GordonC Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 raising and lowering shoes???? now I think that's getting a bit silly. 3rd rail shoes are far less obvious than a pantograph and far more likely to strike something unintentional around the track - how many of those would get ripped off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 raising and lowering shoes???? now I think that's getting a bit silly. 3rd rail shoes are far less obvious than a pantograph and far more likely to strike something unintentional around the track - how many of those would get ripped off? The point was more that only having movable pantograph (bearing in mind there are two), but not shoes would to my mind look odd. Better to forget movable of either and get the model done to as high a standard as possible and let the modeller add such gimmicks if they really want them. I'm sure someone could design a add-on kit to do it properly (someone within MERG certainly could figure it out I'm sure). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted July 7, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 7, 2017 The problem there being that you need to provision the space inside the body (and the electronics) for it. I agree that moveable shoes would be pointless, you're talking movement of a couple of millimetres of movement, which few would notice, and certainly wouldn't say that it would look odd having 'automated' pantographs but not shoes. I love the idea of DCC pantographs, although the reality is that I wouldn't pay any extra for them, and if they resulted in a significantly reduced weight (and thus hauling capability) I wouldn't want them. Also a moot point as I model N, and you'd have nothing inside the body but servo and decoder I suspect! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 The point was more that only having movable pantograph (bearing in mind there are two), but not shoes would to my mind look odd. Better to forget movable of either and get the model done to as high a standard as possible and let the modeller add such gimmicks if they really want them. I'm sure someone could design a add-on kit to do it properly (someone within MERG certainly could figure it out I'm sure). The DBS ones have had the shoes removed, I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 I don't see any reason why moving pantograph and 3rd rail shoes should be tied together. moving pantograph, fair enough if it has it it has it but it's not going to make the model any more or less appealing to me. moving shoes - don't even bother, no one is going to notice anyway!! more likely to have 2 sets of shoes included, one lowered and one raised for the end customer to fit as necessary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 I don't see any reason why moving pantograph and 3rd rail shoes should be tied together. moving pantograph, fair enough if it has it it has it but it's not going to make the model any more or less appealing to me. moving shoes - don't even bother, no one is going to notice anyway!! more likely to have 2 sets of shoes included, one lowered and one raised for the end customer to fit as necessary 3 sets as some are missing their shoes now. That does seem a better compromise really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted July 7, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 7, 2017 3 sets as some are missing their shoes now. That does seem a better compromise really. Can I buy some missing shoes please? I know what you mean, but it does make my head hurt! Roy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lochlongside Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 I must admit i do like the idea of raising and lowering Panto's through DCC control and a bit of sound added for good measure of the operation. However on the 92 it gets a little tricky as you either need 2 servos (and a multi-function decoder or decoders of many functions) or 1 servo that raises and lowers the pans depending on which way its being driven. But then that wouldn't work for the 3rd rail guys as 1 servo couldnt keep both lowered. The problem being that this would a) put the price up, b) be a bit of a loss on all up weight, c) might be seen as a gimmick. I think it would look fantastic myself, and since seeing it demo'd at Nuremburg many many years ago on an HO model i've been smitten by the function. Cheers Dave It might be nice to have these extras but I am not sure I would be prepared to accept the additional development time and extra cost for this, or accept the possible consequent loss of tractive effort. A.D. is against me (unlike some of the youngsters on RMWeb) I think I would rather have a really good model of a Class 92 (or two in my case) in the near future, Without being a stick in the mud (yeah ok !!) this project has already slipped some months - in the nicest possible way it might be worth considering getting a few more models under the DJM belt within the approximately advised timescale (+ 6 months of predicted) before going for what might possibly be marginal/contentious improvements - only my view I hasten to add but I am beginning to be a man in a hurry !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted July 8, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 8, 2017 To be quite honest I suggested the opening doors just for a bit of fun, and may be because it's a sound you always get on a sound chip without it being able to reflect the actual door opening. Servo controlled doors, synchronised with sound. Now that would be good........... Sorry - getting carried away now, I'll return to my padded cell. Cheers, Mick 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 raising and lowering shoes???? now I think that's getting a bit silly. 3rd rail shoes are far less obvious than a pantograph and far more likely to strike something unintentional around the track - how many of those would get ripped off? I agree - it was a throw away line that I didn't intend to be taken seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Decorum Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Not much good if you haven’t got a driver going through the door and up or down the steps. I accompany the door slam with the comment (if needed), “The driver got in the other side.” 