Jump to content

EFE Rail Winter 2020 Announcements - Beattie Well Tank, Gate Stock, Class 58, Cargowaggons plus 2 new N gauge projects.


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Families tended to be much larger in those days.:D

Grandma had a farmhouse table that could be opened up by turning a handle attached to a long threaded rod and a spare section inserted. At full size it was bigger than an 8 x 4 board.

 

I take Sam with a very large pinch of salt. He is trying to flog his services and as such needs to be a bit controversial. I got as far as the comment regarding   coreless motors. That immediately tells me who he is aiming at. Funnily enough the adverts flagged up another video in which he heaped praise on the Rapido J70.

Bernard

I just enjoy watching sams videos with my kids, I am old enough (53) to take some parts of reviews with the pinch of salt, other areas such as design and build quality he generally gets right. I also have had problems with coreless motors. In the Oxford dean goods bought two one was great (ROD) one was terrible (GWR) that motor was replaced for a Hornby 5 pole out of a J36

Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony of it was he doesn't like Coreless motors but when he tested the loco it had a very good crawl and overall a good performance , which is why he scored performance high . So he does have an open mind . The issue was it couldn't cope with three coaches and he had to reduce it to two on the running test , so he marked it down in that particular section.   I do wonder if the springing of the front axle may have been to blame , as others have said , as to me it did look like the loco sat back at the rear . It was certainly slipping with no load at all. 

 

I think in Sam we have a model railway enthusiast . He admits he doesn't know about prototypes but he is very enthusiastic , and generally he makes a few good points and comparisons . 

Edited by Legend
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Legend said:

The irony of it was he doesn't like Coreless motors but when he tested the loco it had a very good crawl and overall a good performance , which is why he scored performance high . So he does have an open mind . The issue was it couldn't cope with three coaches and he had to reduce it to two on the running test , so he marked it down in that particular section.   I do wonder if the springing of the front axle may have been to blame , as others have said , as to me it did look like the loco sat back at the rear . It was certainly slipping with no load at all. 

 

I think in Sam we have a model railway enthusiast . He admits he doesn't know about prototypes but he is very enthusiastic , and generally he makes a few good points and comparisons . 

On the original crawl test my wife noted the front wheels were not turning so you maybe right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i generally like watching Sam's video's. it's entertainment, he does get into the detail of the loco, running, performance etc. he does it all on a level playing field for all loco's so don't go blaming his track or carpet, it's the same for all loco's and most run ok.

picking up on one point about the BWT, the seem across the top of the boiler. I raised this before its release as an issue and was told their was not one. Having got the loco in my hand it's a horrible seem, so Sam has a valid point.

If i had not already bought said loco, would watching his video have swayed me not to purchase, i suspect so.

Having already got the loco though i can say i'm genuinely really pleased with it, lovely runner, looks great, from 4 ft back you can't tell it's cheap plastic tat :)

 

is it actually worth the money when compared to other sized loco's, no but if you want it, that's the price, so i paid up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jonnyuk said:

i generally like watching Sam's video's. it's entertainment, he does get into the detail of the loco, running, performance etc. he does it all on a level playing field for all loco's so don't go blaming his track or carpet, it's the same for all loco's and most run ok.

picking up on one point about the BWT, the seem across the top of the boiler. I raised this before its release as an issue and was told their was not one. Having got the loco in my hand it's a horrible seem, so Sam has a valid point.

If i had not already bought said loco, would watching his video have swayed me not to purchase, i suspect so.

Having already got the loco though i can say i'm genuinely really pleased with it, lovely runner, looks great, from 4 ft back you can't tell it's cheap plastic tat :)

 

is it actually worth the money when compared to other sized loco's, no but if you want it, that's the price, so i paid up.

When I was about 6 a elderly gentleman who’s house I used to go too to watch trains run around the garden always said “it has to look good from 6ft away lad” and I still think that’s true, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that Sam appeared to have missed in his review was that the plastic footplate on his sample was bent, causing the cab to tilt backwards.  This appeared to also affect the rear buffers, one of which was clearly pointing downwards.  

 

Can someone please clarify for me.  Is this model the same one previously released by Kernow or a different tooling?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rembrow said:

I have the Beattie with square splashes, Late BR. I've found that it sits lower at the rear, so the rear buffers are about 2mm lower than the front, when checked to a common source. Only checked this as I thought that the boiler seemed to be off level, lower at the fiebox end. The front wheels are sprung, so you can't check if a set of driving  wheels is seated wrongly. Is this a common feature?

The buffers are supposed to be lower at the rear, they were on the prototype.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, col.stephens said:

One thing that Sam appeared to have missed in his review was that the plastic footplate on his sample was bent, causing the cab to tilt backwards.  This appeared to also affect the rear buffers, one of which was clearly pointing downwards.  

 

Can someone please clarify for me.  Is this model the same one previously released by Kernow or a different tooling?

It is the same tooling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, col.stephens said:

One thing that Sam appeared to have missed in his review was that the plastic footplate on his sample was bent, causing the cab to tilt backwards.  This appeared to also affect the rear buffers, one of which was clearly pointing downwards.  

 

Can someone please clarify for me.  Is this model the same one previously released by Kernow or a different tooling?

This sort of answers your question:-

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I scanned quite a lot of videos and photos (edit: of the real world Beattie Well Tank). The max load I've seen is 2 coaches and 1 CCT type van. The model handles that really well. The smaller weaker terriers can be seen on slightly bigger trains. Tractive effort is really just an estimate based on some figures the loco has. The terriers have their entire weight donated to adhesion which might explain the somewhat more powerful use.

