Jump to content




Photo

Farish Class 40





  • Please log in to reply
285 replies to this topic

#1 TomE

TomE

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • LocationFarnborough, Hants

Posted 11 September 2016 - 14:28

Hi all.

 

On display at TINGS were the first EP samples of the long awaited Class 40. I have to say that in common with most stuff coming from Farish these days, it looks very impressive!

 

CL401.jpg

 

CL402.jpg

 

CL403.jpg

 

CL404.jpg

 

It looks pretty good shape wise to me, but I'm no Class 40 expert so I'll leave others to comment on the finer details!

 

Tom. 


  • Like x 8
  • Agree x 2
  • Thanks x 1



#2 woodenhead

woodenhead

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,369 posts

Posted 11 September 2016 - 15:45

I'm converting to 00, I'm converting to 00, I'm converting to 00.

Nope, it's not working, I rather want one of these.

#3 MR PJ

MR PJ

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 11 September 2016 - 16:07

Hi all.

 

On display at TINGS were the first EP samples of the long awaited Class 40. I have to say that in common with most stuff coming from Farish these days, it looks very impressive!

 

attachicon.gifCL401.jpg

 

attachicon.gifCL402.jpg

 

attachicon.gifCL403.jpg

 

attachicon.gifCL404.jpg

 

It looks pretty good shape wise to me, but I'm no Class 40 expert so I'll leave others to comment on the finer details!

 

Tom. 

 

Hello,

 

Body shape looks okay, but its riding far too high above the bogies. The plate to the right of the bodyside door is way too prominent, as is the boiler exhaust cover (at least that's what I think it is supposed to be...). The radiator fan grill is way too prominent and clumsy looking.

Hopefully all issues which can be overcome prior to the production examples!

 

Cheers

Paul


  • Agree x 1

#4 John M Upton

John M Upton

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,165 posts
  • LocationBumbling along the Coastway West in a 313...

Posted 11 September 2016 - 19:38

Very nice.....

#5 Davexoc

Davexoc

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 479 posts
  • LocationMilton Keynes

Posted 11 September 2016 - 20:04

Hello,

 

Body shape looks okay, but its riding far too high above the bogies. The plate to the right of the bodyside door is way too prominent, as is the boiler exhaust cover (at least that's what I think it is supposed to be...). The radiator fan grill is way too prominent and clumsy looking.

Hopefully all issues which can be overcome prior to the production examples!

 

Cheers

Paul

It apparently only landed the other day and was being demonstrated with sound, having had a speaker fitted. Lights can all be controlled independently using the next18 chip, including the cab lights.

They have already quite a long snagging list building up to fix the errors.

Dave


  • Thanks x 1

#6 BR(S)

BR(S)

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,957 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 00:02

Some close-up pictures in today's MREmag: http://www.mremag.com/index.php



#7 Andy Y

Andy Y

    RMweb Editor


  • Administrators
  • 15,313 posts
  • LocationStaffs

Posted 12 September 2016 - 09:54

Class 40 with reverse lights.forweb.jpg

 

Thanks to Dennis Lovett for sending over pictures of the EP sample as shown this weekend.

 

Class 40.EP.detail01.forweb.jpg

 

Class 40.EP.detail02.for web.jpg

 

Class40.EP.front.forweb.jpg

 

Class40_Both.forweb.jpg


  • Like x 8
  • Thanks x 2

#8 Trains4U

Trains4U

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,957 posts
  • LocationPeterborough

Posted 12 September 2016 - 10:13

That is looking seriously good (Most N gauge items are now, to be fair)

 

Is there any provision for a speaker?



#9 Captain Electra

Captain Electra

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 529 posts
  • LocationPeterborough, UK

Posted 12 September 2016 - 12:38

I saw the EP at TINGS over the weekend and the consensus was that it is a first-class 40. The photos do emphasise the gap between body and bogie, which was a lot less noticeable in the flesh.


  • Like x 1

#10 Zunnan

Zunnan

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • LocationW. Midlands

Posted 12 September 2016 - 13:50

It does look promising. Much better than the old Poole blob! I'm not overly fond of that fan grille though, the plastic overlay on the EP is a rather clumsy affair. No doubt they'll improve it for production, but I can't profess to liking their effort on the class 20 fan grille. That of the 37 was far better executed, I'd hope they opt to repeat that to be honest.

