Roy L S

Thank you for your words of encouragement Kingfisher24. If anything as the Farish N Gauge J39 is tender driven, I would think the conversion might even be easier. Trouble is they are such exquisite models in their own right I just don't think I could bring myself to put one "under the knife"! Regards Roy

Just to keep up to date, my J37 is now finished and trundling round my layout (After adding fine fishing shot inside the boiler to add weight). It doesn't stand very close scrutiny and certainly isn't in the same league as that beautiful "Glen" above, but I am happy and it will certainly find a place running on my Whitrope Siding layout. Roy

The Hornby P2 may have appeared a gamble but in reality it appears a far more considered choice. Simon Kohler is quoted elsewhere as saying he never doubted it would succeed. Logically it is easy to see why. It is a quirky prototype, has huge presence and colourful liveries. If ever there were a "Rule 1" loco this would be it. Then consider that a brand new 12 in/ft one is currently in build by the A1 Trust. I believe it is a "Design Clever" loco, and whatever our opinions are of that in this case it keeps production and therefore RRPs keen which will capture the more discretionary spend. Conversely and sadly, even a range of EMU types sharing essentially the same body-shape would never be in similar demand. They form a significant part of our railway heritage for sure, but manufacturers certainly appear (justifiably) wary of committing to similar EMU projects due to the poor sales of the ones they have done, especially certain livery variants. To be wholly balanced the same appears true of certain DMU liveries. The difference I would think is that "buoyant" sales of the popular liveries (BR green especially) are in sufficient volumes to offset slower sales elsewhere in terms of recovery of tooling costs. Regards Roy

Fair play to add it to a "wish list - that's what it's for after all! Trouble is, it has been mentioned many times, in reality the market for overhead electric locos is not really that large - the very slow sales of the Dapol 86 and the need to heavily discount to sell them at all support this as does Bachmann's lukewarm reception to the idea of further models. Roy

As this thread had gone a bit quiet, I thought I would upload a pic of my scratchbuilt N Gauge J37. This is based on a Farish 4MT Mogul chassis which has been stripped of cylinders and valve-gear etc. The tender drive has had the PCB and DCC socket removed to make the mechanism lower. Superstructure is mostly plastikard, it is reasonably accurately to scale within the limitations of the chassis. Just lettering, final detailing, coal in the tender and a crew and it will be done. It has taken me a week to get this far and has been a lot of fun, and realistically it was the only way I'd ever be likely to get a J37 in N! roy

Hi Dave Thanks for clarifying. I felt that you would have posted an update if there had been any news which is why the article in Model Rail confused me somewhat. I am happy to be patient, after all, I never thought the day would come when I would be able to buy a Clayton RTR in N, never mind a "state of the art" one or even better a pair! Regards Roy

It has gone a bit quiet on the DJM product threads here, but I was reading in the May Model Rail that metal cutting for the the N Gauge Clayton's tooling would be underway by the time that publication was with it's readers. If so, that is very good news indeed (if not for my wallet!). Dave, there is no news here or on the DJM website timeline, if you get a chance to clarify it would be very much appreciated. Roy

Following mention on the N Gauge Forum I e-mailed Colin Heard a couple of days ago to clarify. He has confirmed that his 2014 release will be a D16/3 "Claude Hamilton". No mention of a date in his reply to me but the NGF posting says July/August. I hope this is of interest, I will certainly be ordering a BR one. Roy

Hi Steven I would agree as long as it doesn't mean any compromise with the shape and/or size of the tanks to achieve it of course! Regards Roy

DJM is only doing the Clayton in N so I guess it must be a possibility. It is interesting to see the diverse spread of "wishes" people have expressed from the highly viable and realistic to the erm, let's just say more "niche" and less likely! I still see the LNER derived tank loco as amongst the most viable. Possibly an 0-6-0 or 0-6-2 type, say a J50 of N2. Both would be relatively simple designs mechanically and judging by the J94 be possible to market at a realistic price with appeal across a pretty wide range of modellers and potential for multiple sales to one person. It will be interesting to find out where Dave's plans are headed next in July... Roy Roy

