Junctionmad

+1

 

I'm not impressed with any of the coarse looking 121 kit built models I have seen nor the low speed running qualities of ones I've seen operating. Give me a RTR MM/Bachmann quality injection moulded body and precision centre drive chassis any day. 3D doesn't blow my skirt up yet, its early days, nor the idea of kit bashing a 3D body onto an adapted chassis. Personally I'd rather be without than run badly bodged models. I won't start on the quality of model kit painting which varies from sublime excellence to something that looks like my kids used to bring home from school.

We cannot expect that a customer base of about 300 in Ireland and some 100-200 elsewhere will sustain high quality RTR in the future. Models are getting significantly more expensive as labour costs rise in China, hence we have to except that the economics of RTR may infact not work anymore for this niche . MM tapped into a desire at a time and place, and many went out and bought vast arrays of models, such that they are unlikely to buy these volumes again. Hence , I suspect we may never see any more RTR of that ilk.

Therefore we must turn to what we CAN do. rather then return to the repainted BR diesels of my teens, we now have a active and competent small group of " manufacturers" , no reason that a combination of etches, resin, 3D etc cannot be used to achieve the result go putting Irish models on the " table"

personally I feel this would be a terrible hobby , if all it was was taking pre-built RTR Irish " outline " models out of boxes, it would quickly become a rich mans hobby

The systems and mechanisms are there for people to make kits into superb models with running qualities way in excess of RTR ( fully compensated chassis for example) . MM doesn't have any sort of lock on that

Well, it hasnt worked so far in this instance, has it?

 

And what you're saying is that it's best that Murphy Models reputation is damaged? Well that's going to help the Irish modelling community, isnt it?

 

Once again you miss my point. You want something done, go to the organ grinder, not sit down the road moaning about it like a broken record.

Let me say I have no skin in this particular dispute as I dont see the specific issues with the MK2d super train model as it applies to me ( yes it has its faults, but it is what it is)

what I was merely saying is this

(a) If you feel you have a " product defect", that absolutely you need to complain directly and privately for that defect to be fixed. a public complaint is the last resort

(b) However, if you feel a particular offering from a commercial company, is less then you expect, then that is different and public discussion and debate ( including whinging) is entirely appropriate , no more then lambasting Ford for the defects of a specific model.

I never understand the view that MM Ltd is somehow a fairy godmother to the Irish modelling scene. I fully expect that PM is in it to make a profit , even if its a small , medium or large one . He's not loosing money to support us !!!!. One should not engage in frivolous negativity of course, but where their is a consensus on a particular defect,( or lack of feature) thats a valid point of discussion ( like the colour etc ). Having met PM, I fully suspect he is aware of the criticism and praise he receives and has more then enough personality to weather the public debate.

Given the healthy cadre of small supplier to the Irish scene, I suspect models that MM may never do, will appear in the future and in fact its clear theres room for example for someone to do low volume kit runs of 141s etc

I think I'll leave it there. If you dont want to accept facts as being relevant then there is no point in engaging. I think other posters are feeling the same sadly.

What I was arguing is that however you look at it, Rail activity in the Uk has vastly increased , especially in Railfreight, it matters not really HOW that was achieved , or the arguments behind that . The fact is it has and is happening and is forecast to increase

Your view or my view as personal travellers on that system are somewhat irrelevant, look at it as a " black box".

SO UK railways, which in say the 80s, looked depressingly similar to Irish railways, are now experiencing growth, massive modernisation , reopening routes etc, faster train speeds etc ./ This is especially true for freight

whereas Irish railways continues its slow spiral into irrelevancy. I mean removethe couple of commuter routes and very little is left

It this continues rail will end in ireland as it will simply run itself into a full stop. something has to change dramatically

I think that the East Coast main line between London / Edinburgh recently proved the point that a company owned by the government can run a very efficient service. This company ran the service after private operator National Express almost completely ruined the service. The East Coast ran a good service but in the end was effectively privatized again even when the company ran at a profit and reduced subsidy.

A recent programme on tv was very impressed with the way the NIR system ran under government control and less subsidy than any of the operators on the Mainland UK.

