Sort of right, however, if he comes up with a weight or other concept that he promotes as being correct, as the old competition rules state.  Decision is final & no correspondence will be accepted nor entered in to.

Who are you talking about here? Me or Terry? Mark wrote 'BS' in his post, which I presume meant me?

Who are you talking about here? Me or Terry? Mark wrote 'BS' in his post, which I presume meant me?

I was talking about A6's definition of an overweight model loco, he or she was talking about you.  My definition of "overweight" (for normal use) is more like, drawbar pull exceeds prototype, likely to damage drive train.  For competition use then unable to move itself comes in to play but I have never seen a loco with that problem.  I don't believe the SEM R fits either definition, my Kumata R doesn't.

Mark

I was talking about A6's definition of an overweight model loco, he or she was talking about you.  My definition of "overweight" (for normal use) is more like, drawbar pull exceeds prototype, likely to damage drive train.  For competition use then unable to move itself comes in to play but I have never seen a loco with that problem.  I don't believe the SEM R fits either definition, my Kumata R doesn't.

Mark

I was actually referring to Mr 1855, as he was the one who spoke about overweight models, so no inference against what either of you have said.  In fact I do not think I implied anything in relation to any locomotive model being overweight at all.  As such I picked the BS in another way.  If you go back to the person who indicated a particular model was overweight, I replied on the basis of "IF" the model was overweight, with the emphasis on the if, which I had put there.

Likewise the same as goes for whatever model I have except perhaps some R/S items that were some dumb reason made out of metal & the only redeeming aspect of them is that they have good free rolling bogies.

I have always expressed my views based on what & how I model & what I choose to run, no way do I ridicule others in their choices either, I may disagree on some points but in the end, the choice of what the individual does & uses is entirely their choice.

So my apologies if either of you took it to apply to either of you.

I did not take offence, just wondered who the reference was to. As far as I am concerned, it would be near impossible to produce an overweight engine as even using depleted uranium you can't fit that much weight into a model anyway. If the model has proper brass, or even better, ball bearings on its axles and a decent quality motor and gearbox, then it should not suffer damage of any sort.

And if it did manage to pull greater than its prototypical load, so what? Always good to have something in reserve. The only time I would be concerned is if the load was able to stall the model, then there is the potential to do damage to the motor.

When a model spins its wheels, that is the point where it is unable to cope any longer, wheel spinning is the equivalent of an electrical fuse, it protects the motor.

Sounds like too small a fuse was fitted to the R.

I once bought a plastic steam loco. When I picked it up it flexed badly, bits fell off and the wheels spun on the axles. Not the best for a $500 something buy. I truly believe that whitmetal/brass and brass construction is the way to go for steamers. If you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars, kit or brass locos are the buisness. Plastic diesels on the other hand are great. Just my opinion though.

How does the R perform on flat track. Is it capable of lifting a prototypical load without problem? Prototypical passenger trains did have to be assisted in some areas. One in forty is quite a climb, especially if you add a curve which on most layouts would be many times tighter than in real life.

Regards,

Linton

I did not take offence, just wondered who the reference was to. As far as I am concerned, it would be near impossible to produce an overweight engine as even using depleted uranium you can't fit that much weight into a model anyway. If the model has proper brass, or even better, ball bearings on its axles and a decent quality motor and gearbox, then it should not suffer damage of any sort.

And if it did manage to pull greater than its prototypical load, so what? Always good to have something in reserve. The only time I would be concerned is if the load was able to stall the model, then there is the potential to do damage to the motor.

When a model spins its wheels, that is the point where it is unable to cope any longer, wheel spinning is the equivalent of an electrical fuse, it protects the motor.

I did not take offence, just wondered who the reference was to. As far as I am concerned, it would be near impossible to produce an overweight engine as even using depleted uranium you can't fit that much weight into a model anyway. If the model has proper brass, or even better, ball bearings on its axles and a decent quality motor and gearbox, then it should not suffer damage of any sort.

