Farish GWR Castle Class

[Chris Higgs]

Factory finished samples on show at AP, and looked very nice indeed, although still have niggling doubts about the corner radius of the firebox. Something will also need to be done about that frame/bogie gap when mine arrives!

 

...

 

Tom.  

 

Bachmann certainly do a nice take on Brunswick Green. I took a lot of photos and measurements of the front frames last time I was out at Didcot and will start looking at doing a 3D print to slot in on the Farish model.

 

Chris

Edited March 26, 2017 by Chris Higgs

[TomE]

and will start looking at doing a 3D print to slot in on the Farish model.

 

Chris

 

 

Something I'd certainly be interested in Chris!

 

Tom.  

[leachsprite4]

I'd be interested in one of the extras as well Chris.

Tom did you get a picture of Tiverton you could share?

Graham

[Karhedron]

Factory finished samples on show at AP, and looked very nice indeed, although still have niggling doubts about the corner radius of the firebox. Something will also need to be done about that frame/bogie gap when mine arrives!

 

 

To be fair, I think that the firebox looks pretty good, don't forget that in class of 150, there was bound to be some variation.

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Karhedron

[Robert Shrives]

Well that looks lovely - I will get one to sit with my TT one just to show how good both are and how far the hobby has come. I think if a poll existed in the early 60s then the Castle would be in the top model of the year !

 

I have a new Hornby 31 to go with the TT one so it will look both ways from TT  and sadly as we know the Hornby 31 has needed some attention.

 

next pay day will see me buy perhaps only my 3rd GW N steam loco !  

Next ought to be the S&D 7F -well you never know!

 Robert    

[TomE]

I'd be interested in one of the extras as well Chris.

Tom did you get a picture of Tiverton you could share?

Graham

 

 

Hi Graham.

 

Sorry, thats the only photo I took of the Castle.

 

Tom.

[dpgibbons]

Do we know yet if DCC sound will be available as a plug-in retrofit for non-sound versions? Even if not I imagine it will be a relatively easy installation as the latter will have a Next18 socket and (presumably) an empty hole for a speaker.  

Edited March 26, 2017 by dpgibbons

[leachsprite4]

Hi Graham.

 

Sorry, thats the only photo I took of the Castle.

 

Tom.

Hi Tom,

Not a problem a very nice photo all the same.

Graham

[Douglas G]

Please, Mr Bachmann, adapt the mechanism from the N class and give us a Churchward Mogul to the same standard as this Castle!

[Stevelewis]

Tiverton  Castle  in  stock  at  Arcadia  Models  01706882900  ( Open  Friday  14th ) ...  £119.00  ( 4p more  than  Hattons)

 

No connection  just  a  very  satisfied  customer.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Stevelewis

[Roy L S]

I have just read the HM review of the loco. Lots of innovation and very pretty but why oh why does it have no traction tyres? Surely spoiling the ship for a happeneth of tar?

 

I truly hope that the forthcoming 8F does not follow this example, it would be a disaster for a heavy freight loco to be unable to pull the skin off a proverbial rice pudding no matter how innovative it is in every other respect. So a plea to Bachmann while it is is still in early stages of development please ​do not release it without traction tyres.

 

Roy

[Chris Higgs]

I have just read the HM review of the loco. Lots of innovation and very pretty but why oh why does it have no traction tyres? Surely spoiling the ship for a happeneth of tar?

 

I truly hope that the forthcoming 8F does not follow this example, it would be a disaster for a heavy freight loco to be unable to pull the skin off a proverbial rice pudding no matter how innovative it is in every other respect. So a plea to Bachmann while it is is still in early stages of development please ​do not release it without traction tyres.

 

Roy

 

Actually a lot of us don't want the traction tyres.

 

But what manufacturers need to do is make sure that there is an alternative wheelset in the packaging with/without the tyres so that everyone is satisfied. With Bachmann's current method of dropout bearings it really would not be difficult to swap a wheelset over.

