Brush/GBRf 73/9s

[159220]

Does Dapol hold plans to alter the tooling of the Class 73 to accommodate the re-engineered 73/9s recently ex-works from Brush/Wabtec?
Could offer in both GBRf and Caledonian Sleeper liveries.
My ignorance of the tooling process might miss the point here, but would it be easy to put in new 'slides' for the locomotive body changes over the standard 73s?

I would also ask about the RVEL 73/95xs but they are so different from the 73s and have not yet worked on a NR IM train.

[Andy Dapol]

Hi, The simple answer is yes its possible. The 'tooling' is basically a framework and the collective term includes 'slides' which can be changed to produce various modification as the model evolves. Though a relatively trivial change in the tooling assembly CADs need to be produced and the tooling configured. In this case we've discussed the option previously and we would consider producing this at some point in the future.
Again, it would be interesting to receive other forum members opinions on this, or other E.D. variants. Vote here

[159220]

I forgot that perhaps the CADs had to be changed. I had a visit to Wabtec last year and they were outstandingly proud of their work. Perhaps they won't mind sharing the design plans to help new CADs to be made. (If of course the possibility of the 73/9 is a certainty!)

Hopefully retooled slides shall fit in, as would not want plastic to go everywhere. Though model production really does sound interesting!

Pleased you you would consider the Wabtec/Brush 73/9s in the future, if more would be interested. Caledonian Sleeper and GBRf, I could have at least a few

Not so interested in the RVEL 73/9s as very unsure what they shall be used on, even NR seem unsure!

[DRS Crewe On A Mission]

I would really like some GBRF and possibly Caledonian liveried 73/9s.

They would be ideal to use on engineers trains, NR test trains, de-icer trains and RHTTs.

[JeremiahBunyan]

I'll have a Caledonian Sleeper one in N gauge if it's ever done. If not, I'll have a go doing a simple modification... Or I'll consider designing just the shell and getting it 3D printed.

[the norfolkman]

Hi all hope everyone is well. I too would love to see a good quality model of the 73/9 with the GBrf version obviously the most likely
from a manufacturers point of view. However if produced would make room for a caledonian version and would also personally be
interested in the RVEL 73/9 though probably least likely as there are only two !
We also have to take in to account that all three versions have body differences from each other but lets keep fingers crossed.

[DavidInYork]

The GBRF and Caledonian ones don't have any substantial differences so far as I've noticed. The RVEL ones are completely different, as would be expected.

[159220]

I see the RVEL 73/95x's becoming fairly popular if/when they take over two of the UTU test trains. (Thought being they can run on just one of their two engines under test conditions and saving a fair amount on diesel). The Network Rail liveries Class 31 certainly sold (twice with two different running numbers). I cannot see why a 73/95x won't once they start to run trains.

Still the GBRf (and CS) 73/96x's shall certainly be welcomed and sell. I can use at least three of these in GBRf with test trains and infrastructure. Now only if someone would make the new CAF Mk5 sleeper stock to run with....... The differences I think between the GBRf and CS is minor with only Southern air-pipes and a radio antenna?

[DavidInYork]

I guess with the RVEL ones it probably depends on whether there are any more converted - seems unlikely that it would be viable to model them if the fleet remains at a grand total of two, given that they are radically different from both the original 73s and the Brush rebuilds and would require extensive changes to the tooling.

[159220]

I noticed over on the N gauge section by chance (as naturally not my scale) that Joel Dapol says the 73/9 is a peripheral model and Dapol should focus on larger ticket prototypes. Now I do apologies if I am mistaken that the chances for a 73/9 are very different in different scales. But I would argue that the 73/96x (Wabtec) find themselves operating across the UK with passenger services, charters, engineering trains and infrastructure monitoring - I could easily be talking of the 68 in the diversity of workings, but it does highlight the 73/9 (which shall outlive any 73/1 or 73/2 still in service) is more than a prototype out on the periphery. Especially considering the geographical operational sphere of the 73/96x is significantly greater than all 73s before.

Of course, I am not aware of the announcements made at the recent open day or whether the comment was only related to N gauge (would appears an entire new tooling would be needed unlike with the OO gauge).

