N Gauge Class 45

[Monkersson]

2 hours ago, fezza said:

Each to their own, but I doubt they'll be grown men in tears at St. Pancras when the last 319 is withdrawn. I don't see hundreds of people chasing mileage on 800s either. Plus most Peak bashers must be well into their 50s now with the disposable income to buy them.

 

I  think the only units that ever attracted much of a real world following were Pacers and even that was in a wry semi-ironic way.

 

Yes we need units for realistic operations, but for goodness sake give us a model of one of the most popular diesel locos of all time. 

 

 

If you really want a Peak then either find one on eBay or build the P&D Marsh kit, or wait on Farish retooling.

 

It would be financial suicide for another manufacturer to proceed with a new Peak when Farish have a recently developed 1-Co-Co-1 chassis sitting there.   We could end up with duplication, could the market stand duplication for a series of loco's which only carried 5 main liveries?

 

It would make more sense to spend the money on something that hasn't been produced before be it an 81-85 or an MU

Edited September 22, 2021 by Monkersson

[Davexoc]

3 hours ago, fezza said:

I  think the only units that ever attracted much of a real world following were Pacers and even that was in a wry semi-ironic way.

 

I think you'll find the Bubble cars had a quite a send-off, and it was not in any way ironic....

 

As for Peaks, I've got one of each at the moment. I'll have a sealed beam one and possibly a split headcode one, but I'm not in any hurry....

[Roy L S]

This thread has, as well as prompting me to dig out my Class 45 also encouraged me to have a go at chipping it (not sound that looks like major surgery). It doesn't look that hard at all ( he says ).

 

Roy

[Steven B]

18 hours ago, Monkersson said:

We could end up with duplication, could the market stand duplication for a series of loco's which only carried 5 main liveries?

Class 66s aside, We've had duplication of the LNER B1 (4 liveries?) and the class 220 (two liveries).

 

If the tooling for the Peaks is damaged beyond repair as per the internet rumour mill then we're just as likely to see one from one of the other manufacturers.

 

The only thing Farish can copy and paste from the Class 40 chassis is the mechanical parts of the  bogie (the side frames are different). The Peaks were shorter between bogie centres by 1' 7" (around 3mm in N) which would need a redesigned chassis. That's not a lot, but it would be enough to throw out the look of a model together with the size and positioning of the underframe gubbins.

 

Steven B.

[DaveArkley]

16 minutes ago, Steven B said:

If the tooling for the Peaks is damaged beyond repair as per the internet rumour mill then we're just as likely to see one from one of the other manufacturers.

Not heard that rumour, but even if true I doubt others would invest in tooling costs only to find themselves competing with Bachmann. I recall the B1 saga when Farish and Dapol released at the same time. IMHO (and plenty of others to) the Farish product was far superior and so Dapol were left with plenty on the shelves.

 

Given development costs these days, who would risk a repeat? I think the next N gauge peaks will come from Farish or someone really brave, but who knows when?

 

Cheers

Dave

Edited September 23, 2021 by DaveArkley
Spelling

[woodenhead]

Who else would do one at present, it's going to be N gauge only as Bachmann and Heljan are going it in OO and Heljan already have them in 0.

 

Realistically, you are talking RevolutioN, Sonic or Rapido, with RevolutioN I would think an 87 or an 81 would fit their profile better, Sonic are expanding in steam ranges and Rapido are still busy with the Metrovick, the Peak being too mainstream perhaps as well.  Dapol seem to have a lower appetite for new models in N, the M7 is plodding along and the Bob/WC is so far away it's practically not even a definite model.

 

So that leaves Farish, given the work they've done on the OO gauge model, that people are showing a real interest in it and it's the big gap now in their range,   It will be in their plans, we just don't know the timescale, possibly before a Next18 47 though as the latest 47's went back to 6 pin DCC as they didn't have capacity to do the re-work.

[frobisher]

On 21/09/2021 at 12:58, Bomag said:

  Even looking at 3rd rail EMUs there was limited types which were in all three divisions -CIG and VEP.

 

BEP as well  

[Roy L S]

In other news my D55 is now chipped and running very nicely. I did have to sacrifice a cab interior to locate the chip as I didn't want to carve up the chassis too much, but you don't notice unless you look from a few inches.

 

I am glad in a way this thread took off in the way it did as it made me take a look at what I already have, I doubt I would even have dug the loco out were it not for this discussion .

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, Roy L S said:

In other news my D55 is now chipped and running very nicely. I did have to sacrifice a cab interior to locate the chip as I didn't want to carve up the chassis too much, but you don't notice unless you look from a few inches.

 

I am glad in a way this thread took off in the way it did as it made me take a look at what I already have, I doubt I would even have dug the loco out were it not for this discussion .

I sold my 46 last year so I don't have that option....

[acg5324]

2 hours ago, frobisher said:

 

BEP as well  

…and EPBs, SUBs, could argue HAPs and SAPs…..then there’s the DEMUs…….if anyone ever does a 6L or a 6B……which operated on all three divisions….I’m in!

