!!

Not Registered?

Welcome!  Please register to view all of the new posts and forum boards - some of which are hidden to guests.  After registering and gaining 10 posts you will be able to sell and buy items on our N'porium.

If you have any problems registering, then please check your spam filter before emailing us.  Hotmail users seem to find their emails in the Junk folder.


Thanks for reading,
The NGF Staff.

Author Topic: Union Mills 2016 new loco  (Read 12693 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ian_5a

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • **
  • N Gauge Society Number: 7137
  • Posts: 5
    • Awards
Union Mills 2016 new loco
« on: November 08, 2016, 05:17:41 pm »
A Dukedog is being released this month, their second GWR loco. I don't have details of livery and loco numbers yet.

Offline Bob Tidbury

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2336
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2016, 05:31:19 pm »
9017 in BR Black Lion on wheel crest.
GWR 3204 in Green with Great Western on tender .
GWR  3204 in green but with G W R on tender
GWR   3204 in green but with Shirt Button crest on tender.
All 82  plus 3 postage for one or 4 for two or more.
All Locos are pre oiled and tested before shipping .
By the way no connection with Union Mill Models other than a really happy customer
PS Ian 5a read the other post on Next Union Mills Model.
Bob Tidbury
« Last Edit: November 08, 2016, 07:15:09 pm by Bob Tidbury »

Offline johnlambert

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23717
  • Posts: 1337
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2016, 04:04:20 pm »
A few people seem to have these but there don't seem to be many pictures or reviews yet.

This is my first UM model as there hasn't been anything previously that fitted my modelling needs.



First impressions; it's big and heavy, which is undoubtedly good for traction and electrical pick up.  The unpowered wheels are very free running and the paint finish and lettering is superbly finished.

Compared to pictures I've seen the overall shape seems to have been captured.  My biggest concern is that it is it is too big.  The width over the coupling rods is understandable with outside frames; it is the height that concerns me.  The 3200 seems to tower above coaches and other locos; I've not been able to find dimensions for the real locos to see how the model measures up.  But it does feel as though it is slightly over scale.



To end on a positive note; it runs superbly, smooth and powerful.  I've not yet tried it over Settrack points but I can't see these causing a problem, there's plenty of articulation on the front bogie.  The front coupling might look odd but works just as well for pulling stock when running tender first.

Offline Newportnobby

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+63)
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 21962
  • Posts: 29585
  • Country: england
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2016, 04:08:47 pm »
The dimensions are to the right of this Wickedpedia page if you want to measure up and check, John....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_3200_Class

Offline johnlambert

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23717
  • Posts: 1337
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2016, 04:58:46 pm »
Having done some measuring the dimensions work out as follows:

Model:
Length 118mm scales as 17.5m
Width 17mm scales as 2.5m (measured across the running plate but would be much more across the cranks)
Height 28mm scales as 4.1m

Wikipedia for the real thing:
Length 17.1m
Width 2.7m (unclear what this was measured across)
Height 3.9m

I hope I've measured incorrectly.  The length difference is understandable in order to provide clearance between loco and tender.  The width I can only guess is down to where you measure and the width of the body is probably correct.  But the height seems to stand out as wrong and it is really bugging me.

Offline Croxy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Country: ca
  • Gender: Male
    • YouTube
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2016, 05:07:24 pm »
Hmmmm.....might just have to get myself one of these........  :thumbsup:
If you like it run it......

Offline Snowwolflair

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 25174
  • 2mm Association Number: 4194
  • Posts: 2351
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2016, 07:33:51 pm »
Having done some measuring the dimensions work out as follows:

Model:
Length 118mm scales as 17.5m
Width 17mm scales as 2.5m (measured across the running plate but would be much more across the cranks)
Height 28mm scales as 4.1m

Wikipedia for the real thing:
Length 17.1m
Width 2.7m (unclear what this was measured across)
Height 3.9m

I hope I've measured incorrectly.  The length difference is understandable in order to provide clearance between loco and tender.  The width I can only guess is down to where you measure and the width of the body is probably correct.  But the height seems to stand out as wrong and it is really bugging me.


4.1m -3.9m=200mm  200mm/148= 1.35mm !

The incorrect height of code 80 track is twice this!

Offline Roy L S

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1723
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2016, 07:47:07 pm »
Having done some measuring the dimensions work out as follows:

Model:
Length 118mm scales as 17.5m
Width 17mm scales as 2.5m (measured across the running plate but would be much more across the cranks)
Height 28mm scales as 4.1m

Wikipedia for the real thing:
Length 17.1m
Width 2.7m (unclear what this was measured across)
Height 3.9m

I hope I've measured incorrectly.  The length difference is understandable in order to provide clearance between loco and tender.  The width I can only guess is down to where you measure and the width of the body is probably correct.  But the height seems to stand out as wrong and it is really bugging me.

Is the measurement taken from the top of the rail or inclusive of the flange depth?

If the first it wouldn't be the first UM model that is a bit over height - both the original B12 and D20 were, the D20 especially so and certainly more that a scale eight or nine inches. The loco was later re-tooled and the subsequent incarnation is correctly much lower and a lovely model (probably my favourite UM loco).

