Jump to content
 

Locomotion & Rails of Sheffield announce SE&CR D Class


AY Mod
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, robmcg said:

I do hope it won't offend too many people but I took images from the demonstration video and created a rough idea of what this lovely RTR model might be...   

 

 

Not in this topic please. 

  • Thanks 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Not in this topic please. 

 

Reassuring to see I'm not the only one up at this ungodly hour......

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Just now, Craigw said:

 

It is 3:17pm on Friday afternoon, I would hope you are awake!

 

Craig W

 

Now that's just silly...not my fault you're upside down..

 

Rob 

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GreenGiraffe22 said:

Oh gawd don't! I've already seen photos of a Brighton - Cardiff services going through where my layout is set with something like an LBSCR C2x with a rake of assorted GWR stock 

 

Edit: 

Southern Railway RJ Billinton C2X class 0-6-0 no. 2554 in charge of a Down (i.e. From Brighton) ECS working comprising only GWR mixed rolling stock at Lake Lane on 15/3/1938. [J. H. Venn / Mike Morant collection]

 

Now, that's an invitation for anyone else who wants to spring a surprise locomotive on us ........... a nice easy one, clip-on cabside numberplates for pre-war, clip-on smokebox numberplate for British Railways - no need for any lettering or numbering, just plain filth for all variants.

Edited by Wickham Green
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Now, that's an invitation for anyone else to spring a surprise locomotive on us ........... a nice easy one, clip-on cabside numberplates for pre-war, clip-on smokebox numberplate for British Railways - no need for any lettering or numbering, just plain filth for all variants.

A C2x Vulcan would indeed be nice. It would be the Brighton equivalent of the C Class on SECR and 700 on LSWR. Single or double dome, though? Yes, I have voted for it. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GreenGiraffe22 said:

If anyone is stuck for space to run these, you just need a horse box for a station scene :p

 

 

 

Possibly even better:

 

SECR Wainwright 'D' class 4-4-0, a Guildford engine, with a shunter's truck as its companion, stands at the edge of the carriage sidings at Clapham junction on 31/8/56.

(https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/SR-and-BRS/SECR-tender-engines/i-wQZWMgB/A)

 

Seems quite a few of the class pottered around Clapham at various times with the odd van train and shunting turn. Very convenient.

 

 

Edited by Calidore
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave in and ordered No.488 in original SECR... Afterall, I'm going to need something to run with my other SECR impulse buy (Bachmann C class No.583, which is also on pre-order). 

 

Starting to feel like I'm betraying my GER roots! 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jamesC37LG said:

I gave in and ordered No.488 in original SECR... Afterall, I'm going to need something to run with my other SECR impulse buy (Bachmann C class No.583, which is also on pre-order). 

 

Starting to feel like I'm betraying my GER roots! 

Just paint it blue .No one will notice .

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, jamesC37LG said:

I gave in and ordered No.488 in original SECR... Afterall, I'm going to need something to run with my other SECR impulse buy (Bachmann C class No.583, which is also on pre-order). 

 

Starting to feel like I'm betraying my GER roots! 

At least one D Class made in onto the GER , here's 740 at Liverpool Street on a royal special.

SECR 740 - Liverpool Street Station - Turntable, 1912.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

From what we can see of the close-coupling/electrical connection, I'd like to see this arrangement become an industry-wide standard. Excellent stuff.

 

John

Yyyeehhh .......... if it proves to be sufficiently robust in service - and if Rails are kind enough to let others 'borrow' it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Yyyeehhh .......... if it proves to be sufficiently robust in service - and if Rails are kind enough to let others 'borrow' it.

 

I believe the coupling/connection is a Dapol innovation and will appear first on the Mogul along with a some other clever bits of product design.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

I believe the coupling/connection is a Dapol innovation and will appear first on the Mogul along with a some other clever bits of product design.

 

It is indeed a Dapol innovation but the close coupling idea does of course take a principle established some good time back by certain continental manufacturers - not that it is any worse for that of course.  One of the key aspects of what Dapol are doing is the way in which the designer has approached what he perceived (quite rightly in my view) as a couple of problems that are common in r-t-r models of locos with tenders.  Andy - the designer - made a big, and absolutely spot on, point at the presentation about the handling problems and lack of reliability with the typical 'plug & socket' connection between loco and tender so he has tackled it from a whole fresh angle with what promises to be a far more reliable approach.

 

Equally the close-coupling method whoch also allows for tight 2nd radius curves has been carefully thought out.  The proof of the pudding for us will no come first with the GW mogul, as Phil has said.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It is indeed a Dapol innovation but the close coupling idea does of course take a principle established some good time back by certain continental manufacturers - not that it is any worse for that of course.  One of the key aspects of what Dapol are doing is the way in which the designer has approached what he perceived (quite rightly in my view) as a couple of problems that are common in r-t-r models of locos with tenders.  Andy - the designer - made a big, and absolutely spot on, point at the presentation about the handling problems and lack of reliability with the typical 'plug & socket' connection between loco and tender so he has tackled it from a whole fresh angle with what promises to be a far more reliable approach.

 

Equally the close-coupling method whoch also allows for tight 2nd radius curves has been carefully thought out.  The proof of the pudding for us will no come first with the GW mogul, as Phil has said.

The origin of this coupling is actually not from Dapol,  but from HO continental manufacturers, who have been producing similar for years.

Apologies I missed your reference.

Edited by Denbridge
Credit
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, George_ said:

This model is a breath of new air throughout.  In light of the fact they needed to rescue the Terrier and insist on major changes, Rails and the NRM have taken pains to stridently state how they have insisted on research and other features be 'got right' even going so far as to provide experts to control the process. it's fairly obvious that they are the driving forces behind this model.

If indeed they are to copy certain innovations, I assume Dapol negotiated use of the patent-able items as part payment? 

IMHO The coupling and the pullout PCB should both be nominated for (and win), Rails the innovation of the year award.

I think they are more of a Dapol idea/innovation than Rails. The Dapol Mogul CAD showed the same design of pull out PCB. I have to say it is a novel approach to both issues and should make life much easier for DCC fitting and separating loco/tender. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, George_ said:

...IMHO The coupling and the pullout PCB should both be nominated for (and win), Rails the innovation of the year award.

Let's first see these implemented and working successfully with no visual impact on the appearance of the model or the functional reliability when in owner's hands, eh?

 

Personally I see the coupling as typically an inappropriate item for UK subjects. A loco as large as a 9F will negotiate set track with the tender on a simple drawbar at only slightly over scale separation. The appearance is very good with the framing under the cab on view. Now superimpose a camming link on this neat prototypically faithful appearance . Oh yuk!

 

Implementing a bulky camming link will considerably degrade appearance by visual intrusion on the 9F, D class and most other UK prototypes. (The only types on which it can be successfully largely concealed are the wide firebox types where the framing or trailing truck frame beneath the cab is as deep as on the tender, and extends nearly as wide as the cab side sheets, which means only LNER, LMS, SR and BR pacifics, V2 and P2.)

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 11:08, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Let's first see these implemented and working successfully with no visual impact on the appearance of the model or the functional reliability when in owner's hands, eh?

 

Personally I see the coupling as typically an inappropriate item for UK subjects. A loco as large as a 9F will negotiate set track with the tender on a simple drawbar at only slightly over scale separation. The appearance is very good with the framing under the cab on view. Now superimpose a camming link on this neat prototypically faithful appearance . Oh yuk!

 

Implementing a bulky camming link will considerably degrade appearance by visual intrusion on the 9F, D class and most other UK prototypes. (The only types on which it can be successfully largely concealed are the wide firebox types where the framing or trailing truck frame beneath the cab is as deep as on the tender, and extends nearly as wide as the cab side sheets, which means only LNER, LMS, SR and BR pacifics, V2 and P2.)

 

 

Bachmann incorporated a cam arrangement on their SR Mogul from the outset, albeit non-separable and without an electrical hook-up. The appearance is pretty much the same as what Hornby have been doing with recent introductions/updates to their range. 

 

In any case, the CCUs typically fitted to UK r-t-r coaches don't have to be as wide as they are, it's just that the space is there and bigger ones are easier to make. By comparison, the Symoba aftermarket unit is self-contained, self-centreing,  and only 11mm wide over the outside of the housing. The mechanism itself would fit within a recess narrow enough (9mm-ish) to be incorporated into a typical r-t-r chassis casting. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

...the CCUs typically fitted to UK r-t-r coaches don't have to be as wide as they are, it's just that the space is there and bigger ones are easier to make. By comparison, the Symoba aftermarket unit is self-contained, self-centreing,  and only 11mm wide over the outside of the housing. The mechanism itself would fit within a recess narrow enough (9mm-ish) to be incorporated into a typical r-t-r chassis casting. 

All acknowledged, and I would hope for very careful attention to maximum concealment and efficient function. But this is all dependent on design effort, functional proof testing and attention to manufacturing implementation; and is significantly more complex than the simple drawbar, supplemented by wires and a plug and socket, which works very well indeed because the mechanical element closely replicates the prototype arrangement.

 

I have been very glad to have the CCU's in RTR coaches since they first migrated from HO to OO in Bach's mk1s, and quickly found my own way to get the Pullman gangway faceplates in contact, with all the benefits in gangwayed train appearance and performance this brings. The CCU is a worthwhile device in this application, and much missed when as on Bachmann's pilot scheme DMU's it was not fitted.

 

With tender loco models, where not provided, a scale separation drawbar is made, fixed features on the dragboxes eliminated as required, and a fall plate added if one was not fitted to the model. Where the model comes with a freely adjustable slide for the simple drawbar and a hinged fall plate if appropriate (RTR OO benchmark, Bachmann's provision of these features) it is quite surprising how little extra distance over true scale separation is required for smaller UK locos to negotiate the set track point, with the fall plate still resting on the tender step. So simple and well proven, no extra design and manufacturing effort required, looks good. This is a classic of  'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken the gamble and put down a deposit on a Black SR Sunshine  lettered D. 

 

The real gamble is in the international trade aspect for me of this transaction with the dreaded B-word possibly having happened by the 3 Q 2020 on top of trade and tariff wars with China and everyone manipulating exchange rates.  I have only one connection to the locomotive in that my great-grandfather was an LCD/SECR employee at Sydenham Hill circa 1890-1910 and might have seen one (certainly not in SR Black, but that is the only proper color for any small steam engine) entering or exiting the Penge tunnel about the time he retired.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...