Waverley West Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Oh and easy to remove bodies too, please guys. The Bachmann Mk 2's are excellent for this. Less faff and less damage. 1 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
classy52 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Also factory fitted high spec sound option with decent fit for purpose speakers, either using your own new recordings or from somebody else. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted March 8, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 8, 2019 4 hours ago, RBE said: We are looking at a highly detailed interior with lighting but of course that depends on cost v desirability. Do people want to pay the extra for that? We have a close coupling solution in hand. The RevolutioN Pendolino is probably a good starting point to aim for in terms of detail levels for interior & lighting in the N Gauge version. Tom. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 Hi, only just found this out. YES! My wish list is finally becoming a reality, a 90, an 87, then an 86, then the 92 and now the 91!!! Very excited for this and I hope it’s a major success for you cavalex. best regards, Matthew 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JR_P Posted March 9, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 9, 2019 Also only just discovered this news - this is great :-) ! Speaking purely in terms of the N gauge model, gotta be GNER (red doors) for me. Potentially going out on a limb here; I always thought that the Farish GNER mk4 coaches were OK - granted no interior, but the overall shape and paint finish was good..... my point being, that personally, in the interest of economics, I would certainly replace my Farish 91+DVT (which are very toy-like by modern standards), but I might not splash for a full rake of mk4s. So on that basis, the 91+DVT sold separately to the coaches would be my preference. I’d also be very interested in East Coast livery. What is the timescale for delivery for these?.... is Q1 2021 realistic would you suppose? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
43078shildoncountydurham Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 Brilliant chaps, But can you do like “SLW” and offer em and P4 gauge as a extra cost option? Regards Craig Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 Probably. We design all our stock to take P4 wheels without modification. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
43078shildoncountydurham Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 Count me in please if you can. Regards Craig Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGR Hooper! Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 +1 for the GNER (red door) livery.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomp Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 This is in my time scale and scope of interest, but not high enough to tempt me. Something about my intense distaste for Gresley's machines hanging over to the present day (I can only assume that's true of Deltics too - HSTs are fine because they came through Burton). I do hope they are successful, though, as I'm keen to see what's next. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 Just seen this. Cautiously good news. Although no preivous OO locos and coaching stock to judge by..... Can to manufactureres confirm the Mk4s will have close coupling cams, and that the locos can be similarly fitted (such that the buffing plates will sit flush with the similar on the TSO(E)? There is no point in highly detailed stock if we have a 4mm gap between corridor connections. I have not purchased an HST to date because of just this reason. Will the loco detail variations include the 91 and 91/1 (with grill variations) as well as original and later light/grill combinations? And what about retractable/rotatable bufffers to a standard set by Bachmann on their Class 90? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 I can confirm that there will be close coupling for the coaching stock and between the loco and the TSOE. In all fairness to the manufacturers, I think that your wish for corridors (or even vestibule rubbing plates on locos for that matter) to actually be touching when the vehicles are coupled is a little wishful thinking for a model train to actually work. Model trains have to contend with much sharper curves, the corridors are rigid not super flexible, and the stock weighs a fraction that of a real coach. Cams will allow the coupler to pull out on tight curves but on a sweeping curve they wouldn't pull out at all and if one coach is rigidly up against the next they will derail. Add to that the slop in a tension lock coupler or even a Kadee and you can't account for it. Its better to have tolerance built in than the stock being intolerant of staying on the track. That said we are looking at reliable close coupling that allows for good scale speed propelling as well and pulling with good stock gaps so watch this space. We will also be looking at retracted buffers when coupled to coaching stock. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, RBE said: I can confirm that there will be close coupling for the coaching stock and between the loco and the TSOE. In all fairness to the manufacturers, I think that your wish for corridors (or even vestibule rubbing plates on locos for that matter) to actually be touching when the vehicles are coupled is a little wishful thinking for a model train to actually work. Model trains have to contend with much sharper curves, the corridors are rigid not super flexible, and the stock weighs a fraction that of a real coach. Cams will allow the coupler to pull out on tight curves but on a sweeping curve they wouldn't pull out at all and if one coach is rigidly up against the next they will derail. Add to that the slop in a tension lock coupler or even a Kadee and you can't account for it. Its better to have tolerance built in than the stock being intolerant of staying on the track. That said we are looking at reliable close coupling that allows for good scale speed propelling as well and pulling with good stock gaps so watch this space. We will also be looking at retracted buffers when coupled to coaching stock. All sounds good I terms of corridor rubbing plates touching, my 'gold standard' is Bachmann Mk1s with Hornby 'roco style' couplers, where the corridor connections sit flush together on straight track. The Hornby Gresley Teaks similarly perform when coupled with proper roco couplers. Neither have ever caused me any problems on second radius curves (except once with a mk1 pullman lamp iron getting caught, but some slight bending back of lamp iron fixed the problem). This shows it can be done, though I apprecaite the extra length of the Mk4 might pose a challenge, probably dictating different cam geometry. I cant comment on gentle curves although I have transition curves to my second radius curves and again there is no problem with the touching gangways; somehow they manage. I guess it is a case of managing cam geometry such that the connections part with even a slight displacement. Edited March 10, 2019 by G-BOAF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 (edited) Yes I understand your point. I also am not a fan of gaps. The issue that we as manufacturers face is that everyones layouts are different and what works on one may not work on another. We have to build in a contingency for this so it work on 'almost' all layouts. As I said though. We are looking at the design of this. Edited March 10, 2019 by RBE 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John ks Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) Regarding couplings US manufacture Walthers (Proto range) coaches don’t have Close Coupling Mechs Although the coupling (kadee or similar) is mounted in a box that has a long arm that allows the coupling box to have a greater side to side movement They do have diaphragms that are sprung & will move into the body of the coach & rotate a small amount The main reason that CCM’s are not necessary is no buffers. Here are some images of US 85ft coaches & MK4 Mk3 HST (no buffers & body mounted long kadee’s) Curve radius is about 22” radius This is the other side of the coaches on about 36” radius & on straight track, not perfect but better than as supplied For me flexible diaphragms & body mounted kadee’s would be the best solution For a production model that has to negotiate tight curves than other solutions may be necessary My point is that flexible diaphragms might be advantageous John Edited March 11, 2019 by John ks 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-BOAF Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Hows this for an idea. Have NEM-based closecoupled cam sysems designed to keep the gangways flush at NEM spec spacing (gap between the box). Supply coupling bars (e.g. Bachmann Mk1 brake hose style) that allow a distance suitable for 'all layouts', but that at NEM spec keep things butted up. Will be interesting to see how Hornby do this on their revised Mk3s (or indeed how Oxford Rail have managed - but I don't have any). The IC225 was the 'new machine' of my childhood, so I'm keen to get one! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Don't worry we have plans regarding the corridors. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ash39 Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 For all their naysayers, Dapol found the best solution for coridoors on their N gauge 156. It works perfectly. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 I dont agree I've had my 156 pull itself off the track with the corridor on many occation. I now run it with a bigger gap than I'd like so that its reliable. Just my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted March 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 11, 2019 8 hours ago, ash39 said: For all their naysayers, Dapol found the best solution for coridoors on their N gauge 156. It works perfectly. It also allows the sides to bow out at the ends over time and there are large gaps either side. It's a nice idea, poorly executed on the 156. Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gcambo Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 I worked with the class 91 Electra from its introduction with BR & then GNER as Technical Riding Inspector until retiring in 2007. I refused to buy Hornby’s pathetic attempt at recreating the Electra and was hoping Accruascale would take up the challenge, their Deltic, which I have pre ordered looks amazing so let’s hope Cavalex offering will be of the same standard. who are Cavalex by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 Re. "gaps", personally I would prefer enough of a gap between coaches to bridge using a flexible corridor connection. I'd rather this arrangement than two coaches which were too close together to insert a connection between which pulls apart around curves. The card connections in the pic below stay pushed against the coach when going round curves so there is never any gap between the coaches, yet they are sufficiently flexible not to derail the coach. 7 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted March 15, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 15, 2019 Lovely. Looks like a prototype picture. Congratulations. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry J Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 (edited) On 10/03/2019 at 21:49, RBE said: I can confirm that there will be close coupling for the coaching stock and between the loco and the TSOE. In all fairness to the manufacturers, I think that your wish for corridors (or even vestibule rubbing plates on locos for that matter) to actually be touching when the vehicles are coupled is a little wishful thinking for a model train to actually work. Model trains have to contend with much sharper curves, the corridors are rigid not super flexible, and the stock weighs a fraction that of a real coach. Cams will allow the coupler to pull out on tight curves but on a sweeping curve they wouldn't pull out at all and if one coach is rigidly up against the next they will derail. Add to that the slop in a tension lock coupler or even a Kadee and you can't account for it. Its better to have tolerance built in than the stock being intolerant of staying on the track. That said we are looking at reliable close coupling that allows for good scale speed propelling as well and pulling with good stock gaps so watch this space. We will also be looking at retracted buffers when coupled to coaching stock. Roco and other European manufacturers have been achieving close coupling with scale length long body coaches capable of train set curves for many years. Edited March 15, 2019 by Barry J 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBE Posted March 15, 2019 Share Posted March 15, 2019 Yes they have but not actually in contact with each other on straight track which is what I was referring to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts