Revolution Mike B

55 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So think I can take from the replies that there is nothing beyond a CAD that will be at x level of completion against prototype drawings.

 

The digital interface is the digital interface, I'll leave RevolutioN to decide what the best one is for the 'price'.

 

But given the time it takes to develop a tooling, go through EPs and get a production slot and I am going to assume it will be sometime in 2026 when these might land in the UK shores.

 

Whilst it's great we know there is a model being developed, perhaps announcing it 18 months ago with a promise of delivery early 2024 was not the correct one, the progress is glacial and maybe waiting until you had an EP would have generated lots of excitement without then disappointing us with a lack of progress because it was in CAD in late 2022, it's now the 2nd quarter of 2024.

There's not someone else doing this model is there and that's why it's not progressing.....

Unfortunately, the research required forms part of finalising the CAD. 
 

As soon as we’re in a position to move forward with the project, we will provide an update. 
 

Cheers

Mike B

Folks, the model is still very much in the research stage and therefore we have nothing of real substance to provide an update, hence Ben’s earlier reply. Given that there aren’t any Class 120s in preservation, we can’t just ‘pop along’ and get details. As soon as the project starts moving to a point of any relevance, you can be sure that we’ll let you know. 
 

Cheers

Mike B

Well I’ve spent the whole weekend (apart from 3pm-5pm on Saturday watching Pompey) working on the layout. 
 

I’ve test printed the bridge for the scenic break and it’s a little too big - not to worry, CAD corrected and ready to print again when I get time. 
 

The rest of my time was spent trying to make the loops look overgrown, which in 4mm is a walk in the park. N Gauge however is a different ball game! 
 

The scenic scatter just looks like rocks in this scale, so I may strip it back and start again, although I have managed to recreate some buddleia….

….and just for good measure, here’s a JHA that I weathered a while ago to set the scene off….

I’ve got a busy week with work coming up so I probably won’t feel like doing much with my own trains until next weekend. 
 

15 minutes ago, Suffolk Rob said:

Thanks Mike, 2018 works and have orderedy

Glad to help 

4 hours ago, Suffolk Rob said:

Morning all

 

Hoping some of you 66 experts can advise if I've got my research and option choices right before placing an order

 

Looking at 66111 in it's most recent guise. I think the base EWS 66 is appropriate re lights etc and also that the stags can be added as they're an option in the DB livery bespoke. Beyond that debranded with DB stickers on front and sides seems to match what I'm seeing in photos

 

Greatful if anyone could confirm or set me straight before I shell out for the sound version

 

Rob

66111 in its present day livery isn’t possible from the EWS 66 that we are presently offering due to the headlights as they’ve been replaced with the new BMAC revised version. You can replicate it in its 2018 / early 2019 version by ordering debranded with DB logos on front and side.

Cheers

Mike B

1 hour ago, bluedepot said:

i will maybe cancel my order and wait for some other options i think.

 

don't really want to start messing around with the coupling or wing mirrors if these are not supposed to be user fitted separate parts because i might cause damage.

 

I would like some 1998 - 2001 suitable models really - one ews and one  freightliner. 

 

cheers

 

tim

 

The Freightliner variant will be suitable 

Cheers Mike B

Well running trains and not working on the layout has completely gone out of the window so far this weekend. 
 

First job was to start the static gras on the new embankment….

….and add some more foliage….

I also added a footpath, which is at the real location but on the south side of the line, rather than the north……

…….and then I worked out where I was going to put the scenic break and modified the outside of the baseboard so that the rising terrain could be supported properly.

I’ve also done a whole load of other bits and pieces like adding the security fencing, and starting the bushes along the back edge of the loops. 
 

it’s slow going as nothing wants to dry, and constantly adding more glue on top of already damp glue isn’t helping! 
 

Anyway, at least it’s all moving in the right direction. Tomorrow, I’m definitely having a day off. It’s Easter Sunday and Nicky’s cooking a nice roast dinner!! 

On 22/11/2023 at 23:21, jpendle said:

I'm all in on this one, I've only got 18 in my roster so I'm sure I could justify 18 more!

 

BUT, the big issue for me is that these models will use the ESU E24 format, which, as far as I can tell is still not a standard format. The only option for non-sound is the ESU 59925 Lokpilot Nano which is about £38.

 

I'm quite happy with my other Revolution sound fitted models with ESU decoders ( and my Farish ones for that matter) as someone else has done the hard work programming the lights, etc.

 

I'd much rather use a non-sound Zimo decoder as, IMO, their CV programming is much easier.

 

And finally, even though I'm happy with my sound fitted Pendolinos, I have observed, admittedly without any scientific tests, that my new Pendolinos, with Zimo Next 18 decoders, run smoother and quieter than my original 4 ESU sound fitted ones. (Anyone suggesting that I turn the sound off to make them quieter gets a slap🙂)

 

Regards,

 

John P

John

In addition to my colleague Ben’s reply, a non sound Zimo Next 18 decoder is £35 now, so there’s very little price difference between the two decoders. As a predominant Zimo user myself, and offering an unbiased opinion (putting my work hat to one side), the V5 Nano works very well and is easily compatible to the older Zimo decoders.
 

