Jump to content
 

Rails of Sheffield/Dapol/NRM Announce OO gauge Stroudley A1/A1X


MGR Hooper!
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
21 hours ago, sjrixon said:

Hope it goes well! I'm very tempted by a Southern one.... :)

 I'm for a picnic on Boxhill.:)

 

Why am I deciding on this ? As Oliver says,it's a question of pedigree.Rails enhanced their reputation by producing an exquisite Dyno car last year and I have no reason to doubt that this will not once more be the case with their Dapol commission.Anyone who has seen the O gauge version on Rails website...not the unfortunate example on Hattons btw......will see that Dapol have cut the mustard on this prototype.Add to this their success with the diminutive B4 and its phenomenal power train then for me the omens are good

 

 

The Hornby model does not convince me in one area alone.To my judgement....entirely subjective and a conclusion reached only by viewing online images...it does not convince below the running plate.I like neither wheel rims which appear too large nor the coupling rods.Sorry but that's just my decision.If it convinces others well that's fine.

 

As for the finer details and respective authenticity of each model,I am,as others here are,indebted to our resident academic guru/soothsayer who appears to be on the cusp of a PhD thesis on Stroudley's A1X:clapping:

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 I'm for a picnic on Boxhill.

 

The Hornby model does not convince me in one area alone.To my judgement....entirely subjective and a conclusion reached only by viewing online images...it does not convince below the running plate.I like neither wheel rims which appear too large nor the coupling rods.Sorry but that's just my decision.If it convinces others well that's fine.

 

A new NRM offer "Book your picnic on Boxhill today..."?

 

Personally, the bits below the running plate like the flanges, wheel nuts and couplings, I will generally accept being out of proportion as I know these need to be functional but what really kills it for me on Hornby's are those buffers!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, below the running plate Hornby's Terrier looks a little ' Railroad '.

What is more the wheels are plastic and appear translucent on the Stroudley IEG version.

 

I hope Rails have modelled the tank top recess. On the very basic moulding  displayed at Warley,

the tank tops were also flush. Fingers crossed as I have a Rails one on order.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, trevor7598 said:

 

I hope Rails have modelled the tank top recess. On the very basic moulding  displayed at Warley,

the tank tops were also flush. Fingers crossed as I have a Rails one on order.

The picture ive seen of the terrier shows a clear recess in the top of the tanks.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Pre Grouping fan said:

 

The picture ive seen of the terrier shows a clear recess in the top of the tanks.

 

I have to say, that's what I thought I was seeing; I think you can discern the crescent-shaped cut-out for the tank fillers, just like the real thing!

 

Having got this right on the O Gauge version, I cannot see Dapol designing it out of the OO Gauge version. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I have to say, that's what I thought I was seeing; I think you can discern the crescent-shaped cut-out for the tank fillers, just like the real thing!

 

Having got this right on the O Gauge version, I cannot see Dapol designing it out of the OO Gauge version. 

I have not seen Dapols O gauge Terrier close up, so that's reassuring.

Really looking forward to mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Garethp8873 said:

Purchased Stroudley and His Terriers at the SVR Spring Gala on Friday from the GWR 813 Fund stand... a very good read and will certainly help me with these Terriers :)

 

Excellent buy.  Many pictures covering the whole of the class.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, some news at last!

 

I do bear in mind that these are Engineering Prototypes and livery samples only.  I acknowledged this in the case of the Hornby samples when photographs were posted and, indeed, we have seen some changes in the production models.  As these are EPs, there could yet be changes, and I would hope that Rails and Dapol, in the interests of securing that pedigree status, will be open to constructive feedback at this point, though the press release suggests that Rails and Dapol are already aware of the need for some corrections.

 

From what I’ve seen in the past, samples tend to have that ‘thrown about in the air’ look, with British Leyland standards of panel fit, which you won’t see on the production version.  Even so, the impression I have is of great detail and refinement.

 

General features

 

Looking over the three samples there are some noticeable features that are common to all three. So, perhaps that is the place to start.

 

Above the footplate there is one feature that I am delighted to see.  Dapol have designed the model to have a single-piece boiler barrel. Hornby’s is a two-piece, with, I guess, a plastic upper portion and a metal lower portion. I can see why manufacturers do this, but it is never a wholly satisfactory solution, and the join is quite obvious in some cases.  Dapol is surely to be congratulated for adopting a design that avoids this; we get a lovely unblemished curve right under the boiler and it’s particularly important in coloured liveries, where a join would have been particularly prominent.  

 

The models look very strong under the valance. The coupling rods are clearly in two parts, like the prototype and look like the real thing. The crank-pin bosses are far closer to the prototype than those of its rival and look prototypical.  

 

Where left unpainted, coupling rods should be a dull, oily steel and, as such, offer a contrast with black-painted wheels.  I think this is captured very well on the BR and Bodiam samples.  

