OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[frobisher]

Apart from the Scot and loco-driven developments of the existing 4F and 2P, Hornby haven't replaced any of their "inherited" models with newly-tooled  versions. *

* EDIT: I forgot the Class 56.

And the 67, HST, 87...

[Miss Prism]

It took me a little while looking at Dapol's gaudy toytown graphic to realise why the Prairie looked so utterly wrong. Then the penny dropped. Dapol has pitched the Prairie's no 2 boiler the same as the pitch height of the Mogul's no 4 boiler. Every height elevation is affected.

 

I hesitate to comment on whether the product has been announced in haste to head others off at the pass, but it does not excuse not consulting a drawing before design commenced. Or asking someone.

 

I have a long list of other comments, but the Prairie will require a complete redraw.

 

Still, chin up, tomorrow is a brand new day.

[coachmann]

 

It took me a little while looking at Dapol's gaudy toytown graphic to realise why the Prairie looked so utterly wrong. Then the penny dropped. Dapol has pitched the Prairie's no 2 boiler the same as the pitch height of the Mogul's no 4 boiler. Every height elevation is affected.

 

I hesitate to comment on whether the product has been announced in haste to head others off at the pass, but it does not excuse not consulting a drawing before design commenced. Or asking someone.

 

I have a long list of other comments, but the Prairie will require a complete redraw.

 

Still, chin up, tomorrow is a brand new day.

 

The CAD's and list of proposed liveries look to me hurriedly knocked up for social media. If their objective was to get people talking about Dapol, then it has clearly worked. Everyone is now primed ready for the next announcement...  

Edited December 18, 2017 by coachmann

[Dunsignalling]

And the 67, HST, 87...

Previous post edited to clarify.

 

John

[woodenhead]

We're all happily assuming that Bachmann are doing a Mogul and Hornby the Prairie and this interjection by Dapol is somehow a spoiler.

 

But no-one has mentioned that another manufacturer of OO steam and diesel also has up to date CADs for both of these models in O - Heljan.

 

What if this was a shot across Heljan's bows by Dapol as they are both in competition in 7mm especially now Dapol have begun marketing their Mk1s too.

[Metr0Land]

The CAD's and list of proposed liveries look to me hurriedly knocked up for social media. If their objective was to get people talking about Dapol, then it has clearly worked. Everyone is now primed ready for the next announcement...  

 

I wondered the same, thinking it might just be a repeat of the way Hornby went about the Crosti 9F.

 

Model announced - initial pics didn't look quite right in some aspects but then we mostly drew the conclusion if was a photoshop jobbie on a normal 9F.  Then the EP came along and the front pony truck looked hideous but we drew the conclusion it was something from a normal 9F plonked on the front for the time being.

 

When the model arrived it was generally well received, it's just that H hadn't helped themselves with the more critical modellers in that they didn't clearly explain what we were seeing, and had to work it out for ourselves.

[tomparryharry]

As we all probably know CAD in this instance, means 'computer aided drawing (computer aided design?)' There is no scale as such, to work against.  The inclusion of the fireman's' shovel got me thinking 'Airfix'. It did take me a while to realise it was a really a press release. Coach's view, that  to get some froth going is pretty much spot-on.

 

Ian.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

We're all happily assuming that Bachmann are doing a Mogul and Hornby the Prairie and this interjection by Dapol is somehow a spoiler.

 

But no-one has mentioned that another manufacturer of OO steam and diesel also has up to date CADs for both of these models in O - Heljan...

 And that's not the limit of the potential competition either. There's a significant commissioning outfit focussed on GWR area product, and in addition to the above named four companies a further ten or thereabouts active manufacturers and commissioners bidding for the OO purchaser's loot! Placing a marker on two popular GWR classes which currently have less than stellar models might simply be intended as notice: not least to flush out other's intentions (or even a running EP!) before the expense of cutting metal commences. Sensible when the market is probably only large enough to deliver a sound commercial return if the model is offered unopposed.

[The Johnster]

Given they've just retooled their Duchess, I don't think you can assume that they won't retool even older models.

 

Which is why I qualified my assumption with 'possibly'.  It's not exactly like for like, as the Duchess is one of the flagship models, a front line pacific, liable to attract a lot more attention and probable sales than a run of the mill prairie not even that suitable for branch line modelling, but I accept your point!

[woodenhead]

 And that's not the limit of the potential competition either. There's a significant commissioning outfit focussed on GWR area product, and in addition to the above named four companies a further ten or thereabouts active manufacturers and commissioners bidding for the OO purchaser's loot! Placing a marker on two popular GWR classes which currently have less than stellar models might simply be intended as notice: not least to flush out other's intentions (or even a running EP!) before the expense of cutting metal commences. Sensible when the market is probably only large enough to deliver a sound commercial return if the model is offered unopposed.

