Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.

Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: Am I being unreasonable?  (Read 5289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tgv_obsessed

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: yes
  • 2mm Association Number: no
  • Posts: 174
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Am I being unreasonable?
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2012, 08:50:51 PM »
I would have thought if the design didnt have to accommodate small radius, then more reliable running should result, not less.

Wide tolerances, in manufacturing terms, does not mean a good end product.

Being able to narrow down what the chassis has to do should enable a better design.

But i am not sure there is a link as Kato has proven that tight curves AND high reliability can be done.

even though I agree with you that narrowing down what a chassis has to do CAN lead to better design, it can also be used to make a cheaper design, which is where the tollerance issue comes in, that is to say the model is only able to do what it is designed to do, and if it can only just about do that, then only a small window of functionality is inbuilt.

Kato doesnt recomend the long passenger trains to go narrower than 315, but they can (i imagine the reason Kato recomend 315 is because their track spacing is rather narrow and 315 may well be desired to stop passing trains hitting each other). So perhaps having a wide tollerance does have an impact on the quality of the product.

Kato could have said to themselves "our trains will hit each other if they pass at radii less than 315, so we'll design them not to be able to and because the design brief is more specific we will therefore produce a better model" , i'm sure being a business they would dearly love to, but one read of the sentence shows the paradox.
running in is so you get used to the noise, oops, to bed the gears down properly

Online Dr Al

  • Trade Count: (+52)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5263
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Am I being unreasonable?
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2012, 09:30:59 PM »
I don't know if the newer chassis fit the older HST maybe Dr Al does. If so that might be a way to get a blue 125.

All the Poole models chassis are completely interchangable. The first batches of Bachfar are also interchangable. The original chassis can be made to run very well with a few small improvements - fit pickups to the front bogie (easy as the fittings are there, just need the pickup strips) and change out the brass idler gear. Strip down and overhaul and it'll run well and probably last forever.

Many many have never been lubricated, overhauled and also many suffer from worn gearing (why Farish changed from brass to plastics) which can then seize the whole thing up. The armatures are pretty durable thouh, so usually they still work even after this.

Quote from: Roy L S
If Dr Al is online he may be able to provide a more comprehensive answer.

“We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” – Dr. Carl Sagan


Please Support Us!
February Goal: £60.00
Due Date: Feb 29
Total Receipts: £65.00
Above Goal: £5.00
Site Currency: GBP
February Donations

Advertise Here
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal