Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Rails Announce OO 18000 Gas Turbine Locomotive


Oliver Rails
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, toboldlygo said:

 

There's also photo's where it didn't on google

So, RAILS haven't actually got it wrong, they've merely selected not to produce one minor livery variant which wasn't among the references with which they were supplied. (CJL)

  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

So, RAILS haven't actually got it wrong, they've merely selected not to produce one minor livery variant which wasn't among the references with which they were supplied. (CJL)

 

Agreed Rails haven't got the model wrong, I still can't believe it's been made by Heljan - it's beautifully made.

 

Heljan have put Early Crests on the wrong way round before, as I previously stated (and have put right on models for clients).

 

In the days before computers, it wasn't unusual for images to be mirrored in publications to suit. It's easy to spot on 18000 because of the windscreen wipers.

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of observations of this model.

1st even on 3rd radius you can hear the mechanism rubbing on the inside of the body, it also severely slows down. On 4th radius and higher it runs like a dream. Smooth, quiet and powerful. 

2nd is the lighting. The single red light works as it should, however only the outer two lower white lights work. The roof light appears to work when the cab lights are on but I think its just the cab light filtering through the hole. The middle centre white light doesn't work at all. 

 3rdly the bogies are quite a work of art. There is very little movement in the frame, but there is a subframe inside holding the axles that can also turns independently to the outer frames. 

 I'm glad that my layout has no curves tighter than 4th radius. I've already ordered 18100 lol! 

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, toboldlygo said:

 

There's also photo's where it didn't on google

Yes, but the point is your post (including the head banging) was simply wrong and 2 minutes of research could have told you  that rather than make a wrong assumption/statement. 
 

Roy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue about the crest has come up before. The heraldic convention is that it should face to the left. But until the College of Heralds objected the crests were often applied so that they faced 'forward'. I am sure this is covered in various sources. But the one I have checked back on is p7-8 of the 1960 Railway Observer. There is no specific date given for the CoH intervention, merely that it was 'ruled recently'. So, as if often the case, photographic evidence would be the best guide.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just checked my model and both crests are facing left.

 

I have also checked through the following book that is a great read "The Great Western Railways Gas Turbines, A Myth Exposed" by Kevin Robertson, at the photographs that are in aforementioned book and all the pictures do show that the BR crest is facing to the let on both sides.

 

I am not sure if the book is still in print but I have just done an internet search and you can get it on the second hand market. This also covers the other gas turbine locomotive 18100. 

 

Terry

Edited by Trainshed Terry
Missing words.
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

The issue about the crest has come up before. The heraldic convention is that it should face to the left. But until the College of Heralds objected the crests were often applied so that they faced 'forward'. I am sure this is covered in various sources. But the one I have checked back on is p7-8 of the 1960 Railway Observer. There is no specific date given for the CoH intervention, merely that it was 'ruled recently'. So, as if often the case, photographic evidence would be the best guide.

Forgive me but the debate concerns the early emblem. The intervention by the College of Heralds related to the later heraldic crest.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Trainshed Terry said:

... but I do wonder how long before the whistle gose (sic) missing as it seams to be a weak point being made of plastic.

 

The whistle at one end wasn't properly located in its mounting hole when I unpacked my model.  I gave it a gentle push to try to reseat it and it just pinged off in an unknown direction to be consumed by the carpet monster.  

 

The top lamp brackets also deem easy to damage, especially with the loco inverted to fit the detailing accessories...

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

Forgive me but the debate concerns the early emblem. The intervention by the College of Heralds related to the later heraldic crest.

As I said there is no date given for the CoH intervention - the issue might have been around for some time before they took formal action. But it explains the issue generally. And it might explain why there are photographic examples of both approaches for the early crest.  Without trawling through photographic evidence i don't know whether the early crests were originally applied in the heraldically correct formation, but then at some point one was incorrectly changed to face forward, or the timing was the other way round. But you end up in the same place - follow a photo for the period that you are modelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not to go off topic but…

 

the herald.. why didnt BR simply use one as its Herald, the other as a corporate logo/branding  ? Heraldry isnt a monopoly on logos / artistic designs.

tbh i’m not even sure why BR even needed a Herald for in the first place.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pteremy said:

As I said there is no date given for the CoH intervention - the issue might have been around for some time before they took formal action. But it explains the issue generally. And it might explain why there are photographic examples of both approaches for the early crest.  Without trawling through photographic evidence i don't know whether the early crests were originally applied in the heraldically correct formation, but then at some point one was incorrectly changed to face forward, or the timing was the other way round. But you end up in the same place - follow a photo for the period that you are modelling.

