RTR Model(s) of the Year

[jonclox]

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

[Roy L S]

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

[carderrail]

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

[Dr Al]

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

[thebrighton]

It's got to be the Brighton Belle for me. Looks and runs great and another manufacturer entering the British N market!
Gareth

[Roy L S]

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

[47033]

Farish Polybulks.

[Dr Al]

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

[Roy L S]

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

[NeMo]

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

[Roy L S]

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

[Dr Al]

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

[Dr Al]

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

[Roy L S]

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

[Dr Al]

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.....