 

Chris

[Roy L S]

Actually a lot of us don't want the traction tyres.

 

But what manufacturers need to do is make sure that there is an alternative wheelset in the packaging with/without the tyres so that everyone is satisfied. With Bachmann's current method of dropout bearings it really would not be difficult to swap a wheelset over.

 

Chris

 

That may work and I do agree a compromise would be better to suit all needs instead of just some but it depends which loco axle is driven. I would think the 8F will follow the WD's example meaning that the second wheelset from the rear is driven (so therefore becomes the tyred one) and replacing that wheelset would be more of a challenge with the valve gear etc.

 

Roy

[Dr Al]

Does it need traction tyres? I think until we see some actual haulage tests that judgement should be reserved.

 

Cheers,
Alan

 

P.s. First batch now on sale - so some folks should be getting theirs soon!

Edited April 14, 2017 by Dr Al

[Roy L S]

Does it need traction tyres? I think until we see some actual haulage tests that judgement should be reserved.

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

P.s. First batch now on sale - so some folks should be getting theirs soon!

 

Hi Al

 

According to the HM review (which is why I raised the point) the Castle is good for about 8 coaches on level track, four up a 1 in 68 gradient.

 

People will doubtless have different views on what is acceptable, but for me 8 coaches behind a Castle on level track is less than I would expect or want.

 

My real concern however was whether this seeming trend of no tyres (4F, Merchant Navy and now Castle) would be perpetuated on the 8F. Of course nobody is saying it will be, but I would be hugely disappointed if it was and it turned out my Ivatt 2MT could comprehensively out haul one!

 

Regards

 

Roy

[queensquare]

I had a review sample of Tiverton Castle and can confirm that haulage is perfectly adequate for a prototypical load. I tested it on my Bath Queensquare layout on a long length of line with no points (the layout is 2FS) and it happily pulled an eleven coach train which included eight heavy brass kit built coaches.

Anyone who was at Trainwest in Corsham last weekend would have seen Tiverton Castle running on Totnes. The loco performed faultlessly being smooth and near silent. I'm with Chris in that I'm glad it has no traction tyres, in my opinion their main function is to pick up dirt and move it around the layout.

My thoughts on the new Farish Castle can be read in full in the next BRM, suffice to say I was very impressed in terms of both looks and performance.

 

Jerry

[Roy L S]

We all have our views Jerry, I appreciate that you are a well respected 2mm modeller but that is a somewhat cynical view. The purpose of traction tyres is to compensate for the lack of tractive weight available in a plastic bodied loco. I very much doubt that an 8F body would have sufficient space for adequate weight to enable a prototypical load to be pulled without them, especially if the experience of those whose WDs have tyres too deeply recessed is anything to go by.

 

Of course depleted uranium weights may provide a solution that pleases everyone!

 

Regards

 

Roy

[TomE]

I'll have to wait until Nunney Castle arrives to make my own judgements on the model, but I'm very much in the 'happy there are no traction tyres' camp. 

 

None of the loco drive models not fitted with them of late have had any issued lugging 12 Farish MK.1s around a loop of level Kato track, including the 2-6-4 tanks. The only models i've had issues with when removing traction tyres are the tender drive models as there just isn't enough weight, but i've found the running qualities of those models degraded with tyres fitted, not to mention they increase the need for track & wheel cleaning. 

 

They're a subjective thing, but I much prefer not to have them. 

 

Tom. 

[Kris]

If it slips, then I might need to add a pilot loco, something I was anticipating with longer trains. 

[queensquare]

We all have our views Jerry, I appreciate that you are a well respected 2mm modeller but that is a somewhat cynical view. The purpose of traction tyres is to compensate for the lack of tractive weight available in a plastic bodied loco. I very much doubt that an 8F body would have sufficient space for adequate weight to enable a prototypical load to be pulled without them, especially if the experience of those whose WDs have tyres too deeply recessed is anything to go by.

