Dapol 142

[TomE]

The 153 picture does remind me of the exaggerated silver lower window "frames" that really jump out and spoil the effect of that model. The visible metal portion of the lower part of the frames is virtually invisible at a distance on the real thing, but looks just as dominant as the top half on the model. I did plan to dismantle mine when I was detailing and weathering it, to try and do something about them. But I never figured out how to dismantle the 153 (or the 156) without damage. I wonder if careful use of T-Cut on a cocktail stick might do the job?

 

Justin

 

 

The glazing on the 153 isn't great all round, what with the strange step out of the opening top section, making the lower portion less flush than it should be. I've also never been convinced that the windows are the right size on that model either, but it could be the same flat sidedness as the 142 contributing to that impression. 

 

I would imagine T-Cut would do the trick nicely when it comes to removing the silver paint from the lower frame, however my ideal solution would be to replace the glazing altogether with laser cut inserts and use either a very fine etched nickel silver overlay or a silver printed decal for the frame of the top vent.

 

Tom. 

[justin1985]

The 153 was the first of the "low profile mechanism" models from Dapol, so if the windows are also too shallow I wouldn't be surprised. It seems like the weaknesses of both the 142 and 153 can be attributed to the mechanism design. Personally I'm not entirely bothered by whether or not the motor intrudes into the coach - it's hardly obtrusive in the Farish 150.

 

That said, the windows on a 153 are noticeably quite high up within the passenger saloon compared to other modern units, and difficult for some to see out of. So maybe they are a bit short in overall height?

 

New glazing and an etched frame overlay would certainly be the ideal case for the 153. I was thinking just removing the lower window frames would be a quick fix to make it easier to live with in the short term.

 

Justin

[Les1952]

Well clearly they are asking the wrong people....

 

Cheers,

Alan

 

You would have thought that 1000 people would not ALL be the wrong people.

 

However, one acknowledged LNER expert walks past N-gauge layouts without even glancing at them, and indeed, stood talking to a friend in front of Hawthorn Dene and deliberately turned his back on it as soon as he clocked it was N-gauge....

 

Les

[John M Upton]

That's quite sad,

[Adam1701D]

As with all these things, wait until you see the model in the "flesh", so to speak.

 

What can look like a glaring error on a much-magnified, HD digital image can fade into insignificance in real life. I'm aware of the tumblehome issue on the 153 but am I bothered? No, because it's an otherwise very nice tiny 153.

 

I suspect the Pacer will fare even better providing there are no major livery howlers.

[Vonzack]

I managed to catch a view of the 142 on the Dapol stand at the GCR show. The most striking issue for me were the windows, I think these stand out more because the liveries haven't been stretched to fool the eye. For me anyway.

[grahame]

There's large clear pics of all the liveries on the Hornby Magazine website.

 

G

[DropTheTap]

Very disappointing. I sent Dapol plenty of photos highlighting how and where the distortion had occurred and explaining where it needed correcting. I got a polite letter thanking me for my input. Later it looked like the windows had been improved so I assumed it was heading in the right direction.

 

Sadly the taper on the lower part of the "face" has been stretched making it far too tall. In fact the whole tumblehome is wrong. Oh well, I won't be getting any.

 

From observation of the decorated samples on Dapol's website, it appears as though something considerable *may* have gone awry (although the fact that online images may not be truly representative of the finished model is duly noted).

 

The front end screams "wrong shape" to me. There's too much "bulge" on the bottom angle below the cab windows, leading to a too- chubby front view appearance.

 

On the bodysides, It *looks* as if the windows are either incorrectly sized, or located too high up (or both), as the bodyside below them seems too deep. This may be compounded by the fact that the tumblehome has a too long and shallow a curve.

 

Additionally, the destination indicator box seems to be lacking the top ridge, which gives these units a distinct "peaked hat" appearance. It appears as though Dapol have tried to represent this as a groove, which doesn't look quite right to me.

 

The underframe looks more passable (I'm assuming the footsteps will be in the box for the purchaser to fit), with some decent- looking relief to the components. The roof curvature to the bodyside seems to be a little too angular, perhaps also contributing to the deep look of the bodyside (much like a class 141 as someone else mentioned).The doorframes also look a little thick.