Indeed , my argument is precisely not about nationalisation versus privatisation ( of all flavours j it's an argument about what has shown to result in significant rail growth.

I saw the NIR programme , but it's not really valid , simply because it's a descent into the lowest service /lowest cost approach , akin to IR . this is because there is no economic incentive for a nationalise rail company to aggressively seek growth ( i.e. wheres the freight success story on NIR for example)

I think I'll leave it there. If you dont want to accept facts as being relevant then there is no point in engaging. I think other posters are feeling the same sadly.

I'm sorry. Journey time improvements are a matter of record , passangers numbers are a matter of record , rail freight volumes Are a matter of record.

Other then that your just arguing politics , ( ie private versus public) I'm arguing for what has shown to work, even if it's an imperfect success , it's still a success.

BR was seen as highly efficient when it was broken up in many areas. It was privatized as it was the buzz word of the Governments of the day. Public money is being poured into private companies and shareholders get richer than ever. I believe Irish citizens have been on the streets protesting about similar occurrences here.

 

It's only money? Everything comes down to money. You cannot compare the rail system with the UK and Ireland as they're vastly different. Also, journey times havent improved. Travelling numbers have gone up of course, but so have fares, ahead of the rate of inflation and car ownership is up too. Having lived in the UK their system is not what you're cracking it up to be.

I'm sorry, these are broken record complaints. Journey times , for example, on WCML have of course improved , even with the half baked upgrade debacle , journey times elsewhere have also improved , these are matters of fact

Leave aside the actual privatisation process, undoubtably that had several issues , the big one being railtrack . But what's there now is in effect identical to the LUAS , ie franchised operation of a public asset. It's very successful with LUAS , as it has been in the uk.

I dispute that today in the uk , that public money is being poured into private companies. Yes at the sell off , in effect ROCs and infrastructure sell offs lined private pockets. But that has stopped. Today in a lot of cases it's a struggle for TOCs to succeed, and all Gov subsidies are going into network rail, which is a state company. ( and those subsidies are reducing, while capital spending is growing )

Again ticket pricing is irrelevant, it's purely a function of the elastic demand. If your customer base is growing , your pricing model is right. ( as a general rule)

Again looking at the numbers , they don't lie. More passangers then anytime in its history , more railfreight by 2030 then anytime in its history.

The golden age of uk railways wasn't the 1930s , it's likely to be the 2030s

I agree Ireland isn't the same, but unless we change something , there will be no railways in 20 years in this country. The nationalisation model has comprehensively failed IMHO

Once again Kevin my point is that you are going on assumption. If you have a problem with the product, there is no point in moaning on a third party site or to a 3rd party vendor. The best solution is to contact the manufacturer directly. Plenty of people are moaning about PM not saying anything, yet they havent contacted him. It's bizarre behaviour. If people want something done they should email him. Then the situation will have a better chance of getting resolved than moaning on here time again. After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Actually I would disagree. Privately complaining allows a company to " contain" issues. Public complaints have far greater effect , as they not only inform the manufacturer , but also build a complaint " consensus " that can be very hard for manufacturers to ignore.

For example ,if I complain on a forum and as a result ( you) decide to forgo a purchase , that's much more damaging then a private complaint , where ( you) proceed to purchase without seeing the complaint

If you want to raise a ruckus, the best place is " in public " etc

Please yourself.

Why, do you disagree with the uk subsidy to rail infrastructure on principle.

Maybe it would have been greater if it had been properly funded before - the cost to the nation is far greater than it was before the break-up.

That's irrelevant. The inefficiencies in BR would have killed the extra investment , it's whataboutery

Again, your argument is irrelevant( as it's only money ) , the numbers simply don't lie. UK rail is on course to be bigger then anytime in its history. 20-30 years ago you'd be laughed out of the room , if you suggested that

Whereas in Ireland .............

Ireland geographically is a small island with a small rail network, so I'm not sure if the typical privatisation model would work here due to the economies of scale (e.g. one operator for the track infrastructure and multiple carriers for services)! BTW, how does the UK get away with private rail subsidies in EU land? Our govt is not allowed subsidise Aer Lingus anymore!

