Jump to content
 

Class 59 in 00


No Decorum
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

has there been any news on what wagons Dapol are going to produce to supplement the 59's (I'm going to guess wither JNA's or IIA's), although it would be fantastic for a rake of NP JHA's or JMA's, but I guess I'm going to have to butcher some FLHH HHA's to produce JMA's

 

regards,

darryl

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been wondering about wagons for the 59 too, I keep getting distracted by looking at the latest JNA and MMAs! What wagons would ideally suit the widest time of operation? As I would be interested in AI, DBS and Hanson liveries, I hope the wagons have seen a long period of service to satisfy all modellers. I did ask over on the digest, someone said that a certain manafacturer has already produced the 'national power' wagons, but google says no!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The longest lived and suitable for both quarries would be the JYA boxes, built by O&K in the late 80s. The have carried two versions of Yeoman livery and are currently unbranded.

The other very common type are the Mendip JNAs, again running out of both quarries, often mixed with JYAs.

The various hoppers are more restrictive, tending to only operate out of the respective owner's sites, though the Hanson JHAs can be seen loading at Avonmouth and Stud Farm as well as Whatley.

The big restriction to an RTR manufacturer is that each type of wagon running on Mendip traffic (besides IIAs, which are mixed with other types) are seen only on Mendip traffic, so not a lot of chance for multiple liveries. Saying that, the FLHH HIAs are similarly restrictive, so who knows.

The red 59s also see use on ballast jobs too. The Mendip ones did too at one point, but this seems very rare these days

 

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

The longest lived and suitable for both quarries would be the JYA boxes, built by O&K in the late 80s. The have carried two versions of Yeoman livery and are currently unbranded.

The other very common type are the Mendip JNAs, again running out of both quarries, often mixed with JYAs.

The various hoppers are more restrictive, tending to only operate out of the respective owner's sites, though the Hanson JHAs can be seen loading at Avonmouth and Stud Farm as well as Whatley.

The big restriction to an RTR manufacturer is that each type of wagon running on Mendip traffic (besides IIAs, which are mixed with other types) are seen only on Mendip traffic, so not a lot of chance for multiple liveries. Saying that, the FLHH HIAs are similarly restrictive, so who knows.

The red 59s also see use on ballast jobs too. The Mendip ones did too at one point, but this seems very rare these days

 

Jo

Don't the ex-British Steel JTA tipplers predate the JYAs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the ex-British Steel JTA tipplers predate the JYAs?

They are a fair bit older than the JYA, but of course had a career in the steel industry before aggregates use.

 

I think it's accurate that they were in use in aggregates traffic (early 80s?) before the JYA turned up (late 80s?) - *but* the JYA have been doing the same thing consistently since delivery, whereas the JTA/JUA were bumped out of Mendip traffic in the mid 00s by the new JNAs, so I think Jo's comment that they will be the longest lived boxes in Mendip traffic will be correct.

 

The JTA/JUA have continued in aggregates traffic in the South East since though, they are definitely a long lived and useful wagon type in their own right...

 

Other random thoughts on the subject of suitable wagons...

 

I don't think there is one wagon that can magically fulfil all roles for all of the class 59 operators, over a 30 year period!

 

The Freightliner MJA which Dapol are supposed to be doing is not so different a beast to the Mendip JNA - you ought to be able to get at least some parts commonality there - that only helps relatively modern era modellers though?

 

Similarly, if you did an ARC/Hanson JHA, you could share the complex bogies and possibly a few other bits with the NP JHAs.

 

Bogies similarly a common part between the O&K hopper and box builds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to admit that the JTA/JUAs never even crossed my mind - before my time!

From memory I think the JYAs are '88 and the JHA hoppers '89. I won't be able to check until I'm over Merehead next week, but the hoppers are definitely 1989 (same as me!)

In terms of longest lived, I was basically going from current day, looking back to when they were introduced, also how wide spread on traffic they appear.

The MJA twins do seem to have some similarity with design being delivered to Ermewa as JNAs and DB as MMAs, which I believe the new batch of Mendip JNAs may be the same as.

Certainly the underframe gubbins are very similar between the MLAs and the new type, same bogies too.

Depending how much detail you're looking, despite being the same type of bogie, there are some differences between the O&K hoppers and boxes. The hoppers have 'horns' protruding above the axle boxes, presumably to take a damper if specced, and also coil springs between body and bogie. It took me a while to notice those differences, even walking past them every day

 

Jo

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hmmm, looks quite nice, although a couple of things leap out:

 

  1. It seems to suffer from the same issue as Bachmann's 66 in that the loco appears to slump forward and sit far too low on its bogies.
     
  2. I was rather hoping that Dapol would figure out a way of re-arranging the front end so that the cowling did not have to be removed completely in order to fit tension lock/Kadee style couplings.  Instead they've simply opted for the same arrangement as Bachmann's 66.  To my eye a 59 or 66 without that front cowling just doesn't look like a 59/66.  Hugely disappointing.
     
  3. Some of the underframe piping and add-ons appear a bit 'chunky', particularly around the fuel tank area and on the bogies.
     
  4. Moulded bodyside grilles - would have been nice to be able to achieve that 'see through' effect, similar to Hornby's Class 60.
     
  5. Lack of handrails on the solebar just below cab doors.
     

But still, a step up from the Bachmann 66, slightly...

 

I was hoping to be overwhelmed, instead I'm feeling lukewarm.

Edited by YesTor
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don't know very much about the Class 59 other than I like to see it running so I'm very impressed with the comments on the Dapol photographs first EP (what is an EP).  I'm sure Dapol will fine tune the model in light of the expert comments being generated.  When it finally hits the shelves I will definitely buy one warts and all.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotating axleboxes....

A prominent feature of the prototype but I thought it might be a bit much to expect, so that impresses me. Poseable doors? Any models that I know of with opening cab doors are heavily sprung. They close very snugly but are not easily poseable. I wonder how this will turn out. I am a more-or-less happy owner of a couple of 71s; if Dapol succeeds in producing as good a 59 but deals with some of the shortcomings of the 71 (questionable shade of paint, dodgy PC board, peeling paint on add-on bits), this model could be a stunner.

 

If it is offered at a price comparable to the 71, it could add a new dimension to the price versus detail debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hornby/Rivarossi provided rotating axle boxes for their really rather excellent GE U25C model and it is a very neat feature.

This EP looks pretty good, looking forward to it being released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks a good start and I'm hoping it looks nice in ARC livery. I'm rather looking forward to this one.

 

Overall shape looks good. I'm sure you could go slightly mad adding all the pipe work on the prototype!

 

I found myself drawn to the solebar area (if thats the right word) - I'm not sure if it's the photos but it looks a little shallow to me. The prototype is quite chunky looking - I'd rather this is accurate than having opening doors. I spend my time gluing them shut so they sit better in the body shell! But then again each to their own preference

 

If there is one request from me is please can the tail lights be independently controlled :)

 

Will

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

 

If there is one request from me is please can the tail lights be independently controlled :)

 

Will

 

With anything other than an 8-pin decoder, this should be easy to sort out. I believe the Class 22 was originally destined to have independent tail lights, but for whatever reason, it and other releases since by Dapol and other manufacturers, still haven't included this relatively simple feature.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...