 

All irrelevant - do a little research and you will find that the CoH issue relates to the later 'crest', which BR sought to have registered as a heraldic device.

 

No such application was made for the first 'crest', and so it could be applied to always face forwards on steam locos.

 

As most mainline diesel and electric locos do not have an easily perceived 'front', the first 'crest' was usually applied to face left.

 

Why do people try to rewrite history rather than acknowledge that they have made a mistake?

 

CJI.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, toboldlygo said:

 

Agreed Rails haven't got the model wrong, I still can't believe it's been made by Heljan - it's beautifully made.

 

Heljan have put Early Crests on the wrong way round before, as I previously stated (and have put right on models for clients).

 

In the days before computers, it wasn't unusual for images to be mirrored in publications to suit. It's easy to spot on 18000 because of the windscreen wipers.

 

I have never 'mirrored' an image in a publication to suit anything. The illustrations I supplied to Heljan were all scans of original black & white prints. The BR official shots (from the Swindon collection) having been obtained through the old OPC/BR arrangement. I have checked all the material I supplied and there are no right-facing early emblems visible on any of the photographs. I daresay they may exist in other locations such as Google but I could only use material that I had - all obtained by old-fashioned means, most of it long before I had a computer. Nor did I supply Heljan with any publications, since the material I supplied had been the basis of an article in Trains Illustrated which I wrote following a visit to the NRM to inspect a box of material which had been unopened since its arrival from Swindon Works. It contained, among other things, 18000's 'failures book' with photographs of all the failed components (mostly combustion chamber linings from memory) and a letter to Hawksworth from the Swindon engineer who had been sent to monitor the build at Brown-Boveri. It was a begging letter asking for some more money because the £ had been devalued and the poor guy couldn't afford his accommodation. Heljan may well have used other references besides the material that I supplied as I was only involved very early on in the process. (CJL)

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

All irrelevant - do a little research and you will find that the CoH issue relates to the later 'crest', which BR sought to have registered as a heraldic device.

 

No such application was made for the first 'crest', and so it could be applied to always face forwards on steam locos.

 

As most mainline diesel and electric locos do not have an easily perceived 'front', the first 'crest' was usually applied to face left.

 

Why do people try to rewrite history rather than acknowledge that they have made a mistake?

 

CJI.

You are right, of course, regarding the CoH and the late crest. There was a bit of a 'thing' among firms at that time to get their emblem CoH approved. (Didn't BOAC try it with the Speedbird?) I was asked to write the BR story for Steam World back in the 1990s. I spoke to the Portcullis Pursuivant of the CoH (I forget his name now but his family have a stately home in Cambridge or Norfolk, the walls covered in heraldry). He was pretty dismissive of the BR heraldic device but the crux of the matter is that the CoH register is a written description, so you can't have two written descriptions or one that is ambiguous about which way elements face. 

I think I'm right in saying that these were what we used to call 'varnish-fixing' transfers in model terms? One assumes that, in full size, it was cheaper and simpler to have a print-run of one version facing one way, than to order them in opposite-facing pairs. Assuming that they were supplied in pairs, I wonder if any were ever applied in error with BOTH lions facing the back? The difficulty with working from photographs, of course, is that few photographers photographed both sides of the same locomotive on the same day. It is interesting that in the Times photo of 18000 on test in Switzerland she already carries the BR emblem, so that must have been supplied from Swindon along with the buffers, couplings and other standard fittings which BR provided to Brown-Boveri. (CJL)

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

I have never 'mirrored' an image in a publication to suit anything. 

