Darstaed Mk1 coaches for 7mm.

[two tone green]

The BG is the same as the BG in BG, on pre order.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Thanks but Id like to view the blue grey stock with the later reinforced window surrounds first so as to see how those are rendered....also to see what bogies they come with....

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited February 4, 2018 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Darstaed]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your comments, here is an update and some replies.

 

1.The B/G livery has landed at LHR this morning and should be available with EL and SL in a few days time. There will be Sets and CK singles. Also the upgrade one which contains a drill plus brake rodding for the BR(W) and BR(S) where the rodding was not installed ex-factory.

 

2. As it is CNY now China has come to a halt and production will resume in the last week of this month. March will see the shipment of the maroon livery and in April we should start shipping the  singles, these are FK, TSO, BCK and SLF (the latter in Mar. and B/G only). After these we will do the RMB , RU, RSO and RFO and finally conclude with the BG for which completely new tooling still has to be made. We will also ship with the singles in April upgrade two which are the gangway endshields.

 

3. Link hooks to attach the coaches to the loco are available separately from EL and SL. In due course we will make our own. Some of you already have a Kadee coupling on the loco which is in a lower position than on our MK1 coaches to take advantage of the Kadee automatic uncoupling device. We have discussed this a long time ago at the design stage and decided to place the couplings on our coaches at scale height. We will make an upgrade which is a small plate that can be inserted between the coach bottom and the Kadee coupling so that the coupling will be lower in order to enable the Kadee uncoupling feature.

 

4. In the booklet that comes with the coaches is described how to take the roof off. It is very straight forward. Also is described the different positions the Kadee coupling can be placed in to go around 40.5" curves but then the end corridors do not butt up completely.

 

5. The B/G, Mar. and IC liveries will have perfectly scale common wealth bogies, Separate bogies are also in the shipment that arrived today in case you wish to model a later version of the early liveries.

 

Cheers,

Andries

Edited February 7, 2018 by Darstaed

[two tone green]

Excellent post Andries. Some very useful and interesting news.

 

One question I asked about to SL is getting extra pick ups so there would be pick ups at both bogies. I would find them very useful as I run my layout with track circuiting for train detection and having pick ups at one end means almost the entire length of the coach can be in a block before it is detected. Having pick ups on both bogies will solve this. Also will help solve flickering of the lights.

 

Can extra pick ups be made available as an upgrade. Happy to pay for them.

 

Pleased you will add the spacers for the Kadee couplings. I spoke to SL about this and happy you have taken the comments on boards. My coaches do run well around my 40 inch radius curves using the extended position of the couplings.

 

Keep up the good work. I am ordering set B and singles

Edited February 7, 2018 by two tone green

[Darstaed]

Excellent post Andries. Some very useful and interesting news.

 

One question I asked about to SL is getting extra pick ups so there would be pick ups at both bogies. I would find them very useful as I run my layout with track circuiting for train detection and having pick ups at one end means almost the entire length of the coach can be in a block before it is detected. Having pick ups on both bogies will solve this. Also will help solve flickering of the lights.

 

Can extra pick ups be made available as an upgrade. Happy to pay for them.

 

Pleased you will add the spacers for the Kadee couplings. I spoke to SL about this and happy you have taken the comments on boards. My coaches do run well around my 40 inch radius curves using the extended position of the couplings.

 

Keep up the good work. I am ordering set B and singles

Dear two tone,

Thank you for your post,I have no problem making separate pick ups available as spares but of course you have to assemble and wire yourself. Please channel your request through EL or SL as then it will be attended to. My duty in the company is to play with your trains before you do so requests through me do not always reach the factory floor.

Cheers, Andries

[two tone green]

Hi Andries.

 

Thanks for the quick reply. I have already mentioned the extra pick ups to SL but thought by mentioning it to you it joins you with SL about the suggestion.

 

Quite happy to buy pre assembled ready wired bogies as a replacement or just the pick up assembly for myself to fit and wire into place. Either option is ok for me. Thanks.

