Graham Farish - Winter 2023 Announcements

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, John M Upton said:

As an analogue dinosaur, I look forward to everyone upgrading their 47's so I can snap a couple of the old ones up at sensible prices!!!  No need for all that overly complicated technogimmerickery here....

Only because the current 47 has a complicated lighting structure under the cab which I don't want to disturb, I guess I could rip off the PCB and hard wire the lot in old school.  Had fun with a file on my class 37 to make space for the speaker and stay alive in the cab areas, but the old 47 might be a bigger job.  That said, I can give it a go and see how it goes, worst case it's scrap and I buy a new one.

[Benatkinsonuk]

Picked up a RES 47 with sound and I’m very pleased with it (pic attached of it on my test track) with a regional 158 on pre order - whenever they might get here! I’m modelling the 1990’s so would love an intercity swallow 47, perhaps next year then reading some of these comments. 

[acg5324]

I can confirm that the older bodies and fuel tanks fit the new chassis. Thanks to davebem for doing the donkey work on this.

 A two minute job to swop the lot. So my 47555 becomes sound fitted. It had a good run around the long DCC layout at the Yorkshire area NGS meeting today. Excellent sounds.

Edited December 9, 2023 by acg5324

[Paul.Uni]

The GWR 158 DMUs are shown as arrived on the Bachmann website.

[richierich]

On 03/12/2023 at 13:35, JBM37404 said:

Markets seem to be based round collectors anyhow especially as like the motor trade the used models are part of the industry strategy. Why else put tissue paper round boxes as that forms part of the 'value' I would snap an IC swallow or Railfreight distribution one in an instant but there is a good chance these will be in a few years time and the blue/green basics will be next.

 

The 158s have been pushed to dec/Jan according to the Manufacturers website although I over heard a rep at Warley say something about in time for Christmas?

 

I'm thinking the 37 is in line for a retool internally next as the sound market will be ripe for that and no new releases at present.

I suspect a retooled 37 is on the horizon if not from Farish, maybe someone else. 

[woodenhead]

42 minutes ago, richierich said:

I suspect a retooled 37 is on the horizon if not from Farish, maybe someone else. 

I would agree, seeing the new slimmed down 47 chassis for Next18 and speaker without needing to alter the body leads me to think they will have taken or are taking the same route with the 37 chassis.  In detail terms there is nothing wrong to me with the present body and whilst some people might wish for a selection of locos like that of an Accurascale OO class 37 the market in N simply is not big enough meaning a more lean series of body options that Farish probably already have.

 

Still I've just converted one of mine to sound with a bit of filing and removal of the cab interiors so I'm not in a massive rush to buy any new ones just yet.

[John M Upton]

The existing Farish Class 37 body is not in need of retooling (despite the clamor from certain areas of Social Media who get all umpty when something has not been retooled for at least six months) but does need one new end for the most common variant, split head code with cut buffer beam shrouds and retaining the centre doors, for some reason this variant was never tooled up, the nearest being the later variant with doors replaced with blank panel and a high intensity headlight, useless for anything pre 1986.

 

Of course the retooling of the chassis to incorporate all the techno gimmicks will hike up the price for us analog dinosaurs who have no interest in such things and that does annoy me a bit...

[woodenhead]

@John M Upton But with a bit of luck they do the same as the 47 and the bodies remain interchangeable so you might find down the line a class 37 with cut buffer beam shrouds in the spares department if they tool one and jazz up the chassis as well.

[acg5324]

19 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

17 hours ago, John M Upton said:

The existing Farish Class 37 body is not in need of retooling (despite the clamor from certain areas of Social Media who get all umpty when something has not been retooled for at least six months) but does need one new end for the most common variant, split head code with cut buffer beam shrouds and retaining the centre doors, for some reason this variant was never tooled up, the nearest being the later variant with doors replaced with blank panel and a high intensity headlight, useless for anything pre 1986.

 

Of course the retooling of the chassis to incorporate all the techno gimmicks will hike up the price for us analog dinosaurs who have no interest in such things and that does annoy me a bit...

Split headcode with doors and no headlight have been done John. I have a Rail blue one….they are from the first batch and I think the second production runs.

https://www.hattons.co.uk/182027/graham_farish_371_450a_class_37_0_37041_in_br_blue_with_split_headcode_boxes/stockdetail

and in green

https://www.hattons.co.uk/182028/graham_farish_371_457_class_37_0_d6714_in_br_green_with_small_yellow_panel_and_split_headcode_boxes/stockdetail

[JBM37404]

23 minutes ago, acg5324 said:

 

Split headcode with doors and no headlight have been done John. I have a Rail blue one….they are from the first batch and I think the second production runs.

https://www.hattons.co.uk/182027/graham_farish_371_450a_class_37_0_37041_in_br_blue_with_split_headcode_boxes/stockdetail

and in green

https://www.hattons.co.uk/182028/graham_farish_371_457_class_37_0_d6714_in_br_green_with_small_yellow_panel_and_split_headcode_boxes/stockdetail

Not done with skirts cut round buffers though. That's the one a lot of us would like and buy.