I guess it's a question of what people can live with. For me a loco that is very noticeably over height is a "no-no". Thinking about this loco a scale 9 inches is certainly enough to notice above coaches, wagons etc..

Not sure about the Code 80 comparison. If Code 40 is close to scale and Code 80 is twice that so on that comparative basis yes, it is double the size but in terms of actual size difference we are talking 40 thou difference so probably not (for me anyway) a fair comparison with the Dukedog.

Plenty will not care and just enjoy the model regardless and it certainly seems popular.
 
Roy

Offline johnlambert

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23717
  • Posts: 1337
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2016, 08:34:50 pm »
Having done some measuring the dimensions work out as follows:

Model:
Length 118mm scales as 17.5m
Width 17mm scales as 2.5m (measured across the running plate but would be much more across the cranks)
Height 28mm scales as 4.1m

Wikipedia for the real thing:
Length 17.1m
Width 2.7m (unclear what this was measured across)
Height 3.9m

I hope I've measured incorrectly.  The length difference is understandable in order to provide clearance between loco and tender.  The width I can only guess is down to where you measure and the width of the body is probably correct.  But the height seems to stand out as wrong and it is really bugging me.

Is the measurement taken from the top of the rail or inclusive of the flange depth?

If the first it wouldn't be the first UM model that is a bit over height - both the original B12 and D20 were, the D20 especially so and certainly more that a scale eight or nine inches. The loco was later re-tooled and the subsequent incarnation is correctly much lower and a lovely model (probably my favourite UM loco).

I guess it's a question of what people can live with. For me a loco that is very noticeably over height is a "no-no". Thinking about this loco a scale 9 inches is certainly enough to notice above coaches, wagons etc..

Not sure about the Code 80 comparison. If Code 40 is close to scale and Code 80 is twice that so on that comparative basis yes, it is double the size but in terms of actual size difference we are talking 40 thou difference so probably not (for me anyway) a fair comparison with the Dukedog.

Plenty will not care and just enjoy the model regardless and it certainly seems popular.
 
Roy

Height is measured from the top of the rail.  I'll try and post some pictures with other stock and locos for comparison.

Offline johnlambert

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23717
  • Posts: 1337
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2016, 08:41:02 pm »
Looking at the dimensions for the GWR 2251 class 0-6-0, which is 12-feet 8.5 inches tall the Dukedog should stand a little taller (at 12' 10") but would that difference be noticeable in 1/148?

Offline NeMo

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23720
  • Posts: 2435
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2016, 08:53:47 pm »
Thank you @johnlambert for posting these photos and your review.

I agree with you that it looks tall, but I wonder whether the design of the original exacerbates this. For example, take a look at this page with a photo of a Dukedog on the Bluebell Railway. The roofs on those coaches might be unusually low, so I wonder, how does your model look hauling some Colletts or Mk1s?

A bigger "flaw" perhaps is the lack of gap between the boiler and the chassis. I'm not entirely sure the GWR transfers are the right size either; they look a trifle large.

But the tender looks commendably neat, and the outside frames are unique in N gauge, so far as I know, and they really look the part. Might have oversized connecting rods, but with a bit of weathering, and perhaps even replacing them with finer etched brass parts, this loco will look very smart indeed.

No question this loco will sell well! I think Union Mills have carved themselves a niche for locos that look like well-made models rather than scaled down replicas of the real thing -- if that makes any sense! By modern standards this loco isn't going to win prizes for fine detail, but it looks like an excellent model, and what's even more important, can be expected to run like an excellent model -- doubtless for many, many years!

Cheers, NeMo

Offline johnwillimas

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2016, 08:08:52 am »
Not sure it's too far off in look, going by this shot....


Offline NeMo

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23720
  • Posts: 2435
  • Country: gb
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2016, 08:10:47 am »
Quite so, that's literally the photo linked to above!  :laughabovepost:

But I'd messed up the formatting so perhaps wasn't obvious.  :very angry:

Cheers, NeMo

Not sure it's too far off in look, going by this shot....



Online Bealman

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • N Gauge Society Number: 23151
  • Posts: 14148
  • Country: au
  • Gender: Male
  • Whoops back we go
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2016, 08:28:42 am »
Thanks for the review in post #2, John. It's a lovely looking loco, but I'm in agreement with NeMo - the lack of fresh air beneath the boiler bothers me more than scale dimensions.
Vision over visibility. Bono, U2.

Offline paulprice

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2793
  • Country: gb
  • Gender: Male
    • Awards
Re: Union Mills 2016 new loco
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2016, 10:02:07 am »
I know one of the chaps at the Club has recently taken delivery of one of these loco's, and I hope he brings it to the club so we can have a look at it.

Even as an LMS fan I from what I have seen its a belter, hats off to the Union Mills for actually producing new locomotives and then getting them to market quickly

 

Please Support Us!
October Goal: £55.00
Due Date: Oct 31
Total Receipts: £40.00
Below Goal: £15.00
Site Currency: GBP
73% 
October Donations


Advertise Here
anything