[Captain Cuttle]

Good points from both previous Posters. Im sorry I cant answer the question on KDs.....I dont use them, its a great question though!

 

I also forgot to mention earlier the RTR coaches by Peter Cowling, a little pricier than mass produced RTR and his order books are always fall-Im not sure if he needs to take on anyone else. Nice coaches though.

 

ATVB

 

CME

You have to remember with Peter Cowling and whether is applies to the Mk 1s i'm not sure but certainly does to his Pullman cars that they are generic and NQLTRT! Having said that they are exceptional and talking to him last year that so far he has made over two hundred Pullmans alone!

Attached two images of Car 303 which had a truss underframe and square toilet windows.

ATB

Alan

[two tone green]

The blue grey have arrived.

 

https://www.ellisclarktrains.co.uk/collections/darstaed-7mm-o-gauge-finescale-coaches/products/darstaed-7mm-finescale-o-gauge-mk1-coaches-set-a-4-coaches-blue-grey

[dpgibbons]

These coaches are (positively) reviewed in the March edition of Model Rail.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

You have to remember with Peter Cowling and whether is applies to the Mk 1s i'm not sure but certainly does to his Pullman cars that they are generic and NQLTRT! Having said that they are exceptional and talking to him last year that so far he has made over two hundred Pullmans alone!

Attached two images of Car 303 which had a truss underframe and square toilet windows.

ATB

Alan

Car 303 - 4 rs.jpg

PC Car 303 b.jpg

Hi CC,

 

Hows things?

 

I have some of Peter's models-the usual caveats apply-and they are excellent layout models, the vehicles I have are not generic, the only thing missing is some of the brake-rodding, which can be added by the modeller, but is virtually invisible in the gloom anyway......

 

These coaches are (positively) reviewed in the March edition of Model Rail.

I shall keep an eye open for that review then, was it on the Blue/Grey stock and who wrote the review may I ask.

 

I note that in the link, that the photo of the B/G stock still has the steps on the ends - I was under the impression that they would be swapped out at the factory for era/livery appropriate ends?

 

Also, TBBH, Im not keen on the factory rendition of the Commonwealth bogies - swapping those for a.n.others would be an expensive option.

 

The additional amended window frames appear to be in place though and other matters look reasonable good for a RTR coach (viewing from a mobile phone).

 

ATVB

 

CME

[Airport2010]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your comments, here is an update and some replies.

 

1.The B/G livery has landed at LHR this morning and should be available with EL and SL in a few days time. There will be Sets and CK singles. Also the upgrade one which contains a drill plus brake rodding for the BR(W) and BR(S) where the rodding was not installed ex-factory.

 

2. As it is CNY now China has come to a halt and production will resume in the last week of this month. March will see the shipment of the maroon livery and in April we should start shipping the  singles, these are FK, TSO, BCK and SLF (the latter in Mar. and B/G only). After these we will do the RMB , RU, RSO and RFO and finally conclude with the BG for which completely new tooling still has to be made. We will also ship with the singles in April upgrade two which are the gangway endshields.

 

3. Link hooks to attach the coaches to the loco are available separately from EL and SL. In due course we will make our own. Some of you already have a Kadee coupling on the loco which is in a lower position than on our MK1 coaches to take advantage of the Kadee automatic uncoupling device. We have discussed this a long time ago at the design stage and decided to place the couplings on our coaches at scale height. We will make an upgrade which is a small plate that can be inserted between the coach bottom and the Kadee coupling so that the coupling will be lower in order to enable the Kadee uncoupling feature.

 

4. In the booklet that comes with the coaches is described how to take the roof off. It is very straight forward. Also is described the different positions the Kadee coupling can be placed in to go around 40.5" curves but then the end corridors do not butt up completely.

 

5. The B/G, Mar. and IC liveries will have perfectly scale common wealth bogies, Separate bogies are also in the shipment that arrived today in case you wish to model a later version of the early liveries.

