What would be everyone's winner of a hypothetical "Model of the Year" award be? We can have categories for loco's, coaches and wagons, plus anything anyone else would like, the only criterion being that the nominated items have to have been released by the manufacturer in 2014. No prizes, just kudos.
I think it was actually released more than a year ago; but down here I've only just got the Dapol working semaphore signal (actuallay upper quadrant home). An exquisite model, better than most OO gauge versions.
Locomotives is easy, the 4F gets it hands down. The 25 and the 37/4/5 are nice but don't really make you second look them, and the Duchess is a bit of a let down thanks to that second hand bogie and crap cab glazing meaning they need some work to look right; did Dapol actually get anything out this year other than reliveried old models? I think the only new coach to appear this year is the Farish CCT so that gets it by default, if the Dapol Mk3 was this year its a desperately needed model but a complete hash up of one tooling to fit too many variations, nowhere near as good as the CCT. Wagon wise the Polybulk will probably get it, but my vote would go to the Covhop.
No contest for me - the new Farish 37/4 - my favourite loco and in the new DRS livery, superbly done. The 57/3 is a close second though.
Has to be the Farish Duchess for me, despite the arguments about bogies.
Hi all,
Of powered models, I'd like to say the Brighton Belle (certainly, that has arguably the best paint job) but as a model overall I think I'd have to give it to the 25 which has real cuteness factor. The 37/4 - while a nice model - is let down by the coupler pocket and bogie ride height, while so far I haven't had a Dellner-fitted 57 to play with.
The 4F looks like a nice model but I don't know enough about steam locos to judge it fairly.
In terms of rolling stock, the Polybulks and CCT have it, though I suspect if Dapol's Falcon and Mussel engineers' wagons had made it out before the end of the year they'd have been in the running too...
cheers
Ben A.
Definitely the Brighton Belle for me.
Great model superbly engineered of a new subject. Bit of a risk as it's an EMU and people don't tend to buy them.
So well done to Hornby/Arnold for producing the model. And better still for delivering it roughly when they said they would...
Brighton Belle here, too. And I don't know whether it was released this year or not, but I bought one this year, so I nominate the Farish Fairburn 2-6-4T...
I have only seen them behind glass but I would vote for the new Farish Polybulks as they seem to be really pushing the bar for an off the shelf piece of rolling stock.
Yes they are pricey, but anything that makes me seriously think about straying outside my era code for the first time in a decade has to be good.
Skyline2uk
Quote from: Zunnan on December 29, 2014, 06:15:33 PM
Locomotives is easy, the 4F gets it hands down. The 25 and the 37/4/5 are nice but don't really make you second look them, and the Duchess is a bit of a let down thanks to that second hand bogie and crap cab glazing meaning they need some work to look right; did Dapol actually get anything out this year other than reliveried old models? I think the only new coach to appear this year is the Farish CCT so that gets it by default, if the Dapol Mk3 was this year its a desperately needed model but a complete hash up of one tooling to fit too many variations, nowhere near as good as the CCT. Wagon wise the Polybulk will probably get it, but my vote would go to the Covhop.
It's the 4F for me too, it is an exquisite model which raises the bar for detail and runs like a Swiss watch. I also agree that the Duchess did not quite live up to expectation, it runs well but seems to me the odd corner has been cut here and there - not something I would expect on a loco whose RRP is near £150.
For Diesels the 25 is my choice - a fine model, building on the excellent 24.
Rolling stock, nothing that stands out massively, but probably the CCT.
Roy
This is all a matter of personal choice but I love the Class 22 and 52 (were they both 2014 releases? - time passes so quickly).
Quote from: port perran on December 30, 2014, 09:44:25 PM
This is all a matter of personal choice but I love the Class 22 and 52 (were they both 2014 releases? - time passes so quickly).
Completely agree (assuming they are both 2014 releases). In particular, the weathered versions of both classes are exquisite.
The Farish Duchess has to get it despite the vocal few pedants boo-hooing about a bogie and a bit of tiny glazing...
Quote from: d-a-n on January 01, 2015, 08:33:35 AM
The Farish Duchess has to get it despite the vocal few pedants boo-hooing about a bogie and a bit of tiny glazing...
Bit harsh on those who want the maximum bang for their buck, especially when you think these models are due to rise up to 20% in price each year for the next 4 years :hmmm:
for me it has to be Dapols large loco 56 a loco i have wanted since i started modeling 25 years ago :NGaugersRule:
Quote from: Greybeema on December 29, 2014, 08:15:35 PM
Definitely the Brighton Belle for me.
Great model superbly engineered of a new subject. Bit of a risk as it's an EMU and people don't tend to buy them.
So well done to Hornby/Arnold for producing the model. And better still for delivering it roughly when they said they would...
The BB gets my vote as well although I did have a few delivery niggles for a short time
Happy New Year to all.
Just a point - none of the Dapol locos mentioned are 2014 releases so I don't think it would be right to include them this time. In point of fact we didn't get a single newly tooled Dapol loco released in 2014!
Responding on the Duchess, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I don't think it is pedantry to score the truly exquisite 4F over the slightly flawed Duchess and I certainly stand by my opinions of each.
Roy
No new Dapol releases in 2014 - the 22s & 52s were first released in 2013.
For me a close thing between the Farish 25s and the 37s for locomotives, Polybulks and CCTs - definitely a Farish year for new releases.
Tony
I think the Farish Duchess has to take it on the steam front, despite some shortcomings, which us 'pedants' are capable of finding constructive solutions to..... ;)
The running is sublime, whisper silent (only wheel on track noise) the detailing is as refined as anything out there.
4F doesn't get it for me as the haulage reports aren't brilliant, and that could be a showstopper as it's much less easy to tackle than replacing a bogie.
Folks often compare UK models with continental ones - surely locos like the Farish Duchess now surpass models from Fleischmann etc? Superior drive (coreless), superior wheels (finer profile RP25), and at least as good on cosmetics and detail?
Cheers,
Alan
It's got to be the Brighton Belle for me. Looks and runs great and another manufacturer entering the British N market!
Gareth
Quote from: Dr Al on January 01, 2015, 01:57:40 PM
I think the Farish Duchess has to take it on the steam front, despite some shortcomings, which us 'pedants' are capable of finding constructive solutions to..... ;)
The running is sublime, whisper silent (only wheel on track noise) the detailing is as refined as anything out there.
4F doesn't get it for me as the haulage reports aren't brilliant, and that could be a showstopper as it's much less easy to tackle than replacing a bogie.
Folks often compare UK models with continental ones - surely locos like the Farish Duchess now surpass models from Fleischmann etc? Superior drive (coreless), superior wheels (finer profile RP25), and at least as good on cosmetics and detail?
Cheers,
Alan
Hi Alan
Re; the 4F, I'm not sure it's haulage is that weak.
As I type this mine is running round the 9 inch radius curves of my smaller layout pulling a train of 25 random 4 wheel wagons with no problem and can pull 8 coaches on the same layout with no trace of slipping whatsoever.
It will probably not handle 40-50 wagon loads the prototype might be expected to, but for a pretty light loco with no traction tyres it is not that shabby, in fact it almost seems to defy physics! That said, in this area (haulage) particularly I would champion the tender driven J39. In looks it is almost as fine, will pull a lot more,
but what it doesn't have is quite the same level of smooth control at low speeds - the coreless motor loco drive really is a step up there.
Re: your final point I 100% agree.
Regards
Roy
Farish Polybulks.
Quote from: Roy L S on January 01, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
It will probably not handle 40-50 wagon loads the prototype might be expected to
I suspect that's the point. Sure, relatively few folks will do this, but I suspect anyone with gradients might be more readily complaining. But I do wonder if they would be outhauled by the heavier old tool model. If so, it's always going to feel like a backward step, even if it only affects a few.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on January 01, 2015, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: Roy L S on January 01, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
It will probably not handle 40-50 wagon loads the prototype might be expected to
I suspect that's the point. Sure, relatively few folks will do this, but I suspect anyone with gradients might be more readily complaining. But I do wonder if they would be outhauled by the heavier old tool model. If so, it's always going to feel like a backward step, even if it only affects a few.
Cheers,
Alan
Hi Alan
I think it will be acceptable to most haulage wise, I had it pulling up to 28 wagons and I suspect 30 is within reach but I do accept your point. It does seem odd that they omitted traction tyres as I think judging by the Ivatt it would have made a significant difference.
To be fair the old tool model wasn't bad but as one would expect it really doesn't cut it stood next to the new one for finesse and detail and running wise again although the old one was not bad the new one is better by some measure in my opinion. Would the old 4F out drag the new? Probably yes but I don't think by a huge margin.
Regards
Roy
The prototype might've hauled more 4-wheel wagons than the model, but not up a 1 in 30 gradient! So appealing to the prototype is a bit of a red herring because we expect model trains to handle much harder gradients and much tighter curves.
In any event comparisons to the prototype are interesting but largely irrelevant to the majority of modellers. How many modellers run trains consisting of 30 or 40 wagons? I doubt very many. But smooth, quiet running is important, and the Farish 4F manages that. It handles trains of a dozen or so wagons just fine, and such trains are surely "long" trains by the standards of most modellers.
