Jump to content

EFE Rail launches N gauge Class 17 and Mermaids


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, John M Upton said:

None ever received their TOPS numbers.  By the time renumbering was in full swing, all bar a couple that were used by the RTC were either dead, dying or baked bean cans.

To expand on the end of life Derby Claytons, I think there were three,  well-known is the Clayton for Derby RTC for use on RTC  trains, it had  an early and sudden demise due to damage caused by running with a parking brake applied,  less known are the two examples seen at Derby Works, they were modified for other purposes, possibly mobile generator units, I saw the pair while visiting Derby Works visit about 1969 and somewhere I have a photograph of them, from memory they were in a non -standard all-over chromatic blue without yellow warning panels,  the latter suggests they  were not capable of self-powered  movement. I do not have their original numbers to hand or any information as to their fate.

Do we have any Clayton experts on the thread with more  knowledge of the pair?

 

postscript; link to an image Clayton  S18521

 

p314196643-4.jpg

 

 

Edited by Pandora
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

All the pics of the RTR models on this thread seem to be missing the corner steps. Are they supplied and has anyone bothered to fit them?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grahame said:

All the pics of the RTR models on this thread seem to be missing the corner steps. Are they supplied and has anyone bothered to fit them?

 

 

 

 

Yes and Yes.

 

Cheers,

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are supplied Grahame, but I think they would best be described as cosmetic as they foul the bogies when fitted. To be fair I guess the prototype was never intended to go around the equivalent to N gauge R1 and 2 curves it's minimum being 230ft which scales to about 19 inches.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

 but I think they would best be described as cosmetic as they foul the bogies when fitted.

 

 

Hmmm, sounds like a design issue. Do the instructions give a limit on the radius of bends it should operate over or claim that they are only cosmetic and shouldn't be fitted if the model is to be run?

 

8 minutes ago, Pixie said:

 

Yes and Yes.

 

 

Any pics. And any issues with fouling?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Hmmm, sounds like a design issue. Do the instructions give a limit on the radius of bends it should operate over or claim that they are only cosmetic and shouldn't be fitted if the model is to be run?

 

 

Any pics. And any issues with fouling?

 

 

 

Nothing specific in the instructions relating to the steps Grahame, indeed the exploded diagram shows them in place! 

 

There isn't enough clearance for much bogie swing so I didn't try to fit mine. I do agree, a different design solution such as positioning the steps on the bogies would have worked but I suspect it was a case of not wanting to review things or alter the DJM tooling. I think the only change to the DJM spec has been the Next 18 decoder socket.

 

Notwithstanding a few issues though I think it is still a very decent package, especially for the price - are you not even slightly tempted by a BR blue one?

 

Regards

 

Roy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, grahame said:

...Do the instructions give a limit on the radius of bends it should operate over or claim that they are only cosmetic and shouldn't be fitted if the model is to be run?

Did whichever operation manufactured it fail to include something in the information sheet on the lines of:

 

Add-on  detail parts.

The footsteps fit as shown. The parts may not be suitable for use on tight curves - check before fitting permanently.

 

(That's a  direct lift from a Bachmann OO product, and pretty much describes what seems to me an accepted convention: user optional detail parts are made so for a reason, because the owner has to test them over the smallest radius on the layout the item will operate on, to see if it is possible to permanently fit them. The model out of the box will by design operate over whatever is the specified minimum radius.)

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/09/2020 at 11:10, Roy L S said:

It's all about compromise. space had to be made for the close coupling mechanism, inevitably removing it will have left a gap. Whether the feature was necessary is definitely a matter of opinion, I would have preferred bogie mounting personally but the designer decided it should be this way.

 

Inevitably one can spot all sorts of anomalies in enlarged pictures, and the exhaust is clearly not as tight a fit as it could have been. It is not unusual, few models are perfect, take the first incarnation of new tool Farish 47s with the bogie spacing issue just for one. For sure the Clayton's exhaust "stack" should fit flush to the underside of the roof, but at normal viewing distances without being blown up many times actual size it is noting like so visible. 