 

These are just first glance observations and I appreciate that I'm commenting upon samples only, which is also why I have refrained from remarking upon the livery application and details thereof. Liveries may differ upon production application, however I highly doubt the shape will. Final judgement reserved until I see one in the flesh.

Edited July 6, 2017 by DropTheTap

[Les1952]

The BIG news on these is that the mechanism now has a NEXT-18 socket.  Expected delivery is given as Q1 2018.

 

I took a couple of pictures of the Tyne and Wear liveried prototype at TINGs as I'm rather taken with it and the showcase would quite like to be enhanced by one.

 

I've now blown the pics up to about ten times the size of the actual model and compared it with a couple of shots I have of the real thing from different angles, one at Darlington and the other at Greenfield.  If I can coax my scanner into lie I'll post these.

 

To answer a couple of the points in the post above-

 

The Greenfield pic shows off a "peaked hat" appearance but that is NOT apparent in the Darlington picture, where the area above the cab windows seems to conform pretty well to the model.  The unit at Darlington is also much chubbier in appearance than the Greenfield pic- I put this down to the difference in the liveries of the two units- the Darlington one is chocolate and cream while the Greenfield one is in blues.  The fact that the yellow ends of the two units are picked out differently also makes a difference. Strong light in the Greenfield picture also throws shadows on certain areas of the front.

 

As to the area below the cab windscreen, the model looks as if it is vertical. The Darlington pic appears vertical while the Greenfield pic makes it look as if it is leaning backwards- again the light may have something to do with it.

 

Window depth.  The side windows on both units extend down to the level of the control desk seen through the windscreen- this is also true of the model. I think the windows are the right size.  The fact that the tumbleholme on the real thing was usually either filthy or in shadow or both may be what makes the model look too deep.  One solution for those wanting a sharper tumbleholme (paint) has been mentioned in posts above.  An alternative is to use muck- that area didn't get such good attention from washing plants as the panels above.

 

The windows are inset a little more than on the prototype, but that is a limitation of plastic and is certainly no worse than (say) Farish Mark 1s IMHO.

 

I've attached the least worst of the pics I took.

 

 

Was I going to buy one before having a very good butchers at the one at TINGs.  Probably not.  Am I going to now I've seen it.  Probably yes, a yellow one, though very much as a rule 1 purchase.  The Richmond branch had closed a long time before these came on the scene so one calling in at Croft Spa is definitely a Rule 1 train....

 

Les

Edited September 10, 2017 by Les1952

[TomE]

Thank's for the photo Les. Unfortunately it confirms for me that what would have been a rule one purchase anyway, is sufficiently flawed enough in overall appearance for the wallet to stay closed on this occasion. 

 

Tom.  

[DropTheTap]

The Greenfield pic shows off a "peaked hat" appearance but that is NOT apparent in the Darlington picture, where the area above the cab windows seems to conform pretty well to the model.  The unit at Darlington is also much chubbier in appearance than the Greenfield pic- I put this down to the difference in the liveries of the two units- the Darlington one is chocolate and cream while the Greenfield one is in blues.  The fact that the yellow ends of the two units are picked out differently also makes a difference. Strong light in the Greenfield picture also throws shadows on certain areas of the front.

 

As to the area below the cab windscreen, the model looks as if it is vertical. The Darlington pic appears vertical while the Greenfield pic makes it look as if it is leaning backwards- again the light may have something to do with it.

 

Window depth.  The side windows on both units extend down to the level of the control desk seen through the windscreen- this is also true of the model. I think the windows are the right size.  The fact that the tumbleholme on the real thing was usually either filthy or in shadow or both may be what makes the model look too deep.  One solution for those wanting a sharper tumbleholme (paint) has been mentioned in posts above.  An alternative is to use muck- that area didn't get such good attention from washing plants as the panels above.

 

The windows are inset a little more than on the prototype, but that is a limitation of plastic and is certainly no worse than (say) Farish Mark 1s IMHO.