[Monkersson]

5 hours ago, Steven B said:

The only thing Farish can copy and paste from the Class 40 chassis is the mechanical parts of the  bogie (the side frames are different). The Peaks were shorter between bogie centres by 1' 7" (around 3mm in N) which would need a redesigned chassis. That's not a lot, but it would be enough to throw out the look of a model together with the size and positioning of the underframe gubbins.

 

Steven B.

I wasn't suggesting that they use the 40 chassis as is, more a case of they have a chassis of the right configuration ready to go.  I would hazard a guess that if/when they reintroduce the Peak, it will be a full blown new tool rather than a tickle over, not having to tool a new chassis/bogie block would reduce costs.

 

There have been duplications in the past, but it doesn't seem to happen anymore, which is good because the N-Gauge market isn't really big enough for 2 hi-spec models of the same limited prototype.

 

 

[Mike Harvey]

5 minutes ago, Monkersson said:

 

 

There have been duplications in the past, but it doesn't seem to happen anymore, which is good because the N-Gauge market isn't really big enough for 2 hi-spec models of the same limited prototype.

 

 

Unless you count the Dapol and RevolutioN trains Class 59 as duplication. :-)

[Monkersson]

1 hour ago, Mike Harvey said:

Unless you count the Dapol and RevolutioN trains Class 59 as duplication. :-)

Well thats true, however the 59 has carried a lot more liveries than the Peaks (Im a fan of the Peaks although I only seen one in real life)

 

The gestation period for Dapol's proposed 59 is glacial, and the latest CAD's are showing cut outs on the solebar for flange clearance.  Not exactly inspiring!

[frobisher]

3 hours ago, Monkersson said:

I would hazard a guess that if/when they reintroduce the Peak, it will be a full blown new tool rather than a tickle over, not having to tool a new chassis/bogie block would reduce costs.

 

Pretty much the only things that are wrong with the current tooling are all chassis related.  It could do with new bogies first and foremost (NEM pockets plus being correct width), decoder socket and a lighting system and the rest is pretty much okay and could probably be warmed over a bit rather than a complete retool.

[Roy L S]

13 hours ago, frobisher said:

 

Pretty much the only things that are wrong with the current tooling are all chassis related.  It could do with new bogies first and foremost (NEM pockets plus being correct width), decoder socket and a lighting system and the rest is pretty much okay and could probably be warmed over a bit rather than a complete retool.

The existing chassis is a lovely runner with big open framed motor and two flywheels, however were Bachmann to look to update (still an assumption) this model I highly doubt anything would be carried over from the existing one body or chassis wise. The body tooling (if it still exists) would now be over 10 years old, and it would be as much work to alter the tooling of the two chassis halves to accommodate a speaker, lighting and a Next 18 socket as it would be to start again.

[Steven B]

19 hours ago, Mike Harvey said:

Unless you count the Dapol and RevolutioN trains Class 59 as duplication. :-)

 

A classic case of you snooze you loose (or at least don't gain as much!). Whilst Bachmann/Farish are in prime position to re-do the Peaks, unless they show progress ,eventually another manufacturer will pull on their brave pants and make a new version.

 

Steven B

[grahame]

54 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

A classic case of you snooze you loose (or at least don't gain as much!).

 

And, of course, neither of the class 59s have yet been delivered. Plenty of time for one to drop out of the race or get put back in to abeyance.

;-)

 

 

 

[steam-driven boy]

Hi Grahame,

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

And, of course, neither of the class 59s have yet been delivered. Plenty of time for one to drop out of the race or get put back in to abeyance.

;-)

If you can show me where there is any 'wriggle room' from both statements to support that comment I'd be most obliged.

On the Dapol Digest:

https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/n-gauge-models/diesel/class-59-n-aa/project-managers-blog-aa/349-class-59-opening-post?p=9657#post9657

On the Revolution Trains website news item:

http://www.revolutiontrains.com/revolution-class-59-tooling-completed/

 

Regards, Gerry.

[John M Upton]

It is quite simple really, Dapol snoozed, they as a result are now playing catch up which they effectively self inflicted.

[grahame]

50 minutes ago, steam-driven boy said:

 

If you can show me where there is any 'wriggle room' from both statements to support that comment I'd be most obliged.

On the Dapol Digest:

https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/n-gauge-models/diesel/class-59-n-aa/project-managers-blog-aa/349-class-59-opening-post?p=9657#post9657

On the Revolution Trains website news item:

http://www.revolutiontrains.com/revolution-class-59-tooling-completed/

 

 

Erm, the fact that it got put in abeyance despite several similar statements of confidence many years ago. And, of course, there doesn't need to be 'wriggle room' to change tack and plans.

 

 

[Chrisjh]

Many thanks Gents this has been a really interesting debate and I have duly noted that there is a class 44 on ebay currently selling.

 

All the best,

Chris