[woodenhead]

@acg5324  I've got one of those, it's got the original buffer cowling, he means the later cut back version that BR did from the 1980s, like with the 47 and I think even 31 BR began cutting back body elements in later years.

[acg5324]

OK close but no cigar.

[Dr Al]

Anyone measured the scale top speed of the current chassis in the new 47s? Given recent use of the coreless motor, in locos like the 40, 60 and 90, all of which struggle to reach a scale top speed (with no load), it'd be interesting to know if the new 47 chassis is also afflicted with this issue.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[TomE]

1 minute ago, Dr Al said:

Anyone measured the scale top speed of the current chassis in the new 47s? Given recent use of the coreless motor, in locos like the 40, 60 and 90, all of which struggle to reach a scale top speed (with no load), it'd be interesting to know if the new 47 chassis is also afflicted with this issue.

 

Cheers,

Alan

I’ve only had chance to run my DRS 47 along a short length of unitrack but I’d say it’s comparable in top speed to those mentioned above.

 

Tom. 

[1977joey]

14 hours ago, Dr Al said:

Anyone measured the scale top speed of the current chassis in the new 47s? Given recent use of the coreless motor, in locos like the 40, 60 and 90, all of which struggle to reach a scale top speed (with no load), it'd be interesting to know if the new 47 chassis is also afflicted with this issue.

 

Cheers,

Alan

Hi Alan, 

 

I have 47628 Sir Daniel & yes it definitely doesn't go as fast as any of my earlier 47s, I compared them...

 

Cheers 

Mark

Edited December 19, 2023 by 1977joey

[Steven B]

14 hours ago, Dr Al said:

Given recent use of the coreless motor, in locos like the 40, 60 and 90, all of which struggle to reach a scale top speed

 

Coreless motors don't mean slow top speeds - if models can't reach the top speed of the prototype then the gearing's at fault.

 

Steven B.

[Brian-1c]

Hi,

Using a pair of the new 47s, the Royal pair, top and tailed on an 11 coach train, I timed them over 36"

 

At a controller setting of 99 (maximum) it took 4 seconds. At a setting of 42, it took 6 seconds.

 

You can use the speed calculator here : https://www.modelbuildings.org/scale-speed-calculator/

 

 

I mentioned this to Bachmann at Warley and made the point it was gearing. Richard took note and said they would look into that. I also mentioned the class 90s, 60s, etc. were too slow as well and noted that the recent class 40 seems fine.

[John M Upton]

On 18/12/2023 at 10:47, acg5324 said:

OK close but no cigar.

 

I have actually tried sawing off the bottom of the split head code ends but with mixed (i.e. wonky!!) results!!!

[acg5324]

My class 47 seems fine with top end speed, it’s on 128 step still but acceleration is good and steady.

[bluedepot]

mine is a bit slow but not dreadful.

 

overall it's a very smooth runner.

 

i think maybe the acceleration rate needs altering a bit or some other cv? my top line speed is only 75 mph so I probably won't bother though. 

 

it's a great model I think.

 

 

tim

 

[Dr Al]

12 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

Coreless motors don't mean slow top speeds - if models can't reach the top speed of the prototype then the gearing's at fault.

 

 

 

Not because they are coreless, no. But the implication here is that the gearing hasn't changed in the revised design; but the top speed has, which is down to the motor RPM. This is why the 47 is interesting case to see the difference.

 

There seem a very limited number of 12V, 7mm diameter, coreless motors about, so these look to have a 13000rpm rating from what is out there. I suspect the earlier can motor is 18000 or 21000 rpm. 

 

The 90 has space for an 8mm motor, and I've replaced them with 18500rpm 8mm motors (which fit so perfectly you could believe the designer intended it), to stretch the legs. Fortunately these can be got fairly cheaply (if it was the 22 quid for a Farish spare it'd be sore). The motors Bachmann have in the 90s seem also to be slow on first run, and need time to 'warm up' which is also mediocre, and not something I've seen on other Farish coreless drives, so may be a batch issue.

 

I've not looked to see if these motors will fit the 40, and the 60 I doubt I'll ever buy (have my fill of original run models).

 

9 hours ago, Brian-1c said:

Using a pair of the new 47s, the Royal pair, top and tailed on an 11 coach train, I timed them over 36"

 

At a controller setting of 99 (maximum) it took 4 seconds. At a setting of 42, it took 6 seconds.