And if it did manage to pull greater than its prototypical load, so what? Always good to have something in reserve. The only time I would be concerned is if the load was able to stall the model, then there is the potential to do damage to the motor.

When a model spins its wheels, that is the point where it is unable to cope any longer, wheel spinning is the equivalent of an electrical fuse, it protects the motor.

Thanks.  

I thought when I put the if bit in with my reply it should have covered the aspect that I was not advocating overweight models, likewise I took the reference of BS to be someone else, & his demands that all has to be his way.

I personally check the loads that models can haul straight out of the box, with the exception of my DJH models & couple of diesels all the plastic models have had problems on my 1:40 section now on a 28" radius curve, each to a varying degree. I doubt though that many of them would haul a prototypical length load on the grade even with the adjustments I have made to them.

I added some weight to the front tank & a small strip under the keeper plate on the bunker of my Eureka garratt, more for a safety margin on that grade than anything else, especially as the front tank engine would slip & I do not like that happening.

So anyway back to the R class

So anyway back to the R class you ladies might want to get a room

As Blacksmith stated it is preferable to have some reserve in the pulling dept though as just being able to get that prototypical load up your 1 in 40 grade at home means nought, when you take that same loco and cars to a friends layout or to the club layout that has a steeper climb, with the reserve built into it it might just make it, but if it is only good for that 1 in 40 then you will have plenty of trouble with it elsewhere. I tend to want just a bit of reserve in any locomotive just to be on the safe side, so that running a prototypical length train does not strain anything. You can always dial up a bit more power if needed rather than have it burn out or something. I judge locomotives by the weight of them the heavier ones then I know will be better runners and pullers. It is like comparing a Lima model to a Auscision model, just say B class locomotive. The Auscision one should walk away with a prototypical load behind it, where as the Lima one if it is stock standard will stall most certainly with the same train. Other factors come into play here like different drive set ups for a start etc but you get the idea I hope.

So anyway back to the R class you ladies might want to get a room

Yes Bwanna

I thought about my own comment this morning in regards to plastic vs brass locomotives and thought what a load of bollocks. Back in the early nineties my uncle bought a Bachman Jubilee locomotive. It was made of plastic, had a can motor, split chassis and a fly wheel. The thing ran, still runs very well. While the wheels and detail may not be where they are today this was a good product. A few weekends ago one of the club members had an American (huge of course) steam locomotive. It was also made of plastic, looked and ran beautifully.

What is going on here? Why was my plastic steamer a heap of s*#t. Why can't a 4-6-4 HO scale R class locomotive pull a few coaches up a hill? Bachman could and I presume can still build OO scale locomotives that work. The American manufactures have to get to right so they can pull trains the width of Australia.

You should not have to coat the wheels in snot to get the thing to work. Something is not right here with the design. Go back to the simple design of a true, split, made of diecast or similar chassis, stick in as big a motor that fits, put a chunk of lead or whatever the EHS friendly equivelant is these days and make sure the thing works before you sell it.

It is not rocket science. I am so frustrated at where Australian RTR is going. It's now simply a race for production, which in my opinion creates ridiculous over sights. Where are the people like Mike McCormac and the like when you need accurate models produced. I tell you were they are...they can't compete with cheap 80% correct models.

In engineering the 80% rule is often the target. The Lockhead Skunkworks took this opinion. The important difference between engineering and RTR trains is that in engineering mistakes are used as lessons of what not to do next time. With the RTR trains the same old mistakes just keep on reappearing.

Wow, that's my rant for the day. Now to turn this computer off so I don't see the subsequent Railpage flogging.

Just relax, I am on holidays.

Linton

Sounds like too small a fuse was fitted to the R.

I once bought a plastic steam loco. When I picked it up it flexed badly, bits fell off and the wheels spun on the axles. Not the best for a $500 something buy. I truly believe that whitmetal/brass and brass construction is the way to go for steamers. If you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars, kit or brass locos are the buisness. Plastic diesels on the other hand are great. Just my opinion though.

How does the R perform on flat track. Is it capable of lifting a prototypical load without problem? Prototypical passenger trains did have to be assisted in some areas. One in forty is quite a climb, especially if you add a curve which on most layouts would be many times tighter than in real life.

