Farish GWR Castle Class

[Roy L S]

Farish Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0. B1, J39, A1, A2, 4MT 2-6-0, Scot, Jubilee, Black Five all have cab backhead detail and seats etc where prototypical.

 

Roy

[Chalfytich]

More photos of the latest decorated samples borrowed from the half-yearly announcements thread. Looks pretty good to me. How do people who were concerned about shape issues on the earlier EP samples feel about these shots?

 

If you compare it with the picture of Nunney Castle don't you think the corners on the firebox are a bit sharp? I still want one though and the sound version is making me seriously consider DCC

Dave

 

[Paul B]

Having seen the example on the Farish stand at TINGS, have to say it looks (and sounds) very good and with DCC/Sound I'd agree it provides some food for thought as far as transitioning to DCC.

[Elvinley]

Agreed. In the flesh it looks fantastic and the sound seemed good as far as I could tell in the large Hall.

[TomE]

I was very impressed with the sound fitted Castle EP on display at TINGS today. The model is fitted with a ZIMO sound chip, which is good news as the running qualities of ZIMO fitted locomotives are generally excellent. Sadly getting decent video in the noisy hall was impossible, but overall the standard of the model and sound certainly makes the RRP seem like very good value for money!

 

Shape wise, in the flesh it is much harder to find fault with it. It is a shame about the large gap between the front bogie and the footplate, but I suppose we live in a world where manufacturers still have to account for un-prototypically tight corners!

 

 

 

Tom. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by TomE

[Chris Higgs]

I was very impressed with the sound fitted Castle EP on display at TINGS today. The model is fitted with a ZIMO sound chip, which is good news as the running qualities of ZIMO fitted locomotives are generally excellent. Sadly getting decent video in the noisy hall was impossible, but overall the standard of the model and sound certainly makes the RRP seem like very good value for money!

 

Shape wise, in the flesh it is much harder to find fault with it. It is a shame about the large gap between the front bogie and the footplate, but I suppose we live in a world where manufacturers still have to account for un-prototypically tight corners!

 

CSTL1.jpg

 

CSTL2.jpg

 

Tom. 

 

The gap is nothing that some plasticard or etched metal could not put right for those who do not have the requirement to negotiate tight curves. As always, the shade of Bachmann Green looks superior to that used by other manufacturers.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Chris Higgs

[Hilux5972]

I still think the corners on the firebox look a bit too sharp. Apart from that it looks fantastic.

[dpgibbons]

Perhaps it will come with an alternative, nearer-to-scale front bogie as supplied with other Farish locos?  

[Hilux5972]

I thought those looked a lot closer to scale than most other front bogies on Farish locos.

[Karhedron]

Perhaps it will come with an alternative, nearer-to-scale front bogie as supplied with other Farish locos?

That would be very welcome but I have not heard anything along those lines.

 

Still, fingers crossed.

[Chris Higgs]

I thought those looked a lot closer to scale than most other front bogies on Farish locos.

 

Compared to this:

 

http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goldenagemodels.net%2Fimages%2Fgwr-castle-class-banner-desktop.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goldenagemodels.net%2Fgwr-locomotives-castle-class-o-gauge.html&h=320&w=1042&tbnid=U9y1zXXABYqXWM%3A&docid=kqVKOgveAebTpM&ei=fjjhV4uqGYPbUf6plrAC&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1025&page=0&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=0ahUKEwiL4ZvChZ7PAhWDbRQKHf6UBSYQMwgmKAgwCA&bih=785&biw=1432

 

The wheels do look a tiny bit small, but the real issue is the lack of frames and support above the bogie - presumably to allow vertical play on uneven track. Thus we are exposed to that screw sticking out of the top, which is certainly not how Swindon mounted their bogies..

[Les1952]

As ever, we have complaints about oversized gaps.

 

A lot of the N-gauge market these days is people who just haven't the space for larger scales.  This is a function of houses becoming ever smaller.  A good proportion of N-gauge modellers want continuous runs.   To have a continuous run in a small space you need sharp curves.  Remember that even UK Radius 1 (9") is larger than the radius 1 used on the continent (just).  Most new models of larger prototypes won't run round curves that small.

 

Taking a small (5x2 feet) N-gauge layout to a lot of shows and TALKING to a large number of punters (try escaping us!) two things come across very clearly.  Many more would model railways if they thought they could do what they want in the space they had.  MOST would-be entrants are put off by the thought of only having a shunting plank.  MOST would like the space to make a roundy-roundy.   MOST like seeing larger engines- the most popular train on Furtwangen was the big passenger train with the express engine on the front, a 4-4-2 admittedly.  YOUNGSTERS overall like watching steam engines just as much as the modern stuff.   I hope The Furtwangen team have persuaded quite a few families over the years that they CAN make a model railway in the 5X2 (or 4X2) space they can just about find.  Lets not cut these people out of the market.

 

If the hobby is to survive then Farish and Dapol need to continue to make Castles, Duchesses, A4s and the like that will go round Radius 2 curves - or, even better, Radius 1.  The day of the train set isn't dead.  If engineering a large loco to go round "silly small curves" means there is a larger clearance than prototypical around bogies, or a loco to tender gap that is too big then so be it.  The alternative is to go so far to scale that the people who make up the bulk of sales can't run the model as it can't go round trainset curves.. 

 

If the current model is unsaleable to a proportion of the market how do manufacturers generate the cash to develop the next model?

 

I've looked at the Castle.  It is a lovely model, and Farish have done a fantastic job within the limits of the market it has to sell into.  We RMWebbers are a SMALL proportion of that market.  Please don't complain about compromises that have to be made for the model to exist at all.

 

Les

[msw2009]

As ever, we have complaints about oversized gaps.

 

A lot of the N-gauge market these days is people who just haven't the space for larger scales. 

 

...

 

If the hobby is to survive then Farish and Dapol need to continue to make Castles, Duchesses, A4s and the like that will go round Radius 2 curves - or, even better, Radius 1.  The day of the train set isn't dead.  If engineering a large loco to go round "silly small curves" means there is a larger clearance than prototypical around bogies, or a loco to tender gap that is too big then so be it.  The alternative is to go so far to scale that the people who make up the bulk of sales can't run the model as it can't go round trainset curves.. 

 

If the current model is unsaleable to a proportion of the market how do manufacturers generate the cash to develop the next model?

 

I've looked at the Castle.  It is a lovely model, and Farish have done a fantastic job within the limits of the market it has to sell into.  We RMWebbers are a SMALL proportion of that market.  Please don't complain about compromises that have to be made for the model to exist at all.

 

Les

 

Superb post.

 

Mark

[Kris]

 

If the hobby is to survive then Farish and Dapol need to continue to make Castles, Duchesses, A4s and the like that will go round Radius 2 curves - or, even better, Radius 1.  

 

Les

 

Second radius yes, quite agree, but radius 1 should be something to avoid for larger locos. 

 

Bet you knew that part of your post could be contentious!   I know my views won't be the same as everyones. 

[queensquare]

As ever, we have complaints about oversized gaps.

 

A lot of the N-gauge market these days is people who just haven't the space for larger scales.  This is a function of houses becoming ever smaller.  A good proportion of N-gauge modellers want continuous runs.   To have a continuous run in a small space you need sharp curves.  Remember that even UK Radius 1 (9") is larger than the radius 1 used on the continent (just).  Most new models of larger prototypes won't run round curves that small.

 

Taking a small (5x2 feet) N-gauge layout to a lot of shows and TALKING to a large number of punters (try escaping us!) two things come across very clearly.  Many more would model railways if they thought they could do what they want in the space they had.  MOST would-be entrants are put off by the thought of only having a shunting plank.  MOST would like the space to make a roundy-roundy.   MOST like seeing larger engines- the most popular train on Furtwangen was the big passenger train with the express engine on the front, a 4-4-2 admittedly.  YOUNGSTERS overall like watching steam engines just as much as the modern stuff.   I hope The Furtwangen team have persuaded quite a few families over the years that they CAN make a model railway in the 5X2 (or 4X2) space they can just about find.  Lets not cut these people out of the market.

 

If the hobby is to survive then Farish and Dapol need to continue to make Castles, Duchesses, A4s and the like that will go round Radius 2 curves - or, even better, Radius 1.  The day of the train set isn't dead.  If engineering a large loco to go round "silly small curves" means there is a larger clearance than prototypical around bogies, or a loco to tender gap that is too big then so be it.  The alternative is to go so far to scale that the people who make up the bulk of sales can't run the model as it can't go round trainset curves.. 

 

If the current model is unsaleable to a proportion of the market how do manufacturers generate the cash to develop the next model?

