OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[TheSignalEngineer]

We've had several years whinging about the state of the Airfix/Hornby Large Prairie and lack of a replacement for the Mainline/Bachmann Mogul. Now we are set for several months (years?) of moans about the replacements not being what I want as the handrail knobs are the post-1953 version or the spare lamp brackets are 6" too far forward. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Dapol decided to throw in the towel on 4mm and take up knitting.

 

(BTW they did get the lines right on the Class 122 with speed whiskers. Plenty of pictures in service around Birmingham c1958-60 with both the same width).

 

Now if I can get my tongue out of my cheek I'll get back to putting the handrails right on my 74xx conversion.

[Miss Prism]

Checking back to Dapol Digest, I’m not a regular reader, it’s clear Miss P’s comments have been read as “Richard” from Dapol has responded to them. We’ll need to wait and see how much they’re taken on board in the next iteration of the design.

 

My feeling is that the 'next iteration' will probably be the final product. The big unknown remains the transmission design.

[rembrow]

I'm surprised about the level of scepticism that's been posted about this Dapol announcement, in respect of Dapols ability to produce an accurate model, due to errors in the published CAD designs. The first CAD drawings, if that's what they are, are likely to be riddled with errors, as it's the Chinese designers first attempt at interpreting the research info from the UK. The trick now is for Dapol R&D, Richard Webster, to identify errors and detail these to the CAD designers for a revised set of drawings. I remember the first Kernow Warship CAD drawings that were published, failed to have the distinctive off centre scavenger fan grills, they were drawn central.

 

Having purchased a number of Dapol items this year (they fitted my era and area of layout), a second Class 73, two Class 121s, a Class 122 and a BR livery ex GWR railcar, I have to say that I have been extremely impressed with the quality of the overall appearance, external detail and interpretation of each of these models. There were issues with the first release of the GWR railcar CADS and I was amongst those who posted suggested changes to Dapol, which they corrected (they may have already known about the errors, but I received their thanks).

 

If there is concern about Dapol's experience in the steam outline market, they have already produced at least 2 steam outline models in 'oo' gauge, as commissions, the Beattie well tank (first versions) for Kernow Models, and the Sentinel upright boiler for Model Rail, as well as the soon to be released B4. I have every confidence that we will get accurate models of these two subjects.

[The Stationmaster]

My feeling is that the 'next iteration' will probably be the final product. The big unknown remains the transmission design.

 

Well if it is let's hope it is a pretty serious redesign above the footplate and that the basic proportions will be put right - although that will be quite a substantial job in CAD terms.

[Miss Prism]

The first CAD drawings, if that's what they are, are likely to be riddled with errors, as it's the Chinese designers first attempt at interpreting the research info from the UK. The trick now is for Dapol R&D, Richard Webster, to identify errors and detail these to the CAD designers for a revised set of drawings.

 

And how much extra on the product price would you be prepared to pay for that sequence of ineptitude?

[tomparryharry]

I'm sorry mate. I plainly fail to see why you would use the term 'ineptitude'.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[57xx]

Well if it is let's hope it is a pretty serious redesign above the footplate and that the basic proportions will be put right - although that will be quite a substantial job in CAD terms.

 

But a damn sight cheaper than retooling à la Oxford and their Dean Goods.

[Legend]

Sometimes ignorance is bliss

 

To me the Oxford Dean Goods looked like a Dean Goods

 

The Prairie and Mogul kinda looked like a Prairie and Mogul to me . Now I know my knowledge is limited and I applaud the efforts of people on here to get in touch with Dapol to make it right , after all if you're going to make it in first place, might as well make it right. But at the end of the day aren't these models going to be much better than what preceded them ?  Dapol have done well on 68 and Railcar at least , shouldn't we be encouraged by that?

[David Stannard]

@Ian

I’m not sure I wholly agree with you. We all have seen that when they put effor it, Hornby’s current high detailed, high spec models are excellent. However, I’d query, as with other retoolings, the depth of the market and how many customers will want to upgrade. Given they own an existing tooling, they may well seek to offer a cheap alternative to a new high spec loco from a competitor. As they did with the 14xx competing overtly on price. Equally we have seen that where Hornby have got to market first, eg King, 71, they don’t appear to have suffered. For the former in particular, many people took the view that good enough here and now was better than perfection T some point in the future. I’m afraid I didn’t follow the Class 71 comparisons. On the radial, if anything, it seemed to me that some customers waited before making an Oxford/Honrby comparison:

My point is that I don’t think that if Hornby we’re developing mogul/large prairie that Dapol’s announcement will have put them off. It may alter their marketing strategy and if they are not developing a model, make them think about how they price and market a reissue if the old tooling as a direct market comparison to Dapol. Would a Hornby old tooling sell at say £59.99? I think so.