From personal experience, the latest incarnation of the Zimo decoder doesn’t seem as stable as the older versions which is very odd. Anyway, I digress. I’m fairly sure it won’t be too long for other manufacturers to follow the E24 route - Zimo already have a prototype and I believe this will be available later on this year. 
 

Cheers

Mike B

The green stuff appears to be growing but I need to do something about that tree….it looks a bit bedraggled! 
 

I’m kind of stuck for a bit until this all dries out as I can’t risk soaking it any further otherwise it will end up warping and become a right mess. 
 

In the meantime I started airbrushing the old static grass, not that it looked bad, but just to make it look more late spring / early summer. 
 

A few blasts with some MIG Ammo bright green has broken up the uniformity and made it look a little more ‘fresh’ grass.

You can see here how it’s created a nice patchy effect when the grass grows at different heights.

I’d like to get the bridge end finished by the end of next month and make a start on getting the station looking like a station again rather than a construction site. 
 

No work on the layout over Easter as I want to run some trains! 

16 minutes ago, Stuart A said:

 

Thing is, it's currently the focal point.  Once you've got scenics down in the foreground it won't seem as bad I think.  I think it looks ok- reminds me of how it would look on a hot summer's day, probably accentuated by the lighting..  And the tones don't look like some of the garish fluorescent ones you sometime see. 

Cheers Stu. As with Oak Road it’s set in late spring so I may just get away with it. 

This looks way too ‘green’!
 

The colours are going to need to be toned down a bit as they’re very bright….

…..although some of it my be the wet PVA and the poor lighting in the loft. 
 

There’s not much I can do now until it dries out, which given the current cold spell, could take a few days. 
 

I won’t lie, I’m finding doing things in 1:148 a little challenging as everything looks way over scale and I’m still finding my feet with the different techniques. I’m sure I’ll get there but it’s not as easy as it is with 1:76.2 where you can more or less make anything look right without too much effort. 

Right….back to the day job! 

Looking forward to the greenery going in……

Well it’s been absolutely ages since I’ve posted anything relating to either layout on RMWeb, so it’s time for a N Gauge update. 
 

I’ve had a rethink on the new layout and rather than waste time and effort trying to modify the existing one, I’m going to start from scratch with new baseboards. This means that Market Lavington can stay complete, which is just at well because it will be going to Taunton RailEx this year come hell or high water! 
 

Over the last month in between having a stinking cold and going away with work, I’ve managed to start rebuilding the end I’d ripped out. There’s a new bridge and  embankment, and I’ve started creating a new scenic break. It’s been slow progress but things are moving forward somewhat. 

Once I’ve finished the construction of this end, I’m going to get the station finished and then move up to the other end to relay some track, and modify the scenery for new over bridge. 
 

I’ve also bought a YaMoRC power booster from DCC Train Automation so that I can split the track and accessory buses. 
 

Busy Busy Busy! 

2 hours ago, mken1861 said:

The issue is not about giving a couple of decoders the same address or creating a consist...      ...it's about some of us reaching the limit on our controller in relation to the number of chips the system can support.

By not needing decoders in unmotorised units, you can shunt them in the fiddleyard; and be able to add only a single decoder onto the controller.

For me, if I were to buy three motorised units, then I would exceed the capacity of my control system. Therefore, i would need to buy a new control system, which is a huge unwanted cost.

Taking a system design approach, I'm not looking for a cheaper four car 321, but a solution that I can run/shunt as a 12 car set with one decoder! 😀

Note: I'm also wanting to ensure that @Revolution Ben can stay in business and provide us with more great models! Hence supportive of @ruggedpeak's comments about designing in the lack of motorised unit at the development stage.

There’s an easy fix for that. Remove the motor, drive shafts and gears, then you’ll have a dummy unit. 

I find it really odd that people don’t understand why it’s better to call a halt to a project and correct any errors, but instead would be happy to have a model that’s completely incorrect? 
 

just stop and think about this for a minute. Dapol have sunk a fair amount of money into tooling - we’ve seen that as they’ve already shown an EP sample. However, as mentioned by a few people, it was quite far off the mark to even come close to how it should be. Rightly, they decided it was far better to offer a model that wasn’t riddled with errors.

As for cancelling pre orders, I find this even more baffling. It’s not a hardship to sit on a pre order, and it’s not as though there’s an abundance of ready to run, O Gauge Sheds being offered by alternative manufacturers! 
 

And one final point. If there’s nothing to update, then there’s no need for an update. When they have something to announce, they’ll do it. That’s nothing to do with customer service…..that’s common sense! 

