Peco OHLE

[cravensdmufan]

Clive, looking at the photo and comparing that to your Mk1 drawing, I see not too much difference (mostly the masts). IMO Peco did a credible model for UK catenery.

I agree.  No manufacturer could be expected to cover every variant.

 

It looks credible and that will be good enough for me.

 

After all it's great that at long last we have a working BR OHLE.  I'm looking forward to getting mine built now.  The reason I hadn't started before is that I have a four track main line so this looks like it will be ideal.  Thanks Peco!

[Dagworth]

I agree.  No manufacturer could be expected to cover every variant.

 

It looks credible and that will be good enough for me.

 

After all it's great that at long last we have a working BR OHLE.  I'm looking forward to getting mine built now.  The reason I hadn't started before is that I have a four track main line so this looks like it will be ideal.  Thanks Peco!

Yes, a good model of a Mk1 portal. As Clive has said, Mk1 portals and Mk3 cantilevers DO NOT MIX. 

The same as running your Freightliner heavy haul HHA coal hoppers behind an A4 pacific. Yes, both might be green and run on standard gauge track but apart from where one passes the other when the A4s are outside the museum they don't meet

 

Andi

[bigd]

I suspect that the Mk1 may have been chosen, over the Mk3, because there is no cross span wire on the Mk1.

That could make fixing the catenary much easier.

[Dagworth]

I suspect that the Mk1 may have been chosen, over the Mk3, because there is no cross span wire on the Mk1.

That could make fixing the catenary much easier.

It's just a shame that they didn't choose to do a Mk1 cantilever instead of the Mk3, they could have left Dapol with the Mk3 system and concentrated on Mk1, then both systems would have been made, instead of half and half..

[Clive Mortimore]

I suspect that the Mk1 may have been chosen, over the Mk3, because there is no cross span wire on the Mk1.

That could make fixing the catenary much easier.

Hi Andy

 

I think you are right.

 

There is potential for Mk3 headspan to be made in kit form.

[Crewlisle]

The vast majority of modellers who want BR OLE cannot tell the difference between Mk 1 or Mk 101 catenary.   I agree with the experts on 00 gauge OLE like Clive Mortimore or Dagworth about the subtle differences between Mk 1 & Mk 3 & whether they would be seen together but please, give Peco a break!  At least they are trying to please everyone & also for it to be a commercial proposition.

 

I have had a hybrid system of OLE on 'Crewlisle' for 30 years.  Not once has anyone at any of the exhibitions I have attended said 'Is that supposed to be Mk 1 or Mk 3 catenary?'  Or 'That was never on the WCML'.  It represents BR style OLE which over the years has been represented on too few layouts on the exhibition circuit.  Thank you Peco & hope it is a commercial success for you.

 

Pete

Edited February 27, 2017 by Crewlisle

[njee20]

As I understand it, mk1 has a 6ft encumbrance (distance between contact and catenary wires), whilst mk3 has a 3ft distance. So whilst most people won't know the difference in the masts at sight, if you plan to add wires it'll become very obvious when your plain masts have totally different wires to your portals.

[Titan]

As I understand it, mk1 has a 6ft encumbrance (distance between contact and catenary wires), whilst mk3 has a 3ft distance. So whilst most people won't know the difference in the masts at sight, if you plan to add wires it'll become very obvious when your plain masts have totally different wires to your portals.

 

Not quite - it is cantilever construction that has the low encumbrance and headspan/portal construction that has the large encumbrance - this goes for Mk1 and Mk3. Whilst the encumbrance of a mk1 cantilever compared to a Mk3 is slightly different, and ditto Headspan V portal, the difference is not much, and you often get variations to suit local conditions, particularly near bridges anyway. Having spans with the encumbrance on one end being substantially different to that at the other is not unusual, although on plain line you would expect it to be consistent. And since most layouts will have something in the way of bridges, level crossings, crossovers etc. then there is a lot of leeway on what encumbrance you could get away with.

[Clive Mortimore]

Not quite - it is cantilever construction that has the low encumbrance and headspan/portal construction that has the large encumbrance - this goes for Mk1 and Mk3. Whilst the encumbrance of a mk1 cantilever compared to a Mk3 is slightly different, and ditto Headspan V portal, the difference is not much, and you often get variations to suit local conditions, particularly near bridges anyway. Having spans with the encumbrance on one end being substantially different to that at the other is not unusual, although on plain line you would expect it to be consistent. And since most layouts will have something in the way of bridges, level crossings, crossovers etc. then there is a lot of leeway on what encumbrance you could get away with.

Hi Ian

 

You work with the stuff, and you know that when a line is electrified they use what is the latest design, so when they done the Clacton Branch Mk1 was new hence there is no Mk3 mixed in with it. When they done the Midland out to Bedford it was Mk3, they didn't pop over to Romford for the odd bit of Mk1going spare. The GWR main line is getting the newest design what ever that is called, they are not plonking a mk3 mast here and a Mk1 portal there.

 

Fully agree about system height varies but as a general rule Mk1 on plain line is double the height of Mk3.  Peco (and Dapol) have not made reduced emcumbrance mast for any system as yet.

[Gordon H]

Not once has anyone at any of the exhibitions I have attended said 'Is that supposed to be Mk 1 or Mk 3 catenary?'  Or 'That was never on the WCML'.  It represents BR style OLE which over the years has been represented on too few layouts on the exhibition circuit.  Thank you Peco & hope it is a commercial success for you.

 

 

Could it be that the viewers who were in a position to notice were too polite to say so, given that you were unlikely to change what you had already made?

 

Agree that any or all new products concerning OHL are welcome if they promote interest in the subject as a whole - even if their deficiencies meant I wouldn't use many of them myself.

[Red Baron]

Given that 90% of us run 25kv stock with no wires,  and 3rd rail stock with no 3rd rail,  and diesel stock with no diesel its got to be a welcome addition,   I refute the likeness of running Porthole stock with HST's,  it more like running Loco Hauled buffer equipped Mk3's with HSTs.  None of us have ever done that...

[Dagworth]

Given that 90% of us run 25kv stock with no wires,  and 3rd rail stock with no 3rd rail,  and diesel stock with no diesel its got to be a welcome addition,   I refute the likeness of running Porthole stock with HST's,  it more like running Loco Hauled buffer equipped Mk3's with HSTs.  None of us have ever done that...

Would people use concrete sleeper flat bottom rail turnouts mixed with bullhead wooden sleeper plain track?

[njee20]

No point in all these analogies, because the answer is always "yes, some will do that". We all have different standards.

 

I'm happy running grey FL 86s and a couple of coal trains on my WCML layout even though they're a bit early and unprototypical respectively. Many wouldn't know that. Some would find it horribly offensive I'm sure.

 

It's a peculiar choice by Peco certainly.

[Red Baron]

Would people use concrete sleeper flat bottom rail turnouts mixed with bullhead wooden sleeper plain track?

 

again,  most of us use track that is horribly out of scale    but not wishing to start  a fight - i do agree at you would think they would stick to either Mk1 or Mk3  rather than pick and mix.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Red Baron

[Crewlisle]

Could it be that the viewers who were in a position to notice were too polite to say so, given that you were unlikely to change what you had already made?

 

Agree that any or all new products concerning OHL are welcome if they promote interest in the subject as a whole - even if their deficiencies meant I wouldn't use many of them myself.

 

I doubt it as most of  the comments by visitors at exhibitions has been 'Nice to see AC locos running at scale speed' or 'Who is the manufacturer' or 'Can you send me details?'

 

See my comments & photos in comments 61, 66 & 84 in this forum.  An article on my portable OLE, tested to a scale 100mph with pantographs in contact with the wire will appear in BRM later this year.  Crewlisle will be at Alexandra Palace next month where I will be happy to answer any of your queries.

 

Peter

[Gordon H]

I doubt it as most of  the comments by visitors at exhibitions has been 'Nice to see AC locos running at scale speed' or 'Who is the manufacturer' or 'Can you send me details?'

 

See my comments & photos in comments 61, 66 & 84 in this forum.  An article on my portable OLE, tested to a scale 100mph with pantographs in contact with the wire will appear in BRM later this year.  Crewlisle will be at Alexandra Palace next month where I will be happy to answer any of your queries.

 

 

 

Unlikely I will have any queries, having seen your layout on several occasions - and refrained from commenting each time.

Will your forthcoming article cover operation with pantographs actually conducting at high speeds? I can assist with any queries you might have on that aspect.

[Crewlisle]

Unlikely I will have any queries, having seen your layout on several occasions - and refrained from commenting each time.

Will your forthcoming article cover operation with pantographs actually conducting at high speeds? I can assist with any queries you might have on that aspect.

 

Thanks for the offer, but I would never attempt to actually pick up from the catenary especially with the flexibility of DCC.  That is a regular question I am asked, "Is it live?".  It was difficult enough to actually make it all portable let alone make it live!

 

In the article I will explain how I modified the French JV catenary to 'represent' BR catenary, single masts, portal frames, scratch built wires, wires in tunnels & across baseboard joints both in & out of tunnels.  On my 2 x 86s, 1 x 87, 1 x 85, 1 x 82 & APT, I have fitted Sommerfeldt pantographs (except on the Bachmann 85 & Lima 87). 

 

Peter

[Peter Kazmierczak]

The OHLE  looks good, but in the photo above is the crossbeam sagging a bit?

Or is it just the way the photo was taken?

[Benjamin Brady]

It is sagging in the middle it is the one thing I noticed whislt at the show however it would not put me off.

[darrel]

Regarding mixing different types of OHLE. What about places that were electrified at different times. For example Helensburgh to Airdrie was electrified in 1960. Airdrie to Haymarket was electrified 5 years ago.

[Dagworth]

Regarding mixing different types of OHLE. What about places that were electrified at different times. For example Helensburgh to Airdrie was electrified in 1960. Airdrie to Haymarket was electrified 5 years ago.

If you look at Airdrie station you can see that one side of the station is Mark1 equipment - albeit upgraded to UK1 spec but that's a whole different type again, the siding and one platform have Mk1 portals, and then beyond the Craig St bridge is Mk1 cantilevers (not the wide spacing between the contact and catenary wires, and the steep slope of the diagonal tubes of the cantilever)

The other side of the station is Mark3 portals and then all Mk3 equipment beyond the B802 underbridge.

 

What you don't ever get is a mix of Mk3 cantilevers, then Mk portals, then back to Mk3 cantilivers,

 

Andi

[darrel]

Thanks Dagworth that's very useful.

[Gordon H]

That is a regular question I am asked, "Is it live?". 

 

It was the most regular question over 30 years ago too when we were running 'High Gill' at shows, and I was always glad to be able to report that 'yes, it is live'.

[ThaneofFife]

does look like a good addition.  i'd like to see the 2 track version which I think will be a good seller as few have room for long runs of 4 track mainline but still useful for loops etc..

 

I take it they will be finished in a suitable grey finish and that the black in the photo is just a sample in unfinished plastic?

[Gordon H]

does look like a good addition.  i'd like to see the 2 track version which I think will be a good seller as few have room for long runs of 4 track mainline but still useful for loops etc..

 

 

 

If you look back at the original photo, you will see that what is being shown is a two track portal with an extension, so it seems someone at Peco has considered the expansion of the system components from the start - which has to be a good thing.

Pity they didn't show the basic two track portal as well while they were at it.