Jump to content

Suffolk Rob

Members
  • Posts

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Suffolk Rob

  1. My understanding from when Ben & Mike set up revolution was that they were specifically looking to facilitate models that might not be attractive to mainstream manufacturers and their pre-ordering/crowdfunding approach was to ensure they could cover the cost of research, tooling & delivery. Accept that may have changed which is their business rather than mine. Important thing to me as a customer is that they deliver very good models at very reasonable prices
  2. I'd agree that duplication is less than ideal but neither is an approach of "marking territory" and then putting models into abeyance. Different management at the time as I recall but I vaguely remember the fanfare of Dapol's "magnificent seven" being coupled with information on how they could all be put into production v quickly and thinking that was about staking a claim. Can't now remember all of the 7, the 26 was one that did arrive fairly promptly but so were the 92 and Pendalino as I recall. I don't see a problem for Revolution with the duplication- their focus is facilitating the 59 rather than business profit. Duplication on this one model may be a good thing in the longer term if the longer-standing producers realise that announcing an intention will not stop some of the new boys stepping in where announcing is not translating into action. The risk of course is that Dapol's tentative steps into new N tooling may grind to a halt.
  3. Or even before TINGS like Revolution It's certainly thrill a minute in N gauge right now
  4. Although I have a view on the lull, stagnation, or any other word for this period with little to no new tooling announcements, and accepting I have no understanding of the financing of models, I do find the choices of the few reruns we are seeing a little strange I don't know the number of production slots or finances available to Bachmann across the range in all scales for re-runs and that does of course have to be a hard-headed business decision as to how they slice the pie. Thinking as a modeler who only pays for the model I buy rather than financing the whole run, it seems to make sense, for example, to have reasonably regular runs of Blue or Green 37s, 25s, 47s, 20s or whatever but I don't have to decide what that run is instead of, or what the relative returns would be for Bachmann and their relative profit margins across the range and scales. But if it is about returns in the sense of models at least being on retail shelves rather than their own warehouse, and I had the choice of one similarly expensive to rerun (I assume) N gauge coach in 2-3 liveries, I don't quite get why they opt for the inspection saloon rather than say a Mk 1 Second in Maroon, Blue Grey and A N other livery. Assuming those haven't been run for a while, haven't looked recently as not something I'm after personally But there is a lot I don't know about the business side of my chosen hobby. Rob
  5. As someone who interpreted the Osborns feedback as some significant N announcements this time, wrongly as it turned out, I'll admit to feeling a bit deflated when I watched the announcement vid but I think the above from Tom goes to the heart of the matter. Bachmann are aiming to have products shipped within the 3 months covered by the announcements so if they can't make that timescale do they hold back or announce with longer waits (and we've been around the long wait discussion many times). Maybe I'm over optimistic but there is the transition period that Tom mentions not to mention a pandemic with all the effects on people and businesses. Personally I think it's too early to suggest the current lull is related to losing interest in N, as opposed to a unique set of circumstances that weren't predictable when they changed their approach to quarterly announcements. They did announce the class 69 between the set piece events, and did it in parallel with the OO offering, that doesn't strike me as indicative of losing interest. Of course I could be wrong, I was wrong on this very thread only yesterday! Rob
  6. The last (May) one is on Bachmann's website as summer so assume this one tomorrow is Autumn- announced in summer for Autumn delivery? Still, we'll know if it was worth waiting for tomorrow whatever it's called- let's hope so
  7. Seems a fairly reliable source but all will be revealed tomorrow
  8. I recall reading somewhere, possibly a page or so ago in this thread, that Bachmann had indicated that Autumn would be a more significant announcement for N than the last couple Based on the 50 year anniversary of Farish and what's in the OO range I suspect there may be a new tool 94xx as it was one of their earliest N locos. Sound for the 24/25 and 37, especially if accompanied by "missing" body types would be great, as would a DCC ready 08 but all will be revealed in a couple of days where, as usual, I will probably find I am way off the mark. Rob
  9. I don't know for sure but all the ex-DJM appears to be EFE distribution for Kernow. Whether they own the tooling or commissioned a run is a different question. The new clay wagon is a Kernow OO downsize so I'm assuming the same. I think the new wagon and it's sales are key to whether we see more downsizing of Kernow's own stuff which I guess would continue to be through EFE with items researched and tooled by Bachmann themselves being in the Farish range? Rob
  10. Agree Such a radical change in approach was always going to result in a fallow period in respect of new tooling announcements until the change works through. Taking a positive view, when it does work through, EFE N products may give more of an idea of the future. No awareness to a loco and 2 wagons on the shelves in 6 months. Yes the circs of those models are unique but the first EFE new tooling in N is also due by May(?) Rob
  11. Have received an E-mail from retailer saying these are in stock along with the mermaids. Sadly not the retailer I placed my order with but shouldn't be long. Rob
  12. That's one word for it Mike Still not guessed right yet though Looking forward to tomorrow Rob
