RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted May 25, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2017 I hope that is not the case. As I have said in a previous post, there is good and bad in both and which you prefer is going to depend upon a number of factors, not least personal preference. Mine is for detail, therefore the DJ model wins. For others it will be speed / hauling capacity, which may favour the Hornby version. This thread is about DJ so I guess it may be inevitable that there will be a DJ bias here. No doubt if the discussion was in the Hornby 71 thread there would be a similar Hornby bias. Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, comparison discussions should actually be had in a separate thread, not under one of the manufacturers headings? Roy And let's add to that the obvious.This is a crowd-funded enterprise completed almost solely with the cooperation and financial investment of members of RMweb.It is only human nature I'm afraid to support your own "team" is it not ? I suspect that none of this outbreak of (understandable) partisan feeling would in any case have surfaced had it not been for an under-the-bridge,ill-judged series of posts from someone who has an agenda known only to himself which irritated most members to an insufferable degree so thus we have people throwing their caps into the ring.If he set out to cause a reaction then he certainly succeeded.Please don't forget than the DJM 71 is this forum's own creation.Discussion theoretically should concern nothing else....and that includes both Roco ( ! ! ) and Hornby. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteB Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) No , they just lost traction power in the gaps and rely on forward momentum to bridge any gap. The diesel engine is precisely that - a diesel. although the diesel can run whilst the loco is on the juice with the shoes down too just to aid gapping The 73's are legendary for drawing HUGE arcs at conductor rail gaps and when they initially operated the Gatwick Express service a number of fairly spectacular conflagrations occurred which resulted in the fitting of insulating material on the bogies and fitting of shields between conductor & running rail at ramp ends .................. So the Class 71's had the booster to get them across gaps, and to restart if they came to a stop whilst gapped, the class 73's and 74's generally coasted the gaps, but could start the diesel if they stopped whilst gapped, and could use it in areas with lots of known gaps, and I guess EMU's have lots more collection shoes wider spaced, but how do the class 92's cope when running on 3rd rail? Edited May 25, 2017 by PeteB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivegreen Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) I hope that is not the case. As I have said in a previous post, there is good and bad in both and which you prefer is going to depend upon a number of factors, not least personal preference. Mine is for detail, therefore the DJ model wins. For others it will be speed / hauling capacity, which may favour the Hornby version. This thread is about DJ so I guess it may be inevitable that there will be a DJ bias here. No doubt if the discussion was in the Hornby 71 thread there would be a similar Hornby bias. Perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, comparison discussions should actually be had in a separate thread, not under one of the manufacturers headings? Roy Absolutely agree, and then those of us who get thoroughly irritated by the often silly comments that we have seen recently here can block the comparison thread and just read critique of each model independently then make our own balanced judgement. … Like yours, Roy, only a suggestion ! (Edit for speling mistaks) Edited May 25, 2017 by olivegreen 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I must admit i found the review quite confusing. nothing noted on the bogie detail really, the chequer plate / kick board printing, the steps being etched with an anti slip pattern on them, the valance, correct air vents, plus loads more i could mention. Was probably short of space though, as it's an article. In fairness, he did say at the start that he did not have time to take photographs nor write a comprehensive review. Let's hope a later more comprehensive review covers the finer details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 The difference between AC OHL and DC third rail is that on AC the neutral sections are specific defined points. On third rail the gaps are more random. For example the gaps will be different for different platforms at a big station like Waterloo or Victoria. The collector shoes are quite happy to hang in clear air between the gaps in the third rail being guided back into contact by the end ramp on each third rail rail. A driver will not know where the shoes are in relation to the gaps hence the potential for large arcs. OHL of course needs to be continuous hence the structures found at neutral sections. Indeed - drawing an arc across a beaded insulator in OLE is very undesirable so power is shut of by the APC magnets. When the Eurostars were operating on the classic lines there was an odd situation of a section insulator in the Down line at Continental Jn where the Eurostars continued to draw power and an arc would be partially drawn across the insulator despite arcing horns, the beads would become heat damaged and the entire insulator would need replacing except for the few times when we didn't quite do it in time and the loss of insulator x-section & wire tension would snap the glass-fibre core of the insulator rod like a carrot which normally proved fatal for the next pantograph contact strip - all gone now I presume - how things move on ................