RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted January 30, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2010 I think its just a paint difference from what I remember Andy, the photo shows a fuzzy line, i'll check tomorrow to make sure. Just had a good look at the one I bought today, and it does seem to be one moulding. It might be useful to contact Bachmann to see how it could come apart, to put weight in... As regards the brakes not being in line with the wheels, I now see what you mean Craig. My initial view is that it will require a fair bit of cutting and re-positioning to rectify this. It's almost as if the underside of the hopper has prevented the brake rigging assembly being moved closer inboard to match the OO wheelsets. Might not be as much of an issue for P4, but it will still require the brake gear to be removed and repositioned. Other than that, it looks to be a lovely model. Pity to have to hack the underside about, so I'm wondering whether I can persuade myself to live with the brake alignment thing?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudley Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Afternoon chaps, Had a pack of 5x Blue Circle Presflos from Hattons today - absolutely fabulous They roll very well though as mentioned in MRail mag recently, they do feel light and in need of extra weight. One aspect I'm not sure of; there's a small wiggly pipe attached to the top of each clear packaging, obviously to be fixed to wagon albeit no instructions for doing so. Can anyone advise please? Best wishes, Dudley http://www.dudleys-photos.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudley Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Ooops! - the partial answer to my last post is in earlier scribblings in this thread. Dudley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Piszczek Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 It might be useful to contact Bachmann to see how it could come apart, to put weight in... Surely someone has had a go at dissecting one? A bit of body filler and some weathering will certainly hide any cracks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Just had a good look at the one I bought today, and it does seem to be one moulding. Yup its definitely one piece with only that roof insert being separate. As regards the brakes not being in line with the wheels, I now see what you mean Craig. My initial view is that it will require a fair bit of cutting and re-positioning to rectify this. It's almost as if the underside of the hopper has prevented the brake rigging assembly being moved closer inboard to match the OO wheelsets. Might not be as much of an issue for P4, but it will still require the brake gear to be removed and repositioned. Other than that, it looks to be a lovely model. Pity to have to hack the underside about, so I'm wondering whether I can persuade myself to live with the brake alignment thing?.... With the brakes on mine they are also out of alignment when you look side on. Both 'left brakes are far from the wheels, both right brakes are over the front of the wheel, one slightly touching. Only on one side on both wagons which seems to suggest the slots in the floor were slightly out on the tool. A detailing fret for these would be ladder, new levers and guards and new brakes and linkages i'd think. No that isn't a statement of intent but its the list of the bits that are a bit flakey. I wouldn't try moving the existing brakes too much though as they may break easily. That little pipe up the side is delicate! edit: Here we go, knife down the side and pops off after you've checked that little pipe isn't glued in. Simples.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mark C Posted January 30, 2010 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2010 Hattons pictures are quite good. I didn't buy that one though as i've only seen them in bauxite in my pictures although the TOPs panel on the one above needs to go. http://www.ehattons.....aspx?SID=26882 So did I get that pipe thing in the right place? No idea, will have to study the prototype shots but it seems to go from no where to nowhere at the moment. Bachmann really needed to give people a clue with that one! One of the body to solebar ribs fell off while playing with this one too so that'll need gluing back. Ladders come out easy enough, the brakes aren't central on this one either I noticed with the wider wheels. Screw in coupling pockets is nice though. Plastic seems much more like the Hornby wagons in this and bending the w-irons quite a challenge. Getting the roof off for weighting could prove interesting though! I think you've got the discharge pipe (the pipe thing) at the wrong end...it should be at the non-vacuum cylinder end of the wagon where the inner end of the add-on pipe butts up to the pipework that is connected to the bigger hand wheel. Easier to do than say, but I think all will become clear when you try it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I think you've got the discharge pipe (the pipe thing) at the wrong end...it should be at the non-vacuum cylinder end of the wagon where the inner end of the add-on pipe butts up to the pipework that is connected to the bigger hand wheel. Easier to do than say, but I think all will become clear when you try it!! I did wonder if it should have been that end but the hole at that end was much bigger than the pip on the pipe. It fell off when I took the roof off anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest D.J.K. Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Looking at the models and prototype pictures, it seems some Presflos have one vacuum cylinder and others two. Anyone know the logic to this? Was it different builds or was the second cylinder added??? I mainly want to know if the single cylinder variant is correct for about 1980.... Thanks Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Looking at the models and prototype pictures, it seems some Presflos have one vacuum cylinder and others two. Anyone know the logic to this? Was it different builds or was the second cylinder added??? I mainly want to know if the single cylinder variant is correct for about 1980.... Different builds. Early wagons had one, and are usually more easily identifiable by the longer brakelever. The later builds (much more numerous) had two, with a short lever. Both types survived into the 80s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Different builds. Early wagons had one, and are usually more easily identifiable by the longer brakelever. The later builds (much more numerous) had two, with a short lever. Both types survived into the 80s Another identifier on the models I have the two cylinder one also features the changeover lever on each side, presumably the 2nd cylinder was only used when the wagons were full as per other designs? The single cylinder model doesn't have those levers. As I said earlier, I did check in the box first though to make sure it hadn't fallen off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb900f Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Just got back from the pub and remember vaguely reading in the last few days that the no of cylinders are dependent on the weight of the vehicle. 