Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brush/GBRf 73/9s

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DRS Crewe On A Mission
    replied
    Hi all,

    I haven't posted on the Digest in a while, so I hope everyone is well?

    I have commented on this thread previously as I have an interest in GBRf 73/9s. Joel Dapol Andy Dapol so you don't currently have any plans to produce these in OO Gauge?

    Thank you in advance.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeremiahBunyan
    replied
    I've been contacted by a few people with a lot of information and diagrams showing the WABTEC Class 73/9s. I've been requested to actually design a shell to fit on top of a Dapol Class 73 chassis. Quite an interesting project. From what I can see, the Class 73/9 truly is different. It would require a fair bit of new tooling or modifications both inside and out.

    If I can get my hands on a cheap Class 73 in both N scale and OO scale. I shall probably have a go at it. Very interesting locomotive and something I'd love to do.

    Can't say for sure whether I'll do it or not. It all depends upon the availability of a cheap donor locomotive or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • 159220
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2019-03-18 at 18.36.04.png
Views:	389
Size:	1.49 MB
ID:	8427Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2019-03-18 at 18.43.28.png
Views:	395
Size:	1.55 MB
ID:	8428

    Leave a comment:


  • 159220
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • JeremiahBunyan
    commented on 's reply
    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
    replied
    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.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	HK-4D-006-004-02.jpg
Views:	333
Size:	418.9 KB
ID:	8419
    Last edited by 159220; 18 March 2019, 12:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • the norfolkman
    replied
    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 !

    Leave a comment:


  • Joel Dapol
    commented on 's reply
    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
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by JeremiahBunyan; 18 March 2019, 18:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • the norfolkman
    replied
    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 ?

    Leave a comment:


  • JeremiahBunyan
    commented on 's reply
    Thanks for sharing the pictures...

  • 159220
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DRS Crewe On A Mission
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • the norfolkman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DRS Crewe On A Mission
    replied
    I would definitely like some GBRF liveried 73/9s. These would be very good to have running on test trains and engineers trains.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X