LTfan Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 I've tried looking for news about the Derby Lightweight DMU, the speed-whiskers version, but I must have missed seeing something. I would be grateful for an idea of when it's expected to reach the shops. Many thanks David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold mcowgill Posted March 9, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 9, 2011 The Bachmann Collectors' Club mag dropped through the letterbox today, inside it states that the Derby Lightweight CAD drawings have now been received from China and the project has now progressed to the tooling stage. That puts it behind the 3F 0-6-0 (tooling completed) and class 350 (in tool room with test samples due - see elsewhere for photos last weekend). In comparison on the same page is the FNA nuclear flask wagon where factory finished samples have been received for approval, much further on in the process. That is stated to be available late summer, so I think we can take a stab at late in the year for the Derby Lightweight at the earliest. Take a few extra notes with you to Warley late this year, you might possibly find Barwell have an express shipment of them for the show. Patience is a virtue with RTR manufacturers! Remember you've never had it so good - the alternative is an MTK kit!!! Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTfan Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 Martin - thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMJ Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 A comment based on the web site for this item when it does arrive (oh good) is that the motorised car & non-motor vehicles need different chips as one is 6 pin the other 8. Who will do a cut and shut to produce the single car version? Or do you wait for a RTR version? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 A comment based on the web site for this item when it does arrive (oh good) is that the motorised car & non-motor vehicles need different chips as one is 6 pin the other 8. Who will do a cut and shut to produce the single car version? Or do you wait for a RTR version? Actually 2 versions - M79900 & M79901 were not identical! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I posted this in the Bachmann 2011 thread but it probably fits better here: The latest edition of the Bachmann Collectors Club magazine has a CAD image of the Derby Lightweight MBS. The narrative states "careful development has allowed two derivatives to be manufactured". The image shows what appears to be an MBS from the West Cumberland batch - like the preserved example, with a single large window next to the guard's compartment. The very first (and very different, short-lived and incompatible) West Riding power-twin batch also had this window. Later builds had two small windows and a larger van area. Doing both 'yellow diamond' versions will be good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Patience is a virtue with RTR manufacturers! Remember you've never had it so good - the alternative is an MTK kit!!! Martin Or the DC kits one, Or the Craftsmann conversion kit. or in the case of the RTC one the Hurst Kit. Not exactly short of routes TBH! Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 ... The narrative states "careful development has allowed two derivatives to be manufactured". The image shows what appears to be an MBS from the West Cumberland batch - like the preserved example, with a single large window next to the guard's compartment. ... Later builds had two small windows and a larger van area.. Thanks for that Robert, oddly enough last night we were discussing which one they'd do and where it'd be suitable for. You could have understood them only doing the one that was like the 108 as a 'quick win', but obviously not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Well, I'm very please about Bachmann catering for the 'Marra' version. With this, the Wonderloaf, Covhops and the Flying Pigs, modelling Whitehaven, Workington and Maryport has never been a more attractive prospect, mad more so by the existence of an LNWR- style signal box. Had I sufficient space for all my pet projects, this would be among them! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfield_Park Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Just in case anybody is interested, I wrote to Bachmann recently to ask if they could tell me which versions of the Derby Lightweight they were going to produce. The answer is that they are developing DMBS of Diagrams BR501 and BR504, with DTCL of Diagrams BR505 and BR509. The latter will have two different First Class configurations and the former will feature both styles of windscreen. I hope that helps some of you. But I still can't work out if any of these is a later-build ER set as seen in Loncolnshire/Norfolk. Any ideas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Just in case anybody is interested, I wrote to Bachmann recently to ask if they could tell