RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted August 26, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 26, 2020 On 24/08/2020 at 21:36, Duncan. said: Clayton Class 17 I bought a model of 8512. It's not really suitable for my Shirebrook layout, however, the design of the loco is so different from anything I would normally run I thought why not. When I opened the box my first reaction was 'It looks big', bigger than I imagined. After I read the instructions I left the loco running in on my test track for 1 hour. It ran very well. I was also surprised that it was very light (44g) even lighter than the Farish class 20 at 59g, however it had no problems hauling prototypical length trains on my layout. I checked a couple of dimensions (and found just like the Mermaids that DJM produced) the bufferbeam is too high, higher in fact than any of my other locos and rolling stock, about 0.7mm. The other measurement I found to be wrong was the overall height which I measured at 27.4mm I calculated it should be about 1.3mm lower if the prototype measurements I have are correct. Perhaps that explains my initial reaction that it looked big. All other major dimensions were close enough to call correct. I have read elsewhere that the glazing can be improved by colouring the edges black to reduce the prismatic effect which as delivered isn't great and there was also a question about the size of the 4 character headcode apertures on the noses. I can't decide if they are small or not (can someone measure the size on the prototype?), but they don't look quite right. I have tried to see where the extra height is in the model, I get the feeling that the cab is too high, the proportion of the cab windows look slightly too deep the cab just looks too tall above the bonnets when I compare to prototype photos. It is easiest perhaps to spot by comparing the proportions of the exhaust stack between the cab front windows on the prototype and model, the model version is clearly 'longer' and therefore looks narrower than the prototype. Cheers Duncan Looks bulky in all dimensions to me. OK, we all know that this type of locomotive, with narrow bonnets, is the most difficult to replicate in a model that has to go round trainset curves. But better to accept that it can't be done than to build up peoples' expectations of a good model. As someone else has written, a return to the 70s for N gauge. Sorry to be so negative (I am having a really bad day elsewhere) but I was so looking forward to this release and am now rather disappointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 A return to the 70s? Some people seem to have short memories what the 1970s looked like in N Lima Deltic, class 31 or even it's attempt at a class 17 - a German bo-bo in a BR livery. Minitrix engines - the Britannia and 9f - same body different chassis, the squat looking 47 and the 2mts. Then we had Farish with it's single mould bodies plus generic suburban and express coaches. This model is not a return to the 70s. 3 10 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingley hall Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 3 hours ago, Izzy said: Hm, this sounds like a time warp back to the 1970’s, thought we'd managed to get beyond that era in N, such a shame. Izzy I hear tomorrow the sky's falling in 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 Well it's head and shoulders above every other RTR Clayton in 2mm that's gone before it. And if 1.3mm is literally a head and shoulders (it's 10 inches, so there or thereabouts) it's not so glaring from normal drooling distance. If I weren't so committed (read 'in up to my head and shoulders') to a fleet of OO Class 17s (20-plus), then this signature traction could have persuaded me to downscale, the better to portray the Big Country in a garage space. I wish all N-gauge Claytonites the very best of fun with their foxy little machines. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingley hall Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 39 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: Looks bulky in all dimensions to me. OK, we all know that this type of locomotive, with narrow bonnets, is the most difficult to replicate in a model that has to go round trainset curves. But better to accept that it can't be done than to build up peoples' expectations of a good model. As someone else has written, a return to the 70s for N gauge. Sorry to be so negative (I am having a really bad day elsewhere) but I was so looking forward to this release and am now rather disappointed. It's been measured by a respected source and the height was the only dimension out. But the 'legends' have been established - poor haulage capacity (most people are having no issues), dimensionally incorrect - and unfortunately these will be repeated ad nauseam on this and other forums from now until eternity. 4 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted August 26, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 26, 2020 17 minutes ago, bingley hall said: I hear tomorrow the sky's falling in I have heard sarcasm is the lowest form of whit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Izzy said: I have heard sarcasm is the lowest form of whit. Not quite, pointing out spelling mistakes is lower still. 2 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted August 26, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, bingley hall said: poor haulage capacity (most people are having no issues), So who are "most people" in this instance? Edited August 26, 2020 by spamcan61 inability to type on a phone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithlord75 Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 3 hours ago, Izzy said: Hm, this sounds like a time warp back to the 1970’s, thought we'd managed to get beyond that era in N, such a shame. Izzy I see the DJ Hand in this. He's got form in getting sizes wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 59 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said: Looks bulky in all dimensions to me. OK, we all know that this type of locomotive, with narrow bonnets, is the most difficult to replicate in a model that has to go round trainset curves. But better to accept that it can't be