Northern Electric

Wonderful, thank you!

Hi, Would it be possible to change my username to just Northern Electric, Northern-Electric or Northern_Electric, or anything similar with correct spelling of Northern and no numbers? Cheers!

Just out of interest, what do you think of the TDM cables on the Hornby 87? Those ARE seperate items but, to my eye, they look noticeably too thick and are therefore not a better solution. If it were possible to produce seperate TDM cables scaled down to the correct thickness, would they survive being handled? It's a bit of a tricky one because the real ones are so thin, seperately fitted TDMs would most likely have to be beefed up to survive being handled/boxed/unboxed repeatedly etc. and then people would end up complaining they look too chunky... Admittedly not so much of a problem with the older style MW cables because the prototypes WERE thick and chunky. I look forward to seeing Heljans rendition of these, which I assume WILL be seperately fitted detail (?)

Here is a nice shot of the features 86416 in ex works condition. Notice the yellow blanking plates and the very small step in the orange cant rail at the end of the rain gutter. RES for me is the model I am most likely to buy because No.1 it looked good on the locos, No.2 they could turn up on just about any type of train on any electrified lines and 3. It was quite long lived, approximately 1991 to 2004 ish. I really want it to be right for this reason. Can't justify £165 on a new loco if it needs repainting out of the box however...

You can see the colour of the roof in this photo.

Do you happen to know if the cab rain strips will be changed to the correct style? This is one area that was wrong on the BR blue 86/0s (but correct for the early AL6) but I don't think at all passable on an 86/4. I appreciate that this is just a decorated sample and pre-production. But do you know roughly how close to the production RES version this is likely to be? There are some major errors in it - The roof for RES livery was not light grey, it was the same dark grey as on the body sides. You can see it in the linked picture. The orange cant rail lining on the side of the cab roof looks definitely wrong, and the MW blanking plates on the cab front were never painted orange as far as I know. Many thanks

For another example, here is 86 402, carrying the two different Stone/Faively varients, in 1986 and 1987 respectively. Notice also the changes in the front end appearence over the same period. The are also one or two pictures of the same loco in BR blue with the Brecknell Willis type fitted!

I've just been looking through flickr again and you are right, both classes carried both types of cross arm! I had assumed the 87s were all built indentical but, apparently not! In the 70's and early 80's it looks like locos ran with whatever was available at the time, as you say. From the mid-late 80s onwards things appear to have become more standardised, with all 87s and some 86s receiving the Brecknell Willis type, and the majority of the 86s retaining the Stone/Faively type. Prior to that it appears almost random especially with the 86 fleet. Interesting and also confusing!

Any chances of a few 86/4 pictures? I have the new AL6 in early rail blue livery and I love it, though I did notice there were a couple of little details incorrect for the period on the later BR blue versions. I thought also the pantograph could have been better. The 86/4s carried at least 3 different types of pantograph I beleive. Will each example be represented, or will all locos produced be ones that carried the Stone & Faively AMBR (bicycle frame) type, as per the AL6 version?

Here's an early AL6 image to show the subtle differences in pantograph.

Also, nice work on the cross-arm pan etch kit! Funnily enough, it was actually me that sent all the dimensions to Mike Edge a while back - I had an opportunity to get up on the roof of 83012 while helping out at the ACLG and though I'd take the initiative to measure it up while up there. Your soldering skills appear to be better than mine though, I did get one of the kits but didn't dare attempt it! On a constructive criticism note, you might want to bend the horns down a little more, they curve down to near vertical on the prototype. Also, that works drawing is wrong. The cross-arm pan on the 87s actually had an X shaped double bracing arrangement for the upper arms that cross in the middle. Look in the picture and you can see what I mean. However the design with the single diagonal brace IS correct for the AL6s that were built with a cross arm pan, though later modified I beleive! Phew! Who knew pantographs could be such a varied and involved topic!

Nice pantograph setup there, not a million miles from what I did on my 81/82/83 builds in the past, though I wasn't aware of that etch kit and used 2x1mm plastic beam filed to shape. I'm happy to do that sort of work on kit builds and old models purchased cheaply on ebay. Though I do think when you've spent over £150 on a brand new model, you shouldn't really have to do this. It's not as if designing it to the right shape to begin with would have been any more difficult or costly. Plenty of the working prototypes are still in existance..

^^ Yes, sorry I was talking about the AL5 when I said the window surrounds should be white. The AL6 should be silver-grey as the photos show, more like the colour on the AL5! Both models are the wrong way round. At least the BR blue models are all consistent with each other!

