DJM Dave Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Unveiled at today's Crewe Heritage Centre 30th Anniversary show was a previously announced model, but in 1st EP form of the shark Ballast Plough Van. This model is purely a 1st EP and there are some parts of the van that i am not happy with, namely the coupler length and panelling / panel gaps, but i hope you think it show promise. There is a close coupling cam either end and the model will come with alternate couplers, and knuckle couplers, plus replacement ploughs with 'no gap' for the more authentic look. Cheers Dave 19 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 I was wondering if the Skark was the new model as I was looking at the stand I was thinking 'has that been announced before' Can vouch that the model looks brilliant in person, will certainly be grabbing one or two myself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted July 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 22, 2017 Well good to see it break cover, and certainly a good looker, agree with coupler length but certain the farish short version would do the honours. Hopefully a second set of full ploughs for customer fitting and tail lamp pick up compatible wheelsets. Van big enough for decoder fitting would be icing on the cake to allow us inveterate modelers have something to add and play about getting to work. I think the wait has been worth it Well done Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMinion Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Unveiled at today's Crewe Heritage Centre 30th Anniversary show was a previously announced model, but in 1sp EP form of the shark Ballast Plough Van. This model is purely a 1st EP and there are some parts of the van that i am not happy with, namely the coupler length and panelling / panel gaps, but i hope you think it show promise. Cheers Dave Agreed. It does look very clunky at the moment. look forward to seeing the next sample. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedepot Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 should it have a chimney? how about working tail lamp option for a small extra fee? put a battery in the cabin maybe. nice idea to supply a no gap plough with it keep up the good work! Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomag Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) should it have a chimney? how about working tail lamp option for a small extra fee? put a battery in the cabin maybe. nice idea to supply a no gap plough with it keep up the good work! Tim I don't think any had a chimney on the schemes I had them on, it's not as though we needed another excuse for the skins to hide from the rain. Given that RCE Anglia did not give any waterproof to thier TO's (but did to the workers) a couple of techs in the van may be more like it! Edited July 25, 2017 by Bomag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Crepello Posted July 23, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 23, 2017 Just what I wanted to see Dave. My Mermaids were getting anxious! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Watson Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Great news I will certainly be ordering a couple. Dave keep up the good work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold scottystitch Posted July 23, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 23, 2017 (edited) Agreed the paneling doesn't look right, a bit deep and "gappy" (new word). Excellent to see progress through. I have seen an interesting picture in one of Larkin's publications, showing a green Class 40 propelling a single shark, whilst trailing the, now empty, ballast wagon rake. Lovely stuff. I have a Indian Red Perth example (the only one allocated to Perth, I think) on order but I'm now thinking i'd like another one. Might need to look at allocations for re-numbering. Edited July 23, 2017 by scottystitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMinion Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Just what I wanted to see Dave. My Mermaids were getting anxious! Not sure a shark is a lot of use to a side tipping wagon is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Crepello Posted July 23, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 23, 2017 (edited) Not sure a shark is a lot of use to a side tipping wagon is it? That's an interesting point UMinion. It won't really matter to me as my ballast train will have several Dogfish and a Sealion in the rake too, plus a pair of Grampii) Edited July 23, 2017 by Crepello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 Agreed the paneling doesn't look right, a bit deep and "gappy" (new word). Excellent to see progress through. Yes, the planking is an aspect that does need re-addressing. Looks like the mad trencherman has been at work. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 For a first EP it looks very promising and a pleasant surprise to see it. For sure it isn't perfect yet but that's the point of having the first EP made, so that things can be corrected. Also maybe the gaps stand out just a bit more than they would if the model had been painted? The length of the coupling does stand out and I'm sure Dave will make sure that is corrected. I do wonder if a mod will need to be done the dropper underneath the coupling head if using a shorter one so it doesn't foul the plough. On a similar vein I wonder if the plough will restrict the choice of Easi-Shunt coupling to medium shank? None of these are a big deal, and I do like the idea of having a choice of a full plough for one end. Checking my NGS Shark, this does have a stove pipe, maybe some had stoves and some didn't? What is for certain is that I will have a couple, they will go nicely with my Dapol Dogfish, but it may be plausible to use a Shark with the Mermaid side-tippers as it was a Ballast Brake so with emphasis on the "Brake" it could surely be there just as a Brake Van?? Roy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold scottystitch Posted July 23, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 23, 2017 .....it may be plausible to use a Shark with the Mermaid side-tippers as it was a Ballast Brake so with emphasis on the "Brake" it could surely be there just as a Brake Van?? Roy Presumably the ballast deposited by the side tippler would need to have been manually shovelled into the four foot, so a plough may well have been employed for levelling purposes? just thinking out loud...