Apart from maybe the 08/7/47/66 market I don't think there are any models that could now stand more than one model in development.

Edited December 18, 2017 by woodenhead

[The Johnster]

 

It took me a little while looking at Dapol's gaudy toytown graphic to realise why the Prairie looked so utterly wrong. Then the penny dropped. Dapol has pitched the Prairie's no 2 boiler the same as the pitch height of the Mogul's no 4 boiler. Every height elevation is affected.

 

I hesitate to comment on whether the product has been announced in haste to head others off at the pass, but it does not excuse not consulting a drawing before design commenced. Or asking someone.

 

I have a long list of other comments, but the Prairie will require a complete redraw.

 

Still, chin up, tomorrow is a brand new day.

 

 

 

That explains why my initial impression of the side elevation was that the driving wheels were too small and a Collett 31xx was being attempted (would have suited me, as Tondu had one), so why did the boiler 'look' wrong; this lasted for about half a second before I realised what I was looking at, but not what was 'not quite right' about it; thank you Ms P!  I then went on to worry about the lack of handrails on the bunker sides and back and the sliding shutter, assuming the thing was intended to represent an early Churchward version.

 

GW large prairies are a confusing bunch, the situation not helped by the same class denomination being given to different but broadly similar locos over time.  There is variety of boilers, driving wheel sizes, cylinders, steam pipes outside or in, top feeds on early locos, sliding shutters, bunker steps and handrails, buffers, spectacle plates, and probably more that I've forgotten about for now.  Also some classes had higher pressure boilers, but this is not externally visible and irrelevant to the appearance of a model driven by an electric motor...  thus, there are also different classes that look externally identical.  They are the classic 'all GW locos look the same' example, and even dyed in the wool GW types old enough to remember some of them like me have to stop and think sometimes!  Off the top of my head I think there were 6 basic classes not including prototypes; Churchward 31xx and 3150, then, and not in order of introduction, Collett 31xx, 5101, 61xx and 81xx, each with detail variations over time and some being rebuilds of others with variable amounts of original features retained; a researchers nightmare (or life's work)!

 

One assumes that the final product will not look exactly like this, which is after all only an early CAD to illustrate what is intended.

 

Fingers crossed, everyone!!! 

[time for a brew]

I am intrigued by the position taken by many posters that Dapol have received leaked information from either Bachmann, Hornby or Heljan. Perhaps this leak could also apply to any of the independents as well since this is scuch a long awaited and important model anyone not working on it could be considered negligent perhaps?

 

Accepting the above as facts (and who would I be to disagree) I shall explain the reasons for my intrigue.

Is it being inferred that Dapol are incapable of independent creative thought? (they did make the class 73    which was creative on many fronts). In support, I do agree that the published information has every suggestion of being knocked up within a day or two and rushed out with high expectations, not least the incongruities of the announced dates and the cut and paste nature of the Prairie (from our more knowledgeable members) prove this to be a case of corporate marking running the asylum.Are the membership collectively suggesting that Dapol require permission (from whom?) to produce a model? 

Additionally, should the supposed gazumping work and no-one else makes an announcement is this then proof positive that Dapol have been successful in marking their territory and another poor model is created? Or (perhaps an unbelievable situation) no-one else was going to announce it anyway.

 

Since there is a long list of errors with the Dapol models (thank you Miss P.) I assume those companies advanced in producing a superior model would simply continue with a self-satisfied grin.

[Ian Hargrave]

 And that's not the limit of the potential competition either. There's a significant commissioning outfit focussed on GWR area product, and in addition to the above named four companies a further ten or thereabouts active manufacturers and commissioners bidding for the OO purchaser's loot! Placing a marker on two popular GWR classes which currently have less than stellar models might simply be intended as notice: not least to flush out other's intentions (or even a running EP!) before the expense of cutting metal commences. Sensible when the market is probably only large enough to deliver a sound commercial return if the model is offered unopposed.

 

An interesting observation which brings to mind a vision of sending in the gun dogs to flush out the game.....or perhaps of Dapol as a "stalking horse"   Intriguing......the perfect post Dickensian Christmas mystery.Last episode January 8th ?

[Ian Hargrave]

Apart from maybe the 08/7/47/66 market I don't think there are any models that could now stand more than one model in development.

 Now there's an assumption..not saying I disagree but it did nor deter Oxford Rail and Hornby going head to head with the Adams Radial not such a long time ago and both have had second runs delivered since.Of course what we don't know is their respective profitability.

[Dunsignalling]

I am intrigued by the position taken by many posters that Dapol have received leaked information from either Bachmann, Hornby or Heljan. Perhaps this leak could also apply to any of the independents as well since this is scuch a long awaited and important model anyone not working on it could be considered negligent perhaps?