done than to build up peoples' expectations of a good model. As someone else has written, a return to the 70s for N gauge. Sorry to be so negative (I am having a really bad day elsewhere) but I was so looking forward to this release and am now rather disappointed. I measured one of mine from rail height to the roof apex and found it to be exactly 27mm. This, at 2.065mm to 1ft works out at 13ft 1ins whereas it should be 12ft 8ins so it is actually by my measurements a "whopping" 5 ins over scale in height or circa 0,8 of a mm. Obviously it would be better if it were spot on, but personally I can live with that, I think it is a terrific model and am delighted it has found its way to market. Roy 4 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithlord75 Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, Roy L S said: I measured one of mine from rail height to the roof apex and found it to be exactly 27mm. This, at 2.065mm to 1ft works out at 13ft 1ins whereas it should be 12ft 8ins so it is actually by my measurements a "whopping" 5 ins over scale in height or circa 0,8 of a mm. Obviously it would be better if it were spot on, but personally I can live with that, I think it is a terrific model and am delighted it has found its way to market. Roy Did you have a full fuel load? and how worn are the springs?? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 Just now, Sithlord75 said: Did you have a full fuel load? and how worn are the springs?? Don't forget tyre-wear too, it all adds up! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 56 minutes ago, 'CHARD said: Well it's head and shoulders above every other RTR Clayton in 2mm that's gone before it. And if 1.3mm is literally a head and shoulders (it's 10 inches, so there or thereabouts) it's not so glaring from normal drooling distance. I absolutely agree Chard. From my measurements the discrepancy is 0.8mm but even if it were 1.3mm then 1.3 / 2.065 (British N is 2 and 1/16mm to the ft) = 0.63 ft x 12 = 7.5 inches.... The discrepancy could be at least partly explained by the necessarily oversized gap between bogie and loco body. Quite honestly it feels to me as if some people aren't satisfied unless they can find something to complain about in a model. Roy 3 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Trains4U Posted August 26, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 26, 2020 well, I'd better throw my stock in the bin and replace them with these... 3 22 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedepot Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) i wonder if Bachmann will be painting any class 17s in db colours to sell as v100s? Edited August 26, 2020 by bluedepot 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) I have collected a Clayton from the model shop, it is green/full yellow ends/ black buffer beams. If EFE sell enough to require a second run please may we have the missing livery version which is green/full yellow end /RED buffer beams? Red beams give the Clayton a visual lift in my opinion and when I buy the blue version, I will pick the one with red beams The video link shows the liveries the Claytons carried https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVFYCMEoi9A Edited August 26, 2020 by Pandora 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixie Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 Looking at this whilst considering a 2mm fine scale conversion - the prototype has 3’ 3 3/4” wheels according to the CLAG Wheelbase data which scales out to 6.8mm in 1/148. Measuring the EFE wheels measure 7.45mm so there’s a 0.65mm gain in height there which goes along way to the 0.8mm discrepancy discussed above. The final bit could easily be lost by tweaking the ‘flappy paddle’ pick up arrangement or replacement with springs as I plan to do. It’s still an excellent basis for taking the model further; I’m well up for a couple more of them. Pix 6 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Pixie said: Looking at this whilst considering a 2mm fine scale conversion - the prototype has 3’ 3 3/4” wheels according to the CLAG Wheelbase data which scales out to 6.8mm in 1/148. Measuring the EFE wheels measure 7.45mm so there’s a 0.65mm gain in height there which goes along way to the 0.8mm discrepancy discussed above. The final bit could easily be lost by tweaking the ‘flappy paddle’ pick up arrangement or replacement with springs as I plan to do. It’s still an excellent basis for taking the model further; I’m well up for a couple more of them. Pix Divide the 0.65mm by two as it is the radius measurement which will reflect the extra height from the axle to the rail, but nonetheless still a reasonable chunk of the 0.8mm all the same, I mean when someone is quibbling about 0.5mm and you see what that actually is on a steel rule with those graduations all I can say is....really??? Regards Roy Edited August 26, 2020 by Roy L S signed name more than once 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusDe Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Pandora said: I have collected a Clayton from the model shop, it is green/full yellow ends/ black buffer beams. If EFE sell enough to require a second run please may we have the missing livery version which is green/full yellow end /RED buffer beams? Red beams give the Clayton a visual lift in my opinion and when I buy the blue version, I will pick the one with red beams The video link shows the liveries the Claytons carried https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVFYCMEoi9A Nice set of pics there, many from the Polmadie I remember as a boy. I used to find them fascinating, I guess it was the centre cab, when I saw them out and about in Glasgow. Mine arrived in the post this morning, I've spent the afternoon watching it go round in circles, and trying to make my mind up which direction my embryonic layout is going to go in. Captures the look perfectly in my book! Angus Edit: screw your eyes up, and think Southside Glasgow, urban decay, 1970ish..... Edited August 26, 2020 by AngusDe 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 These look good to me (I’m definitely not an expert!) so I’ve ordered two BR blue, weathered examples. ...which leads me to a question. Can anybody with