13 minutes ago, RBE said:

Whilst I agree to a degree, our PGA kinematics are absolutely superb, they do in general cause more trouble than they solve IMO. The idea behind them is good but as I said once you get a lot of weight on them you are relying massively on the spring pulling it to centre or the brute force of the coupling pulling sideways back to centre by the stock to get it into the middle at which  point you potentially get the aforementioned potential derailing of the first wagon. On top of that there is more vertical movement in the pocket which is also undesirable.

I’ll bring a Symoba up to MRS Cav 👍

The whole idea of the kinematic mech is to allow the coupler to extend out in an arc when traversing curves to enable close coupling - something which you cannot do with bogie mounted couplers (my comment is not directed at Cav), and the couplers on the 56 do their job well as they will pull with the curve and weight of the train behind it. The reason bogies have a cut out with kinematic systems is to allow the coupler mech to move without fouling the bogie and not, as assumed, to make the bogie move the coupling mech.
 

There’s a bit of a dark art when designing the things in terms of spring tension, arc, and physical shape, but putting that to one side, on the whole, as a modeller, I would always prefer body mounted kinematic couplers over bogie mounted ones, as with the sprung buffer vs fixed buffer argument. If I didn’t have sprung buffers on certain stock, it wouldn’t go through the fiddle yard on Oak Road when close coupled, or in this case, without kinematic mechs on the couplers.  
 

As an aside, the best kinematic coupling system I’ve ever seen is made by Symoba and its tiny but has an unbelievably smooth mechanism. It’s also a very simple design that eradicates any stickiness within the movement. 
 

3 hours ago, Dorset33 said:

Sticking my head above the parapet here, but looking at the photo of the Colas 56 above compared to 048 below, isn’t the bogie too far back? The real one is past the door to the front to my eye, at a leat favourable angle as well? The middle axle looks closer to the front compared with the rear?

Everything is is the right place 👍

Well, despite having a real dislike for Class 56s, I was brow beaten in to getting one for Oak Road, and here it is…..

….Colas livery, and the detail on those bogies is fantastic…..and before anyone says ‘the cab steps are wrong, they don’t line up’ …….

they didn’t in the real thing!

Technically, this loco never got to Cary, only Westbury, but I won’t let that put me off! Roll on September when the layout is out and I can give it a run. 

Ok folks. I have an update. 
 

Given the MOQ, and unit cost, my friends at Dapol are still unsure and would prefer not to produce the wagons, so, to avoid anyone being disgruntled, I wholly respect their decision and will not pursue it any further. 
 

All is not necessarily lost though….please watch this (well not this one) space……

On 29/01/2024 at 20:54, BritishRail60062 said:

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I never got the chance to buy one of those AC4400's to check as I thought it was just hyperbole and now I know it is. I can just move on and forget about it. My Intermountain ET44AC's don't have them but they are heavier than any UK models I have had as they are over 750 grams per engine! So much that I will only need two max at the front of any train! 

 

I wonder if the new Class 60 will be as heavy as that? Only time will tell 😉. Anyway, I am only getting 60010 for now as my main focus will be more onto American/Canadian stuff. Especially as I will be living there in the future and I intend to build a model railway based on the BNSF Scenic Sub route that I had for MSTS. I still love the Class 60's and I always will. I wish Cavalex Models all the very best with their new Class 60 model when it comes out. 

I’m not sure you’ve entirely understood the design of the floating centre axle, and I have explained on your YouTube channel exactly why this model doesn’t need all axle drive. 
 

The 56 was designed by a Mechanical Engineer, to provide maximum tractive effort. The 60 will be exactly the same. 
 

There is a YouTube video showing the 56, with a train weighing three times the amount of your short TEA rake, starting on a helix without out any wheel slip whatsoever. 
 

The biggest question here I guess is: Why would you want to make what is possibly the best RTR locomotive the U.K. market has ever seen…..more inefficient? 

2 hours ago, Stu from EGDL said:

Hi Gang, 

Happy to report that my TPE set has safely arrived and, out of the box, is acceptably free running and the Dapol 68 waiting patiently on the shelf happily romps away with it. Not tried pushing much as the loco buffers conspire to derail the adjacent coach on easing out from a curve, so will explore later, a longer shank coupling for that.

Will have to compare the wheels and bogies against the remaining couple of stubborn CS sleeper coaches to gain any further useful insight, although I have managed to get those up to loco plus 8 without too many dramas. Still the occasional uncoupling from the loco due to accumulated drag,  so a bit more work is needed.

 

Later,

Stu from NRSW

Hi Stu

There’s a longer coupling in the box. We recommend this when running with the 68. 👍

Cheers

Mike B

6 hours ago, Southwich said:

 

The new 4mm Class 60 

I’m doing pretty well for someone that doesn’t like 56s and 60s……another one to add to the purchase list! 

For those of you inquiring about decoders, we will be selling pre mapped Lokpilot Nano 5s directly to suit every loco.

We have just listed the Class 59 decoders on our website at £36.95 each and will list the Class 66 decoders nearer the time of release.

Cheers

Mike B