S.A.C Martin Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Can I vote for none of the above? Absolutely! I think I actually prefer the Hornby end. I know it's wrong, but it looks a better shape that the MJT one, despite the various features being in the wrong place. I guess what we need is an enterprising supplier to provide a new resin end for the Hornby model. I think we are finding that the 4VEP is a more marmite model than we thought in many ways. In removing the cab of this end of the unit, I have found to my surprise how Hornby made the front end flush glazed and fitted. It's a very bizarre moulding whereby the recess is part of the glazing unit, not the actual bodyshell, and is painted yellow before the pipes are fitted, with the rest of the piece making up the clear plastic glazing. If I can on the second one, I will try and preserve it better to show what I mean. I'm firmly in the MJT camp (may be alone in that!) for the moment with my mods, and certainly the larger air horns do look the part more than the Hornby ones. But it's the roof vents which have amazed me. The addition of the MJT ones looks much more "right" than the Hornby vents, which must have been undersize. Overall, whatever doesn't kill me in this build, can only make me stronger - this week I am tackling the bogies, and I have worked out a plan which may see me reuse as much as possible of the bogies while fitting point to point bearings and new wheelsets. More on this as it comes between my workshifts. Thanks to everyone for their advice and support thus far - hopefully at the end of it I will have my reasonably running, reasonable looking 4VEP for "Sidcup" at the end of it! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium zarniwhoop Posted November 6, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 6, 2011 Here is one thread about fixing the 4VEP: http://www.rmweb.co....__fromsearch__1 If anyone knows of more blogs or threads - post the links please! Having put my excursions into a blog, I now find that the search facility doesn't show it. Anyway, here's the most recent part of my attempt to fix it http://www.rmweb.co....art-the-fourth/ Went to Railwayania (the Replica shop) yesterday, stocked up on B5 bogie kits. The gentleman there said that the MJT ends look better if the inner edges of the windows are filed out to reduce the space to the gangway, but it's a lot of work. I hope to assemble some more bogies this week (still need wheels) - inspection of my nuts and bolts shows that all my packs of M3 nuts are half nuts, except for the pack I used for the first DTC :-( So, I suspect I did my initial measuring with half nuts. Oh well. Longer term, for me the biggest problem is still the couplings. No more photos for the moment, I'm waiting for the varnish on the roof of the first DTC to harden before I weather it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadyneman Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I think I prefer a hybrid of the two, to be honest. With the way you have weathered the Hornby end it actually looks better than the MJT end. The MJT's "eyes" seem too far apart and the whole end bows out too much I think. The elliptical roof line looks wrong on the MJT end too although that may be the angle at which it has been photographed. Hornby have got the jumper recesses just right in terms of depth but the roof vents and horns are too small. I would be happy with leaving the Hornby end but weather it similar to yours and just replace the horns and vents only with MJT parts. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 MJT front for me, although not perfect it looks much better. Nice work SAC you are braver than me. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Not wishing to make further modifications without a spare set of MJT castings to work on, but the thought occurs that I could "fix" the window to gangway problem with careful filing - but saying that, I'm wondering if a 3D printed front would be a better bet to replace the Hornby front end altogether. There's no doubt in my mind how it could be done - gangway separate to the main cab casting, but this again is time against effort against experience. That being said, I'm willing to have a go privately and see what my sketchup program can produce, if anything. On a separate note, early this morning I had a go at modifying one of the Hornby bogies with varying degrees of success. I'll post the results later this week when I'm off work, but the conclusion I have come to is that it would have been better (and definitely doable) for Hornby to have developed the bogie as being point to point, retaining much of the current design to allow the couplings to work, with little fuss, as well as improving the running ten fold. I'm starting to enjoy the project finally, now that I've accepted I've probably had the worst of a bad bunch and can fix it. Can I say this is modelling now...?! I think I'll end up with something more reasonable at any rate. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) There's been a couple folks, on here, who are waiting for the B/G version. This is hinted at ? *, 19mins. 30secs.into the Model Rail Live DVD, which comes with the mag's December issue. * The commentary snippets state, that, quote :- " ..Hornby's 4-VEP model was launched in Summer 2011, and is a stunning 4 car unit.....The model is offered in original Rail Blue, Blue & Grey and Network SouthEast liveries....". No film of any of the units working, either in the dvd's first part, or in the second, which is, in itself, a promo / plug for Hornby. Maybe ? the latter part was filmed before the model's release. I do wonder (quite a lot of the time)...Have i missed / am l missing,...or, are.. they missing something ??.. Edited November 7, 2011 by Ceptic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadyneman Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 As an update I thought you all might like to see my VEP running in tandem with a Bachmann CEP. I've been fiddling about with other projects such as putting lights in Bachmann DMUs but this latest film also features the VEP too, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXbix3FG2oE 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted November 7, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 7, 2011 Very atmospheric! The hamster in the 170 was clearly enjoying itself . The VEP actually looks quite good with the CEP. Good grief, what am I saying? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I'm wondering if a 3D printed front would be a better bet to replace the Hornby front end altogether. I'd agree with that - it's probably the best option if someone has the time and the inclination. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadyneman Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Very atmospheric! The hamster in the 170 was clearly enjoying itself . The VEP actually looks quite good with the CEP. Good grief, what am I saying? Yes... the Hamster has been given it's marching orders today... a little lubrication on the wheel backs has sorted that out! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Okay chaps, have been examining my cast MJT ends and the makeup of the Hornby model this evening. The MJT recesses are deeper than the Hornby ones by about .5 of a mm. Not enough to make a difference, I'd have thought, and yet there's several people here who think the MJT recess is shallower. I am wondering whether by removing the moulded pipework, and using the Hornby set, it would make the MJT end look better, as well as the windows modification. I've been beaten to the rewheeling exercise, it seems - Nigel Burkin's superb modifications can be found by clicking this link. It seems we were on a wavelength there - he has pretty much done the modifications to the unpowered bogies as I'd intended to, albeit for EM rather than 00. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uk_Steve Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 great video metadyneman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Just to add fuel to the debate, the MJT ends were designed to match a Lima coach to which etched sides had been added and as a result are probably too wide. I probably adjusted the window positions to suit but it was so long ago I cannot remember ;-) I do recall measuring one up and had a couple of attempts to get a casting that pleased me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uk_Steve Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Okay chaps, have been examining my cast MJT ends and the makeup of the Hornby model this evening. The MJT recesses are deeper than the Hornby ones by about .5 of a mm. Not enough to make a difference, I'd have thought, and yet there's several people here who think the MJT recess is shallower. I am wondering whether by removing the moulded pipework, and using the Hornby set, it would make the MJT end look better, as well as the windows modification. I've been beaten to the rewheeling exercise, it seems - Nigel Burkin's superb modifications can be found by clicking this link. It seems we were on a wavelength there - he has pretty much done the modifications to the unpowered bogies as I'd intended to, albeit for EM rather than 00. im glad you done a link!! not showing direct pics i got a right telling off not long ago from this guy lesson learnt Stevie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold kipford Posted November 7, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 7, 2011 Personally I think Nigel Burkins method is butchery. On the non driving sections I used Gibsons NARROW 2mm bearings, these have an outside diameter of 2.49 mm, no need to drill out the bogies and the unit can have its OO wheel sets popped back in if required. The bearings are set up with the top hat inboard with a 3mm o/d brass tube, 8.8mm long spacing them. It needs about 15 20 mins to bed in then it fine. On another point I initally fitted a Bachmann 553 decoder which is pretty standard throughout the fleet. It performed awfully, jerky poor speed control etc. On the advice of the other VEP user in the club I put in one of DCC concepts stay alive decoders, programmed to their recomendations for an EMU. Total transformation it works brillantly. These decoders will now become my standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Just to add fuel to the debate, the MJT ends were designed to match a Lima coach to which etched sides had been added and as a result are probably too wide. Sorry Mike, you'd be wrong. The MJT ends are the same width, even the same profile. I know this because I spent about twenty minutes trying to fit it between the walls of the Hornby model before realizing they were the same width! The plastic filler I put onto the model goes into the "notch" where the lima sides would normally slot on top. As it happens, the Hornby sides are the same width as the MJT ends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Sorry Mike, you'd be wrong. The fact that the MJT ends are the same width as the Hornby body is quite interesting This means that either the Hornby VEP is actually too wide, or that the Lima Mk1 was too narrow - at one point I know what my money would have been on, but I'm not so sure now! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Just to say that I have received a letter from Simon Kohler, regarding my letter to Hornby. I'm very grateful for his response, and once I've absorbed all of his points I will report back more fully. I have always valued Simon Kohler's contribution to the hobby, and this again confirms my thoughts on someone who is definitely a positive influence at Hornby. I will of course be writing back to thank him for his response, but would like to say for the record on here, a "thank you" to Mr Kohler. Edited November 8, 2011 by S.A.C Martin 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Just to say that I have received a letter from Simon Kohler, regarding my letter to Hornby. I'm very grateful for his response, and once I've absorbed all of his points I will report back more fully. I have always valued Simon Kohler's contribution to the hobby, and this again confirms my thoughts on someone who is definitely a positive influence at Hornby. I will of course be writing back to thank him for his response, but would like to say for the record on here, a "thank you" to Mr Kohler. Okay, now that I've finished reading the whole letter, several things have struck me. Firstly, with regards point 1: 1. On opening the box I found that what should have been the power coach was in fact unpowered. It turned out that the coach body 62467 had been fitted to the unpowered chassis of what should have been coach 71146. Sadly I did not take photographs at the time, however the 71146 body was poorly fitted onto the 62467 chassis and was bowing out towards the centre as the fit was incorrect. Swapping them over so that the bodies matched their chassis solved this first issue. Mr Kohler found it "amazing" and "impossible to believe" but, in fairness, "accepted my [your] word". The reason for this is fair - the models are produced on a production line, each coach separate to one another. He confirms my initial suspicion that this may not have happened in the production area, however he was also gracious in acknowledging my feelings regarding this possible QC issue. For points 2 and 3: 2. As manufactured, the guard irons on the trailing bogies at either end are fitted the wrong way. This also causes a problem with the placement of the steps and 3rd rail shoes on each bogie, as seen here in this photograph... 