The side by side comparison reveals a few interesting things livery wise. One being just how off white/grey the window surrounds on the AL5 are compared to the AL6, when really they should be white (the roof dome IS white so I'm not quite sure what went wrong there...? ) Anyway, most importantly the shade of blue for the AL6 is definitely darker and more green than the AL5 electric blue, but a little lighter than the BR blue models, so it looks to me like they got it right. It could even be a touch darker in my opinion but I will give it a pass. The roof section is slightly less convincing - the shades of grey seem a little confused an those unpainted black bits spoil it a little. The bus bar should be red (as on the AL5) and the pantograph looks rather garish in unpainted silver. Still, these are all things a dab of paint can correct, so not deal breakers. All of the major criticisms of the body seem to have been addressed. The grilles are correct, the windscreen wipers are mounted correctly and the tail light surrounds are correct for the era. As a few people have mentioned though, the main hand rail is slightly disapointing - both the old 86 and Hornby's new 87 did it better. Perhaps an area to modify/retrofit. As with the old 86, motor is excellent and the underframe detailing superb. Comparing the bogies between the two classes, the AL6 has better relief of the lower stretcher bar but the AL5 has better steps and brake components - the cylinders on the AL6 look too shallow IMO. One slightly strange feature is that the triangular bogie side mounts are mounted to the bogies themselves, rather than the bodyside, as correctly modelled on the AL5. I'm not sure why Heljan did it that way? The gap between the two isn't to noticeable in truth, though it can look a little odd if the loco is parked on a curve. I'm not entirely convinced by the new pantograph... the shape of the base doesn't look right and unfortunately, as with the AL5, the geometry is wrong so the pickup head flops forward rather than staying level to the contact wire. Perhaps that can be corrected (?). The gap between the upper most part of the frame bothers me - why is it there? Having said all that, it IS a step forward over the old 86. Though right now I am thinking of doing a pan swap and renumbering - maybe E3161 or E3162, both of which carried different pantographs from new anyway. Overall, a nice model, excellent motor and much improved body shell. Could maybe have tried a little harder on the roof detailing. I'd give it a 7.5/10. I await the arrival of the new 86/4 with much intrigue

Hey all just though I'd post a few comparisons of the new AL6 in Rail blue with the Bachmann AL5 in electric blue.

It's already happening! Like the Voyagers, I rember how many negative comments the Pendolinos got when they first replaced the Mk3 sets on WCML services. I am certainly not their biggest fan, however, compared to an 8XX I find the Pendolinos an attractive proposition! Certainly the seats are far better, the ride is also much smoother, noise levels seem to be lower. The tiny windows and low roof make them somewhat cramped feeling inside but despite that, the overall ambience and design of the interiors is far nicer than the harsh, spartan 8xx. Despite their flaws, you do get the impression that some thought went into the design and comfort, where as the IETs smack of built down to a price with no thought whatsoever about the passenger experience. I would be happy to take the longer and more expensive route from Leeds to London via the WCML or MML just to avoid those horrid IETs. A HST would be ideal but even a Voyager or Pendo would be an upgrade. As for passenger travelling between London and Scotland... I genuinely don't know how they cope!

Personally, I have no complaints about the Desiros. I have always found the seats on 185s and 350s to be perfectly acceptable even on journeys of over an hour. I seem to recall the seats in the class 444s are similar. They are definitely among the more comfortable and refined of the modern unit types out there. I wish Northern had just left their 158s alone because they used to be a thoroughly comfortable way to travel, alas no more. It is a strange situation to be spending money to refurbish a train and end up making it worse. That said, the ride quality is still vastly superior to the 195s - They shake rattle and clunk even on relatively good track. While passing over points at speed is a thoroughly jarring experience. Definitely not the kind of experience you would expect of a brand new fleet of trains! I never ever thought I would look back on the Pacer years with fondness, but I find myself beginning to!

Interesting, I was not aware of that and have no recollection of such events at Leeds. Nice to know they at least made an effort to engage with the public on the issue of seating. But if the end result we have now was the best they could come up with then that doesn't speak very highly of the various choices that were on offer! Presumaby it was also Arriva that specced those ridiculously small and poorly situated bins? This makes the case of the IET seats all the more strange given how widely hated they are.... There was plenty of time for LNER, TPE etc. to investigate alternatives following the critisms heaped on the GWR sets, so if they could, why didn't they?

