Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future models (N Gauge Locomotives)

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

  • Food for thought Dapol?

    Dapol already produce an outstanding model of the Class 86. I've actually heard no bad reviews of it, and most recently ordered my first one and look forward to getting mine soon. Earlier in the thread I posted about how many similarities the Class 86 had with the Class 87. Just to refresh everyone, I've listed the similarities below:-

    Similarities between the Class 86 and Class 87:-
    - Identical wheelbase
    - Identical bodyside (albeit the Class 87 has an extra door handle)
    - If not the same tooling then the same CAD can be used to make the model's chassis block and drive system.
    - Reusing data from the Class 86 CAD the Class 87 can be developed a bit quicker. You can say that the silhouette is almost identical.

    With that being said (rather a recap) I'd like to raise another point for Dapol.

    Class 90...?
    In reality the Class 90 was based on the Class 87. With that being said I think it's fair to say that the chassis block and drive mechanism from a probable Class 87 can also be used by a probable Class 90. Once again the major part of the model can be used from an existing one as the Class 90 has the same wheelbase as the Class 87 and uses the same bogies if Im not mistake.

    So based on what Dapol has already i.e. the Class 86, there is certainly a possibility to make a Class 87 and then a Class 90. A pantograph is already available to you'll too.

    I understand that the Barwell group have a Class 90 in development for OO gauge, but that being said it was announced 2 years ago and has only recently started it's design work. I'm pretty sure that we'll see it in 2018, I know they said they try to produce what they did in OO in N, but I don't see a Class 90 anytime soon.

    In terms of liveries,
    The Class 87 carried
    :-

    - BR Blue
    - BR Blue Large Logo
    - Intercity
    - Intercity with full yellow wrap around warning panel
    - RfD
    - Virgin Trains
    - Porterbrook
    - Cotswold Rail
    - DRS
    - GBRf
    - Caledonian
    *May have missed a few...

    The Class 90 carried:-
    - Intercity
    - Intercity with White Roof
    - RfD
    - RfD with Blue Roof
    - RfD-SNCB
    - RfD-DB
    - RfD-SNCF
    - GNER
    - RES
    - Freightliner Grey
    - Virgin
    - One Anglia
    - Greater Anglia
    - EWS
    - Freightliner Green
    - National Express
    - First ScotRail
    - DB Schenker/Cargo
    - DB Schenker-Malcolm
    - DRS
    - DB Schenker (ex-DRS) Blue
    - Freightliner Powerhaul
    - Abelio Greater Anglia
    *May have missed a few...

    Personally I feel that a Class 87 and then a Class 90 are the next best logical models after the Class 86 (that is if Dapol wish to expand their fleet of AC electric locos. A Class 92 is being considered by DJM, a Class 91 could be done later on etc.
    Last edited by JeremiahBunyan; 14 August 2016, 13:13.
    Jeremiah Bunyan...

    Comment


    • PaulShanahanUK
      PaulShanahanUK commented
      Editing a comment
      Agreed about the quality of the Dapol 86's. My only gripe is that I would prefer the spring loaded panto from the older 86's and for the plastic panto's to be ditched which are on the newer 86's. I appreciate this is a preferential thing, however I feel the spring loaded panto just looks better and less bulky.

    • JeremiahBunyan
      JeremiahBunyan commented
      Editing a comment
      Easiest way to solve that is just supply the standard N gauge sprung pantograph along with the model. Many will want the posable plastic ones, many will want the sprung metal ones.

    • Joel Dapol
      Joel Dapol commented
      Editing a comment
      I think Arthur's comments about bringing out too many variants at a time is very pertinent in N gauge and something we shall certainly consider in future. As far as as Pantographs are concerned, can the spring loaded versions be obtained separately, I seem to remember we bought these in, as adding these in the pack will add quite a bit to the cost.

  • Having now read the thread about push-pull M7s I have an idea for longer-term consideration-

    That is, when the time is right for bringing out a "new" M7 (three, five, seven years or whatever) you work on a RANGE of (say) four locos of the same wheelbase, rather like Hornby did a number of years ago when they brought out a 4-4-0 from each of the "Big Four".

    The advantage here is that the basic mechanism is done over four locos (with the usual caveat about wheelbases and wheel sizes being different across the four).

    The GWR didn't have a decent 0-4-4 tank of their own (at least one that survived far enough into the 20th Century) so my tentative selection would be as follows-

    LSWR/SR/BR M7, which could be in long frame and short frame variants.
    NER/LNER/BR G5, mostly identical though with two bunkers and two dome positions
    Caledonian/LMS/BR 2P
    and either Midland/LMS/BR 1P or the Stanier version of the late twenties. In the latter case the Stanier might be less of a viable proposition.

    I'm not sure if the LSWR O2 or the SECR H types would be viable against the M7, though they would be nice.

    However, not yet, perhaps.....

    Les

    Comment


    • Joel Dapol
      Joel Dapol commented
      Editing a comment
      Probably not just yet Les, but great ideas thank you.

