Jump to content

OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie


Paul.Uni
 Share

Recommended Posts

But equally how likely is it that an announced model will be on the shelves by March 2019?

 

I've not looked at the mogul in details so can't comment but if the prairie CAD represents something like about 9 months of work to get it to the stage where just a few minor changes will be needed before pressing the buttons to start tooling then we're either going to get a not very good large prairie or the CAD has been unveiled with much work left to do, and not just a few simple mods and minor adjustments.  Just read what Miss Prism has posted on Dapol Digest and the size of the task to get the prairie right becomes apparent; in fact it might be quicker to start again above footplate level rand throw away a few thousand £s worth of work?

 

So are we looking at a couple of 'place grabbers' which might have been timed to beat January announcements or are we seriously looking at what, on usual timescales, are meant to be near final CADs which would shortly be going to tooling in order to give time for EPs, corrections, then production prototypes and any further corrections,  and finally livery samples in order to really get them into the shops by March 2019?  That's an awful lot to squeeze into what amounts to little over a 12 month timescale before one starts allowing for Chinese holiday periods and shipping dates if these aren't as near the final CADs as we're going to get.

Dapol have also replied stating that some of the points raised are already being worked on and that new (final?) CADs are due soon. The assumption that they know nothing is wrong, they are an intelligent group with a lot of experience Richard Webster particularly. Also these early CADs from Dapol in the past have contained wrong parts as they are put together to show everything that can be required for the class of locomotive. The final CADs will hopefully be more specific and we will have several for each model, at which point target practice can commence. 

 

They is one other manufacturer out there who is working on a Mogul, that has suggested more announcements / retail tie ins with in a few weeks of Warley, that may have been or is looking to advance their Mogul from being only in one scale too two. I am surprised that they have not been mentioned by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head (I can't get to my notes or copy of David Andrews' excellent book on Moguls at the moment) the last 53xx to have the old style motion plate was 5384 and the first without the long splasher on the driver's side was 5390 so 5 locos had the long splasher but 'new' style motion plate!

 

Thanks, Ray. The finger is definitely pointing at 5384 for the motionplate change.

 

So this cannot be '5385':

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrsrh281.htm

 

(I've already sent Mike Musson a note this morning saying this cannot be 5335:

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrls219.htm )

 

Great innit? Mid-lot changes and dodgy websites. Ahem.

 

All somewhat academic though in this thread context, as Dapol is addressing only post-5390. And, it should be noted, distinctly post-1930. Most Moguls prior to 1930 had flush-riveted front and rear ring smokeboxes, or flush-riveted front and snap-headed rear ring. Dapol is doing some of its output with tall safety valve covers, but no flush-riveting as far as I know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the RCTS work the change to the motion bar cross frame was made from 5384 onwards, i.e. part way through Lot 209 and even partway through the batch of 10 built in 1920.  This does sound a little odd and as yet I am unable to find photographic confirmation or indeed any sort of original source confirmatory evidence.

 

The original 93XX series were of course considerable different in appearance from earlier engines with not only outside steampipes (which many earlier engines acquired of course when cylinders were renewed) but also side window cabs and screw reversers.

Whilst writing my previous post I did check a few photos one of which showed 5382 with the old style and 5388 with the new motion plate/cross frame so it does look like the change was made part way through a batch.

Ray.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They is one other manufacturer out there who is working on a Mogul, that has suggested more announcements / retail tie ins with in a few weeks of Warley, that may have been or is looking to advance their Mogul from being only in one scale too two. I am surprised that they have not been mentioned by now.

 

Heljan? They know about as much about Moguls as Oxford do about Dean Goods.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for the moderator to ok my membership. :O

 

If it's that difficult, I don't think I'll bother, as no doubt I'd be black-balled by all Right Thinking people.

 

I wouldn't want to be a member of any forum that would have me! 

 

Present company excepted!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heljan? They know about as much about Moguls as Oxford do about Dean Goods.

No, another not yet mentioned, already planning a mogul in another scale and works in the retail commission / crowdfund market.

Edited by Tricky-CRS
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, another not yet mentioned, already planning a mogul in another scale and works in the retail commission / crowdfund market.

Oooh, that'll be interesting.  I wonder if they will keep going (maybe with another variant of 43xx) or stop development on it, like they have done with one of their other announcements.  They've been quite unlucky with other manufacturers announcing the same models at the same time.

I guess this is what happens when there is a decreasing pool of viable locomotives and an increasing number of manufacturers.

Edited by GWR8700
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be of use to customers awaiting proposed models which are dropped or abandoned for whatever reason if the company concerned announced that the project has been terminated, even if they do not give their reasons; it will save hopeful prospective purchasers waiting in vain for the thing to appear on the market and enable them to make a more informed choice sooner about buying an alternative or another manufacturer's version.

 

This is a general comment and does not apply specifically to any manufacturer in the current, past, or prospective future market for 43xx or 5101 models who may or may not be producing new models or prospectively (it is rumoured) re-releasing a version of an older one.  But if the cap fits...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to seeing these in the flesh. The old Airfix Prairie was on my Christmas wish list 30+ years ago. Unfortunately it and several replacements latter meant I ended up with a Hornby Caledonian Pug! My Dad gave up!

 

On a pedantic note when referring to the CAD's that manufacturers show in press releases, they should really refer to them as CAD Models or 3D CAD Models from which 2D drawings are produced, or used in CAM (Computer Aided Manufacture) to produce the tooling. Its like Numpty Clarkson referring to a car as having 500 torques. Its 500 Newton Metres ( or Pounds Feet) of torque.

