Class 59 in 00

[7013]

I suppose it is a niggle when these tiny things are flagged up. Even if it is too late to correct, it does not detract from a superb model. After all it’s not like the Bachmann modified Hall with an unmodified front end is it?

[JDW]

3 hours ago, 159220 said:

 

This is what I find most irritating about this forum. Why did you not flag this up to Dapol, either directly or through the Digest, when you first saw the EP - or even the CADS? Way to late now to correct! OK I am mainly irritated at myself for not noticing. I was too busy counting every grill hole to make sure they were accurate...

 

I think you're quoting the wrong person there though, my post was illustrating the point that Steadfast and lyneux made in their posts (see below)  on Wednesday about the solebar, for the benefit of daz9284 who wasn't sure what part was being discussed.  

 

On 27/03/2019 at 08:42, Steadfast said:

There's something not quite right about the strip that runs the length of the solebar. It doesn't just stop short of the door, it's quite a complicated shape actually. Although not right, the Lima version was closer in this respect

 

Jo

 

On 27/03/2019 at 17:33, lyneux said:

 

Yes, true. In fact, it doesn't seem to run underneath the door as it should do. It should then widen for the section between the doors.

 

The prototype photo below shows this well (if you compare it with the shots above of the model of 59206).

 

That said, will it stop me buying a few....? Almost certainly not!

 

Guy

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by JDW

[Steadfast]

9 hours ago, 159220 said:

 

This is what I find most irritating about this forum. Why did you not flag this up to Dapol, either directly or through the Digest, when you first saw the EP - or even the CADS? Way to late now to correct! OK I am mainly irritated at myself for not noticing. I was too busy counting every grill hole to make sure they were accurate...

Because the picture from Ally Pally was the first pictures I'd seen in sufficient resolution and contrast to notice it.

And yes, I've put a link to this part of the thread on the Dapol digest

Jo

Edited March 31, 2019 by Steadfast

[John M Upton]

Just seen the livery samples on a Rails of Sheffield (in Sheffield!) Facebook post and oh dear...

 

The ARC body side is some weird luminous greeny yellow, the roof seems to be pale grey, all wrong.

 

The Yeoman version looks great except for some unfathomable reason they have replicated Lima's mistake in the too small Yeoman name on the upper side above the radiators.

[159220]

22 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Just seen the livery samples on a Rails of Sheffield (in Sheffield!) Facebook post and oh dear...

 

The ARC body side is some weird luminous greeny yellow, the roof seems to be pale grey, all wrong.

 

The Yeoman version looks great except for some unfathomable reason they have replicated Lima's mistake in the too small Yeoman name on the upper side above the radiators.

 

Hold on a sec:

 

On 24/03/2019 at 11:20, 159220 said:

 

Also, note to images above. I was advised yesterday these are still the livery sample seen before, with revised schemes expected soon. 

 

Those are the same Dapol images of the 1st livery samples which have been discussed at length. Second livery samples, as advised at Ally Pally, are due shortly. There was assurance all issues to the first livery samples had been addressed. No doubt we shall see shortly (seeing as the second livery samples on the batch 2 class 73s were a huge improvement, same for the 59s I say!)

 

Its a bit naughty of Rails to not say these images are of livery samples first shown late last year!

[Simon Bendall]

29 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Just seen the livery samples on a Rails of Sheffield (in Sheffield!) Facebook post and oh dear...

 

Those appear to be the same first livery samples that have been kicking around since last year.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Simon Bendall

[ChuffChuff]

I did see those livery samples at Alexandra Palace and Dapol have told me that they are awaiting the corrected colours.  Consequently I did not post photos of them. They have advised they are very busy and so do not have time to post on social media but will do so on their digest when  they have time.  

[Ouroborus]

I think Hattons were circulating the same images on fb

[LaGrange]

On 31/03/2019 at 12:25, 159220 said:

 

This is what I find most irritating about this forum. Why did you not flag this up to Dapol, either directly or through the Digest, when you first saw the EP - or even the CADS? Way to late now to correct! OK I am mainly irritated at myself for not noticing. I was too busy counting every grill hole to make sure they were accurate...