 

The bogie gap should be workable, just like the other models with excess bogie gaps before it. The chassis casting extending below the bodyside to meet the bogies might make things a little more interesting, the clearance between this and the bogie frames doesn't look as far out as the gap to the bodyside. It looks like a body lowering job on to the chassis casting, which should hopefully be an easy fix for those who don't need the model to negotiate lumpy track and/or extreme gradient transitions...unless the buffer beams aren't high enough. If they do a 'Peak' on it and make them over wide as well it might be a little more difficult. To be honest, from normal viewing distance/angle the bogie gap shouldn't be too bad, I've never felt the need to modify my 37s and it was only the first batch 47 that I didn't like the look of. As long as they get the bodyside/cabside/radiator grille relationship right (unlike the original 00 40!) I'll be happy. I know its just the EP, but I hope the relationship between the nose end tooling and the main body are improved for production, in every single image the nose doesn't position correctly, sitting a fraction too low and in a couple of images it looks slightly skew too; which means that gap at the front is set to grow!

 

edit ~

 

There does appear something amiss with the buffer beam, there is a pronounced step up from bogie sideframe to buffer beam top on the prototype which is missing from the model. Presumably a compromise to deal with uneven trainset track, but it does mean the buffer beam either sits low on the bogie or is not tall enough.


Edited by Zunnan, 12 September 2016 - 14:11 .


#11 red death

red death

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,257 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 12 September 2016 - 14:10

That is looking seriously good (Most N gauge items are now, to be fair)

 

Is there any provision for a speaker?

 

It definitely comes with a space for a sugarcube speaker and I think the idea is there are brass contacts for the speaker to avoid needing to solder it in.

 

Cheers, Mike



#12 Roy L S

Roy L S

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 889 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 16:24

For a first EP it looks very nice indeed. Was there any confirmation of the technical specification? Good to know there should be a space for a sugar cube designed in, but even better if one of the initial offering (green please) came sound fitted. After all who could resist a "Whistler" that whistles??!!

Roy

#13 maq1988

maq1988

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • LocationPlaces, that I go

Posted 12 September 2016 - 16:44

It's an EP so hopefully the body height can be reduced some more and it looks a little rough and ready in the close up photos. Overall though looks great, I'm not overly familiar with the class so I'll rely on others about accurate body grilles etc.

 

From what I heard at TINGS it will have a coreless motor and they did have a sound version running on the demo stand. For someone who isn't into sound-equipped locos it sounded pretty good and not at all 'tinny'.

 

Also the slow speed running seemed excellent on the two or so foot of track they had.

 

IMG_0430.JPG

Edited by maq1988, 12 September 2016 - 16:54 .


#14 Andy Y

Andy Y

    RMweb Editor


  • Administrators
  • 15,313 posts
  • LocationStaffs

Posted 12 September 2016 - 17:36

In many ways the photos from Farish exaggerate the issue of any gap over the bogies; they're taken from a low angle against a plain background and are obviously somewhat larger than life. The bogies on a 40 are as long as any loco and hence some movement is necessary to function on the trackwork of many modellers (believe me as a layout photographer when I could think of several where they'd have problems if the gap were twice as large!) in both the X and Y axes. If it were less there'd doubtless be complaints similar to those of others' Adams Radial tanks.

 

A lot of design thought has gone into this product as can be seen from these specs:

 

-coreless motor *first UK diesel to be so fitted
-independently switchable tail lights
-independently switchable cab lights *dcc only
Switches on the PCB to isolate lights at each end for dc users
-'easy fit' dcc sound. Speaker sound box moulded in to roof. Large sugarcube speaker sticks to this and when body is replaced on chassis the speaker makes contact with the pcb. No soldering and no loose wires.
-next18 decoder.
-2 types of nose ends. Disc and centre headcode.
-2 body styles for both different types of boiler.
-scale width bogies.


  • Thanks x 2
  • Informative/Useful x 1

#15 ruggedpeak

ruggedpeak

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,021 posts

Posted 12 September 2016 - 17:42

Looks very nice to me. Not my scale but I have thing for 40's and could see that sitting on my desk.


  • Like x 1

#16 oreamnos

oreamnos

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 404 posts
  • LocationAltadena, California

Posted 12 September 2016 - 18:03

I am a big 40 fan and this EP is an improvement over the previous Poole based 40 - but it would be hard for it not to be!  My observations:

 

I agree with the comments made above regarding the body side panel, panel lines, and the boiler exhaust.  All are much too prominent on the body.

 

The bogie/body gap is about the same as the gap on the last release of Poole based 40s from a few years ago.  Ironically, the gap on those models was actually a big larger than on the early Bachmann 40 releases using the Poole body.

To its credit Bachmann have managed to narrow the bogies so that they tuck under the body nicely now, so that from the side the body overhang will mask some of the gap.  The big problem however is that from the front - even at normal viewing angles - the gap is always very noticeable because there is (correctly on the model) very little body overhang there.

 

I was really hoping that Bachmann would be able to narrow the gap and I hope they will still be able too.

 

The leaf and helical springs on the bogies would benefit from more relief.  They are an improvement over the Poole based 40 but they don't have as much relief as the bogie on the Peaks that were released 10 years ago.

 

The footsteps on the bogie don't quite line up with the door.  This is a niggle.

The center head box isn't quite the right shape and it projects too much.  The biggest problem with the box, however, may be the ridge immediately around the glazing, which is much too prominent and over scale.  I'm actually surprised it has been moulded as I would have thought simply picking it out with paint would have been more to scale.  On the disk fitted version, the head code disks are over scale.

 

The pillars on either side of the center cab window are a bit too wide but are still a vast improvement over the Poole 40.  IMHO the cab windows are the weakest part of the Poole 40.  Actually, on second thought, if Bachmann paint on the black window frames, the body colour part of the pillars will appear narrower, so this is probably not a problem.

 

I'm happy to see Bachmann have managed to get a NEM box to fit between the buffer beam and front axle as space is tight there.  I also like the representation of the piping above each second axle on the bogies.

 

Most of the issues above are niggles.  IMHO the bogie/body gap and the shape of the center head code box are more than niggles and I hope they are adjusted before production.  From a comment above it sounds like Bachmann already have a laundry list of errors to correct and so I am hopeful those issues are addressed.

Matt


Edited by oreamnos, 12 September 2016 - 18:26 .

  • Like x 1

#17 Ed-farms

Ed-farms

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts
  • LocationRhondda Valley

Posted 13 September 2016 - 12:23

Does anyone have documented proof of the Great Western Railway testing these out in the 1930's before English Electric produced them for BR? Failing lack of proof rule 1 of model railways shall be activated


  • Funny x 2

#18 60006

60006

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 165 posts
  • LocationBolton + Carlisle

Posted 13 September 2016 - 12:29

Agreeing with the majority here. Major improvements on most aspects when comparing to the Poole era version. It's times like these when you wonder if it was a good idea to start moving away from N gauge.



#19 Steadfast

Steadfast

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,313 posts
  • LocationSomewhere, nowhere, everywhere...here!

Posted 13 September 2016 - 17:02

Seeing it in the plastic over the weekend I was quite impressed, especially considering it's only the first EP.

The one thing that jumped out was the roof grill, even with improved fit, RTR etched grills in N always end up looking chunky. The Farish 37, 47 and Dapol 33 are prime cases of moulding being much neater.

The footsteps on the bogie don't quite line up with the door.  This is a niggle.

 

They don't line up on the real thing, they're slightly offset towards the centre of the loco

https://www.flickr.c...57627028690682/

http://www.davidheys...0-wide-view.jpg

 

Jo


  • Agree x 1

#20 oreamnos

oreamnos

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 404 posts
  • LocationAltadena, California

Posted 13 September 2016 - 17:16

They don't line up on the real thing, they're slightly offset towards the centre of the loco

https://www.flickr.c...57627028690682/

http://www.davidheys...0-wide-view.jpg

 

Jo

 

Yes.  And no.  It's a tricky thing.  I have studied a lot of pictures and in on some locos the steps appear to be more in line with the door than on others.  Camera angle and the swivel of the bogies on curved track will affect the perception, too.  That all said, your shot of D212 is very good and seems dispositive.  Thanks for posting the link to it!

 

Matt



#21 Robert Shrives

Robert Shrives

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 17:56

To me a good effort and a step change in specs - viz clunky panels When you get paint layers on it will shallow out .

Bogie has a good feel given the constraints of design , it would be good to see a pic of relationship to a Mk 1 coach, got my money on blue head code and a green one for D200 - I guess this EP would be fine for its first tour!  

 

It is good to see options on grill and open rad plus front end option - possible to get a ScR square headcode variation, I wonder if a Crewe 974xx will make a showing?  Wallet already run off so hopefully overtime savings will fund.

 

Main hope is that wheels are common to current range to allow a quick 2mmfs wheel swap.

regards

Robert      



#22 oreamnos

oreamnos

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 404 posts
  • LocationAltadena, California

Posted 13 September 2016 - 17:57

Regarding the evolution of the Farish 40 bogie/body gap...

 

1.) Poole Farish:

https://hattonsimage...4678_Qty1_1.jpg

and

https://hattonsimage..._Qty1_ruler.jpg

 

2.) Bachmann first split chassis release with Poole body:

https://hattonsimage...9232_Qty1_1.jpg

and

https://hattonsimage...8660_Qty1_1.jpg

 

3.) Bachmann second split chassis release with Poole body:

https://hattonsimage...3176_Qty1_1.jpg

and

https://hattonsimage...4074_Qty1_1.jpg

 

4.) Bachmann third split chassis release with Poole body:

https://hattonsimage...3175_Qty1_1.jpg

and

https://hattonsimage...7385_Qty1_2.jpg

and

https://hattonsimage...1486_Qty1_1.jpg

 

I have (more than!) several examples of each of the variants.  I can say that the pictures above accurately reflect the gap on the models "in the flesh" based on the sample size I have for each model.

 

The Poole Farish bodies have a habit of not sitting perfectly level so that the body can be slightly higher above the bogie at one end compared to the other.  For the Bachmann releases, there was very slight variation in the gap between the individual models of each release, mostly attributable to how loose the body was on the chassis - the looser the fit, the lower the body sat.  Bachmann's first and second releases of the split chassis version had the bodies reliably level and close to the bogies.  Bachmann's third release of the split chassis version, however, while level, had an inexplicably larger gap than the prior two releases.  I've studied my own models carefully as to why and my best guess is that it is because the bodies on that release seem to fit much more snugly to the chassis.

Anyhow, the current EP looks closest to that third Bachmann release.  I hope that it can be improved upon and the gap made smaller.

 

Matt
 


Edited by oreamnos, 13 September 2016 - 17:58 .


#23 oreamnos

oreamnos

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 404 posts
  • LocationAltadena, California

Posted 13 September 2016 - 18:10

[edit]

 

Main hope is that wheels are common to current range to allow a quick 2mmfs wheel swap.

regards

Robert      

 

And that the axle gears are common too, so that they can be replaced quickly after one splits.   :)

 

Matt



#24 Flying Pig

Flying Pig

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 18:35

Seeing it in the plastic over the weekend I was quite impressed, especially considering it's only the first EP.
The one thing that jumped out was the roof grill, even with improved fit, RTR etched grills in N always end up looking chunky. The Farish 37, 47 and Dapol 33 are prime cases of moulding being much neater.


Agreed, but if it's like the 31, that appears to be some sort of clip fit, so easy to remove when a suitable replacement is available. Presumably the Extreme Etchings Class 37 parts will be suitable for the 40 also?

#25 Robert Shrives

Robert Shrives

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 18:45

Simon,

My thoughts exactly!  The good man can hopefully better the etch grill offering as well .

 

Poured over some photos in last few minutes and bufferbeam certainly not level with top of side frames so unless model has vertically stretched side frames then buffers look to be low - around half the diameter of the buffer shank.  So if not changed then perhaps an etched front will be required to correct.   

still a good model in waiting.

Robert