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Not much good if you haven’t got a driver going through the door and up or down the steps. I accompany the door slam with the comment (if needed), “The driver got in the other side.” How do you know he wasn't escaping? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted July 8, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 8, 2017 How do you know he wasn't escaping? Digital functionality is the one area where UK outline still lags behind European HO. European HO producers have been exploiting the potential of digital control for 20 years or more and things like raising/dropping pantographs have been used by quite a few manufacturers, smoke units for diesels, Trix now allow you to switch the driver figure in cabs etc. I have some of these models, but I've found that while they're great fun initially they soon end up little used and my decision on whether to buy a model tends to be based on looks with all the added functionality a very secondary concern. I have an ESU Br151 which I bought because it is a superb model and metal (I like the feel of metal models), all the digital functionality such as raising pans I'd happily lose, but that's just me. One note of caution I would introduce is long term durability for all this stuff and it is not that uncommon to see plenty of those Euro digital marvels for sale second hand with a lot of it no longer working and no provision for spares as the original items went out of production by the OEMs years ago and model companies can't source alternatives. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Can I buy some missing shoes please? Left hand or right hand, and high, low or wedge heel? G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
srihaggis Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Sod the pantograph being automated, just make me a 92 please Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Digital functionality is the one area where UK outline still lags behind European HO. European HO producers have been exploiting the potential of digital control for 20 years or more and things like raising/dropping pantographs have been used by quite a few manufacturers, smoke units for diesels, Trix now allow you to switch the driver figure in cabs etc. I have some of these models, but I've found that while they're great fun initially they soon end up little used and my decision on whether to buy a model tends to be based on looks with all the added functionality a very secondary concern. I have an ESU Br151 which I bought because it is a superb model and metal (I like the feel of metal models), all the digital functionality such as raising pans I'd happily lose, but that's just me. One note of caution I would introduce is long term durability for all this stuff and it is not that uncommon to see plenty of those Euro digital marvels for sale second hand with a lot of it no longer working and no provision for spares as the original items went out of production by the OEMs years ago and model companies can't source alternatives. I agree, one frustration I find is that having invented a digital marvel, you cannot buy replacements. Nor are there any small after market produces out there selling such items either which one could use to replace or add to an existing model. I think best compromise is to design spaces within models to fit off the shelf DCC upgrading packages. People who do not want these DCC functionalities can buy just the basic model. Those who do, can buy the upgrade pack. The obvious packs that spring to mind are DCC controlled automatic couplings (these at least exist off the shelf), an internal camera pack, a smoke pack (simple diesel or complex steam with drain cocks/safety valve options) and DCC raising pantos. Doubtless we could think up an entire list. In the navy, this concept is called "fitted for but not with". So the model is designed for easy conversion, but not actually fitted with them (or they could be fully factory fitted examples like what happens with sound). I find the way these manufacturers hold on to them just for their own models to be counter productive. Yes I know there is a gorgeous DCC sound and smoke fitted German steam loco which looks really impressive as it blows steam from below, however I want to use it on a UK outline model (the conversion would l be done by me) but the only way to obtain this is to buy the entire loco and remove all the stuff from it to fit into a UK one. Far too expensive. These DCC functionalities really add more on a small shelf plank type layout but go barely noticed on a much bigger layout. While I have almost 30 DCC sound fitted models now, I still prefer to do most running sessions using old fashioned DC and just watch models go round chasing their tails - it depends on how tired I feel after a day's work! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
letterspider Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Still haven't made up my mind on which liveries to order - does anyone have examples of consists being led by an SNCF liveried 92? Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VXDH92 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 DJ Dave, Hope things are progressing well on this project. With all the discussion around the Bachmann class 90 pantograph, and how they've opted for a support arm to enable it to raise and lower, can I ask how you intend to make your BW pantos sprung? In your CAD image, there is no support arm. Does this mean that you're making it like the real thing where there is a very fine chain attached to the base of the upper arm, and run through a hollow lower arm to a roof mounted spring? That would be fantastic if that was the case. Cheers, Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium James Makin Posted July 10, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 10, 2017 Still haven't made up my mind on which liveries to order - does anyone have examples of consists being led by an SNCF liveried 92? Thanks I did a Flickr search on one an SNCF loco (I chose 92028 'Saint Saens' as I'd modelled it way back when for my old Wells Green TMD!) - throughout the early 2000s, as an example it is pictured at the head of Railtrack Autoballasters, ferry wagons, intermodals, car trains, charter trains, the Caledonian Sleeper, being dragged by a 56 through Doncaster, light engine running and in convoy with other 92s - most of these on the WCML - and that's just one '92'! They seem to have stuck a giant silly 'Europorte' sticker both on the bodysides and the cabsides at some point obscuring the SNCF branding, not sure when that was but its too modern for me! So to summarise, you could get away with running it on trains almost the same as a standard EWS (BR triple grey) version in the 2000s period. I also like the idea of buying 6 grey versions and renumbering to Eurostar UK examples before covering in grime and parking in a disused siding at the back of your layout!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I did a Flickr search on one an SNCF loco (I chose 92028 'Saint Saens' as I'd modelled it way back when for my old Wells Green TMD!) - throughout the early 2000s, as an example it is pictured at the head of Railtrack Autoballasters, ferry wagons, intermodals, car trains, charter trains, the Caledonian Sleeper, being dragged by a 56 through Doncaster, light engine running and in convoy with other 92s - most of these on the WCML - and that's just one '92'! They seem to have stuck a giant silly 'Europorte' sticker both on the bodysides and the cabsides at some point obscuring the SNCF branding, not sure when that was but its too modern for me! So to summarise, you could get away with running it on trains almost the same as a standard EWS (BR triple grey) version in the 2000s period. I also like the idea of buying 6 grey versions and renumbering to Eurostar UK examples before covering in grime and parking in a disused siding at the back of your layout!! The Europorte decals were stuck on when SNCF gave up on cross-channel freight, selling their locos to Europorte Channel (part of Eurotunnel); GBRf then began using some of them, either for cross-channel flows or for some internal workings in the UK. Since GBRf have now left the Eurotunnel fold, I'm not sure which locos are GBRf and which are Europorte Channel. The Europorte transfers were applied with the minimum of effort, such that dirt stains remained around them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Bendall Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 They seem to have stuck a giant silly 'Europorte' sticker both on the bodysides and the cabsides at some point obscuring the SNCF branding, not sure when that was but its too modern for me! In the case of 92028, the Europorte branding went on around January 2010, 92032/38/43 were done around September 2009. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 The Europorte decals were stuck on when SNCF gave up on cross-channel freight, selling their locos to Europorte Channel (part of Eurotunnel); GBRf then began using some of them, either for cross-channel flows or for some internal workings in the UK. Since GBRf have now left the Eurotunnel fold, I'm not sure which locos are GBRf and which are Europorte Channel. The Europorte transfers were applied with the minimum of effort, such that dirt stains remained around them. Has the Class 92 pool been split with Europorte and GBRf each taking some then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted July 13, 2017 Author Share Posted July 13, 2017 Good morning everyone, just a quick update from me today, on the progress of this project. I am currently talking to the factory about slots, which is not easy this time of year, for tooling and model manufacture unless you've booked well in advance. I'm hoping to have all the 'T's and 'I's crossed and dotted soon so that i can send invoices out to you all for the tooling to commence. This will be the same for both gauges and i sincerely hope to have something tangible on the stand for Warley this year to show off to you all. Negotiations with railway companies about proposed new liveries and exclusivity etc are still on going, as these things tend to be slow due to painting the real thing, namings etc, so its possible something might get announced today or next month on these. The Pantograph is causing some debate and rightly so, especially since the powered panto on the 90 is such an interesting development for UK RTR model railways, but as with a poseable pantograph, there will always be compromises in the design to help the head ride the wire. More from me as soon as i have it. cheers Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 My take on this: a powered pantograph on the 92 makes more sense than on the 71; the 71's panto was only used in a few yards and only at low speeds, so the poseable one on the 71, as produced, makes sense and is all that most of its purchasers need. For myself, I don't need operating pantos because my layout is based on third rail territory, but the 92s were quite wide ranging locomotives, so for many of the potential modellers, operating, sprung or even powered pantographs could be of use (forget my joke about operating shoes - that really was a throwaway line). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbox321 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Sorry Guys, but I think DJM has got to concentrate on producing a decent Class 92, with particular emphasis on livery application, nevermind 'gimicks' like raising pantographs and the rising cost associated with such an item! I don't wish to dampen things, and DJM has some excellent tooling - Class 71 bogies being an exceptional example, but based on my observations of DJM products, the livery application is not as good as that of other manufacturers, and there can be lots of small print on a Class 92! My Class 71 (Bleed between the yellow and blue, and slight lack of density with the white numbers), plus the recent PBA's (Slight fuzz on the blue, black bleed between the letters of ECC International ('al' suffering the worst), TOPS data panel too large, plus a couple the panels with bowing black lines), and variation in print density on some of the black lettering. The wagon itself, has a couple of minor niggles, but on the whole its a lovely representation of the PBA, and are an impressive model,. This is not meant as negative feedback, DJM can produce great tooling, but it's weakness in my opinion is in its manufacturers livery application. Regards, C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts