RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted December 20, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 20, 2012 Im sorry but i have to smile at this. People have been clammering for years for these gantries and Dave has decided to do the most simplistic design possible. For the sake of a few bits of brass and some practise (along with the help of people on here) anyone could have made these years ago as well as possibly learning a few new skills. Sometimes it really is better to just have a go. Cheers Jim Hi Jim I fully agree. Can't wait to see your first scratchbuilt loco On a serious note. Would it not be better to consider Mk3 headspan as a kit of parts. Most modellers who are at the modelling level of making a four track main line layout would be able to assmble a kit to suit their layout. I feel that before producing the multiple track mast, some single and double track special mast like cross overs, over lap, mid point anchor, junctions, lower encumbance for bridges, raised mast for level crossings and platform mast are needed. Along with an explaination of why these mast differ and how to apply them realisticly to a layout. Clive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 To be of any use, a multi track support has to be variable, as there will be an almost infinate variety of track centres, number of tracks etc. If you make a support with fixed or a limited number of positions, then you end up having to design your railway to suit the masts rather than the other way round, and to fit to an existing railway you may be forced to 'cut and shut' To be any good a multi track support would have to be supplied in kit form with seperate registrations that can be positioned anywhere along the boom to suit, which would also need to be variable length. This is very easily achieved with a headspan, with a parts count much lower than a variable portal - In its simplest form just two plain masts, one registration for each track and three lengths of wire (which would be bought in anyway as far as manufacturer is concerned) and thats it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 On a serious note. Would it not be better to consider Mk3 headspan as a kit of parts. You probably missed this very suggestion made some pages back Clive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Whilst it would have been nice to see some lattice portal-framed mainline gantires, perhaps as a start the plain gantries are a good start. How many people have the room to model a four-track high-speed mainline where portal frame gantries were used? A lot of modern layouts seem to be of urban areas or stations where low-speed gantries would be ideal (for that matter, an unrealistic number of modern modellers also festoon their layouts with lineside industry which largely disappeared in the 1970s and 1980s with the virtual disappearance of wagonload freight, and which you struggle to find in many areas including the industrialised Midlands and north-west, but I digress). Certainly they are absolutely spot on for me personally and I will be very happy and look forward to use them on my new layout which will be urban based, inspired by the West Midlands where such gantries have been used in a number of locations (eg Wolverhampton Station Walsall Station and even on some parts of the approaches the Birmingham They look like they will be easy to use and modify, and reasonably accurate judging by the picture. To be honest Dapol couldn't have done better for my needs if I'd personally commissioned the models! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Hi Jim I fully agree. Can't wait to see your first scratchbuilt loco Consigned to the bin over 25 years ago clive. It was a jinty in n gauge! Although i put in afair amount of effort and did my best at the time i had to accept it wasnt good enough. I ended up replacing it with a hacked about jinty(ish) from the shredded wheat promotions. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Going back to page 8 I listed what was announced at Warley 2010 - lattice gantries were mentioned then so maybe these will follow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 How many people have the room to model a four-track high-speed mainline where portal frame gantries were used? You seem to be assuming only four track main lines require gantries. My mainline is double track, and has a requirement for at least half a dozen headspans: 1. At the station, where there are narrow platforms a mast going straight through the middle of the platform would be an unacceptable obstacle for the passengers, and where in real life a portal or headspan is not practical a special design of long reach insulated cantilever is used to ensure no live equipment over the platform, which is not available in model form. 2. At crossovers and loops/sidings. Whilst the main line is just double, there are often other lines alongside which require to be spanned/have OLE support. I would expect that a great many 2 track main lines would be unelectrifiable without some portal/headspans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 You seem to be assuming only four track main lines require gantries. My mainline is double track, and has a requirement for at least half a dozen headspans: Quite right, my mistake there are many examples where double track portal-frame lattice type gantries are used. Ironically not far from where I used to live in Staffordshire there was an example of four track running where normal plain line side masts could be used due to the wider than average track spacing, so I really should have engaged brain before typing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy1975 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Great news Dapol on these eargely awaited items, cant wait to buy a bundle to complete my OHL system. Hope they are worth their wait! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy1975 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Any update Dapol? All gone quiet again............ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
60800 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 All I need now are the wires - fortunatley my 'electrified' loop is single track only. It'll be interesting figuring out how I'm going to attach the masts to my viaduct walls. Brilliant product by the way Dave - I'm confident the completed sysytem can withstand the regular contact of a Bachmann AL5 pantograph Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCCmad Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Hi all, Not wanting to sound impatient but its about time the wires are available for these isn't it because I'm sure i read somewhere Dapol was doing them when they first came out, if not could any one point me in the direction of getting some wires to Finnish my layout of before this June. Connor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Bull Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I'm confident the completed sysytem can withstand the regular contact of a Bachmann AL5 pantograph How confident? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/16442-Dapol-announce-oo-ole/?p=434403 Apparently developed for use with Dapol products only. I don't see much logic in that unless it's to prevent customers buying the products of Dapol's competitors. Can you imagine where we'd be if track was still designed the same way? Back in the dark ages of Tri-ang versus Hornby Dublo versus Trix Twin each with their own, incompatible, track and power standards. Even Marklin make their AC powered stud contact products available for DC two rail as well, so that they can be used on the same track as other manufacturers' locos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 How confident? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/16442-Dapol-announce-oo-ole/?p=434403 Apparently developed for use with Dapol products only. I don't see much logic in that unless it's to prevent customers buying the products of Dapol's competitors. Can you imagine where we'd be if track was still designed the same way? Back in the dark ages of Tri-ang versus Hornby Dublo versus Trix Twin each with their own, incompatible, track and power standards. Even Marklin make their AC powered stud contact products available for DC two rail as well, so that they can be used on the same track as other manufacturers' locos. Not that there are many regulated standards or agreed practices in 4mm/OO when compared to other scales anyway, but I've never seen one for overhead electrification, so what are manufacturers supposed to work to...? If modellers are going to complain that an out of the box loco from manufacturer X won't work with overhead from manufacturer Y, then I doubt very much that they're going to find favour or satisfaction through replicating OHLE on their layouts. Despite it's faults, I still like the concept of the Dapol masts, as they can be used on their own or replaced at a later date. What I don't like is the old Hornby system from the 1990's that placed a girder over the tracks, and I don't think the market is currently or will ever be established enough to attract something like a Sommerfeldt system, where you buy trainset wires and masts to suit your trainset layout, which would look totally out of place when compared to the fidelity of the latest RTR offerings. That is why I believe the only workable options are to string your own thin but tensioned wires and adjust the pantograph spring tension to a mimimum, or do without the wires completely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
60800 Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I'm fairly confident I can get my AL5 pantographs to run happily under the Dapol wires - simple reason being I've been busy modifying the pantographs to make them move level, and as softly as possible. If it turns out that there are problems, then I can; A. Remove one of the two springs from each pantograph or B. Install a lightly tensioned string directly under the Dapol wires that will be practically invisible Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I can see it now.......a load of broken up masts and a scrunched up ball of "contact" wire in the bin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gronk the shunter Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 This really is taking a long time to arrive isn't it? Perhaps this is Dapol achieving the ultimate in fidelity to the prototype. In the real world government has been putting off actually delivering electrification for years and now Dapol are doing the same! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I can see it now.......a load of broken up masts and a scrunched up ball of "contact" wire in the bin The same could be said for something as simple and effective as flexitrack. It's second nature to experienced modellers, but give some to the beginner and it'll also end up in the bin. Most people who suceed in this hobby do so through practice and perseverence, very few are born with a natural talent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy1975 Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 We could do with an update from Dapol about this range..............or maybe there isn't one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddys-blues Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Come on Dave !!! is there any news on this lot yet please ? if not please just give us a courteous nod of where Dapol are up to ? Best regards Craig. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DapolDave Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Ah catenary. You see, apart from waiting for a production and tooling slot, i'm not sure we are producing the correct gantry. Some say this version (previously in this thread is ok, while others say it isnt and you need a lattice. We arent in a position to tool for a lattice and no design work has been done on one. So what do i do? I can get a slot for the gantry but is it wrong? or do i go and start designing the lattice type which will be more expensive to tool and take longer? Wires will come with whatever we make in this area. So i'm at a loss and i truly thought that the 'H' section version would be ok for the job to start with having seen lots of them over the NW, darn sarf, and over east. Before i commit the company's money i need to know which please. i could just press the button today on the 'H' and get a slot but there is little point if there's no market for it. Let me know guys. cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Baron Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 For me - make it as H girder - as any is better than none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 HI H for me too Regards Kal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted April 30, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 30, 2013 Ah catenary. You see, apart from waiting for a production and tooling slot, i'm not sure we are producing the correct gantry. Some say this version (previously in this thread is ok, while others say it isnt and you need a lattice. We arent in a position to tool for a lattice and no design work has been done on one. So what do i do? I can get a slot for the gantry but is it wrong? or do i go and start designing the lattice type which will be more expensive to tool and take longer? Wires will come with whatever we make in this area. So i'm at a loss and i truly thought that the 'H' section version would be ok for the job to start with having seen lots of them over the NW, darn sarf, and over east. Before i commit the company's money i need to know which please. i could just press the button today on the 'H' and get a slot but there is little point if there's no market for it. Let me know guys. cheers Dave Hi Dave The use of beam girder portals with the proposed supports for the regitration arms is limited to mainly station areas where Mk1 OLE is/has been used. It would not be mixed in with the Mk3 canterlever mast that you already produce. Would it be a better idea to do a Mk3 portal. The supports on these are the same as used on the more common headspan mast. The supports could be sold seperately or in a kit for those who wish to make headspan mast over multiple track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted April 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 30, 2013 Nice drawing. It highlights one potential problem in producing any sort of portal: the track spacing. How many of Dapol Dave's customers would have track at correct 45mm centres? Not too many I think. So the system needs to be designed in such a way that the registration arms can be adjusted along the length of the H-section girder. Not insurmountable. I think that you are right that this sort of gantry/portal is the right choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.