Mickoo's BR modelling

[mickoo]

Interesting.

I laughed at the thought of people trying to get measurements of loco windows.

Imagine the driver's face when some guy appears on his front buffers with measuring tape in hand........

Laugh indeed, during last week rehearsals we had a class 70 for two days solid, I took the opportunity to take some fundamental measurements and yes the driver did think I was utterly mad, especially at lunch time when I asked him to leave it on the traverser with the parking brake on.

Worm eye view.


Buffer beam and drag box.


Sand boxes and traction motors.


Sand box and feed hose.


Radiator water level sight glass.


I don't quite have enough images for 70's yet to begin that project but need to get a crack on as I hear there will be no more for Freightliner and being big brutes may well get shipped to Poland or Germany for stone and coal trains. Having said that, Freightliner and the government are very keen to increase train lengths to get more off the road and onto the rail and a class 66 will not cope with a 30 set on around the Fagbury Cliff reverse curves and Clickett Hill......we are/were/maybe talking about renting class 20's to bank long trains out of the terminals now! However the single ended cab design is a down side so two 08's nose to nose may well have to suffice, I did table class 37's which ironically worked out cheaper than class 20's but they are a little big for what we need.

It is possible that the class 70's will go to Europe and Freightliner just use a spare class 66 as a banker only, they have enough kicking around spare (GBRf doesn't..below) and that would depend on the installation of a fueling terminal on the Port, something Freightliner have been desperate for for years. Crossing from the up goods to the down fuel point at Ipswich is costing them a fortune in paths and time slotting in with passenger trains, especially as some moves require two shunts to get all the way across.

We already have/did have (would need to recheck) two trains that top and tail out of / into Felixstowe as the train requires a reversal on the main line, it's cheaper to tow a dead loco on the back and get the driver to swap ends at the junction than it is to uncouple and run round.

The banker would only push up to CO628 at the top of the 1.5 mile hill and now that all locos are fitted with the new radios they can communicate with each other and control without having to recourse to the signal phones.

Very interesting times ahead for rail development locally.

Re GBRf class 66, they have so much new traffic that they have run out of locos and are by far the most utilised fleet in the class. So much so that they have bought three stored Euro locos and are having them converted for UK use, mostly cab stuff and loading gauge restructuring, so we should soon see another variation of class 66 on our rails shortly, hopefully they will make it to Felixstowe on liner trains, mind I still need 733 to complete my ABC photo collection for GBRf, no chance with DBS and their ECR Euro contracts or Freightliner with their FPL Polish contracts.

Anyway, I digress, back to more class 66 this evening, recovering Bachmmans gauge 1 effort from the loft and digging out my OO model from deep in the toy box and perhaps some 08 modelling to keep a modicum of normality around here.

I do also need to make a trip down to the local gun smith, for some more cartridges for my scatter gun and a couple of Sundays at church for thinking naughty thoughts about this


Clearly a working model and being a self confessed whistler foamer can see a lot wrong, but for sheer wow factor, I don't think I've ever been so smitten on any other model in any other scale.

Any diesel in 5" would be a dream, but in reality it's only a small practical choice of three as at that scale you need detail and lots of it, which means photos and dimensions. Even if just static it'd be nice and a colleague at work said something quite profound today, "It's clear you want to, so JFDI". He has a point, over two years hand wringing which if just 50% had been making would of achieved something, and if it all fails? So what, what else would you have done in that time? Chances are that would of failed too or as is more likely, spent the time wringing hands. Five inch might be a bit big and 2½" seems a little small so 3½" might suffice.

Enough babble, time for some doing!

 

[lancer1027]

Hi Mick,

Does that model make you want to get on with your scratch build??

It certainly has that WOW factor


Rob

 

[mickoo]

Hi Mick,

Does that model make you want to get on with your scratch build??

It certainly has that WOW factor


Rob

Yes and no, the 1:32 is nice but a fringe dabbling so to speak, I thought 1:32 would scratch my big train itch, it didn't, additionally 1:32 is a bit big to play trains and too small for uber detail, hence my S7 bubble to play trains and fulfil my 'community' itch which I confess a year ago I couldn't see the attraction of but do now LOL.

