Butler Henderson Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wonder if we will get to the point of Dapol will offering most of the N gauge tooling for sale like they did 20+ years ago with their then OO toolings, which went to Hornby. A few years ago there was a rumour going around that Hornby were buying Dapol which was nothing more than a rumour (unless someone knows otherwise) and obviously the Brighton Belle was not such a success so Hornby have backed off any further Brtish N gauge releases but maybe a number of toolings would be tempt them to try again; particularly if they gave them the necessary tweaks to improve reliability in some cases and applied their livery artwork which is something, apart from Hornbys weird GW green, that Dapol often struggle to get right for some inexplicable reason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeharvey22 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Wonder if we will get to the point of Dapol will offering most of the N gauge tooling for sale like they did 20+ years ago with their then OO toolings, which went to Hornby. A few years ago there was a rumour going around that Hornby were buying Dapol which was nothing more than a rumour (unless someone knows otherwise) and obviously the Brighton Belle was not such a success so Hornby have backed off any further Brtish N gauge releases but maybe a number of toolings would be tempt them to try again; particularly if they gave them the necessary tweaks to improve reliability in some cases and applied their livery artwork which is something, apart from Hornbys weird GW green, that Dapol often struggle to get right for some inexplicable reason I am not sure how portable the tooling is between factories. Even if the machinery is compatible, tools seem to suffer mysterious degradation when one factory gives them up to the principal. Sometimes the tooling is not owned by the principal, and even where owned does not always get safely to a new factory. Of course, this is not just a Chinese phenomenon, seeing what happened to some of the Lima tools which formed the Minitrains N range destined for Arnold when Hornby took over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I am not sure how portable the tooling is between factories. Even if the machinery is compatible, tools seem to suffer mysterious degradation when one factory gives them up to the principal. Sometimes the tooling is not owned by the principal, and even where owned does not always get safely yo a new factory. Of course, this is not just a Chinese phenomenon, seeing what happened to some of the Lima tools which formed the Minitrains N range destined for Arnold when Hornby took over. I wonder just how much of it would be that attractive? Some of it is showing its age now, and there are quite a lot of errors in there: 14XX with a skirt below the boiler M7 with tanks that are too wide (with no apparent need to be) and dimensions that are not consistent with either 1:152 or 1:148 scale Hall (and presumably Grange?) with a boiler that is too small having been extended from the Manor, even though the correct Swindon No 1 boiler is found on the 28XX B Set and Collett coaches with recessed windows - not an error, but not state of the art. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted March 28, 2017 Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 Hall (and presumably Grange?) with a boiler that is too small having been extended from the Manor, even though the correct Swindon No 1 boiler is found on the 28XX Are you sure about that one? They look about right to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Are you sure about that one? They look about right to me. I am absolutely sure about that one, and this is a previously reported error. Measure the boiler on the Hall and compare it to the 28XX. They should be identical, but they are not. Stars, Saints, Halls, Granges, 28XX all had the Swindon No 1 boiler. Whereas a Manor has a No. 14. ALthough the sizes can be verified by measurement, I only have hearsay as to why it happened. The story I heard was that the CAD guys in China treated the Hall as a bigger Manor, working for the existing CAD of that, and for the boiler they simply stretched it out so it was the correct length, without regard for the diameter. I have been amassing a small stock of 28XX boiler mouldings to use on possible future models of the aforementioned classes. Sadly DCC Supplies sold out of spares. I am also sure about the M7 as I had the privilege(?) of designing an etched chassis for it, which resulted in much head-scratching when the first version done to 1:148 did not line up with the front splashers, even though the overall length of the body was correct. I ended up treating it as a 1:152 M7 with extended front frames which worked out sort of. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpgibbons Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Offering up your model pic against a GA drawing using Photoshop does suggest the smokebox is a bit too small in both length and diameter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I am absolutely sure about that one, and this is a previously reported error. Measure the boiler on the Hall and compare it to the 28XX. They should be identical, but they are not. Chris P.S I presume that Halls never actually ran with the ROD tender? An interesting photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted March 28, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 28, 2017 Agree when containment action is required to prevent further quality escapes but not in the long term if you focus on getting it right first time.Agree with Greenmodelmonkey. Right First Time is a well known process to reduce costs overall . The proven theory is that it costs less to make it right in the first place, even if that involves longer manufacturing time, than continually fix the item further down the production process which costs time in identifying, segregating then rectifying the issue. There are other measures such as the Cost of Poor Quality, which is a bit more tenuous. , or Six Sigma . This relates to producing items to aero engine defect rates ( you can imagine aero engines seldom fail as the consequences of such would be severe) . You may think this costs more but by creating standard repetitive work which always produces the same result it actually costs less and creates capacity through not having to constantly change and fix things. I come back to my theory that it's much easier for model companies to raise prices to cover inefficiencies rather than fix root cause , because there are lots of modellers who say I'd pay £10, £20.........double for that . Gives the impression there is a bottomless pit out there, which clearly there isn't! I don't think I know another market like it . We even fix defects ourselves instead of sending it back. Until this changes, if ever, you are just going to get increased prices, because it's the easy option rather than being forced to look at their production routines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I am absolutely sure about that one, and this is a previously reported error. Measure the boiler on the Hall and compare it to the 28XX. They should be identical, but they are not. Stars, Saints, Halls, Granges, 28XX all had the Swindon No 1 boiler. Whereas a Manor has a No. 14. ALthough the sizes can be verified by measurement, I only have hearsay as to why it happened. The story I heard was that the CAD guys in China treated the Hall as a bigger Manor, working for the existing CAD of that, and for the boiler they simply stretched it out so it was the correct length, without regard for the diameter. I have been amassing a small stock of 28XX boiler mouldings to use on possible future models of the aforementioned classes. Sadly DCC Supplies sold out of spares. I am also sure about the M7 as I had the privilege(?) of designing an etched chassis for it, which resulted in much head-scratching when the first version done to 1:148 did not line up with the front splashers, even though the overall length of the body was correct. I ended up treating it as a 1:152 M7 with extended front frames which worked out sort of. Chris Some prototype dimensions: Hall, 28XX etc, Smokebox diameter: 5' 3 1/2". (10.9mm) Manor: Smokebox diameter 5' 0" (10.3mm) Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 We even fix defects ourselves instead of sending it back. Well, N gauge modellers do. Gauge 0 officionados are known for being a bit more picky, not surprising after forking out what they do for models. Hopefully Dapol will have taken that onboard. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 I do wonder whether Dapol have been too ambitious. Their catalogue is in three scales and I'm wondering whether the costs of doing this is just too much, whether they spread their resources in both people and money too thinly to make an acceptable profit. They also are very much the Cinderella of the RTR market, pitching their quality below that of Bachmann and Hornby when the market seems to me to want more, not the same or less, value for money. The present trading conditions seem to me to be much tougher than 12 months ago and they could get worse particularly if there is a 'hard Brexit' from the EU. This announcement might just be the first, not the last and we might yet see one of the RTR companies go bankrupt. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Some prototype dimensions: Hall, 28XX etc, Smokebox diameter: 5' 3 1/2". (10.9mm) Manor: Smokebox diameter 5' 0" (10.3mm) Chris And the model dimensions are Dapol 28XX: 10.91mm Dapol Hall: 10.29mm Dapol Manor: 10.31mm Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leachsprite4 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Well I'd never picked up on the boiler sizes before. How does the Grange match up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Well I'd never picked up on the boiler sizes before. How does the Grange match up? I don't own one (too expensive!). I had thought of buying the rolling chassis from DCC Supplies which contains almost everything except the boiler, and pairing it with a 28XX boiler. Would be cheaper too! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butler Henderson Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 With the Grange does the boiler size really matter given the poor proportions of the front end. I had not realised the Hall was dimensionally challenged but that's all three of Dapols GW tender locos that are ripe for someone to redo right and only the ex Ixion Manor can be held up as being pretty accurate (or Is that wrong as well) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold adb968008 Posted March 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2017 Well I'd never picked up on the boiler sizes before. How does the Grange match up? The guys building the real thing have the pick of two hall boilers to use, so I guess there the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezza Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Problem here is that by cutting very popular locos like 50s you are driving diesel fans away from N. We are looking at doing an ex SR west country layout circa 1989-90. We were thinking of sticking with N but with no decent 50 available in N our money will now be going to Hornby and their many 50 variants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 We are looking at doing an ex SR west country layout circa 1989-90. We were thinking of sticking with N but with no decent 50 available in N our money will now be going to Hornby and their many 50 variants. CJM make an excellent 50 I thought? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted March 28, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 28, 2017 CJM make an excellent 50 I thought? Indeed they do: http://www.cjmmodels.co.uk/products/cjm-class-50/ Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezza Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 CJM are great - until you see the price... they are not really rtr, more bespoke products. We could have three DCC sound fitted Hornby for one CJM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted March 29, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 29, 2017 CJM are great - until you see the price... they are not really rtr, more bespoke products. We could have three DCC sound fitted Hornby for one CJM. True, but if you were choosing between 00 and N for the same space then you'd be running much longer trains in N so the stock was always going to cost more. The CJM models are expensive but on medium to large sized exhibition layouts there is often stock worth many thousands, so in overall terms less significant. It's your layout - and I look forward to maybe seeing it at a show some time - but the selection of gauge/scale is a big decision; I am surprised you're basing it on the (non) availability of one particular model when other RTR options are available. EDIT: For some reason I assumed you were talking about a club layout, possibly due to the "we" in the OP. If it is a small home layout then I accept the price of the CJM model may be a greater factor. Cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elvinley Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 There is always the option to improve the Farish model. Chinese made versions run well and can be improved a lot with some fettling and buffer beam details. At least they are a half decent starting point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d9002 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 There is always the option to improve the Farish model. Chinese made versions run well and can be improved a lot with some fettling and buffer beam details. At least they are a half decent starting point. Class 50's already are as rare as rocking horse waste, even before the recent announcement ! We'll be seeing silly prices for them on that auction site PDQ, I reckon....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TomE Posted March 29, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 29, 2017 If it is a small home layout then I accept the price of the CJM model may be a greater factor. Cheers Ben A. Perhaps worth highlighting CJM offer a payment plan which runs in conjunction with the building of the model. You can also specify what number/name/livery you want to save having to renumber/name/paint off the shelf models. I fully accept they are very expensive models, but you pay for what you get, and in this case you get the best N Gauge (and probably best in any scale) Class 50. Tom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezza Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 It is just one I am building with a friend. Yes I have a couple of Farish 50s but improvement really means work on bogies and maybe a new modified chassis. And even then the body proportions aren't great. Neither run well enough for an exhibition really - stalling and flat spots are a pet hate and we shouldn't have to put up with them with today's technology.. The 50 is the Signature item for the route so we need to get it right for the project to be satisfying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.