 

 

- A quick google image search shows that the whole headcode portion at the top of the front end should be recessed, which lends this distinct appearance. Dapol appear to have represented the headcode as flush, but with a groove around the shape of it, which isn't accurate (unless some had this as a modification, which I am unable to confirm).

 

- The front end below the windows should actually slope back towards the unit slightly:

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/525c004ae4b077ec7f4c34cb/t/52dd1b7be4b0f48cdba6bbdd/1390222205995/gjm_078512.jpg?format=1500w

 

- The side windows do not appear to be correct. See page 3 of this thread, where someone has provided a comprehensive illustration of this.

 

- There are many fine 2mm RTR models whose windows manage a very nice "flush" appearance, despite this apparent "limitation of plastic":

 

https://rails.azureedge.net/product-images.axd/IMG_2204JUL16.jpg?preset=large

 

However one would think that there's still time for Dapol to modify the glazing.

 

Thanks for sharing your pictures and thoughts, but I'm another who won't be opening my wallet for this model. As others have mentioned, it almost looks like a 141/ 142 hybrid...

Edited September 12, 2017 by DropTheTap

[bigP]

--

Edited January 31, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[grahame]

 

Would still like to see one up close but in your shot it does look much less "tall & narrow" than in the EP pics Dapol released.

Wallet groaning already.

 

 

Is this any help? - taken at TINGS on Sunday. It's obviously not a final production model (no wheels or motor) but is a livery décor sample. I think if you click on it, it will enlarge:

 

 

G.

[woodenhead]

Is this any help? - taken at TINGS on Sunday. It's obviously not a final production model (no wheels or motor) but is a livery décor sample. I think if you click on it, it will enlarge:

 

 

The image or the model, it would be good to click on the model and it becomes 4mm 

[Revolution Ben]

 

Hello all,

 

I am no expert on pacers, but I have to say looking at these at TINGS (in a cabinet below the stunning painted samples of the Class 68) I thought they looked the part. Sometimes the very hi res photos posted on here tend to exagerrate perceived flaws which, in the flesh, are not as apparent.

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.

[Robert Shrives]

Hi 

G , thanks for pictures - model certainly looks the part from these sample. As ever a little tweaking expected but certainly impressive and given recent articles in Model Rail for Pacer related layouts they look to be good sellers, hopefully more liveries to follow.

 

Potential for messing about anyway and I am sure the chassis will benefit from a newer style PCB.  There is a 3D print 143 as well from shapeways so perhaps a chance to swap chassis.

 

Having now seen these close up I hope the unconvinced will think again, or perhaps miss out?

 

Robert    

[woodenhead]

There may still be flaws (I don't know, just saying) but this will be the only RTR model of a Pacer so if you are modelling late 80s onwards in the north or south west you are going to need a few of them.

 

They look nice enough to me and capture the prototype.

[bigP]

--

Edited January 31, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[MGR Hooper!]

JUST TO CLEAR THINGS HERE...

 

The Class 142 "Pacer" samples seen at TINGS is the very same ones Dapol showed on their Dapol Digest forum.

 

And this has been confirmed by Dapol themselves.

[cs233]

I am just not too sure, when I compare with images of the prototype the results are not too good in a number of the areas already highlighted. Will have to reserve an conclusions until they are actually released.

[steve1023]

I think they look alright. I won't be getting one unless a good representation of chocolate & cream turns up.

Edited September 17, 2017 by steve1023

[cornish trains jez]

Have they forgotten the original provincial livery or have I missed something?

[The Black Hat]

Getting really jealous of the N gauge guys getting the Tyne and Wear Regional Railways model. Going to love the day when Charlie gets round to this for the Realtrack release.

[Roy Langridge]

Getting really jealous of the N gauge guys getting the Tyne and Wear Regional Railways model. Going to love the day when Charlie gets round to this for the Realtrack release.

 

Don't be jealous, when we get the Realtrack 142 it will be spot-on, just as the 156 is. I really want to like the Dapol 142 (I am not an N gauge modeller) as I have high-hopes for what else they can bring to market, but their 142 just looks wrong. When compared to how good their other recent models have been shape-wise, it is a real disappointment.

Roy

[bigP]

--

Edited January 31, 2021 by bigP
Deleted