oreamnos

I have used EZ track in the past and have a lot of experience with it. Unfortunately, I have a lot of it, too, after throwing good money after bad... It's now all stored away in a box someplace. EZ track is adequate for test ovals and perhaps for setting up something to run on a floor. Farish and Dapol locos and stock run fine on it. The problem with EZ track is that it is a grossly inferior product compared to Kato Unitrack, which is a similar type of track. Unitrack is 1.) much better made, 2.) looks more realistic, 3.) much cheaper (at least here in the US), and perhaps most importantly, 4.) Unitrack also offeres a far greater variety of curve radius and of straight track lengths. And yes, Farish and Dapol locos and stock run fine on Unitrack, too. In fact, you can get Unitrack in 7.5" radius, and Farish and Dapol locos will run fine on that, too, although the newer Farish "Blue Ribband" labelled coaches don't. Since you said you are new to N gauge, I want you to have a positive experience. So I strongly recommend you do not use EZ track. Matt

Neat links. Thanks. "Realism, Value, Quality, and Super Detail" In all seriousness, I had not realized that the "Blue Riband" branding that Bachmann has been using for the past 8 or 9 years to denote the higher specification Farish models actually dates back to Farish's 1970s packaging. I had always thought this branding seemed a bit silly, but now that I understand the historical context and how it makes a link to "old" Farish, I actually appreciate it as an homage and a thoughtful detail on Bachmann's part. I learn something every day! Matt

Re: blackened wheels, I have seen a very late Poole production A3 and 8F that both had factory blackened drivers (but chrome bogie wheels!). I myself own a very late production Poole Class 40 which has factory blackened wheels. The wheel profiles on both the A3 and 8F I saw, and on my Class 40, are still pizza cutter shaped, however. Very early (1970s) Poole boxes had gold printing. This later shifted to yellow, and then late production (mid-1990s or so) Poole boxes added a vertical yellow stripe on either side of the clear plastic "window." Earlier boxes did not have the stripes. Poole plastic body shells for diesels were always moulded in white plastic, then painted. This plastic is a very soft polystyrene which reacts very strongly and quickly to solvent or glue. The plastic for Bachmann/China built diesel bodies (and some coaches and wagons) are moulded in color which is sometimes painted over and sometimes just clear coated. The Bachmann/China polystyrene plastic is much harder (and I believe, stronger) than the Poole plastic and reacts slower with glue and solvents - I personally prefer it compared to the Poole plastic. Paint application and decoration printing on the Bachmann/China built models is noticeably better than on anything that every came from Poole. There are a lot of major differences (e.g., completely different chassis!) between Poole and China built mechanisms under the body shells of diesels, and even China built versions of Poole designed steam engines have detail differences in how the mechanisms are assembled. Matt

This has gone off topic. In my instance the Class 55 I returned was clearly listed as "pre-owned" and like all their pre-owned items, Hattons posted pictures of the actual item being offered for sale, so whatever cosmetic flaw I had taken issue with (and I'm fussy) would have been clear for anyone to see. This was also around the time the first batch of the new tooling blue Class 55s had run out of stock with Bachmann, so someone was able to get a model they would otherwise have been unable to. Given those circumstances I don't have an issue with what Hatton's practice. Matt

That's pretty funny. To be honest, a couple years ago I returned a blue Class 55 which to me had some sort of unacceptable flaw on the body (don't remember what it was) and few weeks later I noticed it was offered as pre-owned at a small discount. One man's trash is another man's....

Seems to be a fault in assembly with the bodies of the latest batch. If you look carefully at the pictures on the Hatton's website you'll see that even the one they photographed shows evidence of this problem (though not as bad as your example). A pre-owned one currently being offered by Hattons (https://www.hattons.co.uk/427100/Graham_Farish_371_629_PO_GWR_Railcar_20_in_GWR_chocolate_cream_with_shirt_button_emblem_Open_box_minor_/StockDetail.aspx) looks as bad as yours, however. Yours is a duff, but it looks like at least other examples are duffs, too. I have two green and two crimson and cream ones from the last batch issued 5-7 (?) years ago. They are all fine along the windows, but one has a bit of extra glue along the roof/side join on one side. Matt

I received (and I suspect many did, too) an update from what was formerly a Liverpool located box-shifter that the Dapol 50s are now expected March/April, 2019. This is good for me since I'm short of funds right now, but maybe not so good for others... Matt

The first 6 that went through refurbishment were painted in standard BR blue and only later repainted in LL. See: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/22865-class-50-refurbishment-dates/ Matt

What I haven't seen anyone comment on is that the motor seems to have been changed compared to the original split chassis Bachmann Farish version. Below is a picture of the original BachFar split chassis with the the open frame that was needed to make room for the large 5 pole motor. I notice in the picture above that motor is not visible and is fully surrounded by the frame. Does the new model have a coreless motor? If so, that's another improvement. Matt

While I completely understand Grahame's encouragement to have a go, having made, painted, and lettered many kits, if the truth be told no repaint is ever really simple. It's all relative. Compared to the old Poole based 40 where you all you had to do was push out the cab glazing and the nose ends before respraying and adding new transfers, this new 40 will require at the very least careful masking of all the cab and body side glazing and (possibly) the tiny indicator lights. I don't deny it could be done, but in this instance I personally will just wait for Bachmann to paint a disc fitted one blue for me! Matt

The new body looks very, very good and conveys the portliness and weight of the real thing. The bogies are not as good as the body and seem too svelte in comparison. To my eyes, the bogies are slightly too narrow, top to bottom, though that may be an illusion caused by the overscale bogie/body gap. Apart from that, the overall shape of the bogies is certainly a big improvement over the old Poole and Bachmann/Poole 40 bogies. I looks like Bachmann really did everything it could to narrow the bogies (side to side) so that body overhung them. The bogie mouldings look noticeably thinner (and I hope are not too fragile) than the bogies of the old 40 and Peaks, the wheels also appear to be narrower than used on previous models, and (unfortunately) the leaf and helical springs have fairly shallow relief. Given that the separately applied sand boxes and cab steps stand quite proud of the bogie frames it's a bit of a shame the spring detail was not made with deeper relief, too. On the light grey EPs, the spring relief looked all right, perhaps because any shadows cast by the spring relief were apparent on the light color. Painted black, however, the shadows cannot be seen and so the spring relief looks too shallow. Those are all nits, really. I'm quite excited that these are coming out and even have all the variants on pre-order with the exception of the disc version, but only because the discs of the disc variant EP were noticeably overscale and I haven't seen a more recent picture. Well done! Matt

Somewhere earlier in this thread there was mention of there being room for a speaker inside the fuel tank. See post #107. If I understood it correctly, some minor modification will be required by the purchaser who wants to fit sound. Matt

Just providing links to other threads on this board about the same topic: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/48089-Bachmann-farish-split-gears-in-diesels/ and http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/107147-split-gear-on-farish-prototype-deltic-dp1/ Matt

I run Farish Mk 3s with Dapol power cars whenever I run an HST on my club's modular layout. I found that the Dapol NEM Rapido couplers on the Dapol coaches regularly tended to uncouple, and that's a big no-no in my club when we run at shows. I tried several different types of coupler with the Dapol coaches but none of them really solved the problem. My solution was to buy a set of second hand Blue and Grey Farish Mk 3 coaches. The sprung couplers of the Farish Mk 3s stay together extremely well. I added BR lines interiors to my Farish Mk 3s and I think the combination of Dapol power cars and Farish coaches looks fine. I also replaced all of the original Farish coach wheels with new the current Farish coach wheels that have the finer flanges, and I removed the buffers from the Farish coaches, of course (which where designed to be pulled off, if need be). A few pics (not very good, I'm afraid) are attached. I think I should point out that the Farish Mk 3s that I run with the Dapol power cars are the older Mk 3s with an almost matte paint finish, and not the later ones with glossier paint (which I have a few of, too). The paint on the later Farish coaches is both 1.) too glossy and 2.) not the right shade of blue to match the Dapol power cars. The coach bodies of the later Farish coaches also tends to banana. The older Farish Mk 3s by contrast don't suffer from any of these issues. Matt

Exactly. Who wants to run a shunter or a Bo-Bo loco when you can run a 1-Co-Co-1 one on a mainline layout if 1st radius allows you to jamb one into the space you've got? I'm all in favor of models being able to manage 1st radius curves in spite of possible appearance compromises that may result as a consequence. Let's not forget what the old Farish Castle looked like either: https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/372-026-LN_3082791_Qty1_ruler.jpg Matt

Wait everyone. I'm not sure we are all talking about the same gap. Was Dr. Al talking about the gap between the body and bogie (as I think Zunnan assumed) or was Dr. Al talking about the gap between the wheel faces and back of the bogie frames (which is what I think Chris Higgs assumed). I myself understood Dr. Al to be talking about wheels and frames, but stand to be corrected. Matt

I know it was stated that the model would have "scale width bogies," but I wonder if what they really meant to say was that it would have scale wheelbase bogies. While the Poole 40 did a decent job of disguising the fact, its wheelbase was way too short because it used gears and wheels that were shared across the whole Poole range. Have Bachmann released a minimum radius for this model? In looking at the pictures of the EP, the aforementioned massive gaps between the wheels and frames do seem much reduced. While the old over-wide bogies looked bad, the upshot was that the models would run just fine on 9" R1 curves or even tighter. I'm hoping that the smaller gap in the new model will still leave enough clearance to run on R1. Matt

It is interesting that on the old Poole Farish 40 (and its Bachmann variations which used the same bogie), the buffer beam is correctly (per prototype) slightly taller than the bogie side frames. Not quite sure why this detail is missing from the new EP, but I'm hoping the error is corrected before the model goes into production. Picture below is of a Bachmann Farish 40 from the second split chassis version batch in 2006. You can clearly see the taller buffer beam. Matt

And that the axle gears are common too, so that they can be replaced quickly after one splits. Matt

Regarding the evolution of the Farish 40 bogie/body gap... 1.) Poole Farish: https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/8115Farish-LN_3074678_Qty1_1.jpg and https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/8115Farish_3074653_Qty1_ruler.jpg 2.) Bachmann first split chassis release with Poole body: https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-176-LN01_3199232_Qty1_1.jpg and https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-175-U_3198660_Qty1_1.jpg 3.) Bachmann second split chassis release with Poole body: https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-178-LN-03_3153176_Qty1_1.jpg and https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-177-HD_3174074_Qty1_1.jpg 4.) Bachmann third split chassis release with Poole body: https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-178A-LN-03_3153175_Qty1_1.jpg and https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-178A_27385_Qty1_2.jpg and https://hattonsimages.blob.core.windows.net/products/371-177A-LN-01_3111486_Qty1_1.jpg I have (more than!) several examples of each of the variants. I can say that the pictures above accurately reflect the gap on the models "in the flesh" based on the sample size I have for each model. The Poole Farish bodies have a habit of not sitting perfectly level so that the body can be slightly higher above the bogie at one end compared to the other. For the Bachmann releases, there was very slight variation in the gap between the individual models of each release, mostly attributable to how loose the body was on the chassis - the looser the fit, the lower the body sat. Bachmann's first and second releases of the split chassis version had the bodies reliably level and close to the bogies. Bachmann's third release of the split chassis version, however, while level, had an inexplicably larger gap than the prior two releases. I've studied my own models carefully as to why and my best guess is that it is because the bodies on that release seem to fit much more snugly to the chassis. Anyhow, the current EP looks closest to that third Bachmann release. I hope that it can be improved upon and the gap made smaller. Matt

Yes. And no. It's a tricky thing. I have studied a lot of pictures and in on some locos the steps appear to be more in line with the door than on others. Camera angle and the swivel of the bogies on curved track will affect the perception, too. That all said, your shot of D212 is very good and seems dispositive. Thanks for posting the link to it! Matt

I am a big 40 fan and this EP is an improvement over the previous Poole based 40 - but it would be hard for it not to be! My observations: I agree with the comments made above regarding the body side panel, panel lines, and the boiler exhaust. All are much too prominent on the body. The bogie/body gap is about the same as the gap on the last release of Poole based 40s from a few years ago. Ironically, the gap on those models was actually a big larger than on the early Bachmann 40 releases using the Poole body. To its credit Bachmann have managed to narrow the bogies so that they tuck under the body nicely now, so that from the side the body overhang will mask some of the gap. The big problem however is that from the front - even at normal viewing angles - the gap is always very noticeable because there is (correctly on the model) very little body overhang there. I was really hoping that Bachmann would be able to narrow the gap and I hope they will still be able too. The leaf and helical springs on the bogies would benefit from more relief. They are an improvement over the Poole based 40 but they don't have as much relief as the bogie on the Peaks that were released 10 years ago. The footsteps on the bogie don't quite line up with the door. This is a niggle. The center head box isn't quite the right shape and it projects too much. The biggest problem with the box, however, may be the ridge immediately around the glazing, which is much too prominent and over scale. I'm actually surprised it has been moulded as I would have thought simply picking it out with paint would have been more to scale. On the disk fitted version, the head code disks are over scale. The pillars on either side of the center cab window are a bit too wide but are still a vast improvement over the Poole 40. IMHO the cab windows are the weakest part of the Poole 40. Actually, on second thought, if Bachmann paint on the black window frames, the body colour part of the pillars will appear narrower, so this is probably not a problem. I'm happy to see Bachmann have managed to get a NEM box to fit between the buffer beam and front axle as space is tight there. I also like the representation of the piping above each second axle on the bogies. Most of the issues above are niggles. IMHO the bogie/body gap and the shape of the center head code box are more than niggles and I hope they are adjusted before production. From a comment above it sounds like Bachmann already have a laundry list of errors to correct and so I am hopeful those issues are addressed. Matt

No. The ones from May 19, 2016. https://digest.Dapol.co.uk/forum/n-gauge-models/diesel/class-50-n/project-managers-blog-al/309-n-gauge-class-50-development Matt

Really? For goodness sake. I have no desire to join another model railway forum - especially one hosted by a manufacturer - which is why I decided to post my opinion here, not there. Dapol very well could have elected to post the Class 50 CADs directly here in this thread, but as just like I did, it made a decision to make its post elsewhere. If others think my opinion on the CADs has merit, as I said earlier they are welcome to share it wherever they believe it might do more good. And no, I won't be annoyed if it turns up with a cocked-up tumblehome. At £120 per example, I am no longer in Dapol's targeted market! (At least not until the shops go unload the excess stock at bargain prices like what has happened with the Westerns for the past few months.) Matt

Well, the model I want doesn't cost 120 quid! I hope Dapol get it right, too, but if not, the marketplace will surely take its course. Matt