me which versions of the Derby Lightweight they were going to produce. The answer is that they are developing DMBS of Diagrams BR501 and BR504, with DTCL of Diagrams BR505 and BR509. The latter will have two different First Class configurations and the former will feature both styles of windscreen. I hope that helps some of you. But I still can't work out if any of these is a later-build ER set as seen in Loncolnshire/Norfolk. Any ideas? From the Barrowmore BR Diagrams web-site http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/BRDMUIssue.pdf :- DMBS BR.501 as proposed by Bachmann - E79000 to E79007 DMBS BR.504 as proposed by Bachmann- E79021 to E79046 Additionally, and hopefully easy conversions from the above :- DMBS BR.503 (M79008 to M76020) seems to be as DMBS BR.501 except for a 3" redistribution of length between the driving and brake compartments. DMBS BR.527 (E79137 to E79140) seems as DMBS BR.504 except that BR.527 incorporates the 3ft. wide seating bay of BR.504 into a larger brake compartment. DMBS BR.633 (M79118 to M79136, M79141 to M79149, M79169 to M79181 & M79184 to M79188) seems to be pretty much identical to BR.527. DTCL BR.505 as proposed by Bachmann - E79613 to E79625 & E79250 to E79262 DTCL BR.509 as proposed by Bachmann - M79600 to M79612, M79633 to M79635 & M79639 to M79657 Additionally, and hopefully easy conversions from the above :- DTCL BR.631 (E79658 to E79661) seems to be identical to DTCL BR.509, except that the BR.631 has 12 2+2 first class seats as opposed to 16 in BR.509. DTCL BR.642 (M79662 to M79669) seems to be as DTCL BR.509 & BR.631 but with 12 2+1 first class seats. DTCL BR.511 (M79670 to M79684) seems to be as DTCL BR.631 but with a different configuration of 12 2+2 first class seats. Now I'm no expert on early DMUs, and there may be other differences that aren't obvious on the diagrams, so if the above is incorrect I apologise. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfield_Park Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Excellent. Thanks for that extra info. So it looks like Bachmann could be planning to produce class members from both the original West Riding batch and a later ER batch (which satisfies me entirely), with possible provision for the MR sets? Plus, an incredibly easy-looking set of conversions opens up many other options... If so, I think that will satisfy a lot of people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 What I don't understand is why three of the four Dias. are Eastern, and the remaining DTCL is LMR...? I'd have thought it safe to assume that we'd see an E-prefix and M-prefix twin, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 What I don't understand is why three of the four Dias. are Eastern, and the remaining DTCL is LMR...? I'd have thought it safe to assume that we'd see an E-prefix and M-prefix twin, eh? Yep - that made me wonder, too !! Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Now you've done the hard bit, John, I shall dig out the Derby Lit Lane bible later on and see if that sheds any more light.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 From the Barrowmore BR Diagrams web-site http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/BRBDocuments/BRDMUIssue.pdf :- DMBS BR.501 as proposed by Bachmann - E79000 to E79007 DMBS BR.504 as proposed by Bachmann- E79021 to E79046 E79000-7 cannot surely be the right choice? These were the original 8 units that ran with a motor composite and had different engines and controls to all other lighweights with which they were not compatible. They were withdrawn as non-standard in 1964. Bachmann should reconsider and do the West Cumberland batch instead (like the preserved one). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Before the usual feeding frenzy builds up, to me this mismatch between the two cars making up the unit(s) is so obviously wrong that it can't possibly be happening. I think I'm correct in saying the diagram 633 MBS would be the natural companion to the 509 DTCL To me, this has all the hallmarks of being a simple error in communication somewhere, rather than a poor choice of prototype. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Before the usual feeding frenzy builds up, to me this mismatch between the two cars making up the unit(s) is so obviously wrong that it can't possibly be happening. I think I'm correct in saying the diagram 633 MBS would be the natural companion to the 509 DTCL To me, this has all the hallmarks of being a simple error in communication somewhere, rather than a poor choice of prototype. I hope it is simply a communication error, otherwise Bachmann are going to look pretty daft. Diag 501 DMBS E79000-7 were compatible only with Diag 507 DMCL E79500-7. These units, and only these of the Derby lightweights (or any BR DMU) had Leyland engines with a torque converter transmission of a type not used thereafter. They were incompatible with any other DMU type and all were withdrawn in 1964. A better choice for the