 

People generally don't do it deliberately.  However it does happen especially in the old days when printers did the typesetting.  You sent your book off and got back a draft for proof reading.  So you went through fixing spelling mistakes and omitted words but only glanced at any photos - after all you know they're supposed to be there.  The printer inserted what to him was "just another picture of a train".  When he got a 35mm slide upside down and mirrored it, that might be glaringly obvious from any big lettering or perhaps signal arms pointing the wrong way, but otherwise easily missed.  I've seen it happen after myself, another proof reader and the author had all checked it.  Likewise, one tends to miss an erroneous reference to "Plate 23" when the picture is another page. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the ability of the model to negotiate curves.  I recommend that a railing ramp is used when putting the model on the track.  By hand you can only affect the alignment of the dummy or silver bogie not the inner or real bogie.   I have found that the Bachmann one is best for my needs (GWR and WR diesels), see here: https://www.Bachmann.co.uk/product/e-z-railer/44492.  No pecuniary interest, just a lot poorer as a long term customer of their products!  I do not think I could get the model of 18000 on all 12 wheels on the rails without it.  It could well be your model is derailed to start with.

Edited by MG 7305
Clarity
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

 

The whistle at one end wasn't properly located in its mounting hole when I unpacked my model.  I gave it a gentle push to try to reseat it and it just pinged off in an unknown direction to be consumed by the carpet monster.  

 

The top lamp brackets also deem easy to damage, especially with the loco inverted to fit the detailing accessories...

DC Kits will have Brass Replacements shortly, being made as we speak.

 

Watch this space.    Charlie

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, charliepetty said:

DC Kits will have Brass Replacements shortly, being made as we speak.

 

Watch this space.    Charlie

That is good news.

Mine are still intact, but I know it will only be a matter of time.

I must say it is a fine model, runs beautifully, nice jerk free acceleration using my AMR controller. I have minimum 30" radius curves anywhere this is likely to run, so the 3rd radius minimum is not a problem and runs through my long and medium radius point without a problem. Heljan have done quite a good solution to get it to go around any train set curves without compromising the body. 1580386170_IMG_5648(2).JPG.4eb5ebd66e85ade1c80647d3d4c32702.JPG

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

 

Why do people try to rewrite history rather than acknowledge that they have made a mistake?

 

CJI.

I wasn't trying to rewrite history, merely to be helpful. But clearly there are better sources of information on the subject than the one I had closest to hand. These things happen.

 

What I think is still unclear is whether 18000 did have two forms of early crest  - and if it was changed from left facing to front facing, why was this done when the convention had been different for diesel/electric and steam locomotives?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2021 at 23:00, bubbles2 said:

Mine arrived today and have just test run on my DC layout, SMP track and hand built point work, seems hesitant in places and stalled completely on a live frog crossover, where even my 2 axle 4 wheel locos have no problem, there appear to be no pickups on the centre wheels of the bogies, and no instructions for fitting the detail parts, a little disappointing on a nearly £200 pound loco. But the head code is a pleasant surprise and maybe the running will improve after the running in period.

I stripped the bogies out today, adjusted the bronze pickups that where making very limp contact with the back of the wheels if touching at all and added extra pickups to the centre axel wheels, now running very well and have worked out where the detail parts go. It’s a shame the orange pin strip above the buffers to the cab doors on the green livery has been missed off, I wonder if N scale modern cant rail strip transfer could be used to represent it?

D563FC6B-11A5-4921-8FA7-A769D4731C99.jpeg

Edited by bubbles2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine arrived today very pleased with it but a few disappointments,

Poor QA with model, lower battery box not attached to loco in box, screws fortunately in there, but will not 'tighten' in correct position, so black tack was required.
Both leading driven wheels, pick ups needed fettling, very poor initial running with stalling on point work, now ok after adjustment.
Magnetic train numbers a good idea, would be nice to see this sold separately.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dibber25 said:

I have never 'mirrored' an image in a publication to suit anything.

I am afraid it was a general practice when I was in the press, if an image looked to be “leaving the page” it was flipped to face the spine…….quite normal if there was no other option.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jim104 said:

Mine arrived today very pleased with it but a few disappointments,

Poor QA with model, lower battery box not attached to loco in box, screws fortunately in there, but will not 'tighten' in correct position, so black tack was required.
Both leading driven wheels, pick ups needed fettling, very poor initial running with stalling on point work, now ok after adjustment.
Magnetic train numbers a good idea, would be nice to see this sold separately.

 

A little drop of PVA in the holes will sort that out.   Charlie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although i have yet to receive my sound fitted version of 18000, some of the postings on this thread dosn't fill me with much confidence of the mode,l what with quality control and poor running, i have waited a long time for this model as i know many of you have, fingers crossed i end up without any problems with it.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...