Jump to content
 

Benn

Members
  • Posts

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/55746092@N00/sets/72157633098039466/with/8592180579/

Profile Information

  • Location
    Manchester

Recent Profile Visitors

550 profile views

Benn's Achievements

84

Reputation

  1. Hi Bernard, Thanks for that, that will help me. Do you happen to have anything with any measurements on for the positions of the vents vs the bodyside, such as alignment with windows etc. by any chance? I'm hoping that I can get something with measurements on so that I can pin-point exactly where on the roof (how far up from the gutters the vents are etc.) these vents need to be. Ideally, I don't really want to use a model as reference, but I might have to if nothing turns up.... Another bit that I'm struggling to work out is the bit above the toilet (see picture below), there's another 'item' next to the toilet vent which I'm not actually sure what it is (and I'm not actually sure what I'm going to use to represent it just yet, but I'll work on that...). Thanks
  2. Hi all, I'm after some info on the positions of the vents and other items on the roof of a Mk2/a BFK coach for a modelling conversion project please. I'm guessing that the vents over the compos are the same as what they would be on the FK, and hoping that the same applies to the vents over the guards area, but the bit I'm struggling with are the items over the toilet. If anyone has a drawing or something that would be very helpful! I've looked online and through the Harris book, and there's interior and side views aplenty, but nothing that gives any solid info on the positions of things on the roof - typical. Cheers
  3. Having seen what an excellent job Revolution have done with their representation of the flat strip handrails on the 128 DPU, I think that moulded handrails will work just fine.
  4. I have to agree Paul, and I'll be honest, I don't want to... I (and I'm not alone) am slightly baffled by what's going on with these new N gauge Peco wagons. I am always pleased to see new additions for the scale and was very optomistic when the range of new wagons was announced, but most of the models released so far are duplicates of wagons already done to a high standard by Farish years ago, and they aren't an improvement on them. The weakest aspect of the old Peco wagons, for me, was the chassis, and it would appear the weakest aspect of these new wagons is also the chassis. I don't understand the decision behind investing in new tooling and then making the chassis completely inaccurate, with a cutout on the solebar and a ridiculous handbrake situation that can never be disguised or ignored, and generally bares little/no resemblance to the prototype. I appreciate that sometimes we have to accept compromise in N, but it's a bit of an eyesore. The Farish equivalent is around the same price, a decade older, yet it's still the more refined and better model in my book. I'm not a fan of this trend for excessively detailed chassis, of which the majority of the effort is totally invisible when it's on the rails. However, I do think the bits that you can see when it is on the rails do need to be there, and they do need to be a fair representation really these days, especially when you're going head-to-head with an existing product that's already well established in the marketplace.
  5. Ahh, nice one Roy. This explains it then, these speakers do not work without a sound chamber that is sealed, sound holes do the opposite of what is required. This isn't the first model that has featured a speaker to exhibit the same 'crackling' problem, and it was for the same reason. When I first saw the EP at TINGS a few years ago, I did mention to Ben and the chap who was with him, possibly Mike, that having 'sound holes' would not help with sugarcube speakers and they probably needed to go, I didn't realise that they were still there on the production models! My 128s haven't arrived yet so I have been following this with interest to see what the deal was here, at least it's a very easy fix. Now to find a sound file with the appropriate raspy exhausts in readiness...
  6. Maroon Thompsons could be found virtually anywhere and behind almost anything, and on all manner of services mixed in with Stanier coaches and all sorts, you would be surprised... Quite a few received yellow stripes for 1st class, and some were around long enough to get the Maroon Ends treatment. They really are a fantastic model, I've been looking forward to the maroon ones arriving! I've definitely got a picture in one of my Hydraulic books of some Thompsons working an East-West service in Cornwall. Here are some pictures I've collected to help the situation;
  7. That's a shame, hopefully it's just a one off. I'd like to bring Barton Road here one year, if you'll have us! Covid took care of all our East Coast bookings and several of the shows haven't restarted.
  8. This will be an interesting one to watch, and a very sensible decision. That close coupling situation will cause problems though, they don't work on locos, the coupling needs to be on the bogie.
  9. Hi all, I'm wondering if anyone has any component dimensions, or preferably drawings, for the BR(M) style concrete modular platform design please? What am I on about? Please see the platform face here in front of the 101 DMU - And all visible platform faces here at this unknown location... And some here at Heysham Port station This design of platform was used all over the BR(M) region at stations where there was some form of investment during the middle of the 20th century, including the WCML electrified stations and heavily along the North Wales Coast, plus stations such as Blackpool North. It differs in design from the visually-similar designs of other regions; the rear faces of the uprights are tapered and the centre panels are angled slightly as a result. Plus there are small holes in the uprights for cables/pipes. I'm looking for the dimensions of the components that make up the platform faces, the uprights, middle panels and the edging 'stones', for an N gauge project I'm working on. Any help would be most appreciated. If drawings or dims can't be found, I would appreciate advice on where there is an available/accessible surviving face which I could visit (safely and legally) and take a tape measure to. I remember the old Bury platforms at Man Vic were of this design, and freely available until the rebuild as the area had become a car park! Thanks, Benn.
  10. The Bolster E getting the N gauge treatment would be nice. I'd also like to see new, sound-ready chassis, akin to the class 50, under some of the earlier releases. Especially the hydraulics, the Hymek needs a new chassis full stop...
  11. Mike - mine were N not OO, but all I did was purchase some 'fish tank plant weight' lead, which is a thin strip on a roll, and run a couple of lengths inside under the roof which clips off the N ones as a separate part so really easy to do. Made the world of difference. Steven - I'm a big fan of hybrid DMU sets and mix up all my vehicles, classes and liveries, on my layouts including cab-to-gangway end situations which you don't often see modelled but regularly occurred. Makes for a much more interesting train and often more prototypical than a set of all the same type in all the same livery, all the right way round! I also use long and short dummy knuckle couplers to bring the gangways to almost touching which also makes a big difference visually. Out of the box, you can park a double decker bus between the gangways...
  12. The situation with regards to the availability of decoders is likely to be a temporary one, so hopefully that will pass at some point in the near future and not be a problem. Even using the two-wire coupling found on the Pendolino will render you with the same restrictive situation on the 120 as already mentioned, and still require you to have two decoders... You will lose flexibility and not be able to couple it up to other classes of vehicle because you will not have NEM pockets on the inner ends, and you will not be able to adjust the gap between cars for the same reason. You will still have a coupling design with fragile contacts that can become damaged or problematic with repeated coupling and uncoupling, and be a challenge and costly to repair or replace. You will still be paying for the design, manufacture and assembly of said conductive coupling in the RRP. A vehicle the length of a DMU with 4 conducting axles per car should not need any assistance with power pickup in my opinion. My Farish units and Dapol 121 & 2s perform very well. Weight and a good pickup design are essential and will make all the difference with that. The Dapol single car units needed weight adding to make them perform better, as the below-window drive mechanism in these DMUs doesn't allow for enough weight in the chassis block. The Farish 'motor block' may be a bit old skool and visible through a few windows of one car, but it's ultra reliable and robust, easy to service, heavy and runs very well. The haulage capability is also very good considering it's only driving one bogie, it will easily handle 3-4 trailer cars and a tail load. The Farish CEP EMU is powered by the same design.
  13. That system is fine for fixed-formation units, but First Generation DMUs are anything but fixed-formation. 120 vehicles regularly ran with vehicles of other DMU classes, especially 101s. I'm generally not a fan of Electrical Couplings in N, they are by default unsightly (far worse than the dummy knuckle couplers I currently use) and excessively fragile and difficult to couple and uncouple for those who don't or can't store trains on their layout, or those of us who don't have a layout permanently set up (i.e. exhibition use). Every time you couple or uncouple, you risk damage to the couplings, wires and contacts, and usually the decoration of the model in the process. In my opinion, the negatives far outweigh the positives when it comes to fixed couplings in N/2mm. If the sacrifice is robustness and reliability of design (physically and electrically), ease of coupling and uncoupling, flexibility of wanting to swap vehicles around to make up prototypical hybrid sets, and removal of the choice to reduce the gap between vehicles to a scale distance, all for the sake of simply the end user purchasing a second decoder (and that cost only applies to users with DCC), then I can't see how that can be justified. It limits use of the product far too much. The potential cost savings of removing several layers of complexity during design, manufacture and assembly should also reduce the RRP of the product, which could be offset against the cost of the second decoder. There are also the long-term potentials to consider if those couplings get damaged or the wire loom/soldered joints/contacts become damaged - the unit may cease to be operable until it's repaired depending on how the decoder/pickup/motor power situation is arranged. Having undertaken this sort of (involving!) repair on OO units myself, I would imagine it to be quite an unpleasant job in N! The more complexity you put into models, the more there is to go wrong, even under normal, careful use...
  14. I'm just hoping that they won't be fitted with an 'electrical coupling' between vehicles...
  15. Hi all, Thanks for your replies. I was aware that the chemical blackening on the wheelsets might be at least some of the issue, so as part of the running in process I ran them on a Minitrix wheel brush for half an hour, and then on a length of track up against a 'stop', in the hope that might make some progress on that front. None of my other locos have any issues on this front, they are all fitted with Zimo decoders; one of the main features of my layout Barton Road is that everything is run at prototypical speed (no more than about scale 40mph on the mainline and usually around 10mph max in the sidings), and there is plenty of hands-free shunting. As such, the track is kept very clean, and all loco wheels are cleaned at the start of each day. I cleaned the track and wheels before and during the testing of the shunters to make sure that wasn't causing any issues. I do have an excellent KPM DC controller which I may try testing them with, but I won't be able to test them over anything other than a length of track, but I suppose that's a start. They've just sat in their boxes since I gave up with them last February!
×
×
  • Create New...