 

Accepting the above as facts (and who would I be to disagree) I shall explain the reasons for my intrigue.

Is it being inferred that Dapol are incapable of independent creative thought? (they did make the class 73    which was creative on many fronts). In support, I do agree that the published information has every suggestion of being knocked up within a day or two and rushed out with high expectations, not least the incongruities of the announced dates and the cut and paste nature of the Prairie (from our more knowledgeable members) prove this to be a case of corporate marking running the asylum.Are the membership collectively suggesting that Dapol require permission (from whom?) to produce a model? 

Additionally, should the supposed gazumping work and no-one else makes an announcement is this then proof positive that Dapol have been successful in marking their territory and another poor model is created?

 

Or (perhaps an unbelievable situation) no-one else was going to announce it anyway.

 

Since there is a long list of errors with the Dapol models (thank you Miss P.) I assume those companies advanced in producing a superior model would simply continue with a self-satisfied grin.

That's a view to which I incline even more now than I did initially.

 

The CAD images look like very early iterations, before correction of glaring discrepancies of the kind outlined by Miss Prism, which Dapol will undoubtedly notice for themselves, even if they haven't slipped them in deliberately to stimulate comment....... 

 

If the announcement leads to one or more other parties confirming plans for duplication before Dapol have committed themselves to cutting metal, it will have served its purpose. 

 

My bet for such a counter announcement, if one does emerge, is on Heljan. They have already done the work for 7mm scale and the other two obvious candidates have shown decades of indifference to any idea of producing models of these prototypes to modern standards. 

 

John

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[coachmann]

My experience of CAD's from working with a chap who knows what he is doing is, you dont go and drop large at the outset. You create an accurate general outline and it is in the detail stages that that mistakes tend to creep in until spotted.

[gwrrob]

Miss Prism of this parish has been over to the Dapol Digest thread and gave them a list of detail corrections to get them started on. It's a rather long list. Hopefully if everyone works together on this we might get the quality model we yearn.

[Ian Hargrave]

Miss Prism of this parish has been over to the Dapol Digest thread and gave them a list of detail corrections to get them started on. It's a rather long list. Hopefully if everyone works together on this we might get the quality model we yearn.

This is how it should be....constructive dialogue.I wonder how they will respond.Postively and not defensively I hope.Well done Miss P.

[time for a brew]

Miss Prism of this parish has been over to the Dapol Digest thread and gave them a list of detail corrections to get them started on. It's a rather long list. Hopefully if everyone works together on this we might get the quality model we yearn.

I feel that members contributions may need to be firmly placed and that it will be a one way information flow for little acknowledgement. but at least if the model is a success those members who have made it so will have the grateful thanks of the remainder of us and we have this thread to record those who will be the true 'designers' of the model.

 

When I first read this forum, I thought Dapol appeared unfairly represented. However, since then, to my eyes, the flying banana the class 121 and their second attempt at the class 68 have both contained errors serious enough for me to place my purchase on hold.

It seems a company seemingly run by accountancy and marketing graduates is attempting to repeatedly operate without any input from any person whom is modeler or enthusiast and that the errors and omissions are a consequence of this approach. When the creative design, specification and QC is performed overseas to a budget and a basic set of photographs even more so.

 

It seems Dapol thought they were being clever mentioning their use of original drawings, but have only achieved a woeful display of actual practical modelling knowledge.

 

I think at this point, since I have nothing practical to add I shall fall silent as I do not wish to become further disappointed and irascible, which is not in my nature.

This is how it should be....constructive dialogue.I wonder how they will respond.Postively and not defensively I hope.Well done Miss P.

I just viewed this post, I agree. Well done to all who have the tenacity and a thorough understanding of the subject!

Edited December 18, 2017 by time for a brew

[Roy Langridge]

I feel that members contributions may need to be firmly placed and that it will be a one way information flow for little acknowledgement. but at least if the model is a success those members who have made it so will have the grateful thanks of the remainder of us and we have this thread to record those who will be the true 'designers' of the model.

 

When I first read this forum, I thought Dapol appeared unfairly represented. However, since then, to my eyes, the flying banana the class 121 and their second attempt at the class 68 have both contained errors serious enough for me to place my purchase on hold.

It seems a company seemingly run by accountancy and marketing graduates is attempting to repeatedly operate without any input from any person whom is modeler or enthusiast and that the errors and omissions are a consequence of this approach. When the creative design, specification and QC is performed overseas to a budget and a basic set of photographs even more so.

 

It seems Dapol thought they were being clever mentioning their use of original drawings, but have only achieved a woeful display of actual practical modelling knowledge.

 

I think at this point, since I have nothing practical to add I shall fall silent as I do not wish to become further disappointed and irascible, which is not in my nature.