 

Do you work for Dapol?

[Hilux5972]

On 31/03/2019 at 07:32, JDW said:

I'm sure @ChuffChuff won't mind me using his photo to illustrate what I think is the point being raised: 

 

Wrong on both counts I’m afraid. The raised section should go almost to the door, but does not end following the shape of the doorframe. The raised lip should go along the bottom of the cab door but does not continue along the body. It ends where the upper raised section also ends. See the actual loco image below. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hilux5972

[adb968008]

Arent we getting just a little carried away here ?

 

everyones lauding and fawning over the Hornby class 66 with its missing doors etc.. yet the best anyone has found wrong with the 59 is a 1/4mm thick - 2mm long piece and the moanings going on for days ?

 

The price of a 59 is pretty attractive to.

I think this is an excellant model and the above wont be putting me off, at this stage all they need to do is get the colours right.

 

The model looks Excellant, the manufacturer who holds the risk has clearly demonstrated excellance and deserves the business.

I wonder if those backing crowd funded models will be as critical, or seek to shut down critics at the same stage, considering they will have already paid up front, sight unseen, and can not really exercise their wallets as influence to correction, and as such the designers, profit already banked, have nothing really to lose if such details are wrong, beyond ensuring a low return rate.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by adb968008

[JDW]

2 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Wrong on both counts I’m afraid. The raised section should go almost to the door, but does not end following the shape of the doorframe. The raised lip should go along the bottom of the cab door but does not continue along the body. It ends where the upper raised section also ends. See the actual loco image below. 

Thanks for the correction, I've edited my post to refer to your clearer picture.

[letterspider]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Arent we getting just a little carried away here ?

 

everyones lauding and fawning over the Hornby class 66 with its missing doors etc.. yet the best anyone has found wrong with the 59 is a 1/4mm thick - 2mm long piece and the moanings going on for days ?

 

The price of a 59 is pretty attractive to.

I think this is an excellant model and the above wont be putting me off, at this stage all they need to do is get the colours right.

 

The model looks Excellant, the manufacturer who holds the risk has clearly demonstrated excellance and deserves the business.

I wonder if those backing crowd funded models will be as critical, or seek to shut down critics at the same stage, considering they will have already paid up front, sight unseen, and can not really exercise their wallets as influence to correction, and as such the designers, profit already banked, have nothing really to lose if such details are wrong, beyond ensuring a low return rate.

 

 

Having seen it in the flesh - I would give it my vote for the best diesel of the year.

I really appreciate the Hattons 66 but without Dapol we still would be dependant upon the Lima moulding 59.

Looking forward to the Summer...

 

 

[YesTor]

On 12/04/2019 at 12:41, adb968008 said:

Arent we getting just a little carried away here ?

 

everyones lauding and fawning over the Hornby class 66 with its missing doors etc.. yet the best anyone has found wrong with the 59 is a 1/4mm thick - 2mm long piece and the moanings going on for days ?

 

 

Personally I see nothing wrong with striving for complete accuracy.  Whether indeed complete accuracy is realistically achievable on any model is of course open to debate, however there is nothing wrong with aiming for such.  While I hadn't initially noticed the missing strip along the base of the 59 body, it is however one of those details that once you know it's there, well, it's there... so whichever way you choose to look at it it's simply not accurate.  Whether it puts any individual off of buying one is purely a personal decision.  Still, for a model which has taken sooooo long to actually get to market, and one which is clearly aimed at the modeller (as opposed the train set market), it is naturally a shame for any inaccuracy such as this to become apparent and there are bound to be some who are disappointed. 

 

The Hornby 66 is a different beast altogether, as I'm pretty certain that Hornby were more than aware of the shortcomings of their existing 66 tooling before ever going into production.  The motivation behind Hornby's latest 66 batch was clearly to offer a set of 'affordable' models to the train set market, all released simultaneously (for maximum exposure/wow factor/sales potential), and straight off of the back of the build up to Hatton's 66, and not to mention just ahead of the Hatton's release to boot.  If anything a great business move by Hornby.  A model inaccurate beyond belief, yes, but still, much like the legendary 'Class 08 on a Jinty chassis' from yesteryear will no doubt be just good enough for the train set market, whilst those wanting an accurate model will no doubt await the Hatton's version.   Seems a win-win all round really?  

