Overhead and Third Rail

Not posted for a while

A few more pics





Cheers

Jim

QUOTE (John Webb @ 26 Oct 2007, 14:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Very realistic looking - congratulations.

Do the wires on the supports low down on the wall serve any function to the layout or are they purely decorative?

Regards,
John Webb

Hi John

Nope - they are just scenic

Cheers

Jim

I always find it amusing and bemusing how when it come to anything to do with electric traction, the UK modelling scene simply can't seem to do it. At all.

It seems to be different in Europe, where electric traction is much more embraced, and genuinely decent offerings are available for most designs of overhead system as well as a properly decent range of locos and units.
The fact that companies such as Sommerfeldt et all have been around making nothing but catenary for over 50 years proves that there is a market for it.

So the question is not "is there a market for it?" But is the UK market a special case?

It's true that the UK was comparatively late to begin overhead electrification en-mass.
It's also true that compared to most of Europe, the percentage of our network that is electrified is relatively low.
And I also think it's fair to say that most UK rail fans tend to regard anything that doesn't chuck out sooty fumes and make a racket as "characterless", while European modellers seem a bit more progressive and appreciative new developments in motive power.

The argument from manufacturers that electric models don't sell is a self inflicted one.
Hornby are content to offer us bog basic crude child's trainset looking locos that are basically unchanged since the late 1970s/80s. (class 86,87,90,91) Ever heard of updates guys?

Hejan, instead of being original and giving us a class we hadn't had before (eg 82,83,84,89) decided to do another version of the 86, and one that has some truly unforgivable errors on it and rather poor livery application at that.

No RTR versions of the old DC locos are available.

Anyone who wants to model the ubiquitous MK1 slam door EMU classes 302 - 309 has only kit builds on offer.

Likewise for any of the equally widespread MK3 derived EMUs. Kits or nothing.

In fact only Bachmann seems to have started to make a genuine effort here with some new and decent offerings Like the 85 (which has annoying plastic pans that look wrong and cant collect power) and the 350 (surely a 321/322/320 would have been a more sensible place to start?).
While Hornby has just cottoned on to the idea of EMUs that are actually nice, detailed models.

Electrics have not sold well here because by and large, the offerings have been very poor, seldom if ever properly updated, and nobody has ever offered any kind of overhead system that looks even slightly realistic to go with them. So basically for anyone who values realism, they out of the running straight away.

It's true that realistic catenary will be too fragile for most kids. But then so are most modern locos too. And in any case thats not where the real spending power lies. Kids already have plenty of Hornby trainsets to choose from. A completely different sector of the market altogether.

I model electrics because I like them. But I have to admit its like swimming against the tide most of the time.
For Europeans this is not so. Electrics DO sell when the offerings are genuinely good and when something resembling realistic infrastructure is available with them.

I wonder if/when any of the RtR manufacturers will observe this huge disparity between our two markets and get genuinely serious about electrics.
Until then all us sparkies will have to persevere with fiddly kits and endless scratch-building.

QUOTE (91northern_electric014 @ 31 Oct 2012, 17:23) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>In fact only Bachmann seems to have started to make a genuine effort here with some new and decent offerings Like the 85 (which has annoying plastic pans that look wrong and cant collect power)

I think that statement needs a little correcting - the Bachmann pan on the 85 is all metal, accurate, and fully sprung/working - although it is not connected electrically, I will be looking at how easy this will be. Are you sure you are not confusing it with something else? I have been using it to test the slowly spreading catenery on my layout and it runs along the wire very well (although I did do the mod to the pan head so it doesn't tip forward).

One thing that suprises me a little - now that Hornby own Electrotren, which has a range of catenery whilst not perfect but a big improvement on Triang, why don't they include it in the UK catalouge to go with their electrics?

I do not think the pans are very accurate at all.
Here's how it should look.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keith-v/[email protected]/lightbox/

Here how it does look
https://www.model-railways-live.co.uk/userf..._class_85_1.jpg

I'm surprised you say you can run it on your catenary because the pickup head has 2 unprototypical tabs atop the droppers for the spring housings that protrude out past the far too steeply curved guide horns, so I'd be amazed if it didn't snag on any incoming wires at junctions ect. I suppose this could be improved by bending them to a more realistic shape/size.
However the same can't be said for the crude and completely unrealistic elbow joint. God knows how they managed to come up with this: https://www.model-railways-live.co.uk/userf..._class_85_2.jpg

when they're like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/lightbox/

I find the angle of the upper arms to be too shallow relative to the lower arm and it gets worse as the height drops so at a typical low wire height the upper arms are almost horizontal when the lower is at 20 deg. In reality they should be equal at all heights. It's a shame because the rest of the roof detail is rather excellent. So why such a half baked effort with the most obvious bit? It's not as if the real ones are dead complex and tricky to reproduce, nor is it as if real ones aren't still about and available to measure up.

Now, I'm sure it may well be possible to modify the loco so it can take current of overhead wires. But my point is that when the RRP is well over £100, why should you have to? Especially when Hornby and Lima were fitting these features back in the 1960s and 70s. Would it really cost that much more to route a wire to it and provide a small switch on the chassis?
I don't think it would. If they can do it with the lighting, why not the pans?

I do agree it is odd that Horby don't make any of their Electrotren products available here.
But even if they did, they are still not much like UK style equipment and take a fair bit of modifying to look passable.
And as I said in my earlier comment they haven't made any serious updates to their overhead electric offerings for over 20 years. Unlike Bachmann, they don't have a truly competitive loco that really stands to benefit from such an offering.

QUOTE (91northern_electric014 @ 31 Oct 2012, 17:23) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>No RTR versions of the old DC locos are available.

Class 76 is available RTR from heljan (via olivias trains) EM2's are at the prototype stage.

We had rtr locos picking up from overhead in the past because it added play value to the toy market. The market's changed since then though.

Better to worry about prototype plactice, close to scale, correct stagger, functional tensioning etc as these things effect how your model OLE looks and works

Cheers

Jim

QUOTE (91northern_electric014 @ 1 Nov 2012, 20:13) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I do not think the pans are very accurate at all.

It is becoming quite clear that you have not seen a production Bachmann Class 85 in the flesh and are basing your opinion only on photographs of this model:



Otherwise you would not have stated they had plastic pans and would have realised that the production versions are different from this shot. My class 85 has a correctly profiled pan head, with no protuding tabs, and runs fine on my catenery. - indeed the pan is so well made it even has the correct amount of springing to run on finescale catenary straight out of the box, being one of the few - perhaps even only - RTR pan to pass the pencil test - that is the springing is weak enough that it cannot lft the weight of the pencil. There is an error in the pan, but it is not one you have noticed, probably because it is something that most photographs don't show.

Furthermore, on my quick google of non-flickr (not allowed flickr at work) images of class 85s like this:



and this:



The model pantograph appears to be virtually identical to the real thing. The only thing I can see is that the control arm on the model may be a little thin but thats it. And if it wasn't, then it would already have attracted plenty of criticisim as these days the slightest imperfection tends to get broadcast far and wide accross the web - indeed the exact opposite has been the case.

I am basing my opinion on the production models I had a play with and a good poke around at my local model shop several weeks ago.
And my idea of what the real ones should look like is based on having had a good climb around the roof sections of the AC loco Group's class 85 and 81 (which I took close up photos of), as well as having seen them in service regularly when they were still about.
If you wish to presume otherwise or beleive that I'm getting "confused" because I disagree with you then fine.
I'm not going to get drawn into a silly argument about this so I will just say that I think we both have different ideas of what a Stone and Faively AMBR type pantograph should like like.
If you only want to completely disregard the overall meaning of my post (that the 85 is actually a very nice model overall with nothing so wrong it can't be easily fixed) and focus on "correcting" my opinion just because it's not the same as yours that's fine too.
But it would be nice if we could try and be constructive rather than arumentative and focus more on the actual topic of the thread and that's whats in the title.
My opinion is that it would definitely help sales of models such as the 85 if a UK prototypical overhead system was on offer, working or not.
It would still be a step up from either having to drag your AC locos behind a diesel or put up with completely un-BR-like equipment. As it currently stands, Jim S-W is right, unfortunately: Scratch building is the only real option if you value realism. But I'd imagine the average class 85 or 350 buyer has neither the time, skill, or inclination to do that.
So unless you are a serious AC sparkie lover, for most, these models could be a bit harder to justify buying than another diesel or kettle. Which is a shame because on merit they deserve to succeed.