Regards,

Linton

I thought about my own comment this morning in regards to plastic vs brass locomotives and thought what a load of bollocks. Back in the early nineties my uncle bought a Bachman Jubilee locomotive. It was made of plastic, had a can motor, split chassis and a fly wheel. The thing ran, still runs very well. While the wheels and detail may not be where they are today this was a good product. A few weekends ago one of the club members had an American (huge of course) steam locomotive. It was also made of plastic, looked and ran beautifully.

What is going on here? Why was my plastic steamer a heap of s*#t. Why can't a 4-6-4 HO scale R class locomotive pull a few coaches up a hill? Bachman could and I presume can still build OO scale locomotives that work. The American manufactures have to get to right so they can pull trains the width of Australia.

You should not have to coat the wheels in snot to get the thing to work. Something is not right here with the design. Go back to the simple design of a true, split, made of diecast or similar chassis, stick in as big a motor that fits, put a chunk of lead or whatever the EHS friendly equivelant is these days and make sure the thing works before you sell it.

It is not rocket science. I am so frustrated at where Australian RTR is going. It's now simply a race for production, which in my opinion creates ridiculous over sights. Where are the people like Mike McCormac and the like when you need accurate models produced. I tell you were they are...they can't compete with cheap 80% correct models.

In engineering the 80% rule is often the target. The Lockhead Skunkworks took this opinion. The important difference between engineering and RTR trains is that in engineering mistakes are used as lessons of what not to do next time. With the RTR trains the same old mistakes just keep on reappearing.

Wow, that's my rant for the day. Now to turn this computer off so I don't see the subsequent Railpage flogging.

Just relax, I am on holidays.

Linton

Spot on Linton regarding your comments re Australian steam locomotive models, can well apply to a lot of other models as well.

The only thing though is that US models of steam still have the traction tyres on a huge proportion of their models from China, even some of them that have metal boilers, to which the detail looks fine.

I also doubt that the models for the English market are designed to haul the same type of load that Australian modellers are seeking, especially when there were few grades the same as we have here, & in many cases the Oz modeller replicates.  If we are modelling fairly low grades of around 1:75, pretty well all the models produced for our market would handle a close replication of a loaded train on such a grade, although doubtful some would pull an empty length load.

Hi Col,

I didn't realise the American stuff still had traction tyres! I guess some of the American stuff is cheap compared to Aussie stuff. How do the German manufacturers go I wonder. There models can be quite expensive, maybe on par with Australian outline items. They certainly look very nice.

I don't think it's so much what the prototype can pull although the Bachman Jubilee model would of showed up my previous plastic steam purchase.  I think it comes down to it being a model train and being used on layouts of which track plans and grades are more extreme that those in real life. It comes down to somebody wanting to haul a seven car passenger train, like the real one around their layout for the visual pleasure. The poor model locomotive has to negotiate tight curves, sharp grades, small radius point work, bad grade transitions and god knows what else. The requirements when building a model should have addressed these known problems and then been validated. The model should be able to pull more than prototypically possible due to it operating on a model railway, while its up to the modeller to do what he chooses with it. The R Class is not a small locomotive. If it were a Z13 class I could understand why there may be some issues.  

Anyway I am not a R Class purchaser. I can imagine how some feel after handing over so much money. Six hundred dollars is not cheap.

Hope somebody comes up with a decent solution.

Linton

Spot on Linton regarding your comments re Australian steam locomotive models, can well apply to a lot of other models as well.

The only thing though is that US models of steam still have the traction tyres on a huge proportion of their models from China, even some of them that have metal boilers, to which the detail looks fine.

I also doubt that the models for the English market are designed to haul the same type of load that Australian modellers are seeking, especially when there were few grades the same as we have here, & in many cases the Oz modeller replicates.  If we are modelling fairly low grades of around 1:75, pretty well all the models produced for our market would handle a close replication of a loaded train on such a grade, although doubtful some would pull an empty length load.