Hi Dave That helps a lot - thanks. My birthday is in September best I start dropping some hints! Cheers Roy

Dave That is looking truly excellent and I am pleased to learn that you are now so close to tooling. Could I ask the same question as someone else has asked on the 23 thread - when do we need to start flexing the plastic - i.e. what is the ballpark projection for delivery of the model assuming no "hiccups"? Regards Roy

Hi Dave Good to see that matters are progressing with the 00 J94, not that this is a model I have any interest in personally but because assuming it sells well (and from the specification hopefully it will be very popular) it will lead to your other projects that do. Specifically with regard to the N Gauge range, am I reading this correctly, will the "Baby Deltic" be tooled and produced before the "Clayton"? Regards Roy

Hi Missy I think that may be a little unfair as far as Dave's stated ambitions are concerned. In both the 17 and 23 he is promising a coreless motor and close coupling mechanisms, neither so far done my any manufacturer of British N Diesels yet as far as I know (although I am happy to be corrected). The smaller Faish Diesels do not even have a decoder socket, the 17 (which is actually not really a whole lot bigger than the 14 and sharing many similar issues) will have one. Other things such as provision for DCC sound may just not be feasible on such a small loco without compromising something else (such as haulage) that the majority (many of which will never go to DCC) rightly expect. I am sure Dave will consider all the options and not just discount them out of hand but when all is said and done he has far more experience of design/manufacture with all the commercial considerations than most of us will ever have. There must surely be a balance between innovation, commerciality and risk? That's my lot on this subject for now too I think Regards Roy

Hi Mike I was most specifically referring to the two motor option, when talking about complexity and cost. Sorry, I could have made that a bit clearer. That said, I also have serious misgivings that with this particular small bonneted design you will ever get enough weight over one powered bogie to make it work/pull anything like as well as a central motor driving both bogies. As far as I know the small bonneted continental N designs do not use this approach but the rather more traditional one, Whether any are fitted for sound I do not know. I know a single powered bogie was used years ago by Lima and I think Atlas (Plus also the Bachmann US "Doodlebug") but all with much bigger body-shells. More recently too by Farish in their DMUs. However in all these cases there is much more room for weight above/around the driven wheels and in case of the earlier ones no need to factor DCC and sound into the design, In Lima's case they also had to compromise a large pickup footprint for using four traction tyres to make the locos actually pull - I'm thinking that's not acceptable thse days (not that I think Dave will be probably using Lima's 1970s thinking as a blueprint for anything!). Anyway, I have expressed my thoughts and ideas, at the end of the day it is not my money or commercial risk. I am sure we all want Dave to be successful in his venture which is much of what is driving these discussions. I am perfectly happy to wait and see now what solutions/compromises Dave comes up with. Regards Roy

I have to admit I had been having similar thoughts, after all the small Farish diesels like the 08 have diecast body with plastic cab and fittings and that works very well. Regards Roy

Pottering in the modelling room today, I thought it may better illustrate my concerns about room for tractive weight by putting a pic up of my Parkwood Clayton next to the Dapol 26. The 26 is in itself quite a small diesel, but just looking at the comparative sizes of the loco bodies it just illustrates (to me anyway) how little room by comparison there will be in the 17 for motor, DCC PCB and socket and tractive weight and why using the area in the cab below windows for the motor, flywheels and said weight will be essential if the loco is to have adequate haulage capacity and still have room in the belly-tank for a DCC socket.. Others may disagree, but as I see it, this is about looking at how to produce a comercially successful product that will satisfy the majority at a suitable price-point rather than an enginering challenge where a more complex solution may well work but in so doing push the price to a commercially unrealistic level. Ultimately it is Dave risking his cash and I am sure he will consider everyone's ideas before locking down his design. Personally I never thought a RTR Clayton would ever happen in N and I am looking forward to reading about this loco's development very eagerly indeed. Roy

