modelpara Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Length: 31.5cm Height: 5.7cm Width: 3.8cm Specifications are per carriage in OO gauge. Also, I intend on running the set as a part of a test train, maybe with some of those coaches used to test new stock. Otherwise I'll run the two car set on its own or with an additional set to make a 4 car one. Will have to measure the plate when it arrives, skewing at an angle may work 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Will have to measure the plate when it arrives, skewing at an angle may work Hope I don't sound stupid when I ask this, but what exactly do you mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelpara Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Hope I don't sound stupid when I ask this, but what exactly do you mean? For 3D printing , rather than putting the print parallel to the edges put it at 45 degree angle to give more print length Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelpara Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Hope I don't sound stupid when I ask this, but what exactly do you mean? Don't even need to measure, basic maths say my plate would not do something this size Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) For 3D printing , rather than putting the print parallel to the edges put it at 45 degree angle to give more print length Don't even need to measure, basic maths say my plate would not do something this size When I come to printing I would dismantle it. (Bodyshells, Chassis frames, Underframe components, Other components). I don't think that would make much of a difference though. Edited October 12, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelpara Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 When I come to printing I would dismantle it. (Bodyshells, Chassis frames, Underframe components, Other components). I don't think that would make much of a difference though. No it doesn't unless the sections are split at seams like doors etc or printed in blocks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 A hypothetical DEMU for Scotland based on the Mark 2 shell. If the DMBSO had an engine of about 1,100 hp (similar to the 210) and assuming a weight of about 56t, with 4 trailers between a pair of these that's a pretty good power/weight ratio for intercity services. Cheers David 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 A Mark 3 DBSO. Cheers David 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 That DEMU is practical. A GUV underframe, with M6 motor bogies, 4xEE507, a V6 valenta engine with a mk2 body on top. A 57` motor coach with aprox 1200bhp for about 50 tonnnes. The reason for a GUV underframe? They are aleady designed for aa 14 ton paylod, so it aviods redesigning a stronger underframe (it`s also simular to what NR did with their DEMUs, a modern body on top of a older underframe to carrry the extra weight). Apair of these with 5 mk3 between would have given a excellent train for use on the ed-glas shuttles with something aond 10hp/ton. Just get rid of the end gangways.They were never used, a source of drafts, and fitting a coridor past the engine room limits the engine design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 On a similar note, something like this very nearly happened in Australia. Part of the XPT spec was for 1+4 commuter sets as well as 2+5 intercity sets. Cheers David 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 And now for something completely ridiculous. What if the HST had been built like the APT-P? Cheers David 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 On a similar note, something like this very nearly happened in Australia. Part of the XPT spec was for 1+4 commuter sets as well as 2+5 intercity sets.HST DBSO.pngCheersDavid That's a pretty good idea, I might find a Mk3 kit and a GBL HST and recreate that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 And now for something completely ridiculous. What if the HST had been built like the APT-P?HSAPT.pngCheersDavid Try making the power cars shorter. The cab from the doors and after the cooler group is empty, and not needed if they are separate power cars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Not strictly an imaginary loco but another "what if". Suppose WR had remained exclusively hydraulic territory, after the WCML electrification was finished the 50s were transferred to ER to do the same job while ECML electrification was being rolled out. Let's imagine 50001 is allocated to Finsbury Park. Cheers David Edited October 16, 2017 by DavidB-AU 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Not strictly an imaginary loco but another "what if". Suppose WR had remained exclusively hydraulic territory, after the WCML electrification was finished the 50s were transferred to ER to do the same job while ECML electrification was being rolled out. Let's imagine 50001 is allocated to Finsbury Park. FP50.jpg Cheers David That is easy enough to be tempting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Not entirely silly ideas. Normal Mark 3s in between. Cheers David 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The more knowledgeable out there may be able to answer this; HST needs to be a minimum of 2+5 to safely travel at 125mph. Using the imaginary Mk3 based DBSO as an end, would a 1+5 HST also theoretically be 'safe' at 125mph? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted October 17, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 17, 2017 Not entirely silly ideas. Normal Mark 3s in between. EHST.jpg HSEMU.png Cheers David Looks nice. What does the pantograph on the driving passenger coach do though? I remember many years in Modern Railways there was a letter commenting on suggestions of converting HSTs to electric power, pointing out that it would take more than a pantograph, a roll of sellotape and a few "clicky-buzzy" things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Looks nice. What does the pantograph on the driving passenger coach do though? It's a motor coach of an EMU. Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted October 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2017 What does the pantograph on the driving passenger coach do though? It's a motor coach of an EMU. Don't they normally put pantographs on non-driving coaches these days? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 ... HST needs to be a minimum of 2+5 to safely travel at 125mph. Using the imaginary Mk3 based DBSO as an end, would a 1+5 HST also theoretically be 'safe' at 125mph? The need for a minimum number of trailer vehicles must be to supply sufficient brake force. Thus if 2.5 trailers per power car is sufficient, one power car with three or more trailers will be OK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Don't they normally put pantographs on non-driving coaches these days? 80xs have pans on the driving vehicles. Likewise 395s. So Hitachi at least do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 80xs have pans on the driving vehicles. Likewise 395s. So Hitachi at least do. The 373 Eurostar sets did too, two per power car plus initially 3rd rail pickup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted October 17, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 17, 2017 It's a motor coach of an EMU. Cheers David I think perhaps I was over-thinking this one. It does look nice though. 80xs have pans on the driving vehicles. Likewise 395s. So Hitachi at least do. Not all that far from what looks like the exhaust from the diesel engine on the adjacent car, which is something I'm not used to seeing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
45125 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Looks nice. What does the pantograph on the driving passenger coach do though? I remember many years in Modern Railways there was a letter commenting on suggestions of converting HSTs to electric power, pointing out that it would take more than a pantograph, a roll of sellotape and a few "clicky-buzzy" things. That is not as daft as you would think, I remember going an HST course in 1978 and that was mentioned then that it would not be hard to convert to electric traction..... 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