 

I've looked at the Castle.  It is a lovely model, and Farish have done a fantastic job within the limits of the market it has to sell into.  We RMWebbers are a SMALL proportion of that market.  Please don't complain about compromises that have to be made for the model to exist at all.

 

Les

I can't say I entirely agree Les. There are plenty of small and medium size locos to choose from if you really have to use ridiculously small trainset curves. I would argue that the desire to send large mainline locos around gasworks curves with all the resultant compromises is the sort of thing that has held N gauge back. For me the notion that you can squeeze anything that looks remotely like a mainline on a 4'x2' or 5x2' baseboard is mistaken. Whilst some sales may be lost due to it not being able to go round the smallest of trainset curves, others would be gained as enthusiasts in the larger scales take 2mm/N more seriously.

 

As an aside shouting (using capitals) mid sentence does your argument no favours.

 

Jerry

[TomE]

As ever, we have complaints about oversized gaps.

 

<snip>

 

Les

 

 

My observation about the gap relates more to the impact it has on the overall appearance of the model, and it does affect it when viewed from certain angles. It wasn't a complaint, and it certainly won't cause me to cancel my order. If I decide I can't live with the gap, as Chris said it's nothing a little bit of plastic can't resolve. 

 

I fully appreciate that the manufacturers have a fine line to tread between scale appearance and usability, but I really can't disagree strongly enough with your assertion that every model Bachmann or anyone else produce should be capable of negotiating Radius 1 curves. If manufacturers were to adopt that policy then we might as well go straight back to the days of Poole style models and forget all of the advances that have been made since Bachmann took over the Farish range, and that would do significantly more damage to the hobby than producing a model which cannot negotiate Radius 1 curves.  

 

You are right though that this forum represents a tiny proportion of those who purchase these models, and only a tiny proportion of people who buy these models attend exhibitions, so we really don't know how the majority of these models are used, but Farish clearly think that moving toward a more scale appearance is worth the investment, otherwise we would still have pizza cutter wheels approximately shaped models. 

 

If the N Gauge part of the hobby is to survive at all it must move with the times, not doggedly stick with outdated standards because it suits a handful of people. 

 

Tom. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by TomE

[Roy L S]

I have to say I am in total agreement with Les on this. A big advantage of N is the ability to build a layout in the smaller spaces typical in modern houses. To do this often it entails a board 2ft or so wide. It may still be reasonably long, say 8-10ft in a small bedroom which makes a representation of a main line (equates to 16ft in 00) viable. The need for even large locos to negotiate R2 curves as a minimum is therefore essential, let's not forget these so called "gasworks" curves will very often be hidden from view.

 

Frankly I very much doubt that the sales lost by making an N model loco only negotiate (say) 2ft radius curves as a minimum will be anywhere near offset by those enthusiasts wanting closer gaps between wheels and frames etc, and surely in any case that is where the finer tolerances 2 mil comes into it's own?

 

Roy

[queensquare]

 

Frankly I very much doubt that the sales lost by making an N model loco only negotiate (say) 2ft radius curves as a minimum will be anywhere near offset by those enthusiasts wanting closer gaps between wheels and frames etc, and surely in any case that is where the finer tolerances 2 mil comes into it's own?

 

Roy

I didn't say anything about 2' radius curves, I use 18" minimum in 2FS, but sticking rigidly to the idea that large express locos should be able to go round anything less than about 12", hidden or not, in N is retrograde in my view.

 

Jerry

[Chris Higgs]

As ever, we have complaints about oversized gaps.

 

A lot of the N-gauge market these days is people who just haven't the space for larger scales.  This is a function of houses becoming ever smaller.  A good proportion of N-gauge modellers want continuous runs.   To have a continuous run in a small space you need sharp curves.  Remember that even UK Radius 1 (9") is larger than the radius 1 used on the continent (just).  Most new models of larger prototypes won't run round curves that small.

 

Taking a small (5x2 feet) N-gauge layout to a lot of shows and TALKING to a large number of punters (try escaping us!) two things come across very clearly.  Many more would model railways if they thought they could do what they want in the space they had.  MOST would-be entrants are put off by the thought of only having a shunting plank.  MOST would like the space to make a roundy-roundy.   MOST like seeing larger engines- the most popular train on Furtwangen was the big passenger train with the express engine on the front, a 4-4-2 admittedly.  YOUNGSTERS overall like watching steam engines just as much as the modern stuff.   I hope The Furtwangen team have persuaded quite a few families over the years that they CAN make a model railway in the 5X2 (or 4X2) space they can just about find.  Lets not cut these people out of the market.