1 cylinder = 20 ton vehicle and 2 cylinder = 22ton vehicle. Just checked and its in the review for Model Rail January edition. Good night off to bed. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Just got back from the pub and remember vaguely reading in the last few days that the no of cylinders are dependent on the weight of the vehicle. That's a good pub you've got there; my local knows nothing about Presflos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest D.J.K. Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Thanks for the replies, so for my period it sounds like a few with the single cylinder and most with the twin set up.... Cheers Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Davidjsmith Posted January 31, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 31, 2010 Would a brake van be required post '68 if hauled by a Clayton. I suspect this would be the case with the 17 being a single-cab type, but I'd appreciate confirmation. Yes Dave single cab Loco's would require a Brake van for the guard to ride.Not sure what date the guards were allowed to ride in back cabs but on single cab loco's a brake was required.We used a single class 20 to Hartshill from Nuneaton in the early 1980's & had a brake van supplied! Looking at the models and prototype pictures, it seems some Presflos have one vacuum cylinder and others two. Anyone know the logic to this? Was it different builds or was the second cylinder added??? I mainly want to know if the single cylinder variant is correct for about 1980.... Theres a very useful artical in this Months Rail Express B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Theres a very useful article in this Months Rail Express B) There is indeed (by Trevor Mann). The piece on class 104 DMUs is good too. I have, I'm afraid, already recyced the rest of the magazine... Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Not entirely gratuitous, this Paul Bartlett shot quite graphically illustrates the difference in body shape between the Butterley builds and the others; subtle, but at the same time hard to ignore once you know about it (says he, having just discovered that some of the alumina vehicles were Butterleys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Piszczek Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Not entirely gratuitous, this Paul Bartlett shot quite graphically illustrates the difference in body shape between the Butterley builds and the others; subtle, but at the same time hard to ignore once you know about it Do you have time to explain Ian? Do the Butterley builds have the more angular bodies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Do you have time to explain Ian? Well I could just tell you to buy REx, but you know me better than that* Yep, you got it Pete - the sharp angle where the side turns into the hopper slope (on the nearest and cleanest of that trio) is the mark of a Butterley wagon. Bachmann's BCC grey wagon replicates this and as the REx review says, it's a fairly reliable pointer that the yellow ones are on the cards, as the later MetCamm builds for BCC had the more usual shape and could also have been done in grey. * Seriously, credit where it's due - these are a complex and varied type of wagon and Trevor Mann's article is well worth having Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Piszczek Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Well I could just tell you to buy REx, but you know me better than that* Thanks, that BCC sign hides the difference pretty well on the current grey offering. It's amazing Bachmann modeled both hopper styles. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 It's amazing Bachmann modeled both hopper styles. B) Aye, they're full of surprises on the wagon front, which makes the efforts of other firms all the more lacklustre. Retooling the chassis of their shock-absorbing wagons was something they didnt strictly have to do and which drew a bit of attention at the time, but how many people realise there are two sets of mouldings for the slope sided minerals, the later ones with the change in angle at the correct point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60B Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Inverness had its cement terminal built sometime in the 60's/70's. I'm guessing Presflos were used on this traffic. Can anybody prove/disprove this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Inverness had its cement terminal built sometime in the 60's/70's. I'm guessing Presflos were used on this traffic. Can anybody prove/disprove this? Apart from them being the obvious choice before the AB fleet hit its stride, I've seen enough shots of them in HML freights to think it's more than circumstantial evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60B Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Thanks Ian. Looks like it could be an expensive year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Lordy, they really are stonkingly good, aren't they. I was looking at the new release of the all-yellow Dapol version on Hattons yesterday - roof detail is comparable (apart from the lack of handrails), but everywhere else it's blown out the water. I won't mention the price 'difference' That's a new standard set for RTR OO wagons definitely. Feel free to do the N gauge version Bachmann... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefreight Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Presflos from Oxwellmains to Inverness - yes. Presflos from Oxwellmains to Strome Ferry via Inverness - yes. David R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.