 

Nothing is perfect but it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of people are well satisfied with their Class 17 models which have been priced very keenly in the current market, and for those for whom it doesn't cut the mustard there is always the Parkwood kit (joking!) or a go at a scratch-build I guess....

 

Roy

 

 

 

For some of us the fun in modelling is seeing how much we can improve something! 

 

The cl.17 definitely has some compromises which I see as opportunities for improvement, so I enjoy seeing how far I can take that. I'm not saying its a terrible model, or a waste of money, or anything like that. In a sense, I almost find it more fun to have something to get my teeth into improving, rather than something being perfect from the box.

 

On 12/09/2020 at 18:52, Neil said:

1704451373_claytonprob.jpg.54849d7a4bc303519be23d02577e2ace.jpg

 

There's a gap top and bottom of the exhaust cover which shouldn't be there. It looks as though the cab can't seat properly which might account for some excess height and the gap at the bottom, not sure why there's a gap at the top though.

 

The gap at the top of the exhaust stack is perplexing! The whole bottom of the cab moulding could be filed down to bring the cab down sit more flush to the bonnet (which would lose the clips, so cab would have to be held with tacky wax or something) - but the top of the stack must have been deliberately designed to be too short - bizarre. Perhaps more likely, the stack is the correct height, but the curve of the roof is too steep? Either way filling the gap might make a visual improvement, even if it would require a bit of a repaint. 

 

All of the little compromises add up to giving it a bit of an upright "startled rabbit" look, whereas the real thing has more of a long, low, lumbering look to it. Funnily enough I don't think the close coupler mechanism actually accounts for the height issue at all - its all accommodated within the height of the sole bar really. It seems like the height is accounted for by two things: bogie pickup tab being made too large, and an error in the design/tolerances of the cab moulding.

 

J

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those seeking guidance on the number of Claytons in the various liveries could check out the Transition Diesels group on RMWeb, where the class gets substantial coverage.  Russ Saxton, myself and others have put a lot of work into getting as definitive picture as possible of the liveries worn at withdrawal.  It's a rough three-way split of BFYE, GSYP and GFYE. At this point there's no definitive list of those locos that received black solebars or buffer beams in green.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/09/2020 at 13:24, grahame said:

 

Hmmm, sounds like a design issue. Do the instructions give a limit on the radius of bends it should operate over or claim that they are only cosmetic and shouldn't be fitted if the model is to be run?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing in the print.

 

Without them mine had no issues with the 8.5 inch radius (Continental R1) hidden corners on Bregenbach, which is the layout I happened to have set up when it arrived.

 

Les

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I'm making tentative steps towards an N gauge layout and last month bought some plain Kato track and an EFE Clayton, which ran fine. This week I bought a couple of Kato #4 points and the Clayton derails when running over them. It only happens when the loco enters the point from the toe end and is switched to take the curved track - it's fine if it is switched to go straight on. The derailing occurs when the leading bogie meets the switch blade; when running very slowly you can see the wheel lift up. Looking at the Kato points, the switch blades are pretty sloppy and come to rest above the rail level. I suspect that when the Clayton meets the switch blades, it is not heavy enough to force them down so it rides up and derails. I bought a s/h Farish class 66 today, a much heavier beast and this has no problems at all.

Can anyone suggest a way of adding extra weight to the Clayton? I don't want to do anything too scary, but are there any easily accessible voids where weight could be added?

Thanks in advance.

Graham     

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dagrizz said:

Hi,

I'm making tentative steps towards an N gauge layout and last month bought some plain Kato track and an EFE Clayton, which ran fine. This week I bought a couple of Kato #4 points and the Clayton derails when running over them. It only happens when the loco enters the point from the toe end and is switched to take the curved track - it's fine if it is switched to go straight on. The derailing occurs when the leading bogie meets the switch blade; when running very slowly you can see the wheel lift up. Looking at the Kato points, the switch blades are pretty sloppy and come to rest above the rail level. I suspect that when the Clayton meets the switch blades, it is not heavy enough to force them down so it rides up and derails. I bought a s/h Farish class 66 today, a much heavier beast and this has no problems at all.

Can anyone suggest a way of adding extra weight to the Clayton? I don't want to do anything too scary, but are there any easily accessible voids where weight could be added?

