51E
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by 51E
-
-
Probably because there is nowhere else to add it. Please remember that the designers have needed to find space for a DCC decoder and a small speaker - both of which many people on here regard as essential.
Room for a DCC decoder yes but room for a small speaker I wouldn't say is essential.. Surely enough weight for it to run in the first place is more important? Not much point having sound but going no where?!
-
We really need some coaches to go with the Kernow 02 IOW versions - almost nothing on the market, even in kit form, that is exactly right (apart from some very early vehicles which would not do for the BR versions). Several LBSCR and SER/LCDR kits could be used but would need a lot of cutting and shutting to get the lengths right, something I would hesitate to do with a £60 kit. The LSWR/SR RTR coaches are a reasonable substitute but still not right. I wonder if this is commercially a goer, but why produce the IOW versions commercially, with nothing for them to realistically pull?
Meanwhile, modeller's licence will have to prevail.
Pretty sure if you look on Roxey Mouldings site you will find a couple of coach kits that you can build for the IOW.. If brass scares you SmallBrook Studio do a few and some wagons in resin.
-
It's fully poseable
Cheers
Dave
Is it still just a plastic one?
-
Hi mate,
the measurement from rail to panto head when extended is 66mm
HTH
cheers
Dave
Thought your Panto was fixed and non movable? Or has that changed?
-
Have just noticed that in the image of the loco's cab on the Locomotion models site, the boiler blackhead has a Hydrostatic triple sight glass feed lubricator. The Kings did not have this, they had a round gauge glass that indicated whether there was oil or not.
Do you have a link??
-
The real class 71s only ever used the pantograph in sidings anyway so unless you were going to model sidings with DC overhead knitting It really is irrelevant if it's going to be electrically conducting or not. A 71 would not run under 25k knitting. Incidentally, the class 74 referred to above didn't have a pantograph. It was a conversion to electro diesel from the class 71
Slip of the fingers and edited to correct class.. Was distracted by the other 2 posts going on about class 74, not that Hornby or anyone has announced one.
And yes you a right they only used there pantograph in the sidings that had it but that's not the point i'm making. From the looks of things Hornby are making the Pantograph pose-able otherwise i'm not sure they'd of bothered on the prototype shown in the pictures. Its a added detail that I think is worth doing. Who knows, might even get someone to model one of the sidings with OHE.
-
Have Hornby said it is going to be a working Pantograph (and by working do you mean electrically or just pose-able)?
There might be some misconception from the prototype which had some etched pantograph parts mated with 3D printed lower arms. I don't doubt that this is just friction holding the pantograph in place. The difference in costs between fixed position and pose-able pantograph must be relatively small.
Cheers, Mike
Sorry Mike, I meant it being just a pose-able Pantogragh, Not that I think it would take a lot to make it a electrically working one.
I don't think it matters if the pantograph was used much or not on a Class 71. Its there and should be pose-able. I still think it would be a step backwards to not make it pose-able. Lots of people seem to shout and moan about pushing detail forward or do pantographs not fall into that category??
-
I hadn't really thought about the pantograph (as they so seldom used). Having now thought a bit about it, I really don't know whether an "operating" pantograph would be worth it. I THINK that i would probably prefer a fine quality fixed (in down position) pantograph rather than a poor quality working one.
Interesting.
On such a plain model the pantograph may (???????) rather stand out as a centre of attention.
Is that not just a step backwards? For starters it hardly looks a poor quality working one on the prototype model, but why make it a fix position pantograph if the options there to have a working one? It might seem a lot of work or a unnecessary expense to some but I think other would expect the pantograph to be movable.
-
Moulded dart or not. I've got 3 on order and I can't wait. Hope the birdcages are as nice!!
-
Wouldn't it have been nice if these comments had been directed at some of the many CAD images DapolDave uploaded?
RWJ
Not everyone saw the CAD images.. And anyway there's people at Dapol that are "paid" to check these things.
Cheers
-
2
-
-
Hi George
You might be better doing it as a late Southern one as you'd need to change the Dome to a flattened one, a shorter chimney and 2 safety valves instead of the 4.
Cheers
51E
-
No problem George. You need to check what number you do as another difference between loco's is the number of boiler bands. Some had 3, others had 4. Not sure why.
Cheers
51E
-
Hi George
Really like the K class. Have to admit I have a bit of a soft spot for these loco's. I've built a few, all in 4mm.
Are you planning to line it in Mixed traffic livery? If so i'm affraid you got the wrong cab on the loco. They were rebuilt I think by the Southern before BR got hold of them and i've not seen a picture of one in BR livery with the early cab style.
There's quite a few differences and they vary from loco to loco.
Hope this helps and i don't mean to be a party pooper. It's a lovely build all the same and i'd love to build one myself in 7mm.
Cheers
51E
-
Well there's a good review in this coming Model Rail which i received today.
92% though as it apparently has fragile parts and easy detachment of brake rigging! (oh and isnt branded on the box 'Heljornbymann" either.
), What do we have to do to get a higher mark?Seriously though, the brake rigging is a loose interference fit to allow re-wheeling and a blob of glue when you get yours is advised,
and fragile detail parts! design proper or design stupid? Do you want (as modellers) detail parts or dont you?
It seems that possibly MR think that all detail parts should be solidly affixed (with all that implies regarding heavy looks etc) at any price, and that modellers arent willing to pay the retail price for 'fragile detail parts' as thats a poor design feature and have marked us down because of the latter.
I'd appreciate opinions please.
cheers
Dave
Hi Dave
From reading that I take it you feel its worthy of a better score?? I'd of said 92% is still a good score and a pass in my book.
Could you explain why you think its worthy a better score??
I'd say there review is written from the point of view of every modeller not just modellers that know the ins and outs of a Western . Not every modeller will be able or know how and where to fit all the detail parts. There's also those modellers that don't want to buy something and be expected to glue things in place, as can be seen plenty of other times in other threads.
Maybe they agree with a few members on here that the front isn't spot on?
What ever it is they've marked it down for, if your happy with it whats it matter??
Cheers
51E
Kernow Adams O2
in Kernow Model Rail Centre
Posted
If you read the post that I quoted it says " the designers have needed to find space for a DCC decoder and small speaker". I was merely saying that the case for more weight is greater than the need for a small speaker if people are having trouble with 02's only being able to handle a couple of coaches.
Personally yes I would say its down to the designers to get it right. No one should have to be fitting their own weight. As pointed out by someone else, the Hornby M7 had a similar problem so the 02 isn't alone.
Even you point out more grunt will be needed for the Isle Of Wight locos and at the minute a few 02 models seem to be struggling with only a couple of coaches.