3. On my sample, all of the inner bogies, bar those on the power car, were attached facing the wrong way. The damper should face towards the centre of the coach, as seen in my attached photographed of one end of the coach 76923... He states that these were "an error on some models and I apologise for this". Fair enough, he has noted my concern and also acknowledged that the error has been rectified on my model. For point 4 - regarding the livery: 4. The next issue regards the livery of the unit.After much debate on the RMweb forum, there is some consensus thatthe orange cantrail stripe along the whole of the unit should not beorange, but red, when coupled with the black painted cab at each cabend. I am not by any means an expert in these matters, but closeexamination of a variety of photographs of NSE 4VEPs on the net seemsto bear this out. If of course this is correct as depicted, for aspecific date in the unit's life, then please accept my apologies onthis point. Mr Kohler states that "the livery is correct and has been verified by one of our customers who used to drive them". This intrigues me as I am still unable to find a photograph of a 4VEP which matches Hornby's, let alone their particular numbered one, but I am satisfied with his response. He also goes onto to say that point 5 - regarding the vents - he believes them to be accurate but is very fair in his view of my modifying my own model to my requirements. Regarding point 6: 6. The solid compartment walls were a disappointment upon first inspection, but reading back through the development of this model were apparently for production reasons. An extremely good suggestion which has emerged on the RMweb forum which might appease both consumer and manufacturer, would be to use the same component, but mould it in clear plastic, then print onto the clear plastic the doorways. This would improve the look of the unit immensely in terms of its interior decoration. His response to my point is rather surprising. He too was disappointed by the solid partition, but this was not picked up on until after the production models arrived. The models were on show at DEMU with this error, and this was not picked up there either. This indicates perhaps that the interior design for that coach was different, prior to the production models? He has rather graciously asked me to return my 4VEP for assessment with regards running - I fear it won't help him in this case as I have carried out the modifications I intended to on both coaches and motor bogie (which has simply had the traction tyre wheelset replaced), and the unit is now running more than adequately. He apologized profusely for the lateness of the letter, but assured me in his closing remarks that my "points and views have been noted". Bringing my own part of the 4VEP saga to a close, I will be writing back to Mr Kohler to thank him for his letter, his explanations and understanding of my position, and also to thank him for his kind offer to inspect the unit personally (although it will not be going back as to inspect a much modified unit would be fruitless in this case). Overall I'm satisfied with Mr Kohler's response, and will continue to make the necessary aesthetic modifications to my 4VEP over the coming months to make it adequate for my needs. In the meantime, I await responses from two magazine editors and Mr Frank Martin of Hornby. To the good people of this forum, for your help and support in this matter, I thank you. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uk_Steve Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) you getting a response is good enough for me Martin i dont need a reply now because i clearly stated i have sent the item back in the letter so now for me after seeing working models on videos youtube clips via members i am going to wait to see if there is any plan of action on the 4 Vep if not i will go and try before i buy with a modelshop in the Kent area or after looking at Hornbys website i may even turn up to the visitor center shop and cafe in Margate if i see it work on a layout i buy plus its good excuse to go there for the day even its just ends up having something to eat at the Cafe "easy pleased me" hopefully i dont look like a nerd in the flesh i would like to think i am a cool dude!! he!he! Edited November 8, 2011 by Uk_Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptic Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Well done Simon ,... At last,.. you've had a reply... After all the effort you've put in, to advise us, on this topic, and, to take your own initiative, along with other's quite drastic improvements to a r-t-r model,.. which should have been there,... in the first place. l salute you Cheers, Simon * * Please accept my apologies, if l've called you Martin in my previous posts. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Just to say that I have received a letter from Simon Kohler, regarding my letter to Hornby. I'm very grateful for his response, and once I've absorbed all of his points I will report back more fully. I have always valued Simon Kohler's contribution to the hobby, and this again confirms my thoughts on someone who is definitely a positive influence at Hornby. I will of course be writing back to thank him for his response, but would like to say for the record on here, a "thank you" to Mr Kohler. I too have had a response to my letter today apologising for the delay. There is no definitive explanation for the noisy running but Mr Kohler has offered me another VEP on loan to test some theories for his engineers. So overall a positive step forwards. I'll keep you all informed. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 RE the names, either Simon or Martin is fine. At school, they always called us by our surnames anyway...! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uk_Steve Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) RE the names, either Simon or Martin is fine. At school, they always called us by our surnames anyway...! oh i didnt relize either i change it to Simon in the future i think 1st name is more polite.when speaking all the best Edited November 8, 2011 by Uk_Steve 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Fair play Uk, or should that be Steve? 2 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