 

I am struck by the fineness of the wing-plates and guard irons on the A1s.  These are either very finely rendered injection parts or etched.  I am pleased to see that Dapol’s guard irons look to be  the correct shape and are nicely thin.

 

Though obviously I have no measurements, Dapol’s splashers look to be to scale and the Dapol splasher sandbox gives a more prototypical shape. These are impressions, not established facts, but I feel that from Dapol we have something very persuasive when its EP is compared to pictures of the real thing.

 

It very much looks like the cab windows are individually glazed, avoiding the large, obvious, Hornby inserts that cover the cab rear of its models.

 

Turning to the cab door handrails, these look very fine work; noticeably finer and more to scale than those on its rival.   

 

It looks like we have a nicely turned brass whistle, and the boiler mounted clack valves look to have been made in brass too. 

 

I am relieved to see confirmation that, like Bachmann (on its superb E4), Dapol has understood and replicated the recessed tank-top formed by the tank cladding. Subtle, but important, especially in the Terrier, where the smallness of the engine makes this visible even from platform height on the prototype and which results in a noticeable crescent-shaped cut-out where the curved lip of the cladding passes round the tank-fillers and steam exhaust dome.  The crescent-shaped cut outs are something you cannot properly represent if you model the tank-top flush.  The same is true of the blanking plate where the steam exhaust done has been removed.  I am greatly relieved to see that, as hoped, Dapol has correctly captured all these aspects of the tank-top features.

 

The construction of the Stroudley buffers seems to have been understood and correctly translated by the designer. Properly represented is the raised section of the buffer beam and the way the footplate is recessed to accommodate this. Hornby has simply tacked its buffers on to front of the buffer beam in a most unrealistic fashion; even the original OO Dapol tooling from 1989 got that right.  

 

Overall, for me, these capture the prototype extremely well and with finesse.  

 

A1X BR Lined Black Late Crest No.32661

 

I am glad to see that the Rails/Dapol A1X tooling provides for the correct number (12) of the prominent cladding nuts to the tank side.   

 

Looking at the livery, the tank-side lining seems to be correctly positioned, resting right against those cladding nuts. 

 

It has the details one would expect from a late condition A1X, such as the coupling hook plate on the buffer beam (correctly omitted from the A1, but present on all versions of the 7mm model).  Also correct is the vacuum exhaust pipe (leading from the cab front sheet on the left side of the boiler), the blanked coal rails, the removal of the steam exhaust domes, and the snap-head rivets to the smokebox wrapper. Incorrect are the snap-head rivets on the smokebox front.  Unusually, this remained flush. Tank front lubricators suit the condition modelled, but oddly I cannot discern these on pictures of the prototype. As I have said, a number of times, in the context of the Hornby model, manufacturers cannot reasonably expected to tool for every rare or unique combination of features found among the class. What is more important is that the general features common to A1 and A1X variants are captured and correctly rendered.  I have no concerns here with Dapol’s tooling.

 

All looks nicely done.  Nice to see is the recess where the condensing pipes have been removed, correct for this loco in this condition.  You can also see the blanking plate on the top of the tanks where the forward steam exhaust domes had been mounted.  Of course, you cannot correctly represent this raised feature that, nevertheless, sits below the tank cladding unless you have made the tank-top recessed, like the prototype.

 

The rear tool box is of the shorter type used later. The earlier, longer ones seem to have been wedged behind the buffers. I don’t know when and why they were shortened, but it may date from the raising of the buffers when the conversions to motor-train working took place.

 

Which causes me to look at the buffers. They definitely look to me to be raised a little higher than those on the A1s depicted. The A1s both pre-date the conversion to motor train working, at which point the buffers were raised.  The raised buffers are entirely correct for this model, and I think catering for this modification shows some very impressive attention to detail.

 

There is one obvious horror, the bunker coal rails, which are very wrong, because the rails have been misinterpreted as grooves.  A salutary reminder of what can go wrong in the journey between the floor of the NRM and the floor of a Chinese factory.  However, I would put money on this being something amended on the production model.  We are told that Rails/Dapol are aware of the necessary amendments.   

 

The level of detailed variation suggests to me immediately that we are looking at a more comprehensive the tooling suite to bring that ‘pedigree’ standard to numerous variations.  While the current selections are generally well matched, Hornby risk much more approximate matches between prototype and available tooling by electing to have a more limited suite. Dapol seems to have given itself the means to represent more variants more closely.

 

The A1 in general

 

This is very, very encouraging.

 

Just as the A1X has the correct number of cladding nuts to the tank-side (12), the two A1s have the correct number for them (8).  This is a first for an RTR Terrier tooling suite, and I am really pleased to see it.  

 

I am struck by the relative refinement of the front end. This brings home the degree of refinement Dapol has achieved:

 

·         The fineness of the wing-plate – this looks finer and much closer to scale than the Hornby version

·         The cylinder lubricators on the wing-plate, again, finer and more accurate than the protuberance Hornby has shown

·         The guard irons – the correct shape and profile and very fine (etched?) – the wrongly-shaped, thickly-moulded Hornby version cannot compare.