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 how do the class 92's cope when running on 3rd rail? ISTR - not too well initially - but they are longer and have a co-co bogie so the shoe centres are further apart and less likely to run into a full gap - at least one shoe is usually on the c/rail somewhere (all the shoes being connected together) - I suspect they also have clever traction packages that "accumulate" - bit like a electronic booster set too ....................... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 57 pages of debate / info / argument / cr^p (mostly me) / speculation / interest, etc ....................... Is everybody bracing themselves for the next stage ............................. "the great comparison" ?? Could I just make it clear this was a tongue in cheek comment 'cos I am sure some people will just not be able to help themselves and will do it on this forum and start a big bun-fight etc, etc................. Well having called it - didn't think it would quite that messy ................ shame !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Scott Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 ISTR - not too well initially - but they are longer and have a co-co bogie so the shoe centres are further apart and less likely to run into a full gap - at least one shoe is usually on the c/rail somewhere (all the shoes being connected together) - I suspect they also have clever traction packages that "accumulate" - bit like a electronic booster set too ....................... I was once told of a tale at Waterloo. A12 car train got gapped so it was decided to bring forward the train behind which was also 12 car to give it a nudge. The operators discovered you can gap a 24 car train I was also told of a problem at Adiscombe depot, now demolished. Sometimes the unit would not roll as expected and got gapped. A very dodgy local fix was to rest a shorting bar on an adjacent third rail lined up with a shoe.The driver would select notch 1 and the shunter would pivot the shorting bar to touch the shoe and nudge the unit forward This tale was told to me by one of the fitters at the depot 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted May 25, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2017 As for the disappointing comment that there are those who 'rubbish' pre-production prototypes, here is an example of what some of we 'sad keyboard warriors' are capable of: I was amongst a small group who critiqued (rather than criticised) the Kernow 4 TC cab front on the pre-production sample, contacting Kernow directly. As a result, and I claim no particular credit here, the errant gangway was altered, directly due to the pouring of scorn by those with accurate information on the prototype. Did you see the scorn that was poured on the Kernow Gate-stock samples, when the bodies had been inadvertently posed upon the wrong chassis? These were merely for paint scheme examination, but the knowledgable couldn't wait to rush into print saying how wrong they were. Public point-scoring. People enjoy crowing. And to some extent, Colin, you have answered your own question. The fact is that rather than just carping on here about a shortcoming of the pre-pro, you contacted the commissioner direct, and no doubt provided sufficient evidence to convince him it could and should be done better. My bleat is about those who just use a thread to air their knowledge or opinions, rather than going to the manufacturer with reasoned and dimensionally-supported arguments. I recall one steam loco model where a particular individual had a bee in his bonnet about the dimensions of the chimney. To the best of my knowledge, no changes were made, and the model concerned has now been successfully sold through more than one batch, with no adverse comments on the chimney in the press or on RMweb. I think I also support Ian Hargrave's point that this is not just any new model, but simply unique. Many on this thread - including, presumably, the unfortunate recipient of the damaged example - feel they have enabled its very existence by stumping up the wonga, as has been pointed out, some years in advance. Few of us enjoy having our child criticised unjustly. So, with many very happy owners now having testified to their satisfaction, being told that the model is unfit for purpose is ludicrous. The "Mr Bean" comment, by the way, was made by an industry figure who specialises in DCC and sound installations. Since he has made such installations in both versions of the 71, I think he is admirably qualified to say so. In today's market, sound is an increasingly popular option. If one model makes installation easy and the other doesn't I regard his finding as fair. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funtleyworks Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I was once told of a tale at Waterloo. A12 car train got gapped so it was decided to bring forward the train behind which was also 12 car to give it a nudge. The operators discovered you can gap a 24 car train I was also told of a problem at Adiscombe depot, now demolished. Sometimes the unit would not roll as expected and got gapped. A very dodgy local fix was to rest a shorting bar on an adjacent third rail lined up with a shoe.The driver would select notch 1 and the shunter would pivot the shorting bar to touch the shoe and nudge the unit forward This tale was told to me by one of the fitters at the depot Usual and very frowned upon fix was to use the bar to get back on the juice, but one of my colleagues once used a light bulb to get things moving!!! Much shock and gasping was heard around the messroom and when asked why and not the bar, his reply was simple. You have to go back to get the short circuit bar!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Dread Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Usual and very frowned upon fix was to use the bar to get back on the juice, but one of my colleagues once used a light bulb to get things moving!!! Much shock and gasping was heard around the messroom and when asked why and not the bar, his reply was simple. You have to go back to get the short circuit bar!!! Trying not to go too far off the subject but the trams in the conduit areas of London had a similar problem as road traffic increased. The under road pick up system for them (overhead wiring not allowed) had gaps at junctions. On a quiet day they could free wheel through but at busy times they became stranded. Rescue involved the next tram pushing them out, and so on. I always wondered what happened to the last tram of the day? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 ISTR - not too well initially - but they are longer and have a co-co bogie so the shoe centres are further apart and less likely to run into a full gap - at least one shoe is usually on the c/rail somewhere (all the shoes being connected together) - I suspect they also have clever traction packages that "accumulate" - bit like a electronic booster set too ....................... They do have extra shoes too - six each side, although this is more to do with spreading the current draw between more shoes as they draw an awful lot of current. There was some clever control - it could sense the current through individual shoes and when it detected that only one shoe was drawing power it would ramp down the power demand so as to reduce the arc drawn when it left the rail. But no ability to store traction energy in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) I must admit i found the review quite confusing. nothing noted on the bogie detail really, the chequer plate / kick board printing, the steps being etched with an anti slip pattern on them, the valance, correct air vents, plus loads more i could mention. Was probably short of space though, as it's an article. Bring back the Model Railway Constructor reviews, professional, not amateurish. Stewart Edited May 26, 2017 by stewartingram Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium New Haven Neil Posted May 25, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 25, 2017 Really? To my eye the Hornby one has a much better 'face' and finer moulding. The DJM bogie detail looks superb and the seperate fittings are nice though. Other than that it's pretty much a wash unless you are into DCC sound. Isn't that what I said? Must be my accent..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikesndbs Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 So at the risk of dragging this back to its original intention. Has anyone successfully fitted the lifting lugs or bogie securing brackets to their DJ model? I have left mine off so far as they would restrict the bogie movement but I note that the Hornby model has them fitted from new. Suggestions and photos would be great. Thanks 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I just found this site containing lots of wonderful photos of Class 70, 71, 73 and 74 here running through the 60s and 70s (some very interesting yellow warning panel variations on the 71 and 73 for that matter): https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/sets/72157603648772112/with/5447428161/ I,ve been trying to catalogue 71s that pulled the Golden Arrow and have confirmed the follow locos + liveries so far: E5015 (original 71 green with red stripe, no rain strips) (all below will have Rain strips) E5010 (original 71 green with red stripe) E5014 (loco green + yellow panel) E5022 (loco green + yellow panel) The following in full BR Blue with E numbers, most still retain the roof vents: E5001 E5004 E5005 E5007 E5011 E5013 E5014 Either in early green days, they did not change the loco around much or I've yet to see proof of other green locos on this train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 So at the risk of dragging this back to its original intention. Has anyone successfully fitted the lifting lugs or bogie securing brackets to their DJ model? I have left mine off so far as they would restrict the bogie movement but I note that the Hornby model has them fitted from new. Suggestions and photos would be great. Thanks Hi Mike, Fitting them is trial and error to make sure you get it right for the model running on your track, curves and gradients. there is no set way of doing them. The reason Hornby have them fitted is simply because the bogie sides are pushed inboard to allow for clearances. His leaves them with the ideal situation of having the brackets fitted, but the less than ideal situation of having bogie frames that are too narrow. Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 7013 Posted May 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 26, 2017 Having read the SEG review I cannot see what the fuss is about. Any review carries a certain amount of subjectivity but this one is objective as far as it goes. There is not an in depth review of the detail but it does concentrate rather heavily of the haulage of each loco. Now I have to confess to knowing nothing about these locos but do find it a tempting model to buy. However threads do tend to wander a bit and much has been made in the review of the top speed of the model, I wish someone would enlighten me to what the top speed of the prototype was and how this is achievable using legomans sound chip? I will be supporting the DJM model for a number of reasons not least of which is Dave's willingness to produce the best model he can and for the most part succeeding, that is not to say the Hornby model is not good or worth buying, its a case of you pay for what you like best and of course can afford. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikesndbs Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Hi Mike, Fitting them is trial and error to make sure you get it right for the model running on your track, curves and gradients. there is no set way of doing them. The reason Hornby have them fitted is simply because the bogie sides are pushed inboard to allow for clearances. His leaves them with the ideal situation of having the brackets fitted, but the less than ideal situation of having bogie frames that are too narrow. Cheers Dave Thanks Dave, I did have a bit of a go before making my video in case I could present the loco fully furnished however, while I was able to slot them in they did prevent the bogie from moving around my tighter curves. I get what you are saying about the Hornby bogies! I'll wait until others say what they have done, I'd like to fit them but not at the expense of flexible running. By the way, she is run in now, I had her crawling around my layout the controller at near minimum and a scale speed of 1.2 Mph lol not bad at all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogmatix Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I just found this site containing lots of wonderful photos of Class 70, 71, 73 and 74 here running through the 60s and 70s (some very interesting yellow warning panel variations on the 71 and 73 for that matter): https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertcwp/sets/72157603648772112/with/5447428161/ Good find! An excellent collection of pictures. Pity about the copyright statement emblazoned on each, though. But as you say, it shows the many variations on "small yellow panel" in terms of size and placement. The picture showing the up Night Ferry passing the down Golden Arrow at Petts Wood Junction was stroke of luck for the photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 Great pictures there, thanks for putting the link up. As said, there are some great front end variations there, and if anyone is interested in having one, please let me know and if there's enough interest I'll set the ball rolling. Also if anyone is interested in a correct, as preserved / 80's railtour livery with correct wheels E5001 then please feel free to let me know. This one will be a very particular beast and unlike the E5001 already made elsewhere. If I can get enough peeps interested I'll get them done as a very limited edition. Cheers Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RFS Posted May 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 26, 2017 Some more pictures of 71s here - http://railphotoprints.uk/p287659169 Interesting ones of E5000 at Broadstairs on a passenger service in 1961, and E5017 at about the same time on the Newhaven boat train with Bulleid stock in tow. Increases the "authentic" operations for us modellers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted May 26, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 26, 2017 Without looking back through the thread, has anybody looked into wheel conversion? I want to give it a good run-in on our DRAG test track first so I haven't taken it apart yet. The wheels are 12 spoke and 16.3mm dia which comes out at 4'.075" (4' 1") so the nearest that l can see are Ultrascale GWR 12 spoke tender wheels at 4' 1½". The other alternative might be to turn them down depending on the metal used. I've turned down Bach diesel wheels before which came out nicely as they use 'friendly' metal as opposed to Hby ones which were of an awful hard material. Found some years ago when we were just thinking about Balcombe! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium amwells Posted May 26, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 26, 2017 if anyone is interested in a correct, as preserved / 80's railtour livery with correct wheels E5001 then please feel free to let me know. This one will be a very particular beast and unlike the E5001 already made elsewhere. If I can get enough peeps interested I'll get them done as a very limited edition. Cheers Dave Yes please, yes please!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJM Dave Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 Yes please, yes please!! Well that's 1, need a few more than that. Lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts