Piko V90 Railion DB Logistics "294 826" (47261)

[Dibbedabb]

As, LVG1 wrote, the underlining is wrong. Piko did D-DB. I copied it wrong to D-DB. Correct would be: 9880 3 294 826-3 D-DB.

But however, V90 was delivered exclusively only to DB.

One of the original V90 was delivered to and owned by the German airforce. They rented out the loco to the DB, numbered 290 999. In 1996 the DB AG took over this loco. Now, with a new engine and radio control, it's 294 908.

There was a privatised version of the V90, which some smaller operators bought. It looks a little different.

And they do not have sold any of these locomotives, yet.

Since the delivery of the new Voith Gravita BB to DB Schenker (class 261, I really like that one!), they don't need all V90 anymore. Unlike previous ages, they didn't scrap any until now, but sold them, for example to B&V in Leipzig (TT model available from Spielemax this year), EHG (the former Stadtwerke Osnabrück and Hafenbahn Osnabrück) and Railsystems RP.

[Dibbedabb]

Addendum: I even have an own picture of the former military V90. Taken on April 6, 2009 in the shunting station Cologne-Gremberg.

[LVG1]

As, LVG1 wrote, the underlining is wrong. Piko did D-DB. I copied it wrong to D-DB. Correct would be: 9880 3 294 826-3 D-DB.

That's what I tried to say.
But if you want to be asolutely correct, the number should be: 98 80 3 294 826-3 D-DB.
The type code (98) and the national code (80) tell different things about the vehicle. That's why the norm intends to use a blank space between those numbers. But I know that DB does not always keep to this norm. So the number without blank space is prototypically but not in due to the standard.

There was a privatised version of the V90, which some smaller operators bought. It looks a little different.

The version for privat railroads is MaK type G1600BB.
"It looks a little different" is slightly understated. You'll have to look very closely, if you want to see family resemblances.

Since the delivery of the new Voith Gravita BB to DB Schenker (class 261, I really like that one!), they don't need all V90 anymore.

I don't like Voith locomotives at all. They sell obsolete technology.
Nowadays, the mood of the times is towards hybrid drive (if you can't use electric locos). So, every diesel locomotive should at least be adaptable to that in my eyes. And hydraulic power transmission is not suitable for that at all. Electric power transmission is essential in my opinion.

Unlike previous ages, they didn't scrap any until now, but sold them, for example to B&V in Leipzig (TT model available from Spielemax this year), EHG (the former Stadtwerke Osnabrück and Hafenbahn Osnabrück) and Railsystems RP.

But that happened recently.
So I obviously have missed some news.
Actually, DB omited to sell locomotives because they didn't want to support competitors. I wonder that they have changed their mind.

[LVG1]

To LVG1: I can not see any image. Maybe something wrong with my computer.

The image is from a German website. I simply used the URL leading to this website.
May be, the site was offline when you tried it. Or possibly the access is limited.
However, try this URL:
[url]http://www.th%C3%BCrmann.net/Baureihen/Diesel/V%20%2090/slides/290%20326-8%20-%20294%20826-3.html[/url]

[Rich B]

My mention of the Rübelandbahn was in jest, I'm sorely tempted by this model in spite of it being unsuitable for my chosen prototype. Alas, so is most of the traction I've aquired so far, but that's because it took me a while to settle.

To me G1600BBs do look very similar, more than a passing resemblance anyway. Of course, the different hood lengths are quite apparant .

There have been some sold on from DBAG to private operators, I found a list here: http://www.rangierdiesel.de/index.php?n ... n=portrait

A nice picture of one: http://www.loks-aus-kiel.de/images/basi ... 696_56.jpg

[Dibbedabb]

(...) I will be searching also some sites, because I know I will find something wrong with this model.

You can always find something wrong, on every model...
In case of the 294 for example the missing shunting coupler (which is sad), the missing local call sign (no 3, could be added with less than a minute work) or the missing indicator lamps for active radio control on the driver's cab (see attached picture with the arrow).

For some reason I think PIKO released a freelance model. I might be wrong. I apologise in advance if so.

I think you are wrong with that. As you can see from these pictures (no. 1, no. 2) the locomotive exists, and it has this livery. Apart from the errors mentioned above and in the earlier posts Piko's 294 is a quite exact decrease of the original.

The other picture shows, what LVG1 wanted to show: the correctly underlined D-DB.

By the way: On all images of DB locomotives I took the type code (98 here) and the country code (80) are combined without a space. In contrast to this the number is split on the newer DB-186.
The other operators predominantly seem to use a blank space, but also not all. For example Angel Trains uses a blank space on the Belgian class 28 (91 88 7 186 ...-.), while MRCE seems to combine them.
So, obviously there's no rule to combine the numbers or to split them.

[LVG1]

..., the missing local call sign (no 3, could be added with less than a minute work)...

If I was a manufacturer, I would also omit the local call sign.
True, the locomotive is lettered for this particular prototype locomotive. But on the other hand it shall represent the whole series. The local call sign is not worn by all locomotives of the series. And it's designed and mounted by the particular home yard of the locomotive. So it's a detail which should individually be added by the owner of the model due to their particular layout theme.

By the way: On all images of DB locomotives I took the type code (98 here) and the country code (80) are combined without a space. In contrast to this the number is split on the newer DB-186.
The other operators predominantly seem to use a blank space, but also not all. For example Angel Trains uses a blank space on the Belgian class 28 (91 88 7 186 ...-.), while MRCE seems to combine them.
So, obviously there's no rule to combine the numbers or to split them.

The UIC-standardized number scheme for locomotives does not exist on its own. It's an increase of the number scheme for freight and passenger cars of 1966. And I've never seen a car, on which the blank space is omited. There is a rule, but it's not resolutely kept to.

[CSD]

... I'm sorely tempted by this model in spite of it being unsuitable for my chosen prototype...

I'm with you, Rich. This is an attractive locomotive and despite all the rivet counting would be a nice addition to the collection.

[j p]

Could you please change the topic name to Piko V90?
Wouldn't it be better to keep all the variants under the same topic? If we were to make one idividual topic for each version, we could end up with thousands of them - maybe not for Piko, but for sure for Tillig.

Anyway, my V90 arrived and here is a picture.
It is DB's 290 123-9 (47260)
Good value for money.

[CSD]

^^^ Nice. That's the one I want.