    • Dorsetmike
      Dorsetmike commented
      Editing a comment
      The O2 wheels are much smaller, however the M7 chassis works almost "as is" for an Adams T1 except for a shorter wheelbase bogie and some rather prominent brake rodding,

  • I could. create quite a long list but to prioritise for now, LMS twins, Class28, Class 91 & DVT, Patriot 4-6-0, Clan & King Arthur.
    Cheers, Ged.

    Comment


    • JeremiahBunyan
      JeremiahBunyan commented
      Editing a comment
      Nice to see others asking for a Class 91 and it's Mk.4 DVT...!

  • N15 King Arthur Class... Maybe - Sir Urre of he Mount... no selfish reasons honestly

    Comment


    • Dorsetmike
      Dorsetmike commented
      Editing a comment
      Lytchett Manor have Sir Urre nameplates if you want to be prepared!

    • SteveU
      SteveU commented
      Editing a comment
      Doesn't seem to be an option to reply to this reply when using the BlackBerry.

      Dorsetmike already have a set ordered, just in case... thanks.

  • Few loco's I would like to see

    GWR King
    GWR Large Prairie 41XX/61XX
    GWR Collet Goods
    GWR Dean Goods

    LMS 8F

    LNER K1
    LNER K4

    Southern T9 4-4-0

    BR Std 2MT 2-6-2T
    BR Std 2MT 2-6-0

    Comment


    • JeremiahBunyan
      JeremiahBunyan commented
      Editing a comment
      I have no idea why a GWR King Class has not been done to modern standards yet...I thought it was a popular loco! I'd get one...

  • Here is my shopping list.

    Locomotives:
    • Class 71
    • Class 07
    • GWR Dukedog

    DMU:
    • Underground 1938 stock
    • Derby Lightweight 2-car
    • Class 128 (Royal Mail)
    • Class 110

    I wonder what is meant by narrow gauge ? Is it Nm using Z tracks or Nn30 using 4.5mm tracks (the latter is equivalent to OO9) ?
    As we have nice OO9 stuff, it would be really great to start something in Nn30 to model the lovely Birtish narrow gauge lines. But it would require a completely new set of 4.5mm tracks.

    Comment


    • JeremiahBunyan
      JeremiahBunyan commented
      Editing a comment
      +1 for a Class 110 DMU...

      And maybe a Class 71

  • Class 74 to support your 33 and 73. A Class 74 electro diesel is great as you don't need a third rail to run it. This could be supported by a class 07 shunter;

    Comment



    • Originally posted by ohlavache View Post
      DMU:
      • Underground 1938 stock
      This would appeal to the collector in me, but the modeller in me would rather see modern 'S Stock' so I could model delivery trains.

      Or take the long view and work with TfL/LUL on an exclusive model of the 'New Tube for London' (NTfL) due to enter service in 2022. Or [CrAzY iDeA] if Siemens' bid for the Deep Tube Programme is successful, how about their proposed EVO concept design?
      Last edited by RailGooner; 27 August 2016, 00:08.

      Comment


      • Though I would give my ideas.


        AC Electrics
        Given the quality of your class 86 I would welcome further AC electrics in class 81-15 and 87.
        The class 87 would complement your range of MK3's and the current 86 the most.


        Steam

        Personally I feel the best compromise for some of those wanting older steam engines would be to consider those which are preserved. This will always be objective and potentially limited by factors such as geography and original Railway Company.

        My example suggestion would be North British C Class 673 "Maude".
        NBR, LNER, BR > Bo'ness Railway. Saw use around Edinburgh and designed as a powerful goods engine. 25 served in France during WW1 all of which were named on return (Hence Maude's name). Some of the last steam locomotives withdrawn in Scotland. In preservation took part in a number of events and railtours and featured in the remake of the railway children.

        I would hope the sum of these parts would make the locomotive more popular.


        EMU's

        BR EMU are apparently in at the moment and while other manufacturers focus on the mk3 derived stock the 1972 stock could be an easy win.

        Ignoring the Prototype PEP stock which had different cabs and door layouts.
        313 DC/AC DMSO-PTSO-BDMSO Great Northern Suburban
        314 AC DMSO-PTSO-DMSO Strathclyde
        315 AC DMSO-TSO-PTSO-DMSO Shenfield-Liverpool St
        507 DC DMSO-TSO-BDMSO Merseyside
        508 DC DMSO-TSO-(TSO)*-BDMSO Waterloo then Merseyside
        *Trailer removed before transfer. The TSO are still used in class 455/7 units

        DMSO and BDMSO all look to the the same body. DC and AC/DC units would need shoes and motor bogies.
        PTSO is the same on the 314 and 315 however the small window is missing on the 313
        TSO all look to be the same where present.