David

I think it's a bit of a case of horses for courses, with the DJM 48xx it is available in limited quantities from one retailer and is pretty much a must have item for serious post 1930 Great Western modellers, the Hornby 14xx on the other hand is made for mass consumption and is most likely to be purchased for children or those that would like a small passenger engine for a home layout. It may have been a great little train back in the day when Airfix brought it out but these days its a rather dated model, I had purchased a Hornby one about 15 years ago and was going to convert it to a 48xx, to be frank though I was never happy with it as it was a bit of a dog runner. When the DJM version was announced I made a pre order for a 58xx as I had already purchased a Bachmann 64xx for Auto Tank working, I am so glad I purchased the DJM version as it is a beautiful loco with a high level of detail that runs well, also I don't have to worry about kitbashing an outdated model.

 

I am very happy that Dapol has announced the Large Prairie as well as the Mogul as I have a Hornby Prairie and two Mainline 43xx's, coincidentally one of them I renumbered as 6385 and I will be replacing it as well as the Hornby Prairie with the Dapol models, the other 43xx I will keep in working order. I have to agree with the sentiments of a number of people here in that Hornby has had the Large Praire in it's range for well over 10 years and hasn't really done much to improve on the original Airfix model, it sort of reminds me of when I was a kid in the 1970's and 1980's and Hornby and Lima were offering pretty basic models back then, if it wasn't for Airfix and Mainline entering the fray back then god forbid what would be on offer these days.

Edited January 11, 2018 by David Stannard

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I'm surprised about the level of scepticism that's been posted about this Dapol announcement, in respect of Dapols ability to produce an accurate model...

If there is concern about Dapol's experience in the steam outline market, they have already produced at least 2 steam outline models in 'oo' gauge, as commissions, the Beattie well tank (first versions) for Kernow Models, and the Sentinel upright boiler for Model Rail, as well as the soon to be released B4. I have every confidence that we will get accurate models of these two subjects.

Add the A4, as the steam model they have recently released on their own account. Now I don't know an owner of this item to be able to look it over, so have had to rely on photos. Deviates from prototype appearance around the cab in particular is my impression, so count me in as wary about Dapol. Because that's a well researched subject with an example on display and readily accessed...

 

I'll be making a decision for a friend who lives far away on whether the Prairie is a worthy model or not, and will trust the opinion from this site's GWR expertise when it comes to guiding that call.

[The Fatadder]

I'm surprised about the level of scepticism that's been posted about this Dapol announcement, in respect of Dapols ability to produce an accurate model, due to errors in the published CAD designs. The first CAD drawings, if that's what they are, are likely to be riddled with errors.

I think the level of scepticism is more than justified given how infrequently there seem to be major changes between a CAD drawing which is publicly released and the mode which follows. Espically when as is in this case the model is fundamentally flawed in a number of areas.

 

The good thing at least is that Richard Webster does seem to be listening, so hopefully this will be an exception to the norm

[The Stationmaster]

 

But a damn sight cheaper than retooling à la Oxford and their Dean Goods.

 

Re-doing the CAD will probably only cost a couple of thousand quid (in view of the amount of rework which is needed) plus whatever time/money has to be spent on researching the correct prototype information - all of which assumes that the cost will be passed on if it is accepted by the designer that he erred in the original CAD (some aren't too keen on admitting that sort of thing).

 

Retooling - as for instance with certain parts of Oxford's Dean Goods - costs big money so better to get things right, but especially the major proportions, at the pre-tooling stage.

[Edwardian]

I'm surprised about the level of scepticism that's been posted about this Dapol announcement, in respect of Dapols ability to produce an accurate model, due to errors in the published CAD designs. The first CAD drawings, if that's what they are, are likely to be riddled with errors, as it's the Chinese designers first attempt at interpreting the research info from the UK. The trick now is for Dapol R&D, Richard Webster, to identify errors and detail these to the CAD designers for a revised set of drawings. I remember the first Kernow Warship CAD drawings that were published, failed to have the distinctive off centre scavenger fan grills, they were drawn central.