The Well tank models don't strike me as being robust bits of kit but equally I'm not planning to work them as hard as various 1F tanks (which are larger) neither. On the other hand, they were not used for heavy shuntung either and here I would use the smaller wheel, more apt P class, B4 class or Terriers.

Mine generally work a few china clays and a break van and then not very often.

 

I suppose if you were looking for a small loco, the B4, B2, P, Terrier, J72, sentinal, peckets etc would make more logical choices. But if want a rare charming 2-4-0 antique tank loco, nothing really beats a Well tank.

Edited by JSpencer
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2020 at 10:35, acg5324 said:

Do we now have two N gauge Shark brakevans with the KR Models one?

 

On 03/11/2020 at 12:07, Paddy said:

 

I doubt it as one exists and the other does not...

In NGauge Journal 6/20 received today, there is an advert by KR Models showing that their Shark is in the final stages of CAD design...(page 81)

 

Model Rail also landed on my door mat in the same post today. Page 8 shows the EFE shark.

 

Both the KR Models and EFE Shark appear to have the same origin i.e. Ex. DJM.

 

I do recall at the Fareham Show Sept 2019 Dave Jones had what looked like a first EP sample. 

 

Perhaps KRM bought the CAD and EFE bought the tooling?

 

Alan.

Edited by alan24
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, alan24 said:

Perhaps KRM bought the CAD and EFE bought the tooling?

 

 

I think that is the general consensus of what happened and I believe the KR version has now been dropped in light of the EFE version being imminent. 

 

KR only got to expressions of interest stage anyway as per their other potential N scale offerings of which so far, none seem to have got anywhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

 

I think that is the general consensus of what happened and I believe the KR version has now been dropped in light of the EFE version being imminent. 

 

KR only got to expressions of interest stage anyway as per their other potential N scale offerings of which so far, none seem to have got anywhere. 

I am still hoping that there is a tooling for the King which we are not yet aware of and will turn up with EFE in the Spring.

 

Of course it is highly unlikely but one can hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2020 at 14:13, Oldddudders said:

Why does having an online channel have to make you money? I am not aware that YouTube costs money to join, so it doesn't need to pay for itself. But I suppose if you are Sam, buying every loco in the shop and trying it on the carpet for the benefit of the modelling nation, you have a 'habit' to support. 

One might make the same argument for a lot of things - playing music, putting on a play, painting a picture or anything creative doesn't have to make money, but if you can, then why not? Admittedly I'm a little biased as a YouTuber myself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 21:25, JSpencer said:

I scanned quite a lot of videos and photos (edit: of the real world Beattie Well Tank). The max load I've seen is 2 coaches and 1 CCT type van.

There is a Youtube video of 30587 pulling three Mk1s on the Avon Valley  (2 mins 50sec +)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuQ12HAAxFM&t=51s

Locos Illustrated 59 has  photo of 30586 at Wadebridge said to be backing onto a Bodmin train - if so it ran with 2 box vans between the loco and the two coaches

Edited by Butler Henderson
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So to rebalance things (see what I did) Kernow sent my replacement loco today and I have to say it is lovely, could not be more different than the one I had or the one Sam's Trains reviewed.

 

Just shows how important consistent quality control is!

 

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your video demonstrates the good running qualities of these locos very well, Mike.  Your lighting is very effective I reckon.

 

This thread has encouraged me to run my earlier Kernow and DJM versions a lot, still think it's remarkable that this prototype got made as an r-t-r model. 

 

One thing with the well tanks is that  their driving wheels were quite large (5' 7") for such a small loco so they have quite a stately gait  to them running along.   1366 locos ( their Wadebridge replacement) had 3' 8" wheels so the Heljan model just scurries along. 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

Your video demonstrates the good running qualities of these locos very well, Mike.  Your lighting is very effective I reckon.

 

This thread has encouraged me to run my earlier Kernow and DJM versions a lot, still think it's remarkable that this prototype got made as an r-t-r model. 

 

One thing with the well tanks is that  their driving wheels were quite large (5' 7") for such a small loco so they have quite a stately gait  to them running along.   1366 locos ( their Wadebridge replacement) had 3' 8" wheels so the Heljan model just scurries along. 

 

 

Many thanks, most kind. I struggle with the lighting to be honest, getting something that works within the living room environment is hard going so its nice to hear you feel it to be good :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikesndbs said:

So to rebalance things (see what I did) Kernow sent my replacement loco today and I have to say it is lovely, could not be more different than the one I had or the one Sam's Trains reviewed.

 

Just shows how important consistent quality control is!

 

 

It was the Well Tank that attracted me back to OO from N and I was never disappointed with either of my Kernow/DJM versions.  The only time they struggled was with Hornby ex LSWR coaches which had the brake gear rubbing on the wheels adding a lot of resistance - solved by hacking off the brake shoes.  My two 02s are also lovely runners, better than my Hornby M7s.

 

I'm glad you've now got a good one and can enjoy yours as much as I've enjoyed running mine.

Edited by woodenhead
spelling
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 24/11/2020 at 14:10, Markn said:

 

This week apparently according to rails. I'm looking forwards to getting a set myself.

Seems like they are now in stock, mine is on its way from Derails.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be a major failing of the Sam's Trains concept, if he has a duffer he doesn't return it he just accepts it.   If manufactures srarted getting significant rejections consistant QC would be a priority.  They already have it too much their own way as the limited production run way in which most ooerate now means people are unwilling to return a model knowing they're unlikely to get a replacement.

Also maybe its my age but I don't get the die cast fetish, it used to be plastic mean high fidelity moulds and die cast meant crude.

  • Agree 5
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.