ElectricNose

Just out of curiosity, when ElectricNose reviews UK outline models on his website, does anyone know whether he uses scale drawings in order to perform comparisons with the prototype ? Graham

Reply to
gppsoftware
Loading thread data ...

No Idea. I think he slated the Deltic but apparently the model was matched to a preserved one so in that case he was wrong, or something similar.

Best reviewer is yourself. If you like it, buy it!

Reply to
piemanlarger

How can you be certain that the drawings themselves are accurate? It may be that the drawings are wrong, and the model is accurate.

Reply to
Mark Newton

wrote

Steve principally compares models to archive prototype photographs. Many published drawings of diesel prototypes are notoriously wrong and this may account for some of the inaccuracies on recent model releases.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Steve Jones is a prominent modern railway photographer in his own right. Bachmann's club magazine used manufacturer's drawings to compare their recent Deltic with the original. Even from their own drawings it is obvious that a large section of the rounded nose end is missing, especially towards the top. This is most noticable on models painted in blue & yellow livery. Basically, there isn't much nose end to paint yellow.

Also obvious from Bachmann's own drawings is that the ' V ' angle of the windshield screen is far too shallow.

(kim)

Reply to
kim

Who or what is ElectricNose and where is the website referred to please?

Reply to
Ed Callaghan

I typed electricnose into google and it was the first answer!!!!

Reply to
David Smith

Ed Callaghan wrote:-

It's the model railway blog page of modern railway photographer Steve Jones

formatting link
(kim)

Reply to
kim

That of course, depends on where the drawings come from. There are many unofficial drawings published in various books which I would agree are sometimes inaccurate, but what about the official BR drawings ? Bachmann apparently use a combination of official BR drawings and measurements of prototypes - and I know this was done for a fact with the Std 4 tank.

Graham

Reply to
gppsoftware

Well said. Your last line says it all, well put.

Reply to
Andy Jack

You might want to Google back in this newsgroup to some months ago and find a thread in which Steve Jones (of ElectricNose) and some others got into a somewhat heated debate about the dimensional accuracy of the first edition of the Bachmann Deltic. I think almost everyone and his dog had an input, including people who had actually crawled over Deltics and measured them.

It also included some debate about the dangers of using photographs to check scale dimensions.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Guthrie

wrote

In the case of diesel locos, there may not be an official BR drawing as most (not all) were built by outside contractors.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

What Bachmann don't seem to realise though, is that just because a loco was built using a drawing, it doesn't mean it was built exactly the same as that drawing. As anyone who has experience of making things using drawings will know, sometimes construction has to be altered just to get the end result to work properly.

Fred

Reply to
Fred

I suppose that there are two things to consider in response to your question. One is that "official" drawings themselves are sometimes inaccurate. While not directly relevant to model railways, the old Airfix model of the Fairey Battle light bomber was a classic example of this. In my own experience are the official drawings of various Clyde-GM cab units that were once common here in Australia. None are particularly accurate in regards to the nose and cab window shape, for the reasons outlined below.

One reason is the limitations of 2-D drafting when attempting to accurately depict the subtle contours of a 3-D object such as diesel noses and cabs. A GA drawing need not be 100% accurate, since this is not being used as the basis for fabricating individual components.

Another is the fact that big sheet metal fabrications such as these often depart slightly from the drawing, especially if the final forming and finishing are done by hand.

I would agree that the basis of any accurate model is an accurate drawing, but I would caution against treating outline or GA drawings as gsopel.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Thanks for that Jim. When I posted my original question I wasn't being specific about any particular model. I spotted references to ElectricNose on this list which led me to Steve Jones' web site. I was curious as to his sources of information because his web site appeared to be another one of those highly critical 'it's wrong' brigade sites with no information substanciating any of the claims made. I will check the archives of thsi list - thanks for the suggestion.

Since the Bachmann Deltic has been mentioned, let me provide my own research into the accuracy (or not) of this model because it concurs with what most have said on this thread.

I have a book 'British Rail in Colour 1968-1980' by John Glover/Ian Allan, published in 1988 ISBN 0 7110 1796 4. This book has a superb picture on the front cover of a side on view of 55007 at speed. I am also a member of the Bachmann club and have received their latest club magazine containing their drawings and explanation of the model. I used tracing paper to mark out the shape of the prototype from the book cover and to my greatest surprise, it is _exactly_ the same size as the diagrams in the Bachmann magazine! Because it is exactly a side-on view, there are no issues of perspective or paralax involved and it therefore provides conclusive evidence for an exact comparison. So where is the model wrong ? Well, actually, it is a lot worse than you might think. When the tracing of the prototype is overlaid over Bachmann's printing of the official BR drawing, it becomes evident that the production locos were not built according to the drawings. The height of the roof on the diagram is a fair bit higher than that on the production loco, leading me to suggest that the plan may be that of the experimental light blue deltic. The nose cone is exactly the same but the cab side windows (which are larger) and door (further back) are in a slightly different positions. The basic dimensions of the nose such as the bonnet length, height etc are exactly the same. It is the height of the cab roof and lower body edges which are quite different.

When the tracing is overlaid over Bachmann's model drawing, all dimensions including the roof height and nose dimensions are exactly the same as the production prototype, so evidently, Bachmann have draw their diagram from measurements of a production loco.

When the tracing is overlaid over the picture of the Bachmann model, all the innaccuracies are immediately obvious. Firstly, Bachmann's model is not the same as their own plan! The shape of the model is exactly the same as the production real loco and all of the dimensions are exactly the same including the nose shape, angle, height, bonnet length and the front windscreen height, angle, size etc. What is incorrect is the detail. The reason why the yellow end of the nose does not look right is because the wrap-around of the yellow paint needs to come around nearly half as much again (in vertical width) as it is on the model. But this cannot be done because the nose-side grill is a several mm too far forward. Likewise, the cab-side windows are too far forward (by a couple of mm or so) and in turn, the cab door is also too far forward. The model cab front windows are correct by the production locos, but the production locos are not consistent with the BR drawing.

My belief is that Bachmann's explanation is another example of those misleading whitewashes we get from them (Ref: my correspondence with them regarding the rear end height problem on the Std 4 tank which resulted in a completely incorrect and misleading 'explanation' appearing on their web site). The dimensions of the deltic nose are exactly correct which is what their explanation is claiming. What is wrong is that the body side grill, windows and door are all in the wrong positions and that is what spoils the model.

I hope this helps,

Graham Plowman

Reply to
gppsoftware

But BR were able to supply me with prints of subcontractors' drawings when I asked in the late '70's. I'd guess that part of the contract for the locos was a complete drawing set to support the future upkeep and repair of the vehicle. Master sets evidently were dispersed around the works if I'm to believe the stories that one far-sighted individual obtained a complete set for Class 40 from Stratford before it closed, and another bought a pile of microfiches for Class 55 from Doncaster.

However, noone 'in the trade' was sentimental enough about them to make sure they passed to a museum when no longer needed. There are certainly gaps in the record. If I'd known back then what I know now, I'd have bought many more! Would have saved a great deal of trecking around the country with my measuring kit.

Cheers, Francis K.

Reply to
Francis Knight

"Francis Knight" wrote in

Maybe, but BR no longer exist and many of the locos which are being discussed now exist only in preservation.

Personally I work on the basis that *if it looks right, then it is right* and the best way of judging that is from photographs.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

The residual BRB still holds drawings for withdrawn vehicles, which are administered by Serco at Derby; there was a moan on the Railcar web site regarding the cost of prints to support restoration of preserved DMUs. When I've asked my contacts in the preservation field, their opinion is that drawings are supposedly kept when there is a possibility that an extant vehicle of that type may require mainline certification. Hopefully no drawings will be destroyed in future without the NRM first having their pick.

That makes it hard to disagree with some one who says "If it look wrong, it is wrong. Here is the photo to prove it."

My own view is "If it looks wrong, I'd better get my tape measure out!"

Cheers, Francis K.

Reply to
Francis Knight

"Francis Knight" wrote

Absolutely, but with a model it is the *look* that is important.

That's equally fine, but some of the subtle dimensions of the prototype may not scale too readily.

Take the Bachmann 'Deltic'. I have to say that I agree with the general consensus that the front windows are too shallow, but some of the other subtle inaccuracies are lost on me. Apart from the windows the loco looks cool, but the front windows are the signature feature of the loco. They both look wrong and are dimensionally wrong, irrespective of what the DPS say!

John.

Reply to
John Turner

John,

See my investigations further up this thread. I actually compared the illustrations in the Bachmann club magazine with an exact side-on photo of a production real loco. It turned out that the picture I used was exactly the same size as that in the Bachmann mag and therefore I was able to do an exact match using a tracing. I find it interesting that you say that the front windows are dimesionally wrong. How did you come to that conclusion ? What did you measure and what was your base line for correctness ? The dimensions and shape of the Bachmann model shell are exactly spot-on, including nose height and shape. The front windows are the same size as the production real locos, but the production real locos were not built according to the BR plan which did have much deeper windows and a much higher roof line. The Bachmann plan is exactly consistent with a production real loco, not the original BR plan which is quite different. I was able to see all of this clearly when I made my comparisons. You cannot say that things are wrong just because you think they look wrong. Don't forget the effects of perspective and paralax, all of which are different when we look at our models from angles that we would never have looked at the real thing.

Graham Plowman

Reply to
gppsoftware

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.