43179 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 From an untrained eye it's looking good. The cab fronts look a little odd Ive spend most of my life around these units and the first thing that struck me from the promo video - apart from the er, "interesting" looking couplings , is the cab fronts - it sort of looks 'crosseyed' like the windscreens are too close together - the distance from the outer edges of the windscreens , to the outermost edge of the cabfront looks too great - like the unit is too fat , but with the windscreens in the correct place, or it the correct width but the windscreens are wrong. The relationship between the wrap-round grabrail, bottom of the windscreens and the top of the mu jumper recess doesnt quite tally correctly on the model either - the handrail should be closer to the bottom of the windscreens than the jumper recess - I hope im wrong though! tfn Jon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Ive spend most of my life around these units and the first thing that struck me from the promo video - apart from the er, "interesting" looking couplings , is the cab fronts - it sort of looks 'crosseyed' like the windscreens are too close together - the distance from the outer edges of the windscreens , to the outermost edge of the cabfront looks too great - like the unit is too fat , but with the windscreens in the correct place, or it the correct width but the windscreens are wrong. The relationship between the wrap-round grabrail, bottom of the windscreens and the top of the mu jumper recess doesnt quite tally correctly on the model either - the handrail should be closer to the bottom of the windscreens than the jumper recess - I hope im wrong though! tfn Jon Looking at the video again, i think your right regarding the cab windows being to too close together - I Think the other problem is potentially the rather collagen filled corridor connection...It's one of those problems thats hard to hit the nail on the head, but the front just still, dosent look 100% Have posted a few pictures on this thread of the front and interior of preserved VEP 3417: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/41884-4vep-interior-detail/ (Photos of 3417 Taken with permission) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Numerous other comments in the parallel thread here. Maybe it's time to merge the topics? Done Edited July 27, 2011 by Mod6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Unpainted aluminium window frames came in from 7711. Here is a new 7712 with them. Apologies - duly noted. Half way through the batch! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meld Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Looking at the video again, i think your right regarding the cab windows being to too close together - I Think the other problem is potentially the rather collagen filled corridor connection...It's one of those problems thats hard to hit the nail on the head, but the front just still, dosent look 100% Is it that the corridor connection door is moulded on the same plane as the cab fronts, rather than being set lightly forward in the gangway, if you look at the pictures it seems that the front plane of the door lines up with the plane of the 'cowel' that sits over the body half of the Gangway connection. I could, of course be talking absolute tosh ?!? Having spent lots of time around these units in past parts of my career, I never really looked at the relationship in this area Just a though - we need someone with access to have a tape measure and a mooch really. Bit of a ###### it's just moved out of TWY. The cab front windows are definately too far inboard, but is a design feature of the model to beef up the corners and protect this area from accidental damage by the end user, who may not be that sympathetic to the 'Scale' part of the models description and just happens to be Ham Fisted ?? Again just a thought Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 27, 2011 The cab front windows are definately too far inboard, but is a design feature of the model to beef up the corners and protect this area from accidental damage by the end user, who may not be that sympathetic to the 'Scale' part of the models description and just happens to be Ham Fisted ?? Again just a thought Mike They look a little odd; on both the model and prototype the inboard side of the window frame looks pretty much butted against the corridor connection, what does look different is the relative difference in width between the window and the outer pillar; and the taper on this pillar, which looks more pronounced on the prototype. On the model the upper edge of the window looks to be somewhat less than double the width of the pillar at that point, on the prototype the window top edge looks to be nearly 3 times the pillar width at that point. Can't say it would stop me buying one though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nse47 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 must admit I do like the look of the nse one, only get a sneak peak in the video but looks good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Is it that the corridor connection door is moulded on the same plane as the cab fronts, rather than being set lightly forward in the gangway, if you look at the pictures it seems that the front plane of the door lines up with the plane of the 'cowel' that sits over the body half of the Gangway connection. I could, of course be talking absolute tosh ?!? I'd agree with you - this makes the corridor connector look deeper than it actually is and contributes to the slightly odd look. Now who wants to do a new etched door....? I think the airhorns are a bit malnourished, but they are easy to replace with decent turned ones. It looks like the *sample* blue one in the pictures is suffering from the same problem as the Maunsell coachess - the end footstep has been glued on wonky! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Ends are critical to the look of a model and Hornby's ends just don't look right. I agree that the gangway door is too far back, the cab front windows don't look right and the horns are too small. The cab windows would probably be the most awkward to deal with. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium gc4946 Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 27, 2011 I've looked at their video three times today, but will wait until they appear in the shops before considering whether to budget for one in blue/grey livery, because it looks like they've videoed the pre-production version and there may yet be more tweaks made to the production models. So far so good, but will see if the compartments have windows in the corridors and if they've modelled the metal cage luggage/guards van portion as the motor's not there on the all-blue unit. I'm also interested in how quickly it's possible to set up and disassemble this EMU and how robust the inter-unit couplings are with repeated use, as I would have to put it away in its box overnight and it appears, unlike Bachmann's 4CEP, I can't substitute tension locks for their inner couplings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I agree that the end of a unit or diesel loco is the "face" of it, as important as the shape of a steam loco chimney, so it must look right. However, regarding the cab windows, i think comparing images of a real 4Vep with a small yellow panel and a model in the full yellow front livery is a bit unfair. The full yellow end will emphasise the width of the corner pillar, especially as the yellow wraps around the side. If anyone has a copy of Brian Haresnape's Fleet Survey 10 "Third Rail Emus", have a look at page 61, there is the very same 7756 in the model livery. Someone would have found that photo useful. Cheers, Brian. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted July 27, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 27, 2011 Was not the unit in question laser-scanned? If so I would have to ask a few questions on the rendering of those scans into plastic. The "1963" type emu front end is pretty much generic across the major classes of Cig, Big, Vep, Rep and TC so if Hornby get this right the tooling is set up for future releases of the other types. But if it's wrong now .............. As with the criticism of the Beattie Well Tanks it isn't always easy to be fair and objective when comparing photos of models with photos of the real thing. What can be done now that some samples are here is to compare an actual model with an actual Vep. As well as taking the fine measuring instruments to the model for verification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 7701-20 had raised metal double arrows. Later units had transfers, and these changed in size during the build. Compare 7809 above with this view of 7734. Having looked again at some photos, I suspect that the raised metal arrows might have continued beyond 7720. Have a look at this one: Full image is here. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I agree that the gangway door is definitely set too deeply into the face of the unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 A pity, as Hornby seem to have got the angled "crease" at the bottom of the door right. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Looks good but the route number box doesn't look right. I don't remember them with an external frame; this may have been a later mod, but then driving them, I only usually saw the inside of the route number box! Also, not enough dead flies on the front... D'you want flies ?, anyone ? Just print this, cut 'em out, and stick 'em on. Seriously though, l agree. There's definitely something wrong with Hornby's front end. The cab side windows, for instance, look too low (lower edge should be level with the front's), thus influencing the position of the wrap-around hand rail. No pun intended, but this first impression (?) hits you straight in the face. Regards. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I'm starting to wonder if the gangway is too narrow and this could be drawing-in the cab windows, towards the middle? I believe 1960s build BR/SR EMUs had slightly more generous width gangways, than loco-hauled Mk1s? What we really need is a straight head-on view of the Hornby cab, can't tell from an angled shot. Still, it's probably far too late to alter it now anyway. Cheers, Brian. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 28, 2011 D'you want flies ?, anyone ? Just print this, cut 'em out, and stick 'em on. Seriously though, l agree. There's definately something wrong with Hornby's front end. No pun intended, but it hits you straight in the face. Regards. Interesting that the outer 'collar' on the corridor connector in your shot looks to be about 1-2" deep whereas the one on the preserved unit at the top of the page looks to be about 6" deep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kintbury jon Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Interesting that the outer 'collar' on the corridor connector in your shot looks to be about 1-2" deep whereas the one on the preserved unit at the top of the page looks to be about 6" deep. The photo is not of a VEP but a REP. I wouldn't like to say what differences there might be (if at all). Looks like one of the 3REPS numbered 29xx. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Interesting that the outer 'collar' on the corridor connector in your shot looks to be about 1-2" deep whereas the one on the preserved unit at the top of the page looks to be about 6" deep. Could just be the angle of the shot, spamcan61 Here's a side on view. You'll notice that these 2nd. generation Emus feature a smooth curve, in plan (overhead) view, to both cab, and inner ends, shown here. A slight (streamlining ?) improvement on the three flat panels of the 1st. generation Mk.1 Emu.. A feature that Hornby appear to have captured,..... hopefully. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) A pity, as Hornby seem to have got the angled "crease" at the bottom of the door right. Er,..The bottom crease is a gutter, to catch the rain-water and dead flies. There are, however, two vertical creases / folds, on the RH side of the door, and the LH (Driver's side) narrow panel. lf you look closely, you can pick them out in Surfsup head on view, and my, later, (fly-blown) shot. Regards. Edited April 12, 2012 by Ceptic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Probably just me, but is the face just slightly odd? Possibly. Looks like the front panels outside of the cab windows to the edge/corners are too wide. To me anyway. G. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted July 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 28, 2011 Er,..The bottom crease is a gutter, to catch the rain-water and dead flies. There are, however, two vertical creases / folds, on each of the door, and the LH (Driver's side) narrow panel. lf you look closely, you can pick them out in Surfsup head on view, and my, later, (fly-blown) shot. Regards. Ah right, thanks, I wondered what that slightly odd looking arrangement was; so looking at the front of the unit there's a sloping (from left to right) part of the door which slopes inwards, then a gutter at the bottom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Ah right, thanks, I wondered what that slightly odd looking arrangement was; so looking at the front of the unit there's a sloping (from left to right) part of the door which slopes inwards, then a gutter at the bottom. No worries, spamcan61. As always, it's the detail that counts. This, left to right, sloping crease, and the gutter, are all part of the door. Here's a better view. Cheers. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meld Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hi Ceptic, Nice Detail pic there .. really shows how far forward the Gangway door is mounted too B) Mike 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