 

I just viewed this post, I agree. Well done to all who have the tenacity and a thorough understanding of the subject!

And there I was thinking Dapol had actually been very good with their recent response to problems and their communications. The latter not through this forum as a result of somewhat vindictive and deceitful posts.

 

For me, my three 68s, one 122 and three 52s are brilliant. The 73 is good as is the 22 although in both cases the blue is a bit off, but sorted with weathering.

 

 

What do you see as serious errors on the second batch of 68s?

 

Roy

Edited December 18, 2017 by Roy Langridge

[time for a brew]

For me, my three 68s, one 122 and three 52s are brilliant. The 73 is good as is the 22 although in both cases the blue is a bit off, but sorted with weathering.

 

 

What do you see as serious errors on the second batch of 68s?

 

Roy

 

I noted that "for me" they were serious errors, others of course feel differently or have not noticed/been lucky etc. The class 68 error is commented by myself and others here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/119978-dapols-new-class-68-locomotives/page-71&do=findComment&comment=2956184 and is an example demonstrating that a full review and observance of customer feedback was not performed. I believe Miss Prism is also experiencing similar challenges with the O gauge 14xx?

 

Every person of course has differing viewpoints and standards. Dapol as the importer/commisioners are measured by the increments in which they seize opportunities for improve tangible product, rather than simply promising to improve. 

The affirmative action being taken by forum members to assist in correcting the drawings is a very positive occurrence. One can only hope that Dapol will take heed as the alternative is that they follow the well ploughed furrow.

[Roy Langridge]

I noted that "for me" they were serious errors, others of course feel differently or have not noticed/been lucky etc. The class 68 error is commented by myself and others here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/119978-dapols-new-class-68-locomotives/page-71&do=findComment&comment=2956184 and is an example demonstrating that a full review and observance of customer feedback was not performed. I believe Miss Prism is also experiencing similar challenges with the O gauge 14xx?

 

Every person of course has differing viewpoints and standards. Dapol as the importer/commisioners are measured by the increments in which they seize opportunities for improve tangible product, rather than simply promising to improve. 

The affirmative action being taken by forum members to assist in correcting the drawings is a very positive occurrence. One can only hope that Dapol will take heed as the alternative is that they follow the well ploughed furrow.

 

I am sorry but that is the sort of comment that led to Dapol no longer communicating through this forum. Your "serious error" with the second batch of Class 68s is a tiny logo, less than 2mm across that could easily be corrected? For pity's sake, get some perspective.

 

Yes you are entitled to your opinion, but don't slag off a company that is trying hard over something so trivial. Look at the improvements that they have brought about in the second batch - be objective so they can be "measured by the increments in which they seize opportunities for improve tangible product," that you raise.

 

Roy

[adb968008]

I thought the perceived wisdom was that the 'mould' for the Airfix 31xxx 'got broke'.  But was perhaps just a naughty rumour?

 

Ray

 

They probably just didn't need it.

After all they have the Triang, Airfix and Lima ones, as well as their own new tooling.

All of them were dated / had their issues and would need to be upgraded, hence my assumption would be the decision at the time to make an all new one is probably an attractive proposition.

 

The railroad upgrade was a surprise, but I guess the market for replacing Lima Chassis with a new cheap alternative would be attractive as a sale, though as they reach £100 I think that market will lose it's lustre.

 

anyways we are a long way from a Prarie now.

Edited December 19, 2017 by adb968008

[adb968008]

 I'd not worry on that front overmuch. The old Bachmann pony truck design on split chassis models was not very refined at all, but it is a 'from thirty years past' concept and design has moved on. If the Dapol designer looks at current Bachmann leading pony trucks - and by heck Bachmann have a lot of models with leading pony trucks - the very simple flat spring bearing on a light truck is self recommending, very simple with few components, quick to assemble, reliable in service.

 

 

 

A minor fyi, but those front Pony wheels on those Mainline/Bachmann 43xx were also used on the Manor, (Replica Modified Hall).. and also the Jubilee, Scot and Patriot possibly the Std 4MT and B1 too - Ive not checked those yet

 

useful if your looking for spares for any of the above.... bit of an all purpose wheel back in the days when 1mm wasnt important.

Edited December 19, 2017 by adb968008

[tomparryharry]

Hello Folks,

 

May I respectfully draw your attention to post #101 of this thread.

 

I hope we will pursue a course of détente here.

 

Naturally, the onus remains with the producer to (hopefully) strive to deliver a first-rate product, such as we will still want to buy. Failing that, I'd guess that the money stays in the  wallet, until something better comes along. I'd hope that the producer is smart enough to recognise the implications.

 

Alienation won't normally work in this situation, either. Sometimes, it's the 'unlikely candidate' that provides the solution. It's far easier to lead, than to push.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.