 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by YesTor

[7013]

I agree Yes Tor, it is a niggle but one I can live with, I must confess I would never have noticed the little strip that goes under the door. I suspect if it is not rectified in the final tooling many a modeller will fit the tiny missing pieces, others like myself will look at the overall appearance and be happy that we have a Class 59 from Dapol (and a Class 66 from Hattons) that do these locos justice. It was once almost viewed as sacrilege if one manufacturer went up against another with new releases, however we have three levels of 66, ( four if you count the HO version with working smoke exhausts) and two levels of 59, you can bet Hornby will make a big splash with its RR offering nearer the time of the Dapol release.Now it seems common place to have the same offerings from different manufacturers going up against each other (LMS twins, Cl71s, Jintys to name a few) Rather than be a bad thing it allows the modeller to enter the hobby at a price level that suits them, which cant be bad. 

I look forward to this 59 being alongside the Hattons 66, two superb models.

[Ouroborus]

Well, we don't even know if the Hattons 66 is going to be "accurate" just yet, only that it's twice the price of the Hornby.  The Dapol 59 sits somewhere in the middle.  So there is a minor goof.  IIRC, the same holds true with some of the Bachmann MK2, the Oxford rail MK3, and so on.  Accuracy is subjective

[YesTor]

3 hours ago, Ouroborus said:

Accuracy is subjective

 

...accuracy can be subjective, although if something is clearly 'missing' then it's quite simply 'wrong' and 'subjective' goes straight out of the window. 

['CHARD]

3 hours ago, Ouroborus said:

Well, we don't even know if the Hattons 66 is going to be "accurate" just yet, only that it's twice the price of the Hornby.  The Dapol 59 sits somewhere in the middle.  So there is a minor goof.  IIRC, the same holds true with some of the Bachmann MK2, the Oxford rail MK3, and so on.  Accuracy is subjective

 

Hmmmmmmm. 

 

Accuracy - or faithfulness to prototype - is an absolute. 

 

Perception of accuracy is what's notoriously subjective.

[Ouroborus]

You need to define your standard for accuracy.  For some, a model that looks very near the real thing is accurate.  For others, accuracy is measured to the nth.

 

Back to the 59, until a few posts ago, we were raving about what a fine model it was.  Now, because someone has pointed out an issue with the door,  it's toys out of the pram. 

 

So was the model accurate before and now it's not?  Is something accurate until someone points out that it isn't?  Interesting conundrum isn't it?

[7013]

Of course it is only an issue if you want to or let it be an issue. If you are one of those people who once they know there is an issue (regardless of how much) it becomes a problem, then it will colour your judgement to a certain extent. If on the other hand the issue is a minor disappointment but will not colour your judgement of the whole, then the issue becomes unimportant. Of course there is always room for both opinions. I will buy a 59 and enjoy it regardless. My issue/problem/dilemma is which one do I buy?

Edited April 18, 2019 by 7013

[rob D2]

I wouldn’t mind but those metal solebar strips re pretty darn obvious aren’t they ? I mean an hour with a prototype photo and the CADs and even I would have noticed .

[ChuffChuff]

 

Considering the concern over the photo I posted I am surprised that nobody noticed that photos on the Hattons website don't seem to show the solebar continuing across the front of the cab.

 

 

['CHARD]

37 minutes ago, ChuffChuff said:

 

Considering the concern over the photo I posted I am surprised that nobody noticed that photos on the Hattons website don't seem to show the solebar continuing across the front of the cab.

 

Not sure that I understand this?  The solebar is only a side-member.  Am I missing some irony here?  I confess that I can't speak Sixty-six.

[ChuffChuff]

Picture here shows what I am talking about

 

['CHARD]

1 hour ago, ChuffChuff said:

Picture here shows what I am talking about

 

Oh yes!  Buffer beam - body seam/ join or whatever; it's most definitely a feature of the real thing!  Good spot!