earlier window layout on the DMBS with one large window between the van and passenger door is the Diag 503 West Cumberland batch M79008-20. Their matching driving trailers to Diag 509 were M79600-12. The next DMBS batch to Diag 504 changed to having two small windows between the van and the passenger door. These were ER vehicles (E79021-46). There were several other diagrams but Diag 633 was a batch of DMBS for the LMR with a larger van area, built in several lots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfield_Park Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 This does seem to be a bit of a muddle. Just for the record, here is the e-mail as it was sent to me by Mr Lovett for people to digest at will: "Thank you for your email regarding the Derby Lightweight units. We are producing DMBS (power) cars of build Diagrams BR501 and BR504. The DTCL (trailer) cars are to Diagrams BR505 and BR509 which are identical externally. Internally, the DTCL is being developed with two differing and separate First Class accommodation saloons. In addition there are two styles of front/rear (on DMBS) windscreens which are made with or without the horizontal bracing bars. I trust that this will be of interest" That is what I was sent. Maybe it will provide some glimmer of information that I may have missed in my first post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 ... A better choice for the earlier window layout on the DMBS with one large window between the van and passenger door is the Diag 503 West Cumberland batch M79008-20. Their matching driving trailers to Diag 509 were M79600-12. ... Given that dia 509 is one of the trailers said to be being produced, perhaps the motors are a simple confusion (at this stage) between dias 501 and 503, given the minimal dimensional difference quoted by John? DMBS BR.503 (M79008 to M76020) seems to be as DMBS BR.501 except for a 3" redistribution of length between the driving and brake compartments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Given that dia 509 is one of the trailers said to be being produced, perhaps the motors are a simple confusion (at this stage) between dias 501 and 503, given the minimal dimensional difference quoted by John? In an attempt to clarify this, I have compiled a table of the salient features of all the Derby Lightweights included in the 1959 Ian Allan Combined Volume; cross-referenced with the Barrowmore BR diagrams and the Cheona 'Picorial Record of BR DMUs'; (I didn't have time this evening to include the Railcar site info). There were come anomalies in the BR diagrams; (not unusual), but attached is the concensus of these three sources. Make of it what you will !! Regards, John Isherwood. UNIT TYPE & NUMBERS.doc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Just to add a bit of confusion/clarification (delete as appropriate), 3 cars were de-engined to become trailers and used on the Cambridge-Oxford line, based at Bletchley. Former DMCL 79191/2/3 became DTCL 79633/4/5. There may have been more, but I'm unable to check any more of my records at the moment. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cctransuk Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Having conducted more research, I surmise that Bachmann are most likely to produce in their first batch :- POWER + TRAILER TWINS Dia. BR.503 DMBS M79008-20 + Dia. BR.509 DTCL M79600-12 Dia. BR.504 DMBS E79021-46 + Dia. BR.505 DTCL E79250-62 & E79613-25 Attached is the updated table that leads me to this conclusion. The colour-coding indicates formation. Many references omit DMBS E79076-82 and DTCL M79626-32 though these are listed in the 1959 Ian Allan Combined Volume. These may not have actually been built. DERBY LIGHTWEIGHT UNIT TYPE & NUMBERS.doc Regards, John Isherwood. EDIT : A little more thought indicates that many more of the sets can be produced by the simple expedient of modifying the interiors and / or combining chassis and body mouldings. I have revised the attached table to illustrate this. Bold red italic indicate the sets that Bachmann are likely to release initially; bold black italic indicates other sets that only require minor interior modifications or mixing & matching body and chassis mouldings. FURTHER EDIT : Table amended to remove erroneous references Metro-cammell vehicles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Good sleuthing John B) That would support the generic marketing babble issued by Barwell at the time of the original announcement, regarding the prototypes featuring in their initial release programme. There's a no-brainer couple of Currock twins on my shopping list there, as they have been since the news broke, BFYE and GSYP. Tasty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Its getting a bit too complicated for me. I will just be wanting a very early set that worked in Yorkshire (to justify it crossing the Pennines via Diggle for some cooked up reason). Any suggestions welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.