Jump to content
 

N gauge Shark Ballast Plough Van


DJM Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

post-1144-0-36721400-1500747636_thumb.jpg

  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • RMweb Gold

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

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

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 by Bomag
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

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 by scottystitch
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

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 by Crepello
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

.....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

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

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

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

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...