It still sits on my desk right in front of me, but I've sort of built myself into a corner with the style of construction I used, aka several layers of plasticard, where as it should of been a thin ply/MDF sub shell with Plasticard overlay, having said that, 1:32 is about the smallest you can use that technique on so if your going to break out the wood working tools why make life hard for yourself, just jump up a couple of scales

 

[Steph Dale]

To minimise the risk of parallax errors caused by shorter lenses it is recommend you use 150mm or above, the bigger the better really, I used 300 and grabbed a couple of cab front close ups.

This is well worth repeating, almost every shot I see modellers of all flavours take for reference are taken from wide-standard. I understand its impossible if you're standing in the 6' with your back to another loco or in a packed museum but if at all possible stand waaay back from the subject, and if you dont have a long tele just crop the image. Portrait photographers shoot at ~100mm because its far enough away to avoid giving people big noses, but close enough so they dont have to shout at their subject

Guys, Close, but not quite:

Firstly, it's not parallax. You've only got one viewpoint which is through the lens (assuming you're using an SLR). Parallax is optical misalignment of two viewpoints. Or see here for a potted guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

However, it certainly is perspective and in that case, yes using a lens that's longer than the aspect of the sensor makes sense. For 35mm the aspect is 50mm (corner to corner) and on APS-C it's around 30mm. Using a lens of double this length (at least) makes sure you're well clear of any lens/perspective issues. I often use a 60mm EF-s with my 7d for this reason.

All the above notwithstanding you still have a potential issue; that of pincushion or barrel distorsion. That's the lens bending the light slightly inconsistently over its surface so that straight lines end up curved. Take a photo of a brick wall and see how good your lens is! The effect of this sort of distorsion is very subtle in the method you propose as everything will still join up and 'work' as a model; it just won't look right when you assemble it. This is the point at which the classic comparison of model and real train falls over as those photos will typically be taken with different lenses or at least at different focal lengths, depths of field and therefore varying distorsion, even if using the same lens from the same relative viewpoint.

And this is why I use the EF-s 60mm. It's a macro lens that has some really neat tricks including true infinity focus and remarkable flatness to the image - the effects of depth of field and focussing don't seem to vary the low levels of distorsion present so I can use and compare images taken at both short ranges and long. There are a couple of other 'goodies' in the Canon range too; the EF 70-200 f4L IS has the lowest distorsion and most amazing resolution or the 135mm f2L is superb too. The zoom is an absolute peach though for the sort of work we're describing here as it's good enough that the perspective can be taken out digitally using something like the Adobe perspective tool and you'll still get straight lines when they should be straight.

Anyway, so much for the theory. The rest of the concept is very interesting and has the potential to work very well, just don't underestimate the lens effects. I note that Adobe Photoshop can 'dial out' most lens effects and if you're using the Canon Pro software it will actually correct any measured distorsion in the lens without too much effort - it matches to the lens serial number!

All the above assuming you're using Canon gear and haven't been recently playing with lenses worth many thousands of pounds...!

Steph

 

[mickoo]

I was going to say, does this count Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens LOL, but a quick google price check reveals it's now half the price I paid, still a bloody good lens in my books, the image stabiliser has to be seen to be believed.

I do use the Canon software and yes it does straighten everything across all zoom ranges and I'm pretty happy it's accurate enough, certainly when straightening large areas. Below a 1" grid overlaid on the tank and centre chassis which is about a 20' spread, about the furthest I'd go with this technique, I.E. splitting a 70' loco into three sections.


Another way would be to take a picture of a larger area and then crop only the middle bit where pin cushion errors have least impact. Many good lens review sites will often post shots of error zones for given lenses.

The search for accuracy does beg another question and one which was discussed at WM last month. How accurate do you really need to be? I mean really be, not just supposed to be, but really be? I'll accept that wheels and gauge need to match your chosen track, but the rest?