Thanks in advance.

Graham     

 

It is a Bo-Bo on Kato #4 points.  Plenty of others of practically every make on the planet do the same.

 

I gave up on Kato track when trying to run US outline because my smaller Atlas Bo-Bos split the points regularly, though the Life-Like ones didn't.  Similarly an expensive brass Erie Lackawanna SD45 Co-Co also split the points.  Moving to Continental and having the Kato points on a running-in track the points defeated Piko and Brawa diesels but Arnold ones were quite happy.  Dapol A4s don't much like these points, though oddly A3s are quite happy...

 

I would respectfully suggest a different make of track.  The Clayton is quite happy on Fleischmann including three-ways and curved points.

 

Les

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dagrizz said:

 The derailing occurs when the leading bogie meets the switch blade; when running very slowly you can see the wheel lift up. Looking at the Kato points, the switch blades are pretty sloppy and come to rest above the rail level.

 

These may help.

 

 

 

This video has some loud burst of music at the start.

 

Good luck

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replies. After watching the videos I decided to try the modification and it does work. However, one of the points now derailed both the Clayton and the 66 when running straight on, the switch blade was not returning flush to the running rail. So I took off the base plate to have a look and the reason the mechanism is so sloppy is that it relies on a long thin wire to move the switch blades - using the wire to move side-to-side as a spring. This does not look like a robust mechanism. I gave the wire a tweak, reassembled and tried it again - everything now works OK in all directions with repeated switching back and forth. But my confidence that these points will be reliable in the long term is rather low and so I'm reluctant to use them on a permanent layout.

 

This is all disappointing in that the trackwork is designed to be used repeatedly with frequent dismantling, yet the one part of the system that moves seems to be the flimsiest.

 

Another thought - I've been operating the points using the manual switch. Does the point motor act similarly to the manual switch or can it perhaps give the blades a bit more of a push?

 

Thanks again

Graham 

 

 

 

               

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/09/2020 at 23:13, justin1985 said:

I'm pretty sure the flappy bogie electrical pick up transmission design is the cause of most of the problem here. If you press down on the loco, it sinks down onto its bogies by the best part of the excess height. I bow down to those with more engineering expertise on what modification, if any, would help ...

 

IMG_20200903_181659.jpg.7053bc6ad078a39740ef65134c2115ce.jpg

(Buffer height)

IMG_20200903_181446__01.jpg.ea7bd879e9e87aed845135198e580608.jpg

(The warehouse doorway is lower than it should technically be, but it does accommodate literally every Farish, Dapol, or PECO wagon that I've tried)

 

J

 

D8568 - which was latterly in use as the works shunter at Ribble Cement at Clitheroe had a similar problem.

It wouldn't fit under the loader.

Which was part of the reason for them selling it into preservation.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bomag said:

number 4 points are smaller radius than number 6. Think Peco medium and large radii points

 

Thanks, I did know about the different radius, but is the mechanism similar? I think that the two main problems are the fit of the switch blade against the running rail which can be improved with the mod in the videos, but also the sloppy mechanism where you don't have a positive switching action to keep the switch blade firmly in place.

 

Graham    

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dagrizz said:

 

Thanks, I did know about the different radius, but is the mechanism similar? I think that the two main problems are the fit of the switch blade against the running rail which can be improved with the mod in the videos, but also the sloppy mechanism where you don't have a positive switching action to keep the switch blade firmly in place.

 

Graham    

i've never had an issue with #6 points. they work perfectly. so many seem to have issues with #4s. i've avoided using them when doing my initial research on track systems. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, peak experience said:

i've never had an issue with #6 points. they work perfectly. so many seem to have issues with #4s. i've avoided using them when doing my initial research on track systems. 

 

I bought a #6 point today and everything I've tried so far has run through it without any problems. The mechanism feels a little more positive too, so I think this is the answer.

 

Thanks everyone for your assistance.

 

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A short running session the all new British Rail 'Clayton' Class 17, in N from EFE Rail. 
Finished in eye-catching Ribble Cement White and Green, the model is seen in action on my N Gauge Photo-plank, during a recent filming session for Railway Modeller. 
Hope you enjoy!

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.