Horsetan Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) I don't think the makers were aiming for finescale Z. Best not tell Brian Harrap, eh? Edited August 29, 2014 by Horsetan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
railroadbill Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Hi, The description fits the class 40 as well of course. The 44 / 45 / 46 family were overweight and underpowered in terms of technology available at the time of their building. They were saddled with an out of date, monstrous design of bogie that continued to give trouble throughout the lives of these monsters. They were not a locomotive British Railways were proud of and cannot in any way be called a 'great' except in terms of weight. To the average man and woman in the street - who are the intended target market - one diesel looks much like another, particularly when two classes have similar features as do a Deltic and a Class 44/45/46. Regards When the Warship class were being developed, as a sort of V200 shrunk for the UK loading gauge, Herr Pulls of Maybach learnt of the weights of the class 40 (133 tons) and Peaks (136 tons). His comment was "Mein Gott" and apparently the Peaks were then known as the "Mein Gotts". Warships were 78 tons with similar power, but then wern't heavy enough to brake unfitted freights, of which there were many still running at the time, so light weight wasn't necessarily an advantage. Plus the resistance of the hydralics when running was higher than the diesl electrics so the tested fuel consumption of the warship was the same as a class 40 when hauling a heavier train. 45s were still running in the mid 1980s whereas the Warships.... However the 45s had what seems to have been a good engine in the shape of the twin bank Sultzer, an uprated version of which is still powering the few 47s left running. So the 45s, not a great locomotive, building the later designed 47s instead of the last 46 order probably a good idea, but they did run for enough years for BR (as was) to have got it's money's worth. (The above "mein Gott" and test story from "the Diesel Impact on British Rail" by R M Tufnell,1979) Edited August 30, 2014 by railroadbill 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astockfan101 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Part of US giant Mattel. Keith Due to the fact that in the 1970's matchbox brought Dinky and then at some time Mattel who sort of at one time orwned mainline got them and dinky and now the matchbox stuff is mostly left hand drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb900f Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Just a heads up for anyone in the Dronfield area, there is still a compound in Sainsburys as of 12:45 today. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Bruce Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) I will agree on both counts of weight and bogies, but can't see where they were underpowered, the 47 had initially only 250hp more. What technology was available at the time that could have increased their power ? Curious as to "BR were not proud of the 44/45/46". I'm sure the traincrews of Holbeck,Sheffield,Derby and Nottingham may have a different viewpoint. Regards Pete The Peaks and Brush 4s had similar power units. The Sulzer 2300hp 12LDA28-A of the 44s was uprated to 2500hp (12LDA28- B) for the 45s and 46s by fitting turbo chargers and intercoolers, both ran at 750 RPM. AFAIK, to squeeze 2750hp out of the 12LDA28-C power unit for the 47s, the cylinder diameter was increased and the speed increased to 800 RPM. This overstressed the unit so it was downrated to 2580hp at 750 RPM. EDIT - That 'smiley' should be a capital A (Alpha). Damn computers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited August 30, 2014 by Poor Old Bruce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrel Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I never worked with class 45s but all the old hands at Skipton said they were the best locomotives they had worked on up until the class 60s. Does anyone know what class of peak it is 44, 45 or 46? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
46256 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Just to make clear not speculating about new editions of this series, nor adding anything to any wish list. First really like rowanj's A3, as stated before really enjoy when models are created which improve upon the original. My own modelling commenced in such a way trying to improve the trades offerings of the 70s and 80s.inrespect of the trade just had the opportunity to inspect the Hornby railroad P2. I really defy anyone to say they would ever have seen a RTR. Version especially selling around £80. My local model shop has had the railroad D.O..G for some time. This again is a beautiful model. It has been mentioned about the business case for the production of the GBL series, I can only ponder the decision process that led to the production of these two very individual models. I hope it does not come back to hurt Hornby. Lastly jumping into a subject that is creating some correspondence. The peak classes 44 45 46. I have never met an engine man from Saltley that did not like them. Is that a mark of greatness, I cannot say but I know a number of other classes were not held in the same affection. Me, as an enthusiast I love them. Last but not least still 3 compounds at smiffs merry hell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
46256 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 belpaire class 3 just out of paint shops....will become 40715 or 45 both apparently on Saltleys lists in 1950....Im minded to have LMS on tender but their new BR number on cabside and front.....either way will then be matt finished and weathered....I guess by 1950 they were not at their best. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruffnut Thorston Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Hi John, Within your post you have hit the nail on the head - 'dropped very quickly' - I have a feeling that you might just be proved right in view of other projects occupying the publishers time and the falling sales. I'd agree that the Triang Dock Shunter is an 'all time great' of the model world - disadvantage is of course it was totally fictitious as a loco as i'm sure you already know - but every inch convincing and a lovely little job all round. Regards Apparently there was a Hunslet Loco made for export that looks a lot like the old Dock Authority Shunter (Also released as the Transcontinetal "Yard Switcher" without the buffers...). Possibly Tri-ang tooled a body using a photo from Hunslet, that would fit on the "GM Style" Motor Bogie tooled for the R.55 Diesel, and used on the Australian based R.159 "Double Ended Diesel (and the overhead electric version!), Bo Bo Switcher, etc., Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andymac-2008 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Hi, The description fits the class 40 as well of course. The 44 / 45 / 46 family were overweight and underpowered in terms of technology available at the time of their building. They were saddled with an out of date, monstrous design of bogie that continued to give trouble throughout the lives of these monsters. They were not a locomotive British Railways were proud of and cannot in any way be called a 'great' except in terms of weight. To the average man and woman in the street - who are the intended target market - one diesel looks much like another, particularly when two classes have similar features as do a Deltic and a Class 44/45/46. Regards I think with railways its a different customer base to just the average man or woman. Some loco's they can relate to but when you look at the scorpion in another part work people buy things like that when they travel on holiday. But then when you look at the Dr who series and they are still flying off the shelves and that's a key market. Plus the other side of all this is most people only ever buy the first magazine to shut the kids up. It's a funny old world? I think this has done very well and hope we get to the over weight and under powered Peaks. Edited August 30, 2014 by andymac-2008 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted August 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 30, 2014 Due to the fact that in the 1970's matchbox brought Dinky and then at some time Mattel who sort of at one time orwned mainline got them and dinky and now the matchbox stuff is mostly left hand drive. Not so sure about Mainline being part of the mix! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Due to the fact that in the 1970's matchbox brought Dinky and then at some time Mattel who sort of at one time orwned mainline got them and dinky and now the matchbox stuff is mostly left hand drive. Not so sure about Mainline being part of the mix! Mattel owned the Palitoy company brand, and Mainline products were usually advertised as being Mainline-Palitoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 The 4MT looks a bit like one of things you can buy that's allegedly made out of genuine 'coal'! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Hi all, A test post, As I have been trying to post on this forum since this topic began. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Hi all again, Well I finally got it to work. I have had a question that's been burning in the back of my mind, Why has no one suggested making their own frames to fit these models. You can use proprietary wheels and cylinders etc with the frames. Cypherman 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy2 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I suspect the cost of wheels, and the complexities of the motion. Easier to adapt r-t-r. I'm planning to do some frames, but they will be for display, non-motorised models, probably the T9. The aim will be to get decent wheels on the thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
46256 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Agree with smiffy2 the cost of Romford wheels alone puts up the cost considerably. I know the EM society used to advertise a whole range of frames....I believe manufactured by Alan Gibson( might be wrong on this....) A visit to the markits catalogue shows how you can buy a full set of wheels axles etc....then if a supplier like comet have that chassis kit The result is often more expensive than a RTR version. The benefit of te RTR version is they have ironed out such issues like traction by properly weighting the model. As ever I'm sure that given modellers ingenuity someone will adapt these models further. Either way cypherman welcome and enjoy these models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted August 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 31, 2014 Mattel owned the Palitoy company brand, and Mainline products were usually advertised as being Mainline-Palitoy. I might be missing something but I can't find a mention of Mattel here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palitoy Keith PS I can't find anything in Mattel's history either, mentioning Palitoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowanj Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I started using W&T to try to keep the costs down. They are almost half the price of Markits. I have had no trouble with them - they are designed to fit Romford axles. They have plastic centres so are insulated on both sides, thus both sides need pickups. Also being plastic centred, although tapped for Romford/Markits crankpins, you need to be in and out quickly with a soldering iron for the washers, and W&T recommend the deluxe ones with screws. They do a grooved version for fitting a traction tyre but I have no experience of them. Google search will find the website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy2 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Agree with smiffy2 the cost of Romford wheels alone puts up the cost considerably. I know the EM society used to advertise a whole range of frames....I believe manufactured by Alan Gibson( might be wrong on this....) A visit to the markits catalogue shows how you can buy a full set of wheels axles etc....then if a supplier like comet have that chassis kit The result is often more expensive than a RTR version. The benefit of te RTR version is they have ironed out such issues like traction by properly weighting the model. As ever I'm sure that given modellers ingenuity someone will adapt these models further. Either way cypherman welcome and enjoy these models. Alan Gibson Workshop sells frames, wheels and connecting/coupling rods. But the cost soon mounts, unless you are pretty serious. Then you have a pretty fair loco below the platform, but compromises above, so off come the moulded handrails and on goes the wire and knobs, and other details. Then you're probably in for a repaint and transfers. I've got a couple on the go and it soon mounts up as a lot of projects on the Grey Siding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
69843 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I know the EM society used to advertise a whole range of frames....I believe manufactured by Alan Gibson( might be wrong on this....) The Alan Gibson catalogue still shows a wide variety of frames available, for £11.50 each Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cram Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Hi all again, Well I finally got it to work. I have had a question that's been burning in the back of my mind, Why has no one suggested making their own frames to fit these models. You can use proprietary wheels and cylinders etc with the frames. Cypherman I have a K3 which will have SEF frames and have P4 wheels fitted. Probably use one of my stock portescaps to power it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
46256 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 On the subject of the Gibson frames if I recall they were not drilled for axle bearings but rather has cut outs for hornblocks and guides. I had a phase of compensated chassis inspired by the class 08 climbing over a matchstick in an early model railway journal. I never mastered this, but stand in awe of those who have.My own efforts returned to that advocated by a certain Mr Jackson of Retford fame. Please I post this not to rekindle any exchange of views as to the benefits or not of compensated chassis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy2 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) I've just been having a quick tot-up of making a GBL into a fairly finescale replica using Alan Gibson parts - which aren't pricey by any means - and it comes to the thick end of £80 + motor of choice. Plus £9 for the GBL loco. If the bodyshell is decent that means you've got something worth having for less than r-t-r and you've had some fun along the way. Gibson's do mill bespoke chassis - I think at £25 - so presumably for a price you could specify holes for bearings instead of hornblocks, which would be an extra expense. Edited August 31, 2014 by Smiffy2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy2 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Of course a sheet of Nickel Silver and an Exacto saw comes in a lot cheaper... 1 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