 

Cheers,

Andries

 

Hi Andries

My Set A in blue/grey arrived this afternoon. Not the happiest of bunnies I'm afraid. To start, the SK has a large hole in one of the seating benches in the end compartment, so that vehicle will have to be rejected. Also the decal sheet for that SK has been mixed up at the factory with a sheet for BSK so that needs correcting.

 

The other issue (which is a really silly error and should have been picked up at QC in the factory) is the guard's compartment identifier. As you'll know very well the word should be printed as 'Guard' in white to go on the blue body, but it's actually printed as "GUARD" in Gold which of course is correct for the blood/custard livery. How on earth has this not been picked up as all the boxes have the little QC sticker applied? Having two BSK's in the set obviously means the error has to be corrected four times. This is obviously going to be an issue on every set of blue/greys that have been produced.

 

On the subject of the decal sheets, could you explain why the BR blue/grey running numbers are going to have to be formed by cutting out each individual character and hopefully aligning them on the bodyside to look half decent, where the older BR running numbers from earlier eras (on the same sheet) are pre-printed as a set to be fitted as one entity? I realise that by having individual numbers you can have literally any number combination you like rather than being restricted to the decal sheet, but just curious about the thinking behind it?

 

In spite of the above, the vehicles look superb to my non-expert eyes and I look forward to eventually getting them running on the club layout.

 

Sorry to have to write all this, but you've had long enough to get things right have you not?

 

Regards Phil 

[uk_pm]

I have also now received my rake of blue/grey Mark 1 coaches from Ellis Clark.  The Ellis Clark service was extremely efficient.  The coaches themselves are very nicely packaged and look impressive both in and once out of the box.  The livery is neatly applied, and the colours themselves appear accurate, although I confirm the error referred to above in respect of the wording on the Guard's door, there is a lack of printed detail on the coach ends (they simply saying C1) and the coach end steps and roof periscopes remain.  I am also pretty sure (though not absolutely certain) that the red seat moquette in 2nd class had been replaced by the blue/green seat pattern, and the first class compartments had dark grey moquette by the time blue and grey livery arrived.  If I am right, this is particularly disappointing, since the printed coach interiors are a particularly nice detail in this scale, and are highlighted by the coach lighting (which I rather like, but which I appreciate is not to everyone's taste).

 

Curiously, there is no attempt to model the guard's accommodation in the BSK, so that coach contains four nicely modelled passenger compartments adjoining which is a substantial and conspicuous void. 

 

I have not yet made up my mind about the Commonwealth bogies.  They are properly sprung, but the springs themselves appear rather too fine to my eyes.

 

Coupled together as a rake, the coaches look excellent, save that the corridor close coupling mechanism is unsightly at the end of the rake.  

 

BUT - and here's the potential deal breaker for me - coupled up to any of my JLTRT coaches, the Darstaad coaches appear to be considerably taller.  I have attached two pictures which illustrate the point.  I have not yet got my ruler out, and will do so this morning, so I am not ruling out the possibility that the JLTRT coaches are, in fact, not JLTRT.  But I did note that the Darstaad coaches also appeared tall when coupled to my Heljan class 33.  

 

Any other opinions will be received with interest, and I will report back once I have measurements to hand.

 

PM

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by uk_pm

[Simond]

I remarked in my PD thread that the Darstaedt “Crocodile” wagon was also too high, and how I machined the tops of the bogies to correct this. My suspicion is that the same bogies are used for fine and coarse wheels, and the overscale flanges of the latter mean the floor of the vehicle has to be higher. On the Crocodile, it appears that the space for this has been created by making the bogie bearing surface too high, which is a shame - a thick washer would have served the same purpose and certainly been much easier to remove.

 

I don’t have any of these coaches, but my guess is that the body’s good, and the extra height is in the bogie. Wheel clearance is often an issue with finescale bogie coaching stock - I guess it’s easier in S7.