Knowing GBRf enjoy special liveries, it is only a matter of time when we see a 73/9 out-shopped differently! I would also be most surprised if John Smith didn't order the re-engineering of more of 'these very useful little machines'.

[Joel Dapol]

It certainly is the case that as time goes by, the 73/9 becomes more attractive to reproduce in model form.

[Joel Dapol]

It certainly is the case that as time goes by, the 73/9 becomes more attractive to reproduce in model form.

[159220]

I am in complete agreement. Looking at the Caledonian Sleeper 73/96x for a moment, from April 2018 with full CAF coach introduction the midnight teal livery shall look awfully appealing to manufacturer. Considering previous Caledonian Sleeper 'packs' have always been popular with modellers.

From Dawlish to Liverpool, shall continue to try to convenience the GBRf 73/96x is an interesting model to capture.

[DRS Crewe On A Mission]

I would definitely like some GBRF liveried 73/9s. These would be very good to have running on test trains and engineers trains.

[the norfolkman]

I would certainly agree with drs crewe on a mission that these little beauties would look very tasty hauling for example a train of loaded JNA's !
Or working a PLPR train, would gladly support any of the 73/9 variations including the RVEL ones.

[DRS Crewe On A Mission]

That's very true and I completely agree with you.

GBRF 73/9s would look very good top and tailing a test train or top and tailing or double heading a rake of JNAs.

[159220]

Sorry few days late with this one, but the GBRf 73/9s for Caledonian Sleeper services have started with their modifications in preparation for the CAF Mk5 coaches at Wabtec Loughborough. With 73967 receiving a Dellner coupling system, which could be included with any possible release of the 73/9 model.

Not my photo, but seen here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/968557...436123/sizes/l

[JeremiahBunyan]

Thanks for sharing the pictures...

[the norfolkman]

Hi All hope your well, to bring this full circle and completely up to date the Caledonian version may now be more viable due to
the Mk5 coaches now being tooled. I would support such a release and indeed the GBrf version too. Would be interesting to see if both could emerge
at some point as they are not bodily identical and have differing roof detail …
over to Dapol ?

[JeremiahBunyan]

REGARDING AN N GAUGE VERSION:-

Since I am a huge fan of the Caledonian Sleeper TOC, a Class 73/9 is something that I'd love to see Dapol do. But alas, the lack of a Class 73/9 is not due to mising rolling stock, it's due to the fact that costs to make it have gone through the roof.

Let's not forget that while Dapol are doing well now and releasing some superb models, they're still recovering from a dark time. I have full faith in the team though.

The issues with the Class 73 is quite a few things actually:-
- Tooling costs. Current prices don't make it a viable approach.
- Variations in the Class 73/9. There's both the GBRf and NR variants, both different and both classed as the 73/9.
- Base model is basic, i.e. lacks the modern taken on detail etc. Moulded grilles, handrails and lack of bufferbeam detail.

So Dapol are faced with such a scenario, are they going to tool up a Class 73/9 (GBRf version) to the same standard as the current Class 73s which lack fine detail and separately fitted parts? Or do they spend money re-tooling the whole fleet (Class 73 JA, Class 73 JB and Class 73/9)? In that case we have to pay a higher price and hope that the tooling costs for the Class 73/9 can be shared with the JA and JB versions.

Personally I don't think the market right now is big enough for a brand new Class 73.

[Joel Dapol]

Unfortunately, I think what Jeremiah is saying is true and that we would struggle to repay the substantial outlay new tooling would involve. We are however, keeping our eyes on developments with interest and hope.

[JeremiahBunyan]

the norfolkman

I must point out that my views were actually in relation to an N gauge version. I do apologize. I do suffer from the distinct lack of ability to read the sub-forum before posting here.

However in regards to a OO GAUGE VERSION. I suspect it will be a lot easier to do this (due to it being a larger market), however from what I have heard, the Class 73/9 not only has a lot of variations on the face of the loco, the roof and the body sides, but also a few underframe differences. If this piece of information is to be believed, then I still stand by my word and I think that there's still too few out there to justify this big tooling expense. Joel Dapol can probably confirm? I think the amount of differences on the entire body and underframe is just too much to allow modification of any tooling, it will have to be new tooling in almost every respect.