 

Of course depleted uranium weights may provide a solution that pleases everyone!

 

Regards

 

Roy

I'm not sure what is cynical. My view on traction tyres may be subjective but that on the Castles haulage is completely objective. It hauled a scale length train around Totnes all weekend with no issues at all.

 

Jerry

[Roy L S]

I'll have to wait until Nunney Castle arrives to make my own judgements on the model, but I'm very much in the 'happy there are no traction tyres' camp. 

 

None of the loco drive models not fitted with them of late have had any issued lugging 12 Farish MK.1s around a loop of level Kato track, including the 2-6-4 tanks. The only models i've had issues with when removing traction tyres are the tender drive models as there just isn't enough weight, but i've found the running qualities of those models degraded with tyres fitted, not to mention they increase the need for track & wheel cleaning. 

 

They're a subjective thing, but I much prefer not to have them. 

 

Tom. 

 

Sorry Tom

 

The 4F0-6-0s I have will not look at anything like a 12 coach train. They are exquisite and run beautifully but 25 free running wagons is pretty much it.

 

Tank locos by dint of extra space in the tanks for weight have far fewer problems with haulage.

 

I will await further reports as regards the Castle, it certainly sounds like Jerry's experience is somewhat different to that reported in the Hornby Magazine review. However my concerns regarding the 8F remain.

 

Roy

Edited April 14, 2017 by Roy L S

[TomE]

Sorry Tom

 

The 4F0-6-0s I have will not look at anything like a 12 coach train. They are exquisite and run beautifully but 25 free running wagons is pretty much it.

 

Tank locos by dint of extra space in the tanks for weight have far fewer problems with haulage.

 

I will await further reports as regards the Castle, it certainly sounds like Jerry's experience is somewhat different to that reported in the Hornby Magazine review. However my concerns regarding the 8F remain.

 

Roy

 

Yes, sorry, should have qualified that with none of the larger loco drive models. Obviously the 0-6-0s are not going to haul long rakes, but then fitting traction tyres would sacrifice pick up, and I think Bachmann have probably got the balance about right for the majority of modellers. 

 

Tom.  

Edited April 14, 2017 by TomE

[Hailstone]

on the subject of haulage, I was testing a rebuilt Merchant navy loco that I had repaired by having it haul a 12 coach train of new mk1's. as it took this load without noticeable slipping, I decided to try the new Merchant navy and see how it compared, the results were not a surprise as I also have a Duchess and I assume that the motor is the same. A 12 coach train was no problem to the new merchant navy either, starting it without noticeable slipping, something that the prototype rarely managed.
My point is that I will judge the new Castle's haulage capacity with my own eyes as it will probably use a similar motor/gear train and I will be buying at least one anyway, and I don't have any gradients to deal with and run 6 coach trains on my layout.

 

Regards,

 

Alex

[Roy L S]

Hi Hailstone

 

The point is a 4F would in reality cope with far more than 25 wagons. Is 25 enough for most people? Not sure.

 

The un-rebuilt MN does not have traction tyres, but then given the shape there is plenty of room for weight inside the spam can body, the new Duchess on the other hand does have them, I suspect this may be because it is lighter.

 

I am content to see what is reported as regards the Castle. If the model has been seen comfortably hauling more than the 8 coaches  the Hornby Magazine reported as being it's limit all well and good.

 

My bigger concern remains the 8F. Hopefully the decision whether to fit tyres to a loco or not will be made at design and development stages on a loco by loco basis.

 

Regards

 

Roy

[McRuss]

I think the problem with the new 4F is that it is lighter than the old model. Also on the J39 there the motor is in the tender, which is quite light, but the 4F and the J39 was one of the stronger models of my newer Farish locos. But the 2-6-0 4MT and the Black Five are now poor runner because of the lightwight tender, and blocking valve gear on the loco.

 

Markus