Interesting point about the TOCs... I was under the impression that they were largely stuck with whatever specification the basic trains were delivered in, bar livery/branding/upholstery. I read elsewhere that LNER were unhappy with a number of aspects of the IET interiors, provisions for luggage space in particular. COVID might have temporarily masked the problem for some operators but what's interesting is that GWR recieved a deluge of complaints about their IETs when first introduced, yet no alterations or improvements appear to have been made to the later buid LNER/TPE/Hull sets, which I find very strange. The feedback was clear but for whatever reason, it wasn't acted upon. I have emailed LNER and Northern about the issue of back pain caused by their seats, they were superficially apologetic but offered no real explanation or detail as to why these seats were chosen. Incidentally, the seats in the IETs are totally different to the ones in the 195/331s. The only element they appear to share is an obvious lack of comfort, which is dissapointing on a local commuter train and just downright inexcusable in a long distance intercity train.

Yes, maximum cheapness does spring to mind. And DaFT coming up with the specs would certainly go some way to expaining it!.. Never a good idea to let civil servants do the job of engineers. Though I can't see why fire/crash safety would be used as an excuse for poor shape and total lack of padding? A decent shape that allows a comfortable, relaxed posture need cost no more or be any more unsafe than any other shape. I really would have thought in this day and age we had the technology to come up with something that is both cheap, safe AND provides appropriate support to the human body. For all its many faults, BR always managed it.

Why are they so bad!? I'm sure a lot of you are already aware, the levels of passanger comfort provided in many of the UKs more recent train fleets has been heavily criticised. Anyone who has travelled on the class 8xx IET sets will know exactly what I'm talking about. They are a significant backward step on their predecessors in this regard. As a passenger of Northern/LNER, I have noticed the same thing on Northern's most recent trains (classes 195 and 331) - That is to say poorly shaped seats that are rock hard with minimal cushioning, and a ride quality that is barely good enough to be described as poor. In my opinion even the much-hated pacers offered more comfortable accomodation! Unfortunately these "ironing board" seats now appear to be replacing the previously very comfortable seats in the class 158 fleet as well. I have perviously enjoyed both local and long distance travel by train but my experiences on the newer units have made me have a serious rethink about whether I still want to travel by train at all, knowing I will most likely arrive at my destination with lower back pain. Even once COVID restrictions are eased, I think I will be sticking to using the car, mostly for this reason. Does anyone know what's behind these rather obsurd interior specifications for the new trains? Any thoughts and insights welcome.

Hey all just a very quick update to say I haven't forgotten about this, but unfortunately due to the ongoing lockdown situation I don't currently have my own internet connection so have been unable to access my 3d CAD and printing services. I hope to be back online at home within the next month or two. Thanks to everyone who has shown an interest thus far.

Thanks for the replies I shall look to see if there are suitable bits from any of the other manufacturers spares. I'm a little surprised that nobody appears to have filled the void left by Craftsman. Their kits always seemed to be quite popular, and apparently still are! I was a fan of their Hornby Class 86 to AL6 conversion kit. In part because it came with (almost) everything you needed in one little bag. No need to make multiple purchases with the associated postage costs. They were good value. Perhaps this is another area I should look into to 3d printing. I've bought many products from Shawplan in the past and always liked them. Don't know off the top of my head if they do TDM cables for 86/87 etc. but if not I will put the idea to Brian as I know he does cater for the AC electric classes with numerous other etched parts.

Hey all, I am looking to do some cab end detailing to an AC electric 86/4 and previously used the Craftsman detailing kits which provided all the relevent parts for various classes. I've not seen these available anywhere for a few years now, except very occasionally on ebay, and they tend to go for some rather inflated prices! Does anyone know what happend to them? And are there any suitable alternatives available? I can fabricate the air brake pipes out of wire but for some of the other parts such as TDM jumpers, ETC connections etc. its a bit trickier... Cheers in advance

RE the EMU's, (slight topic wonder indeed, but OLE and EMUs are closely connected) I noticed someone on eBay was selling various bits and pieces (bogie frames, underframe parts, cab ends etc.) for the 302-309 classes, a few months ago. They looked similar to the handful of DC kits components I have left in my box. Just thought I'd mention as they might make the job of converting Mk1 suburban coaches into an EMU a little easier for those who aren't so confident/competent to scratch build with plasticard.. (though props to anyone who does it that way. I personally wouldn't have the patience!).