·         I notice that both A1s represent the beading that frames the cab-side cut-out and terminates at the tops of the hand rails correctly, as polished steel. 

 

The one beef I have is the inclusion of the short lamp irons integral to the front buffers. This is wrong.  They should be included on the rear buffers, and I see that they are, but at the front the lower, outer, lamp irons are those mounted on the wing-plates.  But at least this is easy to correct; a couple of passes with the scalpel.  However, I bear in mind that this is an EP sample and I hope that this is an area in which constructive feedback will lead to an amendment of the model, though judging from the press release, the manufacturers may already be on to it. Hornby made this change to its model.  

 

A1 'Boxhill' Stroudley Improved Engine Green No.82

 

As one of the last batch, built 1880, she had iron brake shoes from new, a point picked up here in the model (the graphics, evidently adapted from the 7mm models, showed solecisms like Southern-era tank front lubricators and the wrong brake shoes – fortunately, the new OO model is correct in these respects).

 

Note, this is a variant that the 7mm Dapol model could not exactly represent – it had A1Xs with iron brake shoes and A1s with wooden brake blocks.  You could not have iron brakes on the O Gauge A1 without ending up with the A1X under valance chassis, so this shows Dapol extending the range of its tooling suite for the new 4mm model.  Great news and well done for that.

 

The real Boxhill is preserved largely in this A1 condition, which represents her before her cylinders were renewed to 14 ½”, the likely occasion her condensing pipes were removed, in 1898. 

 

There are a couple of livery issues to note.  First, I believe that the recessed tank top, correctly modelled, should be painted black, not in the border green colour; this was a working surface, not a livered area. Second, the wheels should have the balance weights painted green, with faux spokes and rim picked out in IEG.

 

The sample model appears to me to be 'as preserved', if only because the model has the preserved locomotive’s later, shorter, tool box.

 

It is to be hoped that Rails/Dapol also tool for the full-length tool box for their A1s.   SR and BR pictures tend to show a shorter tool box. Originally the tool box extended behind the rear buffers. On IEG locos, it can be seen that the tool box goes right up to the border of the IEG, this can be confirmed thanks to a rear view of Crowborough, incidentally from the same batch as Boxhill.   The adoption of shorter boxes may date from the raising of the buffers upon motor train conversion. The pitch of the lid changed over time, too.

 

A1 'Bodiam' KESR Blue

 

LB&SCR No.70, Poplar, she was built in December 1872 and sold in May 1901 to the Kent & East Sussex Railway, becoming its Bodiam.

 

There are a couple of livery issues to note.  First, I believe that the recessed tank top, correctly modelled, should be painted black, not blue; this was a working surface, not a livered area. Second, I note Rails/Dapol have gone for black wheels, which seems to me to be entirely credible for a line like the K&ESR, but Hornby has gone for blue. If anyone can shed any light on the prototype wheel colours, I would be most grateful.

 

Rails/Dapol do score over Hornby’s Rolvendon by representing the beading around the cab-side cut-out as the correct burnished steel.  Hornby have painted theirs blue, which looks quite wrong.

 

She retained her condensing pipes on sale, correctly shown here by Rails/Dapol. 

 

The fineness of those coal rails is very impressive.

 

Bodiam’s bunker was progressively modified by the K&ESR, but originally she had coal rails added, but not window grills.  These were open coal rails, and it is good to see these depicted by Rails/Dapol.   Well done there.  Neither manufacturer seems to have included the 4 fixing rivets to the bunker side, as that would entail a whole new bunker version and would be excessive in costs terms.  Some Archers' rivets would amend if anyone is that bothered.  

 

I would have expected a longer rear tool box, with a different pitch, because I think that would have been the type of toolbox in service at the time of sale to the K&ESR.  I have seen no reliable rear view of the loco in this condition, and we shall have to see if the production version differs.

 

Conclusion?

 

One or two niggles, but only a couple on the tooling, with the others livery details. These may change given that this is a sample and we have been told that there will be corrections. After all, Hornby’s samples differed noticeably from the production models so far seen.  

 

For performance and build-quality, we have to wait and see, but on my fourth criteria, refinement, I think the Rails/Dapol model will win hands down. By this I simply mean how refined it looks. This shades into accuracy when it comes to how fine or close to scale some details are, but it is also an indication of standards, and whether they are what we might expect from 2019 tooling and decoration.  Look at the hand rails, pipework, brass fittings, guard irons, wing plates, coupling rods, wheel bosses, splasher profile, the individually glazed cab windows, the single-piece boiler barrel etc. Beyond accuracy there is simply a finesse that makes this a stunning model, IMHO.  

 

On the basis of what I have seen, I’m feeling pretty good about my pre-orders!

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Informative/Useful 9
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...