Consider the above, I know the fuel tank is exactly 175", the fuel gauge recess is 8" dia and the square tank filler also 8"sq, I also know the main chassis rail lower flange is 38 mm or 1½" thick (US locos still seem to be built to Imperial measurements....thank goodness!) and the battery box is 36" x 26", all taken with a tape on 1:1 loco, feel free to count the squares above if you wish LOL.

The fuel tank in O gauge comes out at 102.18 mm, so the question is, is two decimal places accurate enough, or, is it too accurate, what about rounding it down to 102 mm? or we make a mistake and make it 101 or 103 mm long. My point is this, how many people do you see at shows who get out their digital verniers or micrometers and pick up show models to measure fuel tanks? Probably a big fat zero I'd suspect, so why beat yourself up over 0.18 mm or even an odd mm here and there?

The only person who knows is yourself and if, if, your happy to accept that error and it still looks right, and that's the critical part, looks right, what's a mm here and there?

Going back to lenses, sizes and distortion, this is not the critical issue here, it's the grid, one size does not fit all, you have to adjust the grid for each picture. Adobe can scale the grid in % or pixels, I chose the latter as it seems more accurate, however, even at 1 pixel increments it is still possible for the picture to fall between increments, the fuel tank turns out 175½" or 174½" long, then you have to resize the picture. The grid remains a constant x&y pixel ratio so subtle adjustments to the picture underneath will make it fit the grid if it happened to fall in between the 1 pixel grid tolerance, example, at 25 pixels the tank is ½" too long, your image is 3580 pixels long, simply resize to say 3565 or what ever gives you 1" per 25 pixels. It is important to remember when resizing your image that you must retain the image x&y ratio, or else you 'will' be building in scale errors, I.E. a reduction in length of 2% results in a height reduction of 2% as well.

I should also clarify the joining of images, Steph is right the outer ends of each 20' section will probably not line up very well, when I said join images I meant in Adobe, you see the grid does not get laid on the final image it's only a overlay in Adobe, so to make it permanent you need to zoom the image larger with the grid over it and then screen grab it, it is these screen grabs that you then merge back together to make the final image with a grid over laid. A simple cut and paste affair.

I accept that the larger the spread of the image then the more risk there is of error, however with care it can work and the more measurements you get to cross reference your over laid grid the more accurate it will be.

A simpler accurate (though less subtle) way would be to place a known marked measuring stick next to your subject matter, I'd suggest 1" spacing would be too small, but a black / white stripe every 3" would give you better accuracy and negate measuring parts all over the place.

 

[Steph Dale]

The fuel tank in O gauge comes out at 102.18 mm, so the question is, is two decimal places accurate enough, or, is it too accurate, what about rounding it down to 102 mm? or we make a mistake and make it 101 or 103 mm long. My point is this, how many people do you see at shows who get out their digital verniers or micrometers and pick up show models to measure fuel tanks? Probably a big fat zero I'd suspect, so why beat yourself up over 0.18 mm or even an odd mm here and there?

Mick,

Are you serious? .18mm is about 7.5/1000" so if you're using sensible thickness materials that's going to be lost within etch/build tolerances. C'mon! I've heard of rivet counting, but that's taking it a bit far, surely? While you're at it have you sized every visible nut, bolt, rivet and weld seam?

Steph

 

[mickoo]

Mick,

Are you serious? .18mm is about 7.5/1000" so if you're using sensible thickness materials that's going to be lost within etch/build tolerances. C'mon! I've heard of rivet counting, but that's taking it a bit far, surely? While you're at it have you sized every visible nut, bolt, rivet and weld seam?

Steph

Well the 7mm class 40 bogie was etched to 0.025mm accuracy, it did make the parts fit very well LOL, you see I was allowing for the cusp and material thickness, it all worked out fine but have to confess a dashed nightmare to keep on top of such small values.

I think perhaps I might be able to get away with 0.05 or even 0.1, problem is at 0.1, if it's on the wrong side that could give a sloppy fit with interlocking parts.

