I think it is yes.

Are your early models brass geared ones without traction tyres? The very early UM models were less good, and seem to be more prone to motor failures. It may be that they are repairable with some care.

The majority run very well though and have great haulage capacity and smooth running.

My only concern is the ultimate longevity of them - the castings are in a fairly soft metal, so I don't know how this will wear over time, particularly in areas like the tender chassis block wheel slots and bearings.

Cheers,
Alan

Hi Alan
It's been a while now, but from my recollections the models fit your description, ie,  brass gears, no traction tyres, etc. However, they are a cheap alternative to the more up-market offerings, and I would like to support small suppliers when possible.

Your comment about longevity is noted. But my impression is that these models are still value for money, and if modifiying them to make 'em look better is your thing, then go for it, that's what I say!

Cheers, George

The good thing with UMs is that you can buy the tender drive separately, so if you contact UM you maybe be able to arrange an exchange or replacement of the defective units.

This would allow you to keep the superdetailed bodies, whilst getting them fully mobile!

Cheers,
Alan

Cool! I love this forum.
Cheers mate

They run beautifully and reliably. I've no experience of the very early stuff but the later stuff is very very solid.

My biggest issue with Union Mills is the back to back measurement which doesn't seem consistent and so far I haven't found an easy way to ensure they are all the same. That is the only issue as I agree with the other  comments on their performance but I would like them all (some don't have a problem) to go through double/single slips both forward and tender first.

Well a schools came top of the kettles!
That's great news, now we just need one of the manufacturers to take up the gauntlet...

What we couldn't put in the survey is the need for more of the chassis to be available separately.
Back in the days of only stuff from Poole being available, when a new loco came out the chassis followed suit.
A plethora of kits tended to follow this, many of which are now r-t-r items.
If today's manufacturers were to carry on that tradition, that's all types of chassis not just the big loco's, I'm sure the kits would follow.
Well, a modeller can dream...

Certainly agree with you there, Moogle.
I don't think it would be any great hardship for the manufacturers to supply chassis to order especially as, under Dapol's new warranty, chances are they will be carrying them.
It might allow us to get some of the models further down the poll lists

Exactly! The 'Terrier' chassis must have 100's of possible kit possibilities.
And before I forget, a BIG THANK YOU for doing the survey. 

To my miond the issue of usable chassis is very valid.  Might be tricky for steam tender engines at least  given for both Dapol and G'far we have such complex approaches to drive.  One advantage of the maybe crude, but simple approach on the older Poole models was a single lump of working chassis.

But where a separate chassis is technically viable, the lack of ready avaiability is a retrograde step.  Over the years I must have built 20 or so kits - a number of which were later sold on - and got considerable satisfaction from doing so.  Not least because of the challenges of moderate hand tremor.  I once turned a BHE Derby 108 into the earlier Cathedral ended version.  My current D11 is a modified early belpair boxed Claude Hamilton from BHE.  The later round firebox version has been turned into a passable D34 (Glen).  I have been known as the butcher of SW Herts MRS N Gauge section.   

As others have said some of the locos in the middle part of the wish list could surely be viable on a cottage industry basis, and at normal viewing distances look good enough, just as earlier offerings did.  A Patriot would look OK on a Jubiilee/Scot chassis.  The B1 chassis could be a basis for some of the LNER 260s - a single axle leading boie would be required. 

On DMUs the BHE offerings are worth looking at.  Not always easy to ontain but I wonder if they could be made to fit the current 101 or 150 chassis depending on the length?

As for Parkwood's Clayton - one of my own wishes - apart from the body kit, where do you find the DD13 chassis?  Is it really an option now?

Quote from: moogle on July 08, 2012, 01:44:06 PM
What we couldn't put in the survey is the need for more of the chassis to be available separately.
Back in the days of only stuff from Poole being available, when a new loco came out the chassis followed suit.
A plethora of kits tended to follow this, many of which are now r-t-r items.
If today's manufacturers were to carry on that tradition, that's all types of chassis not just the big loco's, I'm sure the kits would follow.
Well, a modeller can dream...

I suspect release of chassis seperately is unlikely to happen these days.

In the old Poole days chassis were somewhat generic and based around a family of standard sized wheels and other chassis components.

These days each chassis is bespoke to the individual locomotive it is made for in terms of layout, wheels and detailing parts.

Also, I doubt that manufacturers have any real incentive to supply to the kit market anyway, especially if it is to the detriment of future RTR plans.

Last issue for most is that few of us when making a kit, no matter how competent we are can hope to match the finish of current RTR models.

Sadly for all the reasons above, as time passes I do wonder if the kit market will actually contract (if it hasn't started to already).

Regards

Roy

P.S. Talking of kits, given I cannot source the necessary Japanese chassis for it, a dummy chassis has now been made for my Parkwood "Clayton" and painting is well progressed. It will be hauled "dead" (As they often failed not too unrealistic!) until (if) a powered chassis eventually turns up.

Quote from: Portpatrick on July 08, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
As for Parkwood's Clayton - one of my own wishes - apart from the body kit, where do you find the DD13 chassis?  Is it really an option now?

The Kato DD13 has been out of production for years, the Microace one for some time. It's almost been long enough that the Kato one may have gone round the full cycle and get re-run so there is hope.

Re BHE DMU kits - yes the Farish 150 will fit if brutalised a lot. I have one I acquired with faults that has been reworked to go under the class 123 I'm building  Given the amount of vandalism required I think the 101/108 chassis would be a better bet as you'll need to pretty much rebuild the non motor end anyway so might as well just change the length.

Alan

Quote from: Portpatrick on July 08, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
To my miond the issue of usable chassis is very valid.  Might be tricky for steam tender engines at least

You can buy a fairly short wheelbase motorised tender chassis. It's called a 'terrier'. There's a good article in one of the NGS journals for this. For big BR style tenders you can also hack one up out of the cheapie little Bachmann 'plymouth' shunters.

You can also buy Union Mills tender drive units.

At some point it would be nice to have equivalents of some of the OO motorising kits, and I suspect that will happen as the RTR bits get less and less useful.

Alan


Alan

Quote from: EtchedPixels on July 08, 2012, 09:05:19 PM

Quote from: Portpatrick on July 08, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
As for Parkwood's Clayton - one of my own wishes - apart from the body kit, where do you find the DD13 chassis?  Is it really an option now?

The Kato DD13 has been out of production for years, the Microace one for some time. It's almost been long enough that the Kato one may have gone round the full cycle and get re-run so there is hope.

Alan

I do hope so Alan

In the meantime I have put a pic of my finished Clayton in my "Media" folder. Having magnified the pic and had a good look, I have realised just how iffy my paintwork is under such cruel enlargement, maybe also an illustration of just how good RTR stuff is now by comparison..

Roy

Just to let everyone know that Farish have informed me the results have been passed to their Research & Development department
More news as it comes off the teleprinter......................