[159220]

OK. This is clearly the OO Gauge thread. Your latest paragraph demonstrates you are not familiar with the prototype. Having had the privilege in seeing the Wabtec-Brush Traction build CAD I can say unequivocally that there are no further differences between the 73/96x sub-class. Other than mentioned below - Cab roof arrangements and SR27 sockets/cables. It would have been utterly bonkers of a business decision for GBRf / Wabtec-Brush Traction to have re-built the class only to allow for variations within the sub-class. One single way to guarantee expense and failure of a project! The 73/96x, I assure you, is a standardised re-build to do exactly that, standardise! And as this re-build is established in terms of design and build, as well as approved to run on the UK rails. Any future re-build shall follow the now established design (OK slightly newer type engine).

See new photos I have uploaded. I think it would be possible to tool one new body and to allow for slides to the cab roof and front to allow for the variation, stated above. Moulding seams would show, but along lines where seams already appear on the prototype. Easier for the 27SR sockets would be to drill them. But lets be honest, a body mould or two is not out of the realms of releasing a new model, one which would be popular with modern modellers. Note that 73961-965 shall be seen more out of their natural habitat of the SE on NR IM trains.

The 73/96x is not new tooling in almost every respect (are you able to demonstrate this factually?), as you would have read below, I feel it would be around 20-30% new tooling. A cost OO modellers would happily absorb.

[the norfolkman]

Hi Many thanks for both answers always good to stimulate discussion !
I fully understand the answer with the 73/9 actually accounting for three variants as the roof detail varies between the Caledonian and GBrf standard
versions !

[159220]

I must disagree and present a far more favourable argument for the class 73/96x re-engineered at Brush Traction/Wabtec (note not the 73/95 which is unique to two examples re-engineered by RVEL between 2012-2016).

Firstly, this Jeremiah is a classic example at how ridiculous the OO modeller has become! (OK sorry, I know the Dapol team shall laugh at that one as I am as pedantic as they come). The Class 73/0 & /1 tooling was announced in March 2012 and delivered from December 2016. In my personal opinion, the detailing is some of the best seen in Era 10/11. So to say the 'base' model is basic really does make the poster look rather foolish, sorry, but it does.

Now with that out of the way. To create a 73/96x you need 'new' tooling to a body and some battery/cabinet under frame detail. You can keep:
- chassis/motor/electronics
- cab
- bogies
- fuel tank
etc

Basically, I would say 70-80% of the original tooling suite can still be used on the 73/96x.

I see at maximum four new tool pieces to capture both variations of the 73/96x and actually, if clever with slides, you might be able to reduce this down to 2. I understand the original 73/0 & /1s took advantage of slides to the body tooling, allowing for different position of windows and sockets?

As for the roof differences between the GBRf and Caledonian Sleeper (CS) liveries, the latter features a cab heater/air conditioning module above the cab. A slide would leave a mark but seeing as this would act as a seem, I think you could get away with it! But, the CS has also lost its 27SR cables - thus seeing as it would be difficult to replace these with a slide. Two bodies might be required - but I wonder can such a socket hole be drilled by the factory? Certainly a technique which appears to be used on other modern variations (eg. 800/0) - over to [email protected] and his tech opinion...

But let's be clear, the minimal further investment in the Class 73 tooling provides a much sort after modern interpretation of the class. An increased price would be outweighed by the demand for this type - especially the CS livery. Seeing as by 'batch 3' the tooling costs of the original build are surely covered, a little slip into profit to pay for additional tooling to me seems a sensible investment to bring another interesting type to the market.

It is expected shortly, a new order for 73/96x shall be placed by GBRf to Brush/GE-Wabtec for the conversion of 73/1a to see the class through for another 15 years.

The announcement of both Accurascale's CS Mk5 coaches and Hornby's Network Rail PLPR/RSC gives modern rolling stock to use the class with and surely significantly increases the market design for a locomotive type which shall become even more geographically spread from the 2020s as a RA5 locomotive.

"- Base model is basic, i.e. lacks the modern taken on detail etc. Moulded grilles, handrails and lack of bufferbeam detail." oh haha, that has made be chuckle.

[159220]