Pedantic off.

 

Have a Merry Festive Season everyone. Lets see what 2018 brings.

 

Matt

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

This is slightly off-topic, but:

 

Instead of people trying to describe changes textually in these forums, why is it not possible for the community to create, or at least contribute to, the CAD models for projects directly? I imagine this could be done in a similar way that open source software is developed (although that's maybe not the best model because it can get divisive and thorny).

 

There are many good 3D CAD packages freely available, many of us on this forum with the skills to drive them and many others (clearly!) with the required in depth knowledge of the prototypes.

 

Obviously some central coordination and decision making would be needed, and the limitations of the manufacturing process would have to be explained to those involved but it would hugely multiply the time and attention to detail that could be applied to a CAD model, with little extra cost to the manufacturer.

 

Thinks: It would need revision control of the CAD models and branching and merging of changes - which someone must have already done...

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a bad idea and does have some merit. I think the Festiniog single Fairlie had various people drawing various things from all over the world.

 

But the difficulty comes when trying to combine the various CAD models from different programs. Packages like Pro Engineer (the best), Solid Works, Solid Edge etc all have their own file types. The only way to transfer models from one package to another is through generic files types such as IGES, STL or STEP. The problem is when exporting from one software to another is that the feature creation process is lost. Unless you have synchronous technology and even then its a pain. You essentially end up with lots of surfaces or as we call it dumb data. Manipulating those surface can be very difficult and time consuming. The lower end software doesn't cope with CAD models from top end software very well and details can be lost. An extreme example would be a wheel looking great in top end software, but when imported into a lower end software it looks like a 50 pence piece.

 

Having said that I like your thinking. A crowd 3D modelled Model!

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent news, and not before time that the Mogul in particular is being brought up to modern standards. I know there have been a few not-so-subtle hints made in this thread about other manufacturers potential 2018 announcements but both of these classes have been prime targets for years now and so it’s not a huge surprise. Duplication would be a shame though so let’s hope someone has Manor CADs as a fallback...!

Edited by Adrock
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the RCTS work the change to the motion bar cross frame was made from 5384 onwards, i.e. part way through Lot 209 and even partway through the batch of 10 built in 1920.  This does sound a little odd and as yet I am unable to find photographic confirmation or indeed any sort of original source confirmatory evidence.

This photo purports to show 5384 and does indeed have the new-style motion plate.

 

http://www.davidheys...turner-5384.jpg

 

And here is one of 5380 showing the earlier style.

 

http://www.warwicksh...wr/gwrt1048.htm

 

5381 is the most distant loco in this lineup (purportedly) and also has the earlier plates. getting closer.

 

https://www.ebay.co....a0AAOSwjyhZ81Wd

 

That would certainly suggest 5384 was the first (or at least very nearly) the first to have the new motion planet. However as Miss P has already pointed out about, these photos all rely on notes for loco identification as I cannot confidently make out the numbers on the locos from those photos myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a good many viable locos still to produce, but they will never show up on wish lists; indeed, how could they when so many RTR buyers do not have an in-depth knowledge of railways.  It has been born out time and time again that RTR-buyers do not know what they want until a model is put in front of them.  As far back as I can remember, it has been the manufacturers who have set the pace, not buyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a marvelous idea!

There would be many advantages to any manufacturer from sourcing this kind of crowd support. Not least the ability to produce a model acceptable to the community.

Surely a common standard must exist for the interchange of data - how does one print a 3D model from a standard CAD? I understand the process uses a step file which must be convertible from the private CAD program formats. (or is it completely redrawn, however a redraw would seem to defeat the purpose to my mind?)

 

Some might say that it would be labour in vain,and indeed it would take a brave forward thinking company to accept this assistance, but it would demonstrates what could be achieved. It occurs to me that it would be a product in its own right, being a potentially valuable information source, saving much time in any companies production process. A golden opportunity for those who have the skills perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

There are a good many viable locos still to produce, but they will never show up on wish lists; indeed, how could they when so many RTR buyers do not have an in-depth knowledge of railways.  It has been born out time and time again that RTR-buyers do not know what they want until a model is put in front of them.  As far back as I can remember, it has been the manufacturers who have set the pace, not buyers.

I do like your thinking, Coach.

 

This will undoubtedly open the doors for a 26xx Aberdare, TVR A class. Rhymney 'R' class, TVR O4, 36xx (no, not the pannier), Large metro, not to mention the much-loved 'stella'.

 

We just need someone to set the pace now.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I do like your thinking, Coach.

 

This will undoubtedly open the doors for a 26xx Aberdare, TVR A class. Rhymney 'R' class, TVR O4, 36xx (no, not the pannier), Large metro, not to mention the much-loved 'stella'.

 

We just need someone to set the pace now.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

 

I'm in for an Aberdare, and an R and an 04 provided they all have the correct fittings for the right period of course ;). (or at least readily replaceable fittings)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I do like your thinking, Coach.

 

This will undoubtedly open the doors for a 26xx Aberdare, TVR A class. Rhymney 'R' class, TVR O4, 36xx (no, not the pannier), Large metro, not to mention the much-loved 'stella'.

 

We just need someone to set the pace now.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

 

An "in" on all of those for reasons of familiarity.Rhymney 39 stands out in the memory

  • Like 2
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...