Because EU rules allow for infrastructure investment , which is what network rail is, it's a purely public body. Aer lingual on the other hand is in effect a private company. For example airport infrastructure can be invested in by the gov.

The taxpayer-funded subsidies to the UK's 'private' rail system now far exceed anything that the nationalised system could have even dreamed of....

Isn't that great, rail infrastructure is being funded properly

I mean uk railfreight is expected by 2030 to exceed any figures ever carried on uk railways ever. Who'd have believed that , 20 years ago !!! N

Privatization has been good for the UK when it comes to Rail Freight, there is no doubt about that. However, the passenger side is a mess. The subsidies paid out to operators by the British Government costs more now than BR ever did. It's also horrendously expensive to travel by rail.

 

Privatization is inevitable in Ireland, I just hope we learn from mistakes made elsewhere.

If the passagner side is a mess, then why are record numbers of passagners , greater then anytime in the past , being carried on uk railways. I don't see " the mess " . The numbers don't lie and their seems to be no political imperative from any uk party to change things. The system works

In fact it's a return to the " big four" type setup

The model has now " extracted" far more public money for the railway infrastructure then ever before. Surely that's a great thing, it's now on a par with roads etc, that's a very clear statement of intent

Indeed, it would almost be shame to hide them with a load.

 

A lovely thing.

A rake of say 20 , empties , a few with the doors hanging down , behind a "A" class with a tatty brake van , would bring back memories of me day dreaming out the school windows and watching the beet and empties on the way into and out of Waterford in the early 70s

I see average track access charges for ordinary freight ( non coal) in the uk are around equivalent €2 per kgtm, whereas IE infrastructure have recently stated that it beleives appropriate equivalent track access here I'd around € 9.50 kgtm .. Well well, funny that

I was just looking at some facts and figures for railway activity in the UK, past and present. Whatever you think, privatisation was the best thing to happen to BR. UK railways are busier now then anytime in their history. More people then ever in its history are now carried by UK railways, track is being relaid, doubled etc

Rail freight in tonnes carried is now back to levels seen in the 50s with a forecast that this will double by 2030, consumer freight , like goods for the multiples is returning to rail and the market is now limited by track paths and loco resources rather then demand

Wow.

Just what is going wrong with irish railways ??

I'm not certain what the absolute fastest was, GSR; but on test they just exceeded 100 mph on a few occasions.

 

As an aside, one must assume that the track was a good bit better then - without all the yellow machines and complicated procedures they use today!

I suspect today's CWR maintained by computer controlled tampers etc is where it is maintained , is at a far higher standard then anything in the past. I wouldn't assume track in the gsr days was much better.

No steam locomotive was ever really capable of sustained 100 mph in the way that modern engineered locos can. Today's tolerances, material science , cad and modern Lubrication are what would have to be re engineered back into Victorian engineering

You can read the challenges the preserved railway locos in the UK face in accessing main line passenger track over the next decades, network rail are looking for steam locos capable of upto sustained 90 mph running !!

Track used today is of lighter gauge than the heavier stuff used in the past. Off hand I think the maximum permitted axle load today on IE is about 19.5-20 ton per axle. 800 exceeds that while a 201 just fits in there. A fully loaded autoballaster can exceed the max limit so a load gauge is fitted to each wagon and watched as they are filled up.

Modern flat bottom rail is considerably heavier and stronger then rail in the past. Bullhead was typically 80 llb/yard modern rail is upwards of 110 llb/yard. Axle weight is only one aspect , train speed has a considerable impact on necessary track strength.

In reality with around 1/3 of a ton between them theirs little difference but a 201 travelling over 100 mph is stressing the track far greater then a 800 class at 70-80 , even taking into account the asymetric pounding that stream gave tracks as opposed to diesels

The gar was just as cash strapped as Cie and could do just as cheapskate job as cie did in later years. The was no golden era of steam in Ireland unfortunately , the rail network was always partially clapped out

just forget about the prototype gauge issue, 4mm track is produced in 16.5mm ( 00) 18,2mm (EM) and 18.82mm (P4)

PECO track of course is actually H0, i.e. 3.5mm/foot

also grade track as " best looking "

Guess:

 

1,2,3 - don't know

4 - Peco streamline code 75 - 4'8" 1/2

5 - Peco streamline code 100 - 4'8" 1/2

 

I've used code 100 because I started the layout 22 years ago and had some old stock with big wheel flanges (e.g. Triang + Dublo + early Hornby). If I was starting out again today I'd probably use Peco code 75 due to ease of use, availability and ability to run most rolling stock produced in the last 20 years. I'd retire my old Dublo, Triang and Hornby stock to static display on shelves.

 

Agree there is no general answer to "best", rather the best suited to a users overall requirements, time, budget, general appearance, etc.

 

Code 75 points + crossings: http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc75

hazzard a guess at the gauge at least not all are 16.5mm

Giving that I don't know what this is, RP25/110, I give up now.

see http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf

most RTR loco wheels are RP 25/110, i.e. ,110 inches tyre width. or about 2.8mm ( 2mm thread width) , always useful to know as you need twice the crossing flange way gap plus 0.2mm to run a wheel through a point without bumping, so for PECO the flange way is at 1.3, hence its happy with wheels that are 2.625mm or greater ( to a point ) . Finescale wheels, with tyres under 2.5mm will struggle. p4 wheels have a tyre with of 2mm, S4 has 1.8mm

thats why 00-SF , with a flange way of 1mm and a overall gauge of 16.2mm at the check rail, is an attempt to build points that handle RTR Rp 25 wheels as well as some finer scale wheels typical of kits and scratch builds etc

The 800's didn't have a 'fair go', only giving a tiny hint what they were able to do before the shortages of WW2. Still, think there were way oversized and a more modest 400 or 500 class sized loco would have better suited the GSR, with a bit more flexibility than just Dub-Cork.

Indeed, one wondered at the decision of the GSR to produce them. it must have been a reaction to the designs being built interwar in the UK. the " sure well have one of them too, irish complex "

here an interesting challenge for track nerds.

identify the model track make and gauge, left to right ( apologies if you've seen this before) Note all track is commercial , in that its not specially hand built. ( i.e. all components are commercial )

The difference in scale really doesn't worry me. Sure the track is the wrong gauge after all!

 

What do you mean regarding Insulfrog vs Electrofrog?

Yes but simply that the gauge is out, doesn't then mean everything else should be out. Im sure wed all prefer it was 21mm, but we are where we are. My comments were based on the look of the track. Code 100 was brought out because at the time flanges were ridiculously deep and you needed that rail height to ensure they ran. today thats not the case. Imagine if you locos were 33% over scale !!. In fact with PECO 75 and some bodging of the points, weathering , good ballesting etc PECO 75 can look extremely well

what I mean, is that in a new build Electrofrog should really be the default choice, ( and modified to have polarity switching down by the point motor ) given the choice as it provides better electrical pickup ( as well as looking marginally better too).

me it comes down to availability, it's easier to walk into your local shop and get your hand on code 100

personally i find most shops in Ireland have so little that I want , that I mail order almost everything, no wonder my parcel motel bill is creeping up

All this may be too " rivet counting" for some, but personally , I always find it perplexing that people want absolute scale realism on the loco and rolling stock, but compromise widely elsewhere and especially track. I suppose it comes down to whether you model railways or model trains .

Junctionmad why are you superised to find anyone building for the first time with Peco code 100, & if I can I'll be hoping to use the nickel silver with the intention it'll be down pernanently, is there something, or maybe lot's of things I'm missing out on ! thanks again,

Given how out of scale PECO 100 is, and the fact any produced in recent history ( and most certainly anything with wheels to RP25/110) will run well on PECO 75. Why build using an seriously out of scale product. I can fully undertand if you have 40 year old stock etc , thats a different story

same story re electrocfrog versus insulfrog, etc. ( though the distinction is less stark here)