 

Best

Simon

[deltic17]

 

 

BUT - and here's the potential deal breaker for me - coupled up to any of my JLTRT coaches, the Darstaad coaches appear to be considerably taller.  I have attached two pictures which illustrate the point.  I have not yet got my ruler out, and will do so this morning, so I am not ruling out the possibility that the JLTRT coaches are, in fact, not JLTRT.  But I did note that the Darstaad coaches also appeared tall when coupled to my Heljan class 33.  

 

==============================================================================================

 

That is an interesting observation....

 

Funnily enough I almost wrote a message on here a few days ago asking what the height of the coaches was like?

 

Having said that from one of your photos (not too easy to see though) the coach looks similar height to your class 50?. Looking at actual photos of most BR locos and mk1 coaches, the coaches are just a fraction lower than the loco.

 

Is the coach you are comparing it with a bit on the low side maybe?

 

It would be good to see how the new Mk1 looks against your Heljan 33 if you have a photo (although worryingly you say they look 'tall')

 

I once had a JLTRT CCT parcels van and it was just too low when compared to my locos/other stock it stuck out like a sore thumb to me so I ended up selling it.

 

It will be good to get other opinions re the height.

Edited February 17, 2018 by deltic17

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Hi Andries

My Set A in blue/grey arrived this afternoon. Not the happiest of bunnies I'm afraid. To start, the SK has a large hole in one of the seating benches in the end compartment, so that vehicle will have to be rejected. Also the decal sheet for that SK has been mixed up at the factory with a sheet for BSK so that needs correcting.

 

The other issue (which is a really silly error and should have been picked up at QC in the factory) is the guard's compartment identifier. As you'll know very well the word should be printed as 'Guard' in white to go on the blue body, but it's actually printed as "GUARD" in Gold which of course is correct for the blood/custard livery. How on earth has this not been picked up as all the boxes have the little QC sticker applied? Having two BSK's in the set obviously means the error has to be corrected four times. This is obviously going to be an issue on every set of blue/greys that have been produced.

 

On the subject of the decal sheets, could you explain why the BR blue/grey running numbers are going to have to be formed by cutting out each individual character and hopefully aligning them on the bodyside to look half decent, where the older BR running numbers from earlier eras (on the same sheet) are pre-printed as a set to be fitted as one entity? I realise that by having individual numbers you can have literally any number combination you like rather than being restricted to the decal sheet, but just curious about the thinking behind it?

 

In spite of the above, the vehicles look superb to my non-expert eyes and I look forward to eventually getting them running on the club layout.

 

Sorry to have to write all this, but you've had long enough to get things right have you not?

 

Regards Phil

 

 Im sorry to hear that Phil, I thought QC would win out with these guys..... 

I have also now received my rake of blue/grey Mark 1 coaches from Ellis Clark.  The Ellis Clark service was extremely efficient.  The coaches themselves are very nicely packaged and look impressive both in and once out of the box.  The livery is neatly applied, and the colours themselves appear accurate, although I confirm the error referred to above in respect of the wording on the Guard's door, there is a lack of printed detail on the coach ends (they simply saying C1) and the coach end steps and roof periscopes remain.  I am also pretty sure (though not absolutely certain) that the red seat moquette in 2nd class had been replaced by the blue/green seat pattern, and the first class compartments had dark grey moquette by the time blue and grey livery arrived.  If I am right, this is particularly disappointing, since the printed coach interiors are a particularly nice detail in this scale, and are highlighted by the coach lighting (which I rather like, but which I appreciate is not to everyone's taste).

 

Curiously, there is no attempt to model the guard's accommodation in the BSK, so that coach contains four nicely modelled passenger compartments adjoining which is a substantial and conspicuous void. 

 

I have not yet made up my mind about the Commonwealth bogies.  They are properly sprung, but the springs themselves appear rather too fine to my eyes.

 

Coupled together as a rake, the coaches look excellent, save that the corridor close coupling mechanism is unsightly at the end of the rake.  