The class 66 tank welds all look the same and measure at around an average ½" bead, end plates, filler recess walls and gauge rim, not sure on the nuts and bolts yet, so yeah, I suppose I am serious LOL. It's probably of little use for 7mm but on a 5" model I think it'd matter? Maybe not, that'd be something to worry about if and when I ever got there

 

[alcazar]

To go back to the Class 70's....being sent abroad?

So are we saying they have been a failure? Or that they were never needed?
And didn't the original plans include about 50?

 

[mickoo]

To go back to the Class 70's....being sent abroad?

So are we saying they have been a failure? Or that they were never needed?
And didn't the original plans include about 50?

I'm not saying anything of the kind LOL, however, Freightliner are in a cut throat business and if they can utilise the locos elsewhere and get a better return they will, be it UK or Europe. Like DBS, Freightliner has a surplus of class 66 and have actively been looking for business overseas and there's more than a hand full of class 66 roaming European rails.

The rail climate has changed since the Class 70 was ordered and built, all Freightliner will do is move them where it best suits their business need and that may be abroad.

One other factor looming on the horizon are the Tier emissions regulations, class 66 are Tier I and Tier II (2nd phase locos) and class 70 is Tier III, there is no further expansion on the class 66 engine to meet new regulations so that engine block and production run is terminated, you just cannot change anything to meet higher Tier emissions regulations.

I believe that with software and some hardware changes class 70 might get to Tier IV.

Class 66 are now coming on for 15 years old and as a substantial class will be life expired at 20-25 years, yes we still have older locos on the UK but not in significant numbers and they are only running on pre Tier regulations due to grandfather rights. Thus, within the next ten years the big TOC's are going to be looking for a fleet replacement loco, it is very likely that it will not be a one engine loco, more like the multi engine loco that is currently being developed.

The multi engine loco can more easily meet the current and proposed Tier regulations, it's also much cheaper to run and maintain.

Example 1, Class 70, run of 25, an engine block is 3500hp and there's only 26 built, that's a very short production run, you need to be in the hundreds to make manufacturing costs drop, so not only is it expensive to build, it's also expensive to maintain, you need specialised artisans and a specialised stores and parts system to back it up as well.

Example 2, Class 72, run of 25 locos, five engine blocks at 750hp and 130 engines built. Already a small gain in production costs due to higher volume, however! Why develop your own engine, why not use something off the shelf, something already proven outside of the rail industry. Caterpillar have just such and engine, production run is roughly 14 million to date, so you don;t need a huge stores inventory, just pop down to your local Caterpillar dealer, better yet, with so many engines in service you have a much broader field of artisans to choose from, your staff and stores savings are massive. Added bonuses are, more reliable fleet, if one engine shuts down, it'll still run on the other four at reduced power, Tier regulations can be met with ease and double bonus of reduced fuel consumption.

Diesel Multi Engine (DME) locos are gaining favour fast, in the US many tired old locos are being taken away and being rebuilt to DME specification. DB rail has just ordered 200 units from TRAXX.

DRS seem to be bucking the trend. Their recent Vossloh Eurolight (designated UKLIGHT for this order http://www.vossloh-innotrans.com/media/downloads/pdfs/vrv/Vossloh_UKLIGHT_us.pdf) order for 15 locos (class 68) with a single prime mover rated at 3750hp proves there is still mileage in single engine designs, but I think the DME concept will take hold for the future.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Just briefly going back to the 5" gauge 40, I'd want a real diesel engine in mine.
Whith regards to the class 70, I'd of thought that now we are in the 21st century that the good old screw link coupling would be a thing of the past, or is that in case the old soldier 08 has to bump start it.

Col.

 

[mickoo]

Just briefly going back to the 5" gauge 40, I'd want a real diesel engine in mine.
Whith regards to the class 70, I'd of thought that now we are in the 21st century that the good old screw link coupling would be a thing of the past, or is that in case the old soldier 08 has to bump start it.

Col.

Nowt wrong with screw couplings, simple is as simple does LOL, wish GE had applied some of that logic to the rest of the loco!