If you need more haulage than that, perhaps a Union Mills equivalent would be a better choice -- but that would indeed mean putting performance ahead of detail. That's a debate that's been had over and over, and at the end of the day, you've got those choices so you're free to make the compromise that suits your needs best.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on January 01, 2015, 05:46:01 PM
If you need more haulage than that, perhaps a Union Mills equivalent would be a better choice -- but that would indeed mean putting performance ahead of detail. That's a debate that's been had over and over, and at the end of the day, you've got those choices so you're free to make the compromise that suits your needs best.
Cheers, NeMo
Hi NeMo
I would actually disagree that with a UM loco you
are getting a better performance.
Sure a (say) UM 3F loco will out pull this new Farish 4F by a huge margin, but that is only one measure of performance and in every other respect (slow controllable running, reliability over pointwork, smooth near silent mechanism) the new Farish 4F simply blows any UM loco I have away, no contest.
Regards
Roy
Quote from: Roy L S on January 01, 2015, 04:58:08 PM
Would the old 4F out drag the new? Probably yes but I don't think by a huge margin.
Hmm, to test this I've just tried one. Loco is standard 5 pole Bachfar version of the Poole model, only difference is that the tender is a heavier BHE whitemetal one (so additional load there.
Result?
Loco towed 56 four wheeled wagons (Peco, Farish 50/50 split, with about 8 with coal loads fitted)....AND 5 Farish Stanier coaches before there was even a hint of slippage. I suspect the loco would therefore be able to tow getting on for 65+ 4 wheelers if I had enough spare to try.
That looks to be over double the new tool model. Pretty respectable for an older model, if not realistic, and only one data point, but still - useful power to spare for those who have gradients.
I can understand why Farish have left off tyres on the new tool 4F, but I think they probably missed a trick there.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Roy L S on January 01, 2015, 05:53:51 PM
Sure a (say) UM 3F loco will out pull this new Farish 4F by a huge margin, but that is only one measure of performance and in every other respect (slow controllable running, reliability over pointwork, smooth near silent mechanism) the new Farish 4F simply blows any UM loco I have away, no contest.
Each to their own, but I think you can have your cake and eat it with UMs - the slow speed performance is vastly improved (and haulage retained) by fitting a 5 pole motor, like the Mashima 1015. It makes them crawl like the new tool Farish and opens up the speed range of control by cutting down the excessive top speed substantially.
Very simple mod as the Mashima is exactly the same casing as the UM motor - the only difference is the shaft diameter which means the UM gears need drilled out before fitting.
Detailed up, UMs still hold their own amongst new Farish or Dapol too.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Dr Al on January 01, 2015, 07:19:43 PM
Quote from: Roy L S on January 01, 2015, 05:53:51 PM
Sure a (say) UM 3F loco will out pull this new Farish 4F by a huge margin, but that is only one measure of performance and in every other respect (slow controllable running, reliability over pointwork, smooth near silent mechanism) the new Farish 4F simply blows any UM loco I have away, no contest.
Each to their own, but I think you can have your cake and eat it with UMs - the slow speed performance is vastly improved (and haulage retained) by fitting a 5 pole motor, like the Mashima 1015. It makes them crawl like the new tool Farish and opens up the speed range of control by cutting down the excessive top speed substantially.
Very simple mod as the Mashima is exactly the same casing as the UM motor - the only difference is the shaft diameter which means the UM gears need drilled out before fitting.
Detailed up, UMs still hold their own amongst new Farish or Dapol too.
Cheers,
Alan
Hi Alan
I am tempted to do the Mashima conversion on my D16/3 rather than return it but of course the point is they do not come with that motor!
As to detailing up, I have seen what you can do and taken to that extreme the UM locos are most certainly lifted massively from the rather rudimentary lump of cast metal in skilled hands, however below the footplate the lack of see through spokes etc still leaves them behind in my humble opinion.
As you rightly say, each to their own. It would be a boring old world if everyone's views and preferences were the same!
Regards
Roy
Quote from: Roy L S on January 01, 2015, 07:38:54 PM
I am tempted to do the Mashima conversion on my D16/3 rather than return it but of course the point is they do not come with that motor!
Go for it - you won't regret* this change....and it really is fairly simple to do.
Cheers,
Alan
*apart from then wanting to convert all your UMs to Mashima power..... ;)
All this talk about relative pulling power makes one wonder how to go about making a (model of a) dynamometer car ! ? :)
mmm , dynamometer car , next NGS ready to run maybe ?
Wot, no Deltic? I'd pick that over the 25 (which is nice enough but the grab-handles on the front look way too big, and though it runs fine mine makes a slightly annoying gronking sound). The Deltic glides smoothly everywhere it goes.
The Deltic has a host of compromises on the bogies which (whilst necessary) do take away a bit. In fact, the wheel diameter used is smaller than that on the old Farish Deltic....and the old Farish deltic wheels were undersize!
Nice enough model, but others are better IMHO.
Cheers,
Alan