 

BUT - and here's the potential deal breaker for me - coupled up to any of my JLTRT coaches, the Darstaad coaches appear to be considerably taller.  I have attached two pictures which illustrate the point.  I have not yet got my ruler out, and will do so this morning, so I am not ruling out the possibility that the JLTRT coaches are, in fact, not JLTRT.  But I did note that the Darstaad coaches also appeared tall when coupled to my Heljan class 33.  

 

Any other opinions will be received with interest, and I will report back once I have measurements to hand.

 

PM

 

IMG_0558.jpgIMG_0559.jpeg

 

......Looking at the bogies BR1s and Commonwealth, to my eyes the rendition is 'off' (I wont bore with details) and the bogie/coach height ratio seems off and the bogies mounted a tad too much inboard......  

 

BUT - and here's the potential deal breaker for me - coupled up to any of my JLTRT coaches, the Darstaad coaches appear to be considerably taller.  I have attached two pictures which illustrate the point.  I have not yet got my ruler out, and will do so this morning, so I am not ruling out the possibility that the JLTRT coaches are, in fact, not JLTRT.  But I did note that the Darstaad coaches also appeared tall when coupled to my Heljan class 33.  

 

==============================================================================================

 

That is an interesting observation....

 

Funnily enough I almost wrote a message on here a few days ago asking what the height of the coaches was like?

 

Having said that from one of your photos (not too easy to see though) the coach looks similar height to your class 50?. Looking at actual photos of most BR locos and mk1 coaches, the coaches are just a fraction lower than the loco.

 

Is the coach you are comparing it with a bit on the low side maybe?

 

It would be good to see how the new Mk1 looks against your Heljan 33 if you have a photo (although worryingly you say they look 'tall')

 

I once had a JLTRT CCT parcels van and it was just too low when compared to my locos/other stock it stuck out like a sore thumb to me so I ended up selling it.

 

It will be good to get other opinions re the height.

 

In theory all 7mm MK1s, with Keith Parkins' book and measurements should be the same ride height etc etc....

 

Perhaps things will get better with later batches?

 

Kind regards to all,

 

CME.

[uk_pm]

I have now had an opportunity to measure, and consider this problem a little more.  First of all, the measurements:-

 

The JLTRT BG is approx. 87 mm from rail height to the top of the coach - just over a scale 12' 5"

The Darstaad coach is approx 91 mm from rail height to the top of the coach - a scale 13'

 

According to the leading text on Mark 1 Coaches (Keith Parkin - Mark 1 Coaches), the correct measurement from rail height to the top of the coach is 12' 4½" - making the JLTRT coach almost spot on, and the Darstaad coach 7½" too tall.

 

However, the villain of the piece appears to be the Commonwealth bogies, which have considerable spring in their suspension - approximately 2 mm, in fact.  So that if the springs are fully compressed, the coach is 2mm - or 2.4" over height.  

 

Looking afresh at the profile, it appears (to my eyes) that the apex of the roof on the Darstaad model is not quite as flat as it should be.  It is subtle, and I am very prepared to be told I'm wrong.  But I have attached a picture of the Darstaad coach alongside a pencil drawing of the Mark 1 coach from Parkin's book.  Also attached is a picture of the coach coupled to my Heljan class 33.

 

What do other people think?

 

PM

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by uk_pm

[Osgood]

The metal springs on the Commonwealth bogie have to be thin in order to achieve the right deflection.

 

Seems to me these would be an ideal candidate for moulding (or 3-D printing) from plastic to achieve both correct deflection and scale thickness - would transform the look of the bogies.

 

So easy to suggest, not so easy to do I appreciate!

[CME and Bottlewasher]

I think that the disimilar materials of roof and body are the reason for any roof/body mismatch but its very close, lacking some finesse re roof thickness and shape of sides/tumblehome (but these are RTR so thats to be expected?). The sides 'pinch' in a little too much at the tops under the gutter, which compounds the 'issue'. There is the issue of end steps on a blue grey coach too. Over all though not too bad.

 

The issue with the bogies is harder to solve cost effectively though. I dont see the need to have springing in FS 7mm, compensation maybe. Scale springing is a real challenge to get right.