A real diesel engine, hmm scooter powered LOL, never took you for a mod

What ever loco I choose it's going to have a 'rockin' speaker and sound system, wonder which DCC chip I'll need for that then? LOL.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

A real diesel engine, hmm scooter powered LOL, never took you for a mod

Nah, not me mate......

Col

 

[mickoo]

Nah, not me mate......

Col

Very cafe racer

 

[alcazar]

I was thinking Hairy Bikers......

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Very cafe racer

Coffee house cowboys, bypass bruisers and turnpike tearaways, but before this turns into a thread take over I'll post more in the spam department methinks, that's if anyones interested

Col.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

I was thinking Hairy Bikers......

It would be nice to have some, that's on top of my head I mean

Col.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Multi engined loco's sound interesting and I wonder why it's not been done sooner to be honest, but then surley eventualy it'll all be electric, won't it ?
Fossil fuel's going to run out or become too expensive unless there running on waste cooking oil I suppose.

Col.

 

[mickoo]

Multi engined loco's sound interesting and I wonder why it's not been done sooner to be honest, but then surely eventually it'll all be electric, won't it ?

And where does electricity come from LOL? A massive percentage world wide still comes from fossil fuelled power stations.

Electric trains are certainly cheaper to run from an energy point of view, but very expensive in installation and maintenance, you only need one pan strike and your route is closed. The cost of an arterial line blockage to the economy is massive, most of it hidden.

We certainly feel it when the wires go down on the GEML and our trains are all diesel hauled....just can't get through, Freightliner trains run to a schedule and paths are strictly controlled and expensive if missed. It takes about four hours to strip and load a train, it has to go on time, finished or not, if it arrives two hours late quite a lot of it goes back, that's fine for GBRf and DBS as they run point A-B all the time, Freightliner does not. Freightliners train from Ditton arrives with 26 on, we split 4 off and add them to the Southampton train which leaves two hours after the Ditton one arrives, the remaining 22 may form the Birmingham train. The train from Birmingham may well add 4 off the Bristol train to make up the Liverpool train, it's a very clever use of stock and matches wagons to traffic flows but it's a massive chess game, one or two trains late can and sometimes does, throw the whole lot into chaos.

For a short while last year we had 28 arrivals and 29 departures, resulting in one afternoon train (4L97 MX) always being double headed. The extra loco took a train made up of all the spares taken off trains in the last 24hrs to form a new outbound service only.

Anyway I digress...again LOL

 

[alcazar]

Fascinating, though.

 

[mickoo]

As a little update, for y'all shed bashers...don't all rush forward at once LOL

Just read in the latest railway press that GBRf are looking to source even more class 66 from where ever they can get them from, so far the three mentioned above from Europe, plus it looks like two more coming to our shores for conversion to UK specifications.

More interesting though is the order for more class 66, I was under the impression that no more could be built due to Euro Tier emissions regulations, the answer is both yes and no. Any further class 66 must be built by Dec 2014 and the number built is limited to just 23. I presume there must be a maximum figure allowed for older emissions locos to be built and 23 takes it to that limit. GBRf are looking to get some with the rest going to lease houses.

The article also notes that the current 710 engine can be upgraded to meet the new regulations but it is the UK loading gauge that is restricting the size of silencer needed to meet those regulations, so these 23 locos will likely be the last of the 710 engine run in the UK and possibly Europe.

Having said that and noting that the batch run of GMs in Europe has been very large and profitable for GM, I suspect they are working right now on how to get that big new silencer into the UK loading gauge to allow them to expand their foothold and fleet in Europe, and, may even be considering a new engine block within the same frame.

Reliability wise (and that makes accountants very happy) the class 66 is still pretty good and even using old DC motor technology just keeps grinding along, so it makes sense to just keep churning them out if you can.

The order for new locos is good news for rail business in general, we (the Port) have already noticed an increase in traffic and it looks set to increase even more in the next five to ten years, certainly intermodal traffic is on the up and it's pleasing to finally see the governments will to back future rail progression.