I dug out my rather average Parkwood 17. Mine is built on a dummy chassis and represents one towed "dead" as a failure which was not uncommon (the chassis options it is designed to fit is are almost impossible to get hold of). This reminded me just how small the bonnet ends are, and with a gear tower in place each end I see a real need to use the centre section and bottom half of the cab for tractive weight and no realistic way round that (even if some kind of low profile mechanism is involved). The lack of space available over the bogie for weight (unlike the Farish 108 etc) makes a single powered bogie look a real "no-no" to me unless one wants feeble haulage capacity akin to the Dapol M7 where one is essentially faced with a similar issue. As I see it, just looking at the model rather than applying any more complex asessment of volume within the body shell, were motors, gear towers and flywheels in the bonnet ends (even if all that would fit) allowing for body moulding thickness there would be very little room for tractive weight anywhere, particularly if the cab is required to remain clear and the tank available for a DCC socket. A two motor option would be a massive complication and expense to provide a solution to two issues (totally clear cab and DCC sound) that I am guessing only a very small number of purchasers would even be concerned about, while potentially seriously compromising it's ability to haul a typical train never mind a dummy too. Nope, having looked at a model in 3D and been reminded of it's size I still remain of the view that the best solution, and the one providing what most potential purchasers who will want (a sufficiently heavy smooth and reliable runner) is most definitely Dave's original one. Roy

I guess that in addition Dave has to take into consideration just how many will require the capability to fit sound, the impact of two motors and associated extra gubbins/complication on the price point and how many will actually worry about having a completely empty cab anyway. I would suggest that what Dave has so far outlined is the best and most attractive option to most, myself included. In trying to acommodate the relatively small number who will actually require sound to be a plug and play option my fear is he will have to price it at a level which will make it unattractive. My conclusion has to be that you should stick to your initial thoughts Dave. Roy

If two small motors are used, the cab area left clear and the tank area left for a speaker i'm not sure I understand where sufficient tractive weight could then be located? I would suggest Dave sticks with the idea of a centrally mounted motor even if this encroaches into the area below the cab windows. I would suggest the "cover" includes whatever cab details are practical in relief. For those who want DCC I would suggest the decoder socket is in the tank area, I accept that would not be good for those who want sound too but surely there is a limit to what is technically possible without compromising key attributes such as adequate traction? My knowledge on things DCC is very limited but could the solution be to offer the facility to fit sound in the twin set? If paired as a powered and dummy could one (powered) haveh a normal 6 pin decoder and the other (dummy) provision for a sound chip and a speaker in the lower cab/tank area where the motor would otherwise be (To avoid hard wiring the pair?). Roy

My Wishlist is very similar. In N the very obvious omission from the ranges of the two current big players is any kind of LNER derived tank loco. We see the rest of the "Big four" much better served (Even the Southern!). A J50 is a very simple little loco which would be bound to appeal if priced akin to the soon to arrive Farish Jinty or the Dapol Pannier. Alternatively how about an N2 - ;long lived, several livery options, condensing/non condensing, one preserved and in BR days some even ventured as far as Scotland! Roy

Hi Izzy Well everyone is entitled to their opinion of course based on their own experiences, but as I have said already it simply is not mine and foregoing the close-coupling mechanism of the new Mk1s by putting couplings on the bogies is not something I would have any reason/need to consider. Regards Roy

Anyway, back on topic, Dave the N Gauge 23 CADs look absolutely fantastic and it is great that you are taking on board people's constructive feedback just as you did in your pre-DJM days. All I can say is bring on the Clayton! Regards Roy

Hi Les In my experience there simply is no nightmare Farish Mk1 problem as you describe, nor has any such problem been widely reported to my knowledge. Yes, ok they do not always couple up that easily I'd acknowledge but once coupled I have no problems with inadvertent uncoupling whatsoever. I currently have new Mk1 BGs coupled to Farish four wheeled vans and even a Dapol Stove "R" in a parcels rake and they run just fine together even through the 9 inch rad curves and Set Track points in my Fiddle-Yard. The coaches also couple fine with Dapol Gresleys. Admittedly I have not tried to couple old and new Mk1s together but then why on earth would I want to?? Regards Roy

Isn't Heljan a Danish firm or am I missing something new? (Quite likely!). Cheers roy