 

Are there any panel gaps between sides/underframe/roof?

 

Hopeful the QC issues will get sorted too for those suffering from such, but they really should have been double checked by importers.

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited February 17, 2018 by CME and Bottlewasher

[deltic17]

The photo of the Class 33 & new Mk1 coach is interesting. 

 

Based on your calculations and the photo, it seems to suggest the coach sits approx. 2-3mm high on its bogies and the upper superstructure of the coach is also 2-3mm too high - this might not be helped by the top of the roof profile looking a fraction high when viewed end on according to the useful profile provided above.

 

I have never heard of any problems previously relating to the height of the Heljan Class 33 so unfortunately I think the problem here lies with the Mk1.

 

It is a shame as there are lots of good things on these coaches but to find the coaches approximately 4mm taller than the loco in this case when the coach should probably be 1-2mm LOWER than the loco in general is somewhat significant in my eyes.

Edited February 17, 2018 by deltic17

[CUTLER2579]

The photo of the Class 33 & new Mk1 coach is interesting. 

 

Based on your calculations and the photo, it seems to suggest the coach sits approx. 2-3mm high on its bogies and the upper superstructure of the coach is also 2-3mm too high - this might not be helped by the top of the roof profile looking a fraction high when viewed end on according to the useful profile provided above.

 

I have never heard of any problems previously relating to the height of the Heljan Class 33 so unfortunately I think the problem here lies with the Mk1.

 

It is a shame as there are lots of good things on these coaches but to find the coaches approximately 4mm taller than the loco in this case when the coach should probably be 1-2mm LOWER than the loco in general is somewhat significant in my eyes.

 

Now playing devil’s advocate :-

 

Both Coach & Locomotive wheels got turned on a wheel lathe after a certain amount of wear or if flats appeared given customers an uncomfortable ride 

 .

Coach length was 63 feet and over such a length tolerances in Chassis dimensions varied slightly.

 

For a showcase quality coach in "O" gauge I would love to buy one for £200.00 to the standard we seem to be expecting from these coaches.

 

To my mind the manufacturer is selling a coach that will be used on a working layout and seen from a distance, normally moving. 

 

In a rake I guess they will look uniform in height, although possibly not to the scale height shown on a diagram.

 

Dampers determinate in use. I could go on.

 

I know this company have gone out of their way to listen and react to Constructive Criticism 

 

I feel they should be given every encouragement with this venture, because they have (If nothing else) set a crossbar height for Dapol to emulate or maybe beat. However I don't think Darstaed will sit back and ignore it, I think they will come back with cost effective improvements and we will all benefit.fit.

 

I appreciate we are all entitled to our opinions and these are mine.

 

Kind Regards,Del.

[Bob Reid]

Ride heights were corrected following tyre turning so I'm afraid that's a bit of a wobbler - unfortunately from my own point of view they've just added to the list of nice but not quite Mk1's on the market in a few scales.  Having got my fingers burnt with the Heljan one's I can't believe all these years on that a manufacturer still fails to capture the basic shape and dimensions.

[deltic17]

I agree Darstaed have done a pretty good job here overall and it is great that they have LISTENED and ENGAGED with modellers on here - 10/10 for that. For me it is just a shame about the height issues - surely that should have been one of the basic things to specify correctly. For some they will be fine but others will pass. I also got my fingers burned with the Heljan versions a few years ago.

[two tone green]

Does this help with height. The photo is off vertical due to me trying to do four things all at once but the alignment is good.

 

It makes the coach 90mm high from railhead.

 

[Simond]

Makes them 12’10”, apparently should be 12’4.5”

 

Hopefully the excess can be lost between the railhead and the floor.

 

Best

Simon

Edited February 18, 2018 by Simond

[two tone green]

What's five and half inches between friends.

 

So about 3mm over scale height in 7mm what ever scale height is. I don't suppose that they were that exact building them in real life.

 

I think I can live with being 3 mm out.