RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted February 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2017 Quite clearly a baseboard joint not aligned right - look at the adjacent track. Not very clear on my phone, all very blurred at that distance. I hope you are right. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mevaman Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 It is a baseboard joint. We'll check it tomorrow. I am one of the layout operators! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted February 12, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2017 Have to say I very much like the look of that unit. Of course it's not the best quality image neither is the reproduction via screen shot and Facebook's standard quality resolution doing too many favours but I'm happy that it looks like a 4TC. The headcode illumination should be the same incandescent glow as the passenger saloons and not a brilliant LED-style white as it is but if the production runs appear like this it should be possible to tone that down with a little tweaking and skill one way or another. It appears to be Bachmann's standard front-end set-up which is also wrong on, for example, the class 43 Warships. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 061006RMW.jpg Hmmm, big change in level between coaches 2 and 3. Hope that's not indicative of more problems as has been seen with the Thumper and EPBs. Roy Replicating the prototype judging by the photo in the earlier post .............. so glad when we had that S&C renewed at Basing !! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1023 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Sadly, the Facebook image does highlight the oversize cab windows. Hopefully this gets rectified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
71000 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 robertcwp said: In the early to mid 1980s there were two such evening peak workings formed 33/1+4TC+8-Vep. This struck a chord with me, so I delved into my collection and dug out the image below. It was taken at Basingstoke on Tuesday, 27th May 1986, and my notes show this as the 17:00 Waterloo-Salisbury/Eastleigh. The combo seen here is 33 108+433+7766+7829. 061006RMW.jpg Indeed I drove one of these trains on a couple of ocassions. Although I seem to remember they left Waterloo at 17.30 & 18.30 in the early 1990's. Was great fun as the class 33/1 & TC was at the rear. So opening the power handle in the 4VEP leading, meant the 8VEP part immediately tried to move, but the Class 33/1 had about a 5 second run-up before it wanted to move. However 8VEP & 2,000hp got the train moving if a bit sluggishly, which meant you tended to open the power handle fully. Then the extra 1,550hp of the diesel loco would kick in, just as you try and negotiate all the complex pointwork (max 15mph) and you find yourself accelerating rapidly with 3,550hp, and have to use the brake before you're launched into orbit. As the class 33 was limited officially to 85mph, and the rest of the train 90mph, cruising down the mainline to Woking (first booked stop) was not exactly exciting. as the class 33/1 engine would normally run back to tick over at around 88mph, so you lost the extra 1,550hp. However if this feature was either not fitted, or disabled, then 100mph was quite possible, which livened things up a bit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
217 RIVER FLESK Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 See that Kernow have posted some paint sample shots: http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/54989/32-643Z-Bachmann-Class-438-4-TC-Unit-number-8023-NSE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR(S) Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) See that Kernow have posted some paint sample shots: http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/54989/32-643Z-Bachmann-Class-438-4-TC-Unit-number-8023-NSE Livery application looks great, but I'm struggling to find a picture of a 4-TC in the original NSE light blue. Just read the description on the Kernow website and they say the blue needs changing. I did come across this superb picture: 33117 on the Weymouth Quay branch by 74009, on Flickr Edited March 7, 2017 by BR(S) 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 See that Kernow have posted some paint sample shots: http://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/54989/32-643Z-Bachmann-Class-438-4-TC-Unit-number-8023-NSE Having the photo of the real thing next to the model highlights what a mess they've made of the front of the unit, I'm afraid. On the model, the bottom of the yellow inside the gangway connection lines up with the bottom of the yellow cab fronts - on the real thing it must be nearly a foot higher inside the gangway. I kept hoping this would be sorted, as it makes the front look wrong, even to my inexpert eye. I think I shall not be purchasing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 Having the photo of the real thing next to the model highlights what a mess they've made of the front of the unit, I'm afraid. On the model, the bottom of the yellow inside the gangway connection lines up with the bottom of the yellow cab fronts - on the real thing it must be nearly a foot higher inside the gangway. I kept hoping this would be sorted, as it makes the front look wrong, even to my inexpert eye. I think I shall not be purchasing. I disagree, the height difference is nowhere near your quoted foot. Take a look at this image (not my photo): https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2899/14221697259_94179bcff1_b.jpg I think weathering on the real thing leads to a very different perception of what they are really like. I for one am looking forward to mine arriving. Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 I disagree, the height difference is nowhere near your quoted foot. Take a look at this image (not my photo): https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2899/14221697259_94179bcff1_b.jpg I think weathering on the real thing leads to a very different perception of what they are really like. I for one am looking forward to mine arriving. Roy And having seen a sample operating at Doncaster a couple of weeks ago,so am I. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Geep7 Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 Having the photo of the real thing next to the model highlights what a mess they've made of the front of the unit, I'm afraid. On the model, the bottom of the yellow inside the gangway connection lines up with the bottom of the yellow cab fronts - on the real thing it must be nearly a foot higher inside the gangway. I kept hoping this would be sorted, as it makes the front look wrong, even to my inexpert eye. I think I shall not be purchasing. I think the reason it looks wrong is due to the angle of the photograph. Taken head on I think it will look right. It still looks better than the Hornby attempt, and lightyears ahead of the MJT ends on my scratchbuilt 4-TC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I think the reason it looks wrong is due to the angle of the photograph. Taken head on I think it will look right. It still looks better than the Hornby attempt, and lightyears ahead of the MJT ends on my scratchbuilt 4-TC I'm not sure about that. The angles look pretty similar to me. I'm just not prepared to spend £269 on a model that when I look at it I'll get a niggling feeling that it looks wrong. If others think it looks right then I'm pleased they have a 4TC to buy, and I hope KMRC make a healthy profit on them. I shall keep looking at photos of the model, too: maybe I'll be persuaded that I'm wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure about that. The angles look pretty similar to me. I'm just not prepared to spend £269 on a model that when I look at it I'll get a niggling feeling that it looks wrong. If others think it looks right then I'm pleased they have a 4TC to buy, and I hope KMRC make a healthy profit on them. I shall keep looking at photos of the model, too: maybe I'll be persuaded that I'm wrong. I think you need to be looking at photos of the prototype, not the model. Your comments about the height of the door are just plain wrong and if that is what you think the prototype looks like, you will never be satisfied with the model. Have a look at this photo: https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1659/24867323911_3575e50af5_b.jpg You will see that the difference in height between the bottom of the yellow ends and the bottom of the door is tiny. Kernow have not, in my opinion, made a mess of the front. Roy Edited March 9, 2017 by Roy Langridge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrushVeteran Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Looks perfectly acceptable to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Darius43 Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 I'm not sure about that. The angles look pretty similar to me. I'm just not prepared to spend £269 on a model that when I look at it I'll get a niggling feeling that it looks wrong. If others think it looks right then I'm pleased they have a 4TC to buy, and I hope KMRC make a healthy profit on them. I shall keep looking at photos of the model, too: maybe I'll be persuaded that I'm wrong. Fair enough - that's one more unit for everyone else Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 9, 2017 After all the negative comments on the front ends when we saw the first unpainted, it looks like they haven't come out too badly based on the painted samples. Good to see that Kernow will be using a darker blue but what about the roof? It looks black on the sample whereas I remember it to be more of a dark grey. But then I also think the roof colour Bachmann is currently using for its Mk1s in Blue/Grey is too dark as well, so it may just be me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrushVeteran Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I think that as modellers we have to accept................or it's about time we started accepting.................that roofs weather no matter what colour they are. If you look at a rake of coaches from above then all the greys are differing shades...............yet they are all correct at the time the picture was taken. The same applies to most other colours especially blue, red and yellow which are primary colours shaded by varying the pigmentation. I spent 41 years with a largish national bus company.............predominantly red..............and trying to match a panel, even after a few months in service, usually resorted in applying a coat of varnish over a complete side to maintain continuity. Today's computer matching and two pack applications with clear-coat finishes has made paint last longer and look better but in the era of the 4TC most paintwork was brush applied using up to six different suppliers and even different batches of paint from the same supplier could vary slightly. When models are produced in China the vendors source their paint locally and at the time it is matched to, more often than not, a BS colour or in the case of artwork drawn by a design company, a RAL shade. In the case of this model I would accept that as long as all four coaches match each other then I would be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Have a look at this photo: https://c1.staticflickr.com/2/1659/24867323911_3575e50af5_b.jpg You will see that the difference in height between the bottom of the yellow ends and the bottom of the door is tiny, Hattons have not, in my opinion, made a mess of the front. Roy Er, Roy, It's not Hattons that are commissioning this model, but Kernow Model Rail Centre, via Bachmann Europe. Also, front end photographic views, (along with all other) can be very deceptive, in both prototype form, and models of. For terms of reference to BR(S), Mk.1, 2nd. generation Emus, I can do no better than suggest having a scroll through Colin Parks' excellent 4-CIG scratch-build, where relevant issues were discussed http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51422-4-cig-for-newhaven-harbour/page-6 Also, the Hornby 4-VEP thread lingers on, to remind us of what can go wrong http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17158-Hornby-class-423-4-vep/page-7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Er, Roy, It's not Hattons that are commissioning this model, but Kernow Model Rail Centre, via Bachmann Europe. Also, front end photographic views, (along with all other) can be very deceptive, in both prototype form, and models of. For terms of reference to BR(S), Mk.1, 2nd. generation Emus, I can do no better than suggest having a scroll through Colin Parks' excellent 4-CIG scratch-build, where relevant issues were discussed http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51422-4-cig-for-newhaven-harbour/page-6 Also, the Hornby 4-VEP thread lingers on, to remind us of what can go wrong http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/17158-Hornby-class-423-4-vep/page-7 Doh - had a brain freeze moment! As for photographic images, I have none that show the claimed nearly foot difference between the bottom of the door and the bottom of the cab. The biggest issue