 

You can use the speed calculator here : https://www.modelbuildings.org/scale-speed-calculator/

 

 

I mentioned this to Bachmann at Warley and made the point it was gearing. Richard took note and said they would look into that. I also mentioned the class 90s, 60s, etc. were too slow as well and noted that the recent class 40 seems fine.

 

That's a scale 81mph. About right for a normal 47, but too low for the 100mph rated 47/7 - so if/when they do another run of those, they should be prepared for complaints.

 

Plus, it doesn't take into account a long scale train adding drag, curves, not-quite-level track, different controllers, wear etc, with not a lot of headroom there. Also, to run at scale speed you have to hammer the motor at full speed which will only add to the speed of degradation.

 

All a bit disappointing overall, as these kind of things should come out in design and testing IMHO - designing with no margin at the top end isn't well thought out IMHO. Not looking for Smokey Joe on reheat here, but they need more headroom for me.

 

Cheers, and thanks to those who looked and measured,

Alan

 

[Steven B]

11 hours ago, Dr Al said:

Not because they are coreless, no. But the implication here is that the gearing hasn't changed in the revised design; but the top speed has, which is down to the motor RPM. This is why the 47 is interesting case to see the difference.

----8<-------

The 90 has space for an 8mm motor, and I've replaced them with 18500rpm 8mm motors (which fit so perfectly you could believe the designer intended it), to stretch the legs. Fortunately these can be got fairly cheaply (if it was the 22 quid for a Farish spare it'd be sore). 

 

Thanks for the clarification - your post sounded like you were putting the blame of the slow class 90s on the fact it has a coreless motor.

 

Have you got a link to the motor you used to replace the factory fitted one in the class 90?

 

 

Steven B

 

[JR_P]

18 hours ago, Dr Al said:

The motors Bachmann have in the 90s seem also to be slow on first run, and need time to 'warm up' which is also mediocre, and not something I've seen on other Farish coreless drives, so may be a batch issue.

No, the ‘warming up’ thing is present in all of my 60s (latest batch) and both of my 90s - although less pronounced with the 90s. The 90s top speed is higher too - as you would hope!

 

I do also find that both classes’ top speed is higher on DC than DCC, for whatever reason….

 

The other loco class that I am aware of that needs to ‘warm up’ is the Dapol 68…. it speeds up considerably and its top speed is probably more than necessary. I believe it is also a coreless motor, so that means that there are coreless motors available that are fast….

Edited December 20, 2023 by JR_P
Auto-correct gremlin

[Dr Al]

7 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

Have you got a link to the motor you used to replace the factory fitted one in the class 90?

 

 

The link is here (18krpm or 13.5krpm versions, and it's the 18k you want).

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254604745332

 

The fitting is as below:

 

The parts:

 

Comparison of motors:

 

Even the small new motor makes the original look weedy:

 

 

The replacement is a snug fit in the casting, and has the same diameter shafts so the flywheels fit immediately (though again, they are so pitifully small that if they hadn't got the drive couplings mounted, I'd have been tempted not to bother refitting them), meaning that the plastic retainers are not needed - though if retention was an issue, the screws could be used with some thin brass retaining strips:

 

 

Clearance to the PCB (the motor sits taller by 0.5mm, but the flywheels are where they were, since the casting's cut out is 8mm, and there's clearance hole in the PCB anyway):

 

Any issue, and it's all completely reversible, nothing has been cut, hacked or modified. The speed increase is not mega, but it helps get the scale speed up to around 125mph or so, which is still tight, but gives a bit of headroom.

 

I also cleaned out all the grease from the bogies to reduce drag and further found one model that had the flywheel at one end of the motor rubbing on the chassis block. This was corrected when new motor was installed.

 

I have to say, that when you strip a 90, you do feel rather short changed - there's plenty of space for a superior motor and still have all the modern gimmicks folk want (speakers etc), or add more chassis material to up the weight of the unit. There is space between the PCB and the chassis casting to add some lead if you find it necessary (though insulate the top surface if you do that!!).

 

Cheers,
Alan

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Dr Al

[Dr Al]

1 hour ago, JR_P said:

The other loco class that I am aware of that needs to ‘warm up’ is the Dapol 68…. it speeds up considerably and its top speed is probably more than necessary. I believe it is also a coreless motor, so that means that there are coreless motors available that are fast….

 

Dapol 68 is not a coreless motor - IIRC it looked like a Tomix style 5 pole open frame.

 

Coreless motors can be fast - the 3.7V ones for drone use have much higher RPM values. I think the problem with rail ones is that 12V is fairly strong to use in such a small form factor - which I presume is why finding any alternative replacements is almost impossible.

Cheers,
Alan