 

If the hobby is to survive then Farish and Dapol need to continue to make Castles, Duchesses, A4s and the like that will go round Radius 2 curves - or, even better, Radius 1.  The day of the train set isn't dead.  If engineering a large loco to go round "silly small curves" means there is a larger clearance than prototypical around bogies, or a loco to tender gap that is too big then so be it.  The alternative is to go so far to scale that the people who make up the bulk of sales can't run the model as it can't go round trainset curves.. 

 

If the current model is unsaleable to a proportion of the market how do manufacturers generate the cash to develop the next model?

 

I've looked at the Castle.  It is a lovely model, and Farish have done a fantastic job within the limits of the market it has to sell into.  We RMWebbers are a SMALL proportion of that market.  Please don't complain about compromises that have to be made for the model to exist at all.

 

Les

 

Actually, all we need here is an frame piece to fit under the footplate for those who do not use the small radius curves. So instead of an alternative bogie, an alternative frame. I will probably do one myself as a 3D print unless Farish offer one, which it is probably a bit too late for now. A 3D print will probably be easier to use than some etched overlays and with a bit of luck can just slot over what is already there. It will also make representing that bogie bearing plate that sticks out much simpler than an etch.

 

Incidentally, what makes you assume that because I observe what the issue is, that I am complaining? I was only commenting that it is not the bogie that is the issue here. And as you can see I offer an actual solution.

 

Chris

Edited September 20, 2016 by Chris Higgs

[Elvinley]

Using tight curves even on larger layouts can be very handy for hidden areas and the larger locos look and work fine on the scenic part. It is a compromise worth having. I have seen this particular loco and it looks fantastic. Who is going to be looking at the top of the front bogie?

[Les1952]

I can't say I entirely agree Les. There are plenty of small and medium size locos to choose from if you really have to use ridiculously small trainset curves. I would argue that the desire to send large mainline locos around gasworks curves with all the resultant compromises is the sort of thing that has held N gauge back. For me the notion that you can squeeze anything that looks remotely like a mainline on a 4'x2' or 5x2' baseboard is mistaken. Whilst some sales may be lost due to it not being able to go round the smallest of trainset curves, others would be gained as enthusiasts in the larger scales take 2mm/N more seriously.

 

As an aside shouting (using capitals) mid sentence does your argument no favours.

 

Jerry

 

But beginners don't want small to medium sized locos.  That is the whole point.

 

If the hobby doesn't attract the beginners it has no future.

 

Les

[Les1952]

I didn't say anything about 2' radius curves, I use 18" minimum in 2FS, but sticking rigidly to the idea that large express locos should be able to go round anything less than about 12", hidden or not, in N is retrograde in my view.

 

Jerry

 

Again, modern houses don't have room for 18" minimum radius on a roundy-roundy.  Beginners want roundy-roundies.  I've talked to some 500 or so over the last 4 years or so.  Hopefully by showing them a layout with 9" curves and lots of detail packed into 5X2 I've got enough thinking that they can (and I make no apology for accenting the word can) build a layout of the type they want in a house where they previously thought they couldn't.

 

Les

[Chris Higgs]

Who is going to be looking at the top of the front bogie?

 

Well, some of us, obviously. As we have. To my mind that method of supporting the bogie the GWR use on the 4-cylinder classes is part of what makes a Star/Castle/King look the way it does.

 

Chris

Edited September 20, 2016 by Chris Higgs

[TomE]

500 people over 4 years versus production runs in the 1000's for every model released in the same period, thats not the sort of percentage that would convince me that we need to turn the clock back 15 years i'm afraid Les. 

 

Attracting newcomers to the hobby based purely on the fact you can squeeze a Duchess, or a Merchant Navy, or any other large locomotive around an unprototypically tight curve is not a healthy way to promote the N Gauge sector in the long term either in my view, but that is my view and I accept most others will disagree with it.

 

Tom.  

Edited September 20, 2016 by TomE

[Elvinley]

Well, some of us, obviously. As we have. To my mind that method of supporting the bogie the GWR use on the 4-cylinder classes is part of what makes a Star/Castle/King look the way it does.

 

Chris

But when it is on the railway this will hardly be what we are looking at is what I meant. It is one thing looking at a blown up picture with a white background and something else entirely seeing it on a layout in action.