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PaulCheffus Posted July 24, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 24, 2017 Hi Images on Paul Bartletts wagon page appear to show stovepipes. http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/sharkzuv Cheers Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerhillboy Posted July 24, 2017 Share Posted July 24, 2017 Great to these out, subject to a bit more settling I'm sure they'll look the part ultimately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Pilotman Posted July 25, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 25, 2017 Really looking forward to a couple of these to hook up to the Sealions and Seacows. Bring on the Turbots! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr chapman Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Looking good I'm waiting for the road van but it shows what you can do with a brake van! I like the comment about a wheel set that would accept pickups readily if that's possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 Does the tooling support ply sided vans too, as I believe you've annonced some later life ones? Jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trog Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 I seem to remember that by the 1980's plough brakes were not allowed to be used as brake vans, this may have been something to do with the ride quality or lack of. So either you would have an ex-traffic van at the back of the train or be using the through pipe with three wagons behind the plough to give a braked train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trog Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 That's an interesting point UMinion. It won't really matter to me as my ballast train will have several Dogfish and a Sealion in the rake too, plus a pair of Grampii) If aiming for accuracy consider what your train is supposed to have been used for and provide wagons accordingly. Remembering that hoppers are generally used on the road being worked on, while you would want spoil, Mermaid and open wagons loaded with ballast on the adjacent road. You might combine the two into a single train for a small job if there was a convenient crossover, in which case you would expect the capacity of the spoil wagons to more or less match the combined bottom ballast in Mermaids/opens and the top ballast in the hoppers. Another situation that could give you a combined train would be a drainage job, where you could have a spoil train followed by a combined train of opens of gravel and sealions/seacows. Or for a short drain all three in one, in which case marshal the wagons you need to move most and under the closest control normally the hoppers nearest the loco, then the gravel, with the spoil wagons which if you are wise will stand the job plus a couple spare at the rear as you position them once and then load the lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted August 4, 2017 Author Share Posted August 4, 2017 For a first EP it looks very promising and a pleasant surprise to see it. For sure it isn't perfect yet but that's the point of having the first EP made, so that things can be corrected. Also maybe the gaps stand out just a bit more than they would if the model had been painted? The length of the coupling does stand out and I'm sure Dave will make sure that is corrected. I do wonder if a mod will need to be done the dropper underneath the coupling head if using a shorter one so it doesn't foul the plough. On a similar vein I wonder if the plough will restrict the choice of Easi-Shunt coupling to medium shank? None of these are a big deal, and I do like the idea of having a choice of a full plough for one end. Checking my NGS Shark, this does have a stove pipe, maybe some had stoves and some didn't? What is for certain is that I will have a couple, they will go nicely with my Dapol Dogfish, but it may be plausible to use a Shark with the Mermaid side-tippers as it was a Ballast Brake so with emphasis on the "Brake" it could surely be there just as a Brake Van?? Roy Hi Roy, Your quite correct, some sharks had chimneys and others didn't. Although I would imagine they were built with them, but some had them removed later in life. However, I feel it's easier to add one, than remove a plastic moulding, if you want a specific version. It's also worth remembering that in the last 10 odd years of their lives, some were plated, some had alternate rain strips, and some were reclassified....for example ......RUQ. Heck I've even found pictures of a Dutch livery one which has steel plating on one side at one end only. A myriad of differences if you look hard enough. Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 I personally find it easier to file off a plastic roof moulding, be it a chimney or a ventilator, and make a neat job of it, than actually fabricate and add one. Its worth considering looking at that design element again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMinion Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 I personally find it easier to file off a plastic roof moulding, be it a chimney or a ventilator, and make a neat job of it, than actually fabricate and add one. Its worth considering looking at that design element again. Absolutely. Vastly easier to remove one than add one for the end user. You can see from this picture http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=Hornby-Shark The chimney is more than a bit of tube, and from these pictures http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/43715-shark-attack/ often remains of the chimney base were left in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingley hall Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 Some had 'em, some didn't. Leave it as it is Dave. Oh and by the way I wan't working screw couplings on mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts