Jump to content
 

Farish AC Electric Loco


ThaneofFife

Recommended Posts

00 might be the bigger market but is that changing with the level of detail we are now seeing in N.......clearly many with a sizeable 00 commitment will not move to N but maybe some folk would jump ship.  or are layouts getting reduced to small shunting planks with the advent of 7mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only picture I can find of a Mk 4 set without the loco in usual position, and it looks to me like the marker lights are in the same position on the TSO(E) as there are recesses for them on all the other coaches? https://flic.kr/p/rcGfNv 

 

Compare with this normal TSO were there are bumps that look a lot like the marker lights in the same place, and the corridor connector sits within a similar recess : https://www.flickr.com/photos/73574431@N06/9066928531/

 

It looks to me like the corridor connection could just clip inside the recess of the TSO(E). In fact, I'm sure I remember reading that the TSO(E)s were constructed in such a way that the corridor could be reinstated if required (or at least it would be structurally possible). 

 

Presuming there are no further complications, you could tool for three coach moulds, and sell them in packs of nine, giving a relatively low tooling cost per set sold.

 

There were some differences to the loco after the GNER refurbishment, I think? But other than the DVT sprouting a WiFi roof pod, all the changes to the coaching stock were internal? 

 

Thanks for doing the legwork with the images! Good observations, it does seem the ends are identical except for the gangway connection and buffers/rubbing plate. I remembered seeing a pic of a single mk4 at Darlington from the early 90's, and I managed to find it again. See here (not my image) https://flic.kr/p/aEQ2qB

 

Have to admit though, I'm struggling to see any differences in the windows for the disabled toilet vehicles? I took this set of images in 2013 when the Sky HD set was first vinyl'd up, and the only difference seems to be the buffet car https://flic.kr/s/aHsjLCPWSX

 

Unless the differences are on the other side?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the TSO(D) I was working from this image -

https://flic.kr/p/ss1o3p

 

On the TSO(D) I understood the corridor side has the two small windows, but the other side is entirely plated. The normal TSOs seem to have the two small windows on one side, and on the other a single small window that seems to be painted out (luggage rack post-Mallard?)

 

No idea if this is a Mallard alteration? Seems difficult to find detailed photos of individual coaches pre-refurb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only picture I can find of a Mk 4 set without the loco in usual position, and it looks to me like the marker lights are in the same position on the TSO(E) as there are recesses for them on all the other coaches? https://flic.kr/p/rcGfNv 

 

Compare with this normal TSO were there are bumps that look a lot like the marker lights in the same place, and the corridor connector sits within a similar recess : https://www.flickr.com/photos/73574431@N06/9066928531/

 

It looks to me like the corridor connection could just clip inside the recess of the TSO(E). In fact, I'm sure I remember reading that the TSO(E)s were constructed in such a way that the corridor could be reinstated if required (or at least it would be structurally possible). 

 

That does also neatly show that there are greater differences than merely the corridor connection's absence.  Buffers, Pullman rubbing plate plus drop head Buckeye which aren't present on the other intermediate coach ends. It should also be noted that the Tightlock couplers are used within the set rather than Buckeyes, and are mounted (I believe) at a different height.

 

However, seeing as Virgin EC will be retaining some shortened 225 sets after the 800/801 are introduced, and inevitably some open access operator is going to snap up some of the displaced sets I think there are plenty of future modelling opportunities here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a dude on the n gauge forum who has produced a decent high quality resin kit for the class 92 with etched Windows and additional plastic parts to finish the model.worth checking out.

I have a resin kit for the class 85 but it needs a fair amount of work to make it look half decent.

 

A RTR 81 and 85 in both original and BR blue liveries would be most welcome.

 

I agree that there is a need for some retooled AC electrics although the Farish 87 isn't a bad model and just needs a few tweeks to make it look right. PH designs produces an etch to improve the class 90 and I have updated one of mine and documented it here on rmweb.

 

The Dapol 86 is a great model but we need a better availability of liveries and there is not an 86/4 version.

 

The Farish 91 could be improved but a retooled version with top quality MK4's and DVT would encourage sales and guarantee a few more ECML layouts to appear.

 

Maybe RevolutioN could do a kickstarter for the original Pendolino.....the APT!

 

That's my two pennies worth anyway.

 

Best regards,

 

Jeremy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would really like to see an N gauge class 85 or 81 as they could probably share the same chassis but I fear the limiting livery might put farish off especially N gauge.  it would be a great start if they took it upon themselves to do their own class 86 covering all the variants unlike the Dapol version which like the 00 Heljan model seems to have made a rod for its own back with the tooling-preventing other early versions and thus a whole shed load more liveries.

 

im sure Farish wont be leaving it too long before they join the ranks of modern high spec ac electric  locos in 2mm.  its quite an untapped market imo.

 

a 303 unit in 2mm would also be on my wishlist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A class 304 or a 310 would be a base requirement for modelling anywhere between Preston and London.

 

So to get a good representation of the WCML from electrification through to the sectorisation we would need:

Locomotives of 81, 85, 86, 87  and 90 - accepting 82-84 are even less likely even though they might probably sell in similar numbers to an 81.

EMUs - 303, 304 and 310

 

Options then lead into 321 units which are also on the Great Eastern plus it's cousin the 320 and 322 units, you also have the 313 units which plied their trade on the Watford DC services which opens a whole series of other units like the 315, 317, 507 and 508.

 

It's starting to get silly now, there is so much for people to go at, but N gauge being such a small market compared to OO makes it all look such a massive challenge yet N gauge is the perfect scale for the 4 track mainline and long trains of the WCML.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The 313 and other units in the family are now available from N-Train as 3D printed kits, using Electra (mine) vinyls for the sides. N-Train has recently launched the Class 325 parcels unit and will soon have the 319 joining the growing ranks.

 

If you're looking for earlier WCML EMUs, Electra does a conversion for the Class 310 and 312 using N-Train ends and Farish Mk2d coaches. I also offer a 501 conversion for the Farish Mk1 Suburban, which has all those horrible window bars pre-printed :)

 

I am looking to do the 304, 305 and 308 in the near future, once I can get hold of a good cab conversion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

We (Revolution Trains that is!) will be announcing two potential projects in about 10 days time to coincide with TINGS - you can come and chat to Ben and me on Stand 1 which we are sharing with Nelevation.

 

Some interesting comments on this thread, though the diversity of opinion shows just how difficult it can be to get sufficient interest to produce a particular model.

 

We are under no illusion that the Pendolino could be seen very much as a "Rule 1" purchase - we were very conscious that was part of the appeal.

 

There is undoubtedly a market for AC electrics, but the question is how large is it.  For all the complaints about existing Farish models of 87/90/91 I really wonder whether there is enough of a combination of new market and existing owners wishing to upgrade their models to make it worthwhile - I would take a lot of convincing! There seems to be much more of a convincing business case for some of the locos and MUs that haven't been produced yet!

 

Cheers, Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

We (Revolution Trains that is!) will be announcing two potential projects in about 10 days time to coincide with TINGS - you can come and chat to Ben and me on Stand 1 which we are sharing with Nelevation.

 

Some interesting comments on this thread, though the diversity of opinion shows just how difficult it can be to get sufficient interest to produce a particular model.

 

We are under no illusion that the Pendolino could be seen very much as a "Rule 1" purchase - we were very conscious that was part of the appeal.

 

There is undoubtedly a market for AC electrics, but the question is how large is it.  For all the complaints about existing Farish models of 87/90/91 I really wonder whether there is enough of a combination of new market and existing owners wishing to upgrade their models to make it worthwhile - I would take a lot of convincing! There seems to be much more of a convincing business case for some of the locos and MUs that haven't been produced yet!

 

Cheers, Mike

 

Sounds exciting! Please post details on this thread as soon as you can!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as the NRM have 84001 - then at some point you might think or hope it will be done by someone in conjunction with Locomotion.

 

Course that doesn't help us in N gauge world, but having discounted existing models above that leaves 81-84 and the 89.

 

If Revolution retain rule 1 then the 89 would be a similar choice, but the TEA bogie oil is very much a required model for anyone doing mundane modelling of the current scene so we cannot therefore discount the classes 81-84 erring towards the more numerical longer lived 81 as a contender for Revolution.

 

We shall wait and see.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Seeing as the NRM have 84001 - then at some point you might think or hope it will be done by someone in conjunction with Locomotion.

 

Course that doesn't help us in N gauge world, but having discounted existing models above that leaves 81-84 and the 89.

 

If Revolution retain rule 1 then the 89 would be a similar choice, but the TEA bogie oil is very much a required model for anyone doing mundane modelling of the current scene so we cannot therefore discount the classes 81-84 erring towards the more numerical longer lived 81 as a contender for Revolution.

Plus 85 and 92...

 

With locos/MUs we are trying to fill gaps and perhaps take a risk that a large manufacturer would or could not.

 

The reality of our funding model is that locos/MUs won't go ahead unless we are reasonably certain that there is a large enough market to justify the models. With wagons we can be a bit more speculative!

 

Cheers, Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, its a fair bet that a Farish 90 will follow two or three years after a OO one.

Not guaranteed by any means. Where are the N Gauge 2-EPB (first announced 4 years ago in 00) and City of Truro (bound to be a great seller for the GWR crowd). Bachmann only produce what they think will sell. N gauge is a smaller market than 00 so some items which only sold modestly in 00 may be considered uneconomical in N gauge. :(
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Farish 87, 90 and 91 scrub up quite nicely with a bit of work and can hold their own alongside newcomers such as the 86 and 350.

 

At the risk of another blatant plug, I've done a set of vinyls for the Intercity Mk4 coaches, which greatly improves the original Farish product and includes extra detail and chrome-effect window surrounds. With finer wheels and N Gauge Lines interiors, the old Mk4s actually look pretty good!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not guaranteed by any means. Where are the N Gauge 2-EPB (first announced 4 years ago in 00) and City of Truro (bound to be a great seller for the GWR crowd). Bachmann only produce what they think will sell. N gauge is a smaller market than 00 so some items which only sold modestly in 00 may be considered uneconomical in N gauge. :(

 

I agree with you that one can not assume that an existing OO model justifies a model in N just because the development costs are lower.

 

But Woodenhead makes a very valid point that the N gauge market could be quite different from OO anyway because of its greater potential for modelling full-on main line locations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that one can not assume that an existing OO model justifies a model in N just because the development costs are lower.

Just to give some indication, the proportion of the R&D costs that can be shared between a 00 and N gauge model is roughly 10% of the overall project costs. The majority of the costs of developing a new model are the tooling and manufacturing costs which cannot be shared.
Link to post
Share on other sites

you would think the smaller gauge would be the more natural fit for electric modellers as most of the trains we are talking about within this topic are long express variety that you just cant realistically capture in 00 in the average home in terms of space limitations and non train set curves - OK so 00 might be a bigger market but are they really able to best represent the sort of trains these locos hauled to good effect?   

 

and heres a thought......was N gauge in the past the less popular because the detail was pretty ropey ?   the detail on todays N gauge models is really improved and i hear lots of the same comments from 00 modellers saying the same thing.  I dont know whether the imporvement in N will bring in new comers to the hobby or whether hardened 4mm modellers will be pursuaded by the pull of running detailed prototypical length trains in their spare room and change scales?

 

all interesting considerations.  and the added beauty of 2mm versus 4mm is that at least 2mm starts out with a very good scale track system unlike 00 where many bemoan the fact the track width is a narrow looking 16.5mm instead of 18.83mm so they have the dilemma of moving to EM or P4 and from above its apparent too.  Then along come those that have jumped ship for 7mm/O gauge!!! - however I cant see those folk intending to model Euston, the WCML or WCML trains of the lengths being discussed here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm developing a (good) nervous tick every time I see mention (however tenuous) of an n gauge 92! Sure I'd have at least 4.

 

A better 90 would be great, but to be honest I'd settle for a decent DCC-ready chassis in the current one, which at normal viewing distances isn't that bad, and I know can be made significantly better without too much effort. To that end I've got the PHD etchings and a donor body someone tried to repaint to have a go! Reckon DRS livery could be on the cards if it remains useable, not much to screw up! :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm developing a (good) nervous tick every time I see mention (however tenuous) of an n gauge 92! Sure I'd have at least 4.

 

A better 90 would be great, but to be honest I'd settle for a decent DCC-ready chassis in the current one, which at normal viewing distances isn't that bad, and I know can be made significantly better without too much effort. To that end I've got the PHD etchings and a donor body someone tried to repaint to have a go! Reckon DRS livery could be on the cards if it remains useable, not much to screw up! :unsure:

I started a thread on my PH designs class 90 upgrade detailing each step I took to do it. I'll try and find the thread and post it here. The etch is brilliant and it makes a significant difference to the overall appearance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bachmann have already stated that they intend to replicate the OO range in N and vice versa. They just don't say when.

 

That means at some stage we will get the 85 and 90 from Farish. I don't know about the 87 though, as the 87 was a Poole tooling originally and not Bachmann/Farish.

The Dapol 86 only needs multiple working jumper cables to convert it to an 86/4 and I don't see why Farish would duplicate the 86 at this moment in time.

 

That leaves the 81 and 92 for the WCML and 91 for the ECML as realistic possibilities for a manufacturer from a general use locomotive point of view.

 

The 89 would be a risk but so was Deltic.

APT-P would be another Pendolino type venture but maybe more popular from a nostalgia point of view and a rule 1 purchase for a fair few people.

As for multiple units. get the right one in the right colours and It'll sell well but get it wrong and it'll take forever to get your costs back.

 

just my thoughts...

Cheers

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are many options out there and I think it's down to us, as railway modellers, to build layouts with the stock that we currently have available to us and create the interest and demand to encourage the manufacturers to consider and produce new models. If the likes of Bachmann, Dapol and even DJM can see that OHLE layouts are popping up everywhere, then they will have more of job to ignore the future production of AC electric locos and EMU's as there will be sufficient evidence out there to show that they will sell well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

APT-P would be another Pendolino type venture but maybe more popular from a nostalgia point of view and a rule 1 purchase for a fair few people.

As for multiple units. get the right one in the right colours and It'll sell well but get it wrong and it'll take forever to get your costs back.

 

just my thoughts...

Cheers

Mark

I would love to have an ATP-P. It would completely fall in to a rule one purchase and would be ordered straight away.

 

This is where the Dapol / RevolutioN method works better than the farish one in this instance. Giving people the option that they could buy 2 or 3 locos in the same livery with different numbers is in theory going to bring in a bigger return. Where as farish, producing 3 numbers in 3 different liveries. We are still waiting for additional runs of some farish models that haven't appeared since the first lot were released 2/3 years ago. They are now long gone and going for silly prices on eBay etc.

 

They can produce the same amount of locos but in doing smaller quantities of each number give more options. I currently have 4 freightliner 86s because by swapping them round you can make it look like a different train. Yet if it were farish, I would have 1 and more than likely still be waiting years further on to run a prototypical pair. That is where farish let themselves down.

 

I don't see a problem with Dapol or Farish going down the crowd funding route either, to give the modellers the options of getting models out there. If it came to it and they said once announced a £50 or 50% non refundable deposit on each loco with delivery within 12-18 months, we all know from previous models the standard that would be achieved so I see no issues in having paying something upfront to get the model I want.

 

Alistair

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Bachmann have already stated that they intend to replicate the OO range in N and vice versa. They just don't say when.

 

 

As mentioned previously, the recent evidence would suggest that is no longer true.  In fact there have been a whole host of 4mm releases that it looks unlikely we will see in N.

 

What N/2mm is definately lacking is a 64' motor chassis.

 

Yes I know we now have the Farish 150 and Dapol 121, but these are very expensive models just to get a motor chassis.

 

Therein lies the problem - what do you class as very expensive (there have been some good deals on the 121) and how much do you think that only producing a motor chassis will save?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...