better knowledge explain the multiple working variations within the class? According to the Wikipedia entry the class was equipped as follows: D8500–D8587 ◆Red Diamond D8588–D8616 ★Blue Star The EFE models all either have blue star markings or are not marked at all, with the exception of E84509 WSL EFE Rail Class 17 Diesel Locomotive D8600 BR Green which has red diamonds. According to Wikipedia this is one of the blue star series! Can anybody more knowledgeable explain what is going on? Have EFE got the wrong running numbers for red diamond vs blue square locos? Is the Wikipedia entry wrong? Or is Wikipedia correct for Multiple Working “as built”, but some locos were changed from one multiple working system to another during their working lives? For what its worth the two models I’ve ordered both have blue star markings and I’d like to be able to run them as a double header, but one of them is D8606 (blue star number series according to Wikipedia) and the other is D8507 (red diamond series). In preservation the real D8568 (red circle series as per Wikipedia) has blue star markings. Yours confused, Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithlord75 Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 9 minutes ago, tiger said: These look good to me (I’m definitely not an expert!) so I’ve ordered two BR blue, weathered examples. ...which leads me to a question. Can anybody with better knowledge explain the multiple working variations within the class? According to the Wikipedia entry the class was equipped as follows: D8500–D8587 ◆Red Diamond D8588–D8616 ★Blue Star The EFE models all either have blue star markings or are not marked at all, with the exception of E84509 WSL EFE Rail Class 17 Diesel Locomotive D8600 BR Green which has red diamonds. According to Wikipedia this is one of the blue star series! Can anybody more knowledgeable explain what is going on? Have EFE got the wrong running numbers for red diamond vs blue square locos? Is the Wikipedia entry wrong? Or is Wikipedia correct for Multiple Working “as built”, but some locos were changed from one multiple working system to another during their working lives? For what its worth the two models I’ve ordered both have blue star markings and I’d like to be able to run them as a double header, but one of them is D8606 (blue star number series according to Wikipedia) and the other is D8507 (red diamond series). In preservation the real D8568 (red circle series as per Wikipedia) has blue star markings. Yours confused, Tom. The Class 17s were eventually reworked to have both sets able to work with each other. I'm not sure which code they all eventually conformed too. Hopefully the EFE art work was done from photos of real ones so it would be a case of look yours up and see what they were coded and when. Apparently the Ian Allen ABCs had this kind of detail but I live too far away and was born at the wrong time any case to be any help with those. Cheers Kevin of Oz 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingley hall Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 16 hours ago, spamcan61 said: So who are "most people" in this instance? Numerous happy punters on the N gauge forum, with only one person having had haulage issues - on a 1 in 25 grade! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingley hall Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 3 hours ago, tiger said: These look good to me (I’m definitely not an expert!) so I’ve ordered two BR blue, weathered examples. ...which leads me to a question. Can anybody with better knowledge explain the multiple working variations within the class? According to the Wikipedia entry the class was equipped as follows: D8500–D8587 ◆Red Diamond D8588–D8616 ★Blue Star The EFE models all either have blue star markings or are not marked at all, with the exception of E84509 WSL EFE Rail Class 17 Diesel Locomotive D8600 BR Green which has red diamonds. According to Wikipedia this is one of the blue star series! Can anybody more knowledgeable explain what is going on? Have EFE got the wrong running numbers for red diamond vs blue square locos? Is the Wikipedia entry wrong? Or is Wikipedia correct for Multiple Working “as built”, but some locos were changed from one multiple working system to another during their working lives? For what its worth the two models I’ve ordered both have blue star markings and I’d like to be able to run them as a double header, but one of them is D8606 (blue star number series according to Wikipedia) and the other is D8507 (red diamond series). In preservation the real D8568 (red circle series as per Wikipedia) has blue star markings. Yours confused, Tom. I partly answered this on the previous page To expand.....I believe that over time most of the red diamond locos were converted to blue star, especially those that were repainted blue. A quick search on Flickr brings up D8507 at Millerhill during July 70 in blue livery with blue stars. However at least one of the Beyer Peacock built examples D8600 green SYP - one of the EFE weathered ones - carried the red diamonds and is correctly modelled so, There is also a pic on Flickr of 8599 at Tyne Yard in July 1969 with no mu working symbols at all. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted August 27, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 27, 2020 3 hours ago, bingley hall said: Numerous happy punters on the N gauge forum, with only one person having had haulage issues - on a 1 in 25 grade! Trouble is, some people are very easily pleased, and some are unpleasable, so 'happy' is meaningless without some actual numbers of wagons hauled so we can get some clue as to what average haulage capacity is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy L S Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 (edited) I haven't felt a need to test the limit of haulage, but 20 Farish Presflo wagons and a Brake Van and it isn't at all taxed. In reality I doubt a single Clayton would manage 20 loaded Presflos that easily, I suspect the weight with a brake would be well over 600 Tons, I can visualise bits of engine letting go! Smoke generator function for engine fire anyone? Roy Edited August 27, 2020 by Roy L S 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now