 

Having purchased a number of Dapol items this year (they fitted my era and area of layout), a second Class 73, two Class 121s, a Class 122 and a BR livery ex GWR railcar, I have to say that I have been extremely impressed with the quality of the overall appearance, external detail and interpretation of each of these models. There were issues with the first release of the GWR railcar CADS and I was amongst those who posted suggested changes to Dapol, which they corrected (they may have already known about the errors, but I received their thanks).

 

If there is concern about Dapol's experience in the steam outline market, they have already produced at least 2 steam outline models in 'oo' gauge, as commissions, the Beattie well tank (first versions) for Kernow Models, and the Sentinel upright boiler for Model Rail, as well as the soon to be released B4. I have every confidence that we will get accurate models of these two subjects.

 

I would rather hope that these two will be more accurate than previous models.  I really would not hold the B4 up as setting the standard here.

 

Experience suggests that manufacturers are prepared to listen at the CAD stage, but become much more resistant to changes once the tooling has been made.  This is regrettable, where inaccuracies remain, but understandable due to the cost implications. The worst of all worlds is where the price to the consumer goes up because of new tooling, but errors remain (or new ones are created!), so we then get a relatively expensive, but significantly inaccurate model.  There is an example of this that ought to be far better known, indeed, the models deserve notoriety, but I simple dare not mention them by name. Not Dapol's car-crash, I hasten to add.

 

So, I think that those with sufficient expertise on the subject of these two GW locos ought to be filling the designer's mailbox with as much evidence as possible of how the locomotives should appear.  That way, hopefully, by the time the EPs emerge, the feedback will be mainly positive.  

[Edwardian]

I think it's a bit of a case of horses for courses, with the DJM 48xx it is available in limited quantities from one retailer and is pretty much a must have item for serious post 1930 Great Western modellers,

 

Post 1939, would, I think, be more accurate.

[coachmann]

I know one particular GWR loco came in for some flack, but if it looks like a ********, smells like a ********, it's a ********. And what a smooth runner.

 

But I realise there is the perpetual conflict between hobbyists who don't mind doing a bit for themselves and the "Why should I" others....  

 

 

Other members of the over-height splashers club, though now't was said...

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by coachmann

[57xx]

Re-doing the CAD will probably only cost a couple of thousand quid (in view of the amount of rework which is needed) plus whatever time/money has to be spent on researching the correct prototype information - all of which assumes that the cost will be passed on if it is accepted by the designer that he erred in the original CAD (some aren't too keen on admitting that sort of thing).

 

Retooling - as for instance with certain parts of Oxford's Dean Goods - costs big money so better to get things right, but especially the major proportions, at the pre-tooling stage.

 

Which exactly what I said, only more long winded.

[sidmouth]

Given that preserved examples can be laser measured why should a CAD be so far adrift from the reality of the engine ? 

 

I get that compromise is always going to be needed in a model and to me if it looks right and more importantly runs well then I am a lot happier 

[tomparryharry]

In a word, preservation. Things start going awry once these little gremlins get in. "Grandad said the bunker dimension is X" Aunt Flo (who sold the eggs to A shop, btw) said the dimension is Y. Then, to cap it all, it gets measured by a man with a laser. It must be accurate. The laser measures the fault accurately, and so the fokelore continues.

 

I can honestly recount a 20 year old argument, where perso s A&B have argued long & hard over the bunker profile of a Western locomotive. Funny thing is, I think they're are both wrong....

 

Happy scanning, everyone!

 

Ian.

[The Stationmaster]

Given that preserved examples can be laser measured why should a CAD be so far adrift from the reality of the engine ? 

 

I get that compromise is always going to be needed in a model and to me if it looks right and more importantly runs well then I am a lot happier 

 

Looks like someone was cutting corners to save time.  In reality there are some reasonably accurate drawings about (and probably some accurate ones for those who bother to look) and the real engines are there in sufficient numbers to check measure and photograph without even lashing out several £s thousands on laser scanning.  Even a look at photos would have indicated there was something wrong with the proportions above the footplate and quite how the wrong cab roof was used is something which is difficult to understand and again suggests either sloppy research or a lack of any sort of research.

 

Incidentally some Chinese designers are quite capable of doing research on the 'net for details on engines - surprisingly so sometimes - and it's quite possible that in this case any such research wasn't led by a sufficiently clear specification.  Again I do wonder if haste was the key factor with the prairie and possibly too much reliance was placed on work already dine for the mogul?

[The Johnster]

In a word, preservation. Things start going awry once these little gremlins get in. "Grandad said the bunker dimension is X" Aunt Flo (who sold the eggs to A shop, btw) said the dimension is Y. Then, to cap it all, it gets measured by a man with a laser. It must be accurate. The laser measures the fault accurately, and so the fokelore continues.

 

I can honestly recount a 20 year old argument, where perso s A&B have argued long & hard over the bunker profile of a Western locomotive. Funny thing is, I think they're are both wrong....

 

Happy scanning, everyone!

 

Ian.

 

They are definitely both wrong if they think there's a bunker profile on a Western.

 

Coat?

[The Johnster]

Looks like someone was cutting corners to save time.  In reality there are some reasonably accurate drawings about (and probably some accurate ones for those who bother to look) and the real engines are there in sufficient numbers to check measure and photograph without even lashing out several £s thousands on laser scanning.  Even a look at photos would have indicated there was something wrong with the proportions above the footplate and quite how the wrong cab roof was used is something which is difficult to understand and again suggests either sloppy research or a lack of any sort of research.

 

Incidentally some Chinese designers are quite capable of doing research on the 'net for details on engines - surprisingly so sometimes - and it's quite possible that in this case any such research wasn't led by a sufficiently clear specification.  Again I do wonder if haste was the key factor with the prairie and possibly too much reliance was placed on work already dine for the mogul?

 

You are probably right, Mike.  But I have some sympathy for RTR researchers; locos built to slightly different dimensions than the blueprint held in the NRM, locos slightly altered with each overhaul, design modifications such as bunker lamp recesses and new buffers, locos rebuilt from earlier ones by Collett; the large prairies are a minefield.  One might expect 6106 to be reasonably correct (for 1965 at least), having never lost parts in a scrapyard and potentially had them replaced incorrectly by preservationists, and there is little visual difference between a 61xx and a 5101, depending on period...  I am not conversant with the detail differences between a large prairie and a 43xx below the footplate, but it seems not unreasonable for Dap to use a standardised chassis for both models; it'll be good enough for me, but some of the upperworks in the CAD look a bit wonky to even my low standards!

 

I have a general plan at some time in the future to have a go at 3100, Tondu's large large prairie, as a kit bash using my old Airfix chassis block and motion with smaller driving wheels and a no.4 boiler from a CoT kit.  I don't know why I have shared this information, but feel somehow better now I have admitted to this potential crime against scale modelling...

[tomparryharry]

They are definitely both wrong if they think there's a bunker profile on a Western.

 

Coat?

Western steam locomotive, dontcya know? You children! Running around with D10xx numbers! Never a problem in my day! Harrumph! Harumph! Bring back the florin!

[Coach bogie]

Looks like someone was cutting corners to save time.  In reality there are some reasonably accurate drawings about (and probably some accurate ones for those who bother to look) and the real engines are there in sufficient numbers to check measure and photograph without even lashing out several £s thousands on laser scanning.  Even a look at photos would have indicated there was something wrong with the proportions above the footplate and quite how the wrong cab roof was used is something which is difficult to understand and again suggests either sloppy research or a lack of any sort of research.

 

Incidentally some Chinese designers are quite capable of doing research on the 'net for details on engines - surprisingly so sometimes - and it's quite possible that in this case any such research wasn't led by a sufficiently clear specification.  Again I do wonder if haste was the key factor with the prairie and possibly too much reliance was placed on work already dine for the mogul?

Totally agree. Kit designers have mangaed to get the big prairie right for over 50 years so the data is out there!

 

If they invested in a set of Brassmaster/Finney etches then a better understanding of the design would be achieved.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[The Johnster]

Totally agree. Kit designers have mangaed to get the big prairie right for over 50 years so the data is out there!

 

If they invested in a set of Brassmaster/Finney etches then a better understanding of the design would be achieved.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

I think even the Airfix/Dapol/Kitmaster plastic kit is an improvement on the CAD here!

[The Johnster]

Western steam locomotive, dontcya know? You children! Running around with D10xx numbers! Never a problem in my day! Harrumph! Harumph! Bring back the florin!

 

 

And the tanner!  You could justifiably argue that the florin is still in existence as the 10p coin.  And ha'pennies with ships on them!

And 12 sided (?) thrupences!