is with weathering of the prototype that can change the shape completely. Compare those with black above the corridor connection and those without - they look completely different. that is why I found photos where the front is relatively clean. My issue is that locoholic is claiming that the prototype looks like it does not. I am quite happy for genuine issues to be cited, but with regards to the bottom of the door, I believe that it is probably as close as you can get keeping in mind that some thicknesses in a 1/76 scale model cannot be to scale. Roy Edited March 9, 2017 by Roy Langridge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1023 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 TBH the front end looks pretty good to me save (crucially) for the cab Windows which are both oversize and the wrong shape on the outside edge. On the colour of the roof - the prototypes were outshopped in pristine condition with black roofs, so surely the model is correct except for the aforementioned shade of blue. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
locoholic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Doh - had a brain freeze moment! As for photographic images, I have none that show the claimed nearly foot difference between the bottom of the door and the bottom of the cab. The biggest issue is with weathering of the prototype that can change the shape completely. Compare those with black above the corridor connection and those without - they look completely different. that is why I found photos where the front is relatively clean. My issue is that locoholic is claiming that the prototype looks like it does not. I am quite happy for genuine issues to be cited, but with regards to the bottom of the door, I believe that it is probably as close as you can get keeping in mind that some thicknesses in a 1/76 scale model cannot be to scale. Roy I agree the grot around the front of the prototypes of these units does make a difference, and also the yellow gangway doors seem to vary a bit. However, there are plenty of shots on this thread that show the floor of the gangway (i.e. the surface you would have walked on from one unit to the next) being at a significantly higher level than the bottom of the yellow panels either side, which is not the case on the model, if the shot of the unpainted EP is anything to go by. I shall wait until the finished models are delivered, when I shall be happy to be proved wrong. But i assure you I have studied photos of the models and prototypes carefully, and whilst you can definitely tell it's a 4TC, there's something a bit odd about the front of the model to my eyes. Maybe I need to go to Specsavers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) I agree the grot around the front of the prototypes of these units does make a difference, and also the yellow gangway doors seem to vary a bit. However, there are plenty of shots on this thread that show the floor of the gangway (i.e. the surface you would have walked on from one unit to the next) being at a significantly higher level than the bottom of the yellow panels either side, which is not the case on the model, if the shot of the unpainted EP is anything to go by. I shall wait until the finished models are delivered, when I shall be happy to be proved wrong. But i assure you I have studied photos of the models and prototypes carefully, and whilst you can definitely tell it's a 4TC, there's something a bit odd about the front of the model to my eyes. Maybe I need to go to Specsavers.What is significant? Given that the footsteps either side of the door have to be overscale (IIRC they are 1/2" diamond plate on the prototype) that makes all the difference. Another shot to show just how small the difference really is. Ok its a VEP, not a TC, but the gangways were the same. http://setg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20150529-Ilford-depot-visit-46.jpeg Roy Edited March 9, 2017 by Roy Langridge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Ian J. Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 9, 2017 I agree the grot around the front of the prototypes of these units does make a difference, and also the yellow gangway doors seem to vary a bit. However, there are plenty of shots on this thread that show the floor of the gangway (i.e. the surface you would have walked on from one unit to the next) being at a significantly higher level than the bottom of the yellow panels either side, which is not the case on the model, if the shot of the unpainted EP is anything to go by. I shall wait until the finished models are delivered, when I shall be happy to be proved wrong. But i assure you I have studied photos of the models and prototypes carefully, and whilst you can definitely tell it's a 4TC, there's something a bit odd about the front of the model to my eyes. Maybe I need to go to Specsavers. I already go to Specsavers, and I can say it's not made any difference to my feelings that the front doesn't look right. But as usual it seems a sufficient number of modellers will be happy with the errors yet again, and we'll end up with a front end that still isn't right. I haven't even begun to look at the rest of the unit yet, so no telling what might be wrong there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted March 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2017 I already go to Specsavers, and I can say it's not made any difference to my feelings that the front doesn't look right. But as usual it seems a sufficient number of modellers will be happy with the errors yet again, and we'll end up with a front end that still isn't right. I haven't even begun to look at the rest of the unit yet, so no telling what might be wrong there. I have not said that there aren't errors, but the bottom of the gangway door is not one of them - there is no way it is nearly a foot higher than the bottom on the real thing. As VEP style fronts go, I think it is the best that we have had yet, it isn't quite right, but it is not far off. It is not the quoted "mess". To be honest, I am getting quite fed up with the constant craving by some for a model that is absolutely 100% perfect - that is not going to happen in a mass produced model at an affordable price. Indeed, given we are working in 1/76th scale, I doubt that it is ever achievable. What we have available today is in many cases (all?) much better than what was available only a few years ago. 10 years ago we only could only dream of RTR EMUs and made do with kits / conversions which were generally much poorer then the RTR offerings now. Roy 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