  13. Can anyone help me with a prototype question-Apologies for raising in the model thread, I did find the 800 thread in the prototype section but it's the thick end of 300 pages long The Azuma is the 800/2, the five car unit, as opposed to the 800/1 that Kato have not announced which is the 9 car unit? So Is a 800/1 just an 800/2 with extra coaches (n terms of what is visible on an N model)- not wishing to divert discussion onto "will there be an add on pack" but have a genuine interest in whether a /2 can be grown into a /1 should that happen What routes do LNER operate the /2 on. My modelling interest is the Highlands but have only seen pics of 9 car units in Inverness Rob
  14. Was going to wait patiently for next week but if Mike is poised with sharpened pencil....... Can't see it being something Bachmann has in their portfolio irrespective of scale, based on the chaps' operating model so prob not 117, peak etc Mike and Ben have been clear that steam is not their area of expertise so not expecting that. I do expect more steam from Sonic and Revolution's facilitation of Sonic's entry into the UK market is a neat solution here. Unless of course they are thinking there is a gap and a market in applying some of the boundary pushing elements of the NGS Hunslet to a small steam industrial? Modern (ish?) overhead unit- one already in the pipeline so would be surprised I'd long thought there may be some collaboration and down sizing of the Kernow clay stuff but Kernow seem to be moving forward on this through the EFE route 73/9- would love one but Mike's been clear and the OO is still only at the proposal stage I think So basically not a clue but...... A 21/29 was tried in Revolution's early days and, I believe, fell well short. I think that, to date, it's the only Revolution proposal that didn't make it. Often wondered, partly because I really want one, if the story would be different now with such a great track record in quality & delivery that has been built since the 21/29 was first proposed. Maybe this or the 28 is one for when the first powered transitional model, the Parcels Unit, is further down the line? I'm far more confident that I will end up buying whatever it is than I am in predicting what it is Rob
  15. As an N gauger myself, I'll admit to frequently thinking (but not posting) "I wish they'd do that in N" but think this is the really exciting aspect of today's news- that the wide distribution network that the EFE brand brings gives Kernow the confidence to shrink one of their OO products. Hopefully it sells well and becomes the first of many including in due course, some of their locos but mustn't get ahead of myself. Rob
  16. Pretty sure that's right too. Seem to remember reading at the time of his tie up with Revolution that examples of his work were to be found in the Farish range Rob
  17. I normally adopt a read and don't write policy when topics get onto the subject of price but it does seem clear in my opinion that Bachmann are making reasonable decisions on RRP on a model by model basis. I'm not a 4mm modeler and the J94 appears to cost more than in it's previous inclination but, as Andy and others have pointed out, there are enhancements ( I think) and an understanding from Bachmann that they actually need to turn a profit to stay in business. On the other hand the clay wagons seem very competitively priced to me, and the Class 17 (my interest is N) is, give or take a few quid, the same price as advertised when launched at TINGS more years ago than I can remember now and very competitively priced in the N gauge market There's a significant increase in RRP for the mermaid too. I suspect that the common factor with the J94 is that models actually appeared under the former brand and that limited understanding of profit margins, or dare I say profit full stop, came into play when the previous RRP was set. We all have a view on price but in my opinion, a fair appraisal needs to come from a look across the whole EFE range rather than any particular model. Fully appreciate that there will be other views out there that are equally valid, and quite probably better informed than my own. Rob
  18. Thank you for explaining it all Nigel, I think I've got both cause and solution clear in my mind now thanks to you. Cheers Rob
  19. Thank you Nigel. I'm sure the juicer is only set to 2 amps looking at the instructions. If I'm intending to only use on 1 point I may well switch to a mono juicer I also have which I believe only has the 2 amp option. Assuming I'm ballasting and painting rail sides then I think I'm pushing my luck on relying just on blade contact but also, if I understand correctly, using a unifrog means any dirt related issue leading to resistance can only occur at the frog. As this is a bigger, non moving part I assume this would not be terminal for the point but would it be damaging to the loco? I also assume I can mitigate by ensuring I clean the top of the frog before any and all running sessions As I understand, what you are saying is that, if I rely on a mechanical switch for the electrofrog, I need to be sure the throw of the seep is clear enough to switch polarity and also that there is a paint free area where blade contacts rail as well as a further safeguard and only if I have an instance of inadequate throw of the point motor (as in switches point but not the polarity) and dirt related resistance should I have a repeat? I'm pretty sure part of my problem was caused by not understanding this last point thinking that the frog switching took care of this. Probably should have paid more attention in Physics! Thank you again, I'm quickly learning that there is a lot more to this DCC malarkey than plugging in 2 wires!