        Wide range of livery’s
        All arrived in BR Blue
        Note worthy livery’s (IMO)
        313 Network Rail, NSE
        314 SPT and Saltire (Match 156 livery)
        315 NSE (always popular)

        ---
        Silly suggestions
        APT-P, Class 89(Good companion for the 91+Mk4's)

        Wishful suggestions
        Class 126, Class 303/311, Class 385

        Comment


        • I would love to see the following;
          Class 323 in Northern Rail
          Class 185 in First North Western or the new TransPennine Express livery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...Piccadilly.jpg)
          Class 175 in First North Western or Arriva Trains Wales
          Class 68 Loco
          Class 66 GBRF Evening Star in Green
          A rerun/update of the 221 voyagers (especially the extra car!)
          Perhaps looking forward, the new AT300 / Class 8XX (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/t...-contract.html) could be looked at? I'm sure other people would love to see the class 800 too, both are similar looking.
          Royal Mail class 325

          Looking at history, I would love to see;
          a Class 304, 4 car EMU. The first class of train I ever rode on! Any livery up to Era 7 would be fine with me.
          A Princess Coronation Class, Duchess of Hamilton, not the standardized version, I mean the streamlined LMS version with the white stripes (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ork_180509.jpg). I know this has been done in OO, but not in N!
          Some class 31's would be nice, BR Big Logo, EWS with the snowplows

          Comment


          • Joel Dapol
            Joel Dapol commented
            Editing a comment
            Some excellent ideas here, thank you.

        • Having stated earlier in this thread I'd like the EM1/EM2 electrics and would build a new layout for them similar to the 2mm MiniMSW, I spent much time commuting on the AM10 (class 310/0) EMUs so, despite the awkward windscreen/body front shape, if these were to be released I'd have to then build another layout to use these + classes 81-6 - complete with OH 'knitting'.
          Where I'd put all these layouts is another question.​​​​​​​

          Comment


          • Bob G
            Bob G commented
            Editing a comment
            Instead of an NElevator fiddle yard, you need a NobbyElevator to move between stacked layouts!

        • .....also, for me, 304, 305, 308 and 504 family of EMU's. This covers suburban electrified services, local services from London Fenchurch St, Liverpool St, Manchester Piccadilly & Victoria, Liverpool Lime St and Birmingham New Street. They were the mainstay of local servies from the mid 50's to the early to mid 90's.

          Comment


          • There appears to be a concensus of opinion that EMUs are not really all that popular but, to a certain extent, it strikes me some market research and joined up thinking might produce a winner i.e. rather than produce random models maybe the MUs and locos/correct rolling stock for a location/era should be made available at the same time and not spread over 3 or more years. Folks just don't want to wait that long.

            Comment


            • This is a heartfelt plea, whatever new models you do make please could you design them so that they can be taken apart relatively easily. I know you probably don't want us to service our own locos but sometimes it is necessary. Owners might want to add decoders or sound chips. The locos that I have are beautifully detailed but almost impossible to work on without causing damage. The Terriers for instance have bodies that are held on with easily breakable plastic clips, likewise the pannier tanks. What's wrong with screws for holding things together? Locos designed for easier maintenance would help you too. I know that the locos are guaranteed for two years but that doesn't help overseas modellers much.
              Last edited by Daftbovine; 5 September 2016, 17:44. Reason: More to add.

              Comment


              • SteveU
                SteveU commented
                Editing a comment
                There is that cold sweat you get when trying to grip the tender and pull it away from the chassis to fit a chip... without crushing any detail parts... Although forums like this and others will often confirm what you are doing is correct you just need some bravery to achieve separation.

                I have to say that having bought a bargain A4 Mallard off 'the bay' that was 'spares or repairs' and most of the issues were listed, missing tyre, broken wires loco to tender, missing shaft. With the handy spare parts provided with some of my new purchases I was able to replace everything and have a superb A4 runner.
                The tyre was by far the hardest part having to disassemble the gear to get it ready to go over the wheel, then a long time juggling cocktail sticks to get it eventually fitted, also replaced the other side that had a tyre and that took less time, the learning experience.

                Okay I like the challenge I have engineering experience and know that I only have myself to hold accountable, but I would help others out in a similar situation who did not maybe have that ability to dismantle and reassemble with the majority of parts all refitted in practical or advisory terms...

                The internet and particularly a forum from the manufacturer such as this is a wealth of information and help.

                The one thing I would ask having done that particular fix... Do we really need the traction tyres? I have looked but not tried the 'snot' as being a solution to not having to fit them, but are they really necessary in N Gauge?

                I would like to add Hex head screws/bolts to our list of friends along with screws, they look the part on the loco and are a great way of fixing the motion.

              • Mark Ellis
                Mark Ellis commented
                Editing a comment
                I don't understand why the tender bodies aren't designed to lift off without having to disconnect that drive shaft first.

              • Andy Dapol
                Andy Dapol commented
                Editing a comment
                Not all models require the drive shaft to be removed, but on some, it is cosmetically better to make a hole since a slot would be too visible. It's not often that access inside the tender is required, so this is a reasonable compromise to obtain better looks. The best option would not to have a driveshaft at all.; our first model with the new [shaft-less] drive mech. will be the Battle of Britain.

            • Yes a class 323 emu would be nice.

              Comment

              Working...
              X