[harkins77]

I have a question for the modern n gauge users who don't mind sheds

Has anyone seen or used the kato class 66's which are mentioned on the mg sharp website

http://www.mgsharp.com/Kato_European_N.htm

If anyone has seen them how would they compare to the Dapol and Graham Farish one's are they more detailed quieter running?

Any comments would be welcome as I was thinking of bringing one to the layout.

I must admit the liveries are rather groovy.

 

[goedel]

QUOTE (harkins77 @ 28 Aug 2007, 05:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have a question for the modern n gauge users who don't mind sheds

Has anyone seen or used the kato class 66's which are mentioned on the mg sharp website

http://www.mgsharp.com/Kato_European_N.htm

If anyone has seen them how would they compare to the Dapol and Graham Farish one's are they more detailed quieter running?

Any comments would be welcome as I was thinking of bringing one to the layout.

I must admit the liveries are rather groovy.
Hello there harkins,

I haven't bought one but can recommend Kato as they always and unfailingly produce only the highest quality models. The principle difference to Dapol or Farish is that it is a 1:160 scale model, also the features and more information (although in German) are at Lemke Collection's website.

Kato state here that the features are:

2 Schwungmassen = 2 flywheels
5-Pol Motor = 5 pole motor
Digitale Schnittstelle bzw. Digitale Wechselplatine = digital socket for DCC
Wechsellicht weiss = bidirectional white headlights
gefederte Drehgestelle
Weitere Varianten in der Kategorie Class 66 = lots of livery variants available

I also believe that the model comes with replacement front panels if you only want to see the Rapido coupling at one end/no ends. There is a review of the Dapol 66 somewhere on the MRF, try the 'Reviews' section. I believe there was a thread about this topic a while ago which you could 'Search' for.

I think it would be fair to say that the Kato model is the most detailed and has the best performance, but is also the most expensive and 1:160! I would hazard that Dapol is better than Farish by virtue of it being Dapol but I readily confess I know very little about 1:147 sheds...or in fact sheds in general.

Goedel

 

[Edwin]

QUOTE (goedel @ 28 Aug 2007, 18:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I would hazard that Dapol is better than Farish by virtue of it being Dapol but I readily confess I know very little about 1:147 sheds...or in fact sheds in general.

As first launched there was no clear winner between the Dapol and Farish 66. Dapol had better body detail but was 'DCC hostile', Farish had better chassis/bogie detail and able to take a decoder by soldering to pads. In my experience the mechanism on the Farish is less smooth than either their earlier or their more recent models - but there were some forum reports of poor running with the Dapol too.

However with their new 'low emission' 66 Dapol has improved their chassis and bogies and provided a DCC socket, so probably surpasses the current Farish product. Farish is bringing out a low emission 66 later this year, not sure whether it will have any improvements.

 

[Ravenser]

Particular circumstances led to me ending up with a Dapol 66 recently (I've never owned any N before). My overall impressions were that the body was good, allowing for the very large coupling , but that the running was distinctly weaker that I'm used to in modern 4mm diesels (eg Hornby 31 and 60). It appeared to have non-concentric wheels somewhere as there was a noticeable waddle, and pickup wasn't quite as certain as with 4mm (the lights flickered). However with feedback engaged on the controller at the club good slow speed running was achieved without a load (I don't own any N gauge rolling stock) , right down to a crawl

I'm assuming the Kato model will be slightly more refined as a moulding and probably a notch better mechanically. And several notches more expensive

 

[Dennis David]

The British N-Scale locomotives are not 1:160?

 

[goedel]

QUOTE (Dennis David @ 30 Aug 2007, 00:14) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The British N-Scale locomotives are not 1:160?

Of course not! British 'N scale' is no such thing. There is European 'N scale' and British 'N gauge', just like 'H0 scale' in Europe and 'H0 gauge' (OO) in the UK. The whole country is narrow...daft really but a legacy it is hard to break away from.

Goedel

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hi Goedel

You said:

Of course not! British 'N scale' is no such thing. There is European 'N scale' and British 'N gauge', just like 'H0 scale' in Europe and 'H0 gauge' (OO) in the UK. The whole country is narrow...daft really but a legacy it is hard to break away from.

** Sadly, very very true:
A legacy of compromises with a hundred excuses, lots of debate as to why but really, no sensible reason at all.

Never mind, it has produced some truly great modellers who have in turn created some really good modelling techniques that all modellers benefit from, and the very British love of trains has seen a great part of railways history well presereved, even if most do model it with the wheels a wee bit cloese together.

I can never decide whether its sadder that the US led 18mm/4mm to the foot scale died commercially not long after the end of WW2 in favour of HO, or that UK manufacturers didn't use their common sense and see the worldwide future benefits of sticking to a common 3.5 to the foot HO.

Meanwhile... Lifes too short to worry about it now... So I happily model in three gauges and two scales depending on how the mood takes me.

Kind Regards

Richard

 

[Ravenser]

QUOTE You said: Of course not! British 'N scale' is no such thing. There is European 'N scale' and British 'N gauge', just like 'H0 scale' in Europe and 'H0 gauge' (OO) in the UK. The whole country is narrow...daft really but a legacy it is hard to break away from.

** Sadly, very very true:
A legacy of compromises with a hundred excuses, lots of debate as to why but really, no sensible reason at all.

1. Actually it's 4mm scale. , not "HO gauge (OO)". There are quite a few people in 4mm scale using EM gauge (18.2mm gauge) or P4 (18.83mm gauge). The scale is different

2. The sensible reasons actually relate to clearances on big steam engines , curves and wheel profiles. I believe someone once described the British loading gauge as amounting to "Cape gauge trains [3'6"] built to run on standard gauge". The net result was that by 1920 designers were at the limits of what the infrastructure would permit, and therefore working to the limits of their full size clearances. [ Notice the way boiler pressure climbed - LNWR Precedent (1874) - 140lbs, Gresley A1 Pacific of 1922 - 180lbs/squ inch - Gresley A3 , 1930 - 225lbs , Gresley A4 (1935)- 250lbs; Bullied Merchant Navy , 1941 - 280lbs. If you can't build a bigger boiler , you need higher pressure to get more steam ]. Continental and US designers didn't face these constraints

Working tolerences/clearances won't scale - if you want to get models of British locos round tighter than scale curves, with wider than scale wheels and deeper than scale flanges , something has to give and the traditional British solution has been to narrow the chassis to provide the clearances . You can't move the cylinders out - generally they are already at the limits of the loading gauge and would start striking things. It's not an accident that emaciated cylinders were a common fault on British RTR

The only way you are going to get British outline steam in HO - except in limited cases - is to go to "HO pur" or P87. That can hardly be mass produced - or got round a second radius curve

3. US OO is 19mm - which is overscale and brings its own problems

 

[Richard Johnson]

Yes, I was very careless with words there... sorry: I should and do know better as I currently build models in 4mm scale in all 3 gauges.

Richard

PS: Way off topic so I'll leave it with this:

Re HO in UK: As it never started I don't think its now a practical direction either...

But the problems for UK prototype are no less in any scale where a direct relationship between scale and gauge are created as the dimensions are relative.... and the larger scales have much less compromise there... so I do think that in those earler days at least "closer to scale" was in fact practical..... but its irrelevant now anyway.

 

[Brian Considine]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 1 Sep 2007, 06:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Re HO in UK: As it never started I don't think its now a practical direction either...

There is a British HO Society & I have seen some UK outline HO layouts - BRITHO (hence the handle !) is building one at the moment - then again he's about as mad as I am !

 

[Richard Johnson]

Hi Brian
"There is a British HO Society & I have seen some UK outline HO layouts - BRITHO (hence the handle !) is building one at the moment - then again he's about as mad as I am"

*** Yes, and all power to those who challenge the boundaries!!
it can be done of course, and personally as one who loves building the difficult when it comes to loco's I don't see why it should be any more or less "mechanically difficult" than EM or P4 or 2mm finescale really, but I was talking in the sense of a main "model train" brand moving from "compromise 4mm/16.5" to HO. Commercially unlikely in the extreme at this stage

Richard

PS: Seeing as this was an N scale thread.... I really do admire the work of the 2mm finescale modellers: Layouts like Copenhagen fields are truly sweeping works of art + "watchmakers quality" loco building skills combined.