  20. Firstly an apology as I may use the wrong terminology. I have a small DCC layout and use a standard powercab. The layout consists of a point to 2 sidings with a kick- back from one of them. Essentially think exactly the same track plan as Neil's Shell Island. The points are peco N code 55 elecrofrog and are used as supplied. Layout worked absolutely fine using seep motors with polarity switch for some time.Standard Gaugemaster accessory decoders were used.Due to small size of layout track and point motors fed from same Bus. Due to inconsistency with switching I disconnected the wires to frogs from point motor and fitted a Tam valley duel frog juicer. Worked fine for a couple of days then smoke emitted from both points within a couple of hours of each other where blades touch the outside running rails. Point motors and frog juicer continue to work but heat has disfigured tie bar rendering the points inoperable. Dug up and replaced one of the points and shortly afterwards, the same thing happened again. As I understand it, a frog juicer recognises a short and switches polarity before running is affected (but the short still occurs if only momentarily) and the only explanation I can come up with is the short generated enough heat, possibly with help from a bit of stray static grass between blade and rail to disfigure the plastic in the tie bar and this occurs because in a code 55 electrofrog point, frog and switch blades are not isolated from each other. Never had this problem on DC but assume that' the heat is due to the different current/ voltage (or whatever) when now using DCC? I've now ripped up all track to re-lay and wanted a bit of advice to avoid the same problem reoccurring. I think I have the following options but wanted to check I've reached the correct conclusions. Firstly, for one of the points I am now using a unifrog point. From what I can see the frog on these is entirely separate to the blades which are bonded to the running rails- as such the short where blades touch running rails cannot occur- do I have this right? For reasons of space I cannot use a unifrog for the other point. I need to use a y point which is not available as unifrog. I think I have two options. I could, as read on other threads, cut the rails between frog and blades and solder a wire to bond blades to outside rails- frankly beyond my soldering capability. I think this only leaves me with option 2. revert to switching polarity using the seep motor which makes the changing of polarity mechanical rather than electronic and avoids the problem caused by the juicer needing a short to occur before it reacts? I should also add that all rails leading from both frogs had isolating rail joiners fitted but would be grateful if anyone better informed than me could confirm my thinking and possible solutions. Thanks Rob
  21. Wow, is it really 50 yrs? My introduction was, like many, the GP tank. LMS maroon in my case. I recall the choice then was SR Green, LNER Green and there was also the 94xx. Can't remember the exact year but the Black 5 had just been introduced. I wanted the 94xx but was bribed by my dad with the promise of a Black 5 for Christmas. The first step change for me was the (I think) early 80s when the 47 appeared, closely followed by 37, 20 and HST and could start to collect the real locos I could see on the real railway. Like many I had a break from model railways until I randomly purchased Model Rail, sometime in the early 2000s containing an article by Ben Ando on detailing the newly reintroduced 37/4. Found myself purchasing "Highland Region" and, whilst still stretched to fit the chassis, the wheel profile and running quality was a world away from my old blue one- that was the next step change for me. Not lost on me that the man who unknowingly prompted my return to N and Farish is now getting a big slice of my N gauge spending money! Last step change for me was when Bachmann began to replace the old toolings to give us the new Diesels. Many still not perfect from what I read on here but really moved N (with a nod to the push from Dapol's competition ) into the 21st century. Thank you Andy, you inspired me to knock off working from home early and take a trip down memory lane looking at some of those early models that I still have in the loft. Really bought home how far N and Farish has moved on, apart from those couplings and, even there, NEM sockets provide much easier options. I would have attempted to post some pictures but was told in no uncertain terms that I "wasn't bringing all that old rubbish downstairs". Some things haven't changed in the 50 years of Farish N! Rob
  22. I seem to have gone for the same ones as Ben for similar reasons. Would also be v interested in the Mk 2s in these liveries and the Scotrail livery in the main Dapol range. Whilst doing so an HST seems to have fallen into my basket too! If these Dapol commissions continue to sell well, might I suggest the new Scotrail 153 for consideration? Thanks from me too for producing these Rob
  23. The other piece of tooling that is out there somewhere but doesn't appear to have been mentioned is the n gauge mermaid. Clearly it appears no more likely that DJM ever owned it than any of the others mentioned. I purchased a couple as the first DJM product in N, as much as anything to see whether the then hype was justified. At the time I thought it the best small N wagon I had seen, but understand from those better qualified on here that it is not quite "the definitive mermaid" Despite that it has, I think, only been produced in black and dutch so might be interesting to the right concern at the right price? Rob
  24. Suffolk Rob

    Class 26

    Both my Blue and Railfreight came with plough for one end each- think that's due to having to remove the NEM "box" to fit so one for each end would prevent coupling to anything My blue one even came with the indicator disks it lost on refurb! Disks& plough all supplied painted
  25. Suffolk Rob

    Class 26

    Mine arrived this afternoon and, whilst not 100% sure, the Blue does look much better to me than on the earlier releases. I don't have a 26 with the previous factory blue any more but 26024 looks to have a very similar shade to a Dapol 22 and Farish 37 that I do have to hand. On the rolling road, running well and no lighting issues. Not had the body off yet and sorry, not able to take photos at the moment. The 26 to me sums up the frustration of Dapol. Grateful they produced a model that Farish probably never would have done that I'd wanted since I'd bodged a minitrix 27 into one (badly) around 1980. More variants tooled for than I might have reasonably expected in N but strangely (to me anyway) not the tablet catcher recess required for a transition era 26/1. Livery errors such as the cantrail stripes that a quick review of the internet would have shown up. Not a Dapol basher, 26024 takes my Dapol 26s into double figures. They produce some great models but could be even better with just a bit more care. Rob
×
×
  • Create New...