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

[woodenhead]

13 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

At Ally Pally, I managed to borrow a Rails Terrier and pose it beside the Hornby version. Please note, the Rails model is a pre-production prototype and John tells me they have spotted some areas for improvement and these will be rectified before production. 

 

Front: Rails model. Rear: Hornby Model

 

I didn't expect to be saying this, but I think I prefer the Hornby version even with the ghastly stick on buffers.

 

In reality you need the chassis, water tank lip, buffers and guard rails of the Rails version with the chimney and cab of the Hornby model, the general shape of both is fine.

[Edwardian]

Just now, 'CHARD said:

'Rivetted butt strap' - my life is complete.  

 

Yes, it pains me every time I type that, but, alas, for want of a better term ...

[Phil Parker]

Can I just remind everyone - the Rails model is a pre-production example and there will be changes before it goes on sale.

[cctransuk]

5 hours ago, Tim Hall said:

 

Now, I may be missing something, but these look remarkably like Hornby "ghastly stick on buffers".

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Now, I may be missing something, but these look remarkably like Hornby "ghastly stick on buffers".

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

They sit in the frame rather than against it which the Hornby ones do - but didn't in their original artwork.

['CHARD]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yes, it pains me every time I type that

 

I can't say I'm surprised 

[Oldddudders]

Good spot. But looking at Phil Parker’s pic, I feel neither model reflects the TWW chassis as I see them. The Hornby model has the entire buffer on the front of the buffer beam, while the Rails version seems to have the buffer “seat” entirely inset. The TWW chassis seems to have one part inset, the other protruding.  Wallet-voting will decide, hopefully to the disbenefit of neither manufacturer. 

[cctransuk]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

They sit in the frame rather than against it which the Hornby ones do - but didn't in their original artwork.

 

Well, that's not what I'm seeing.

 

I see buffers against the surface of the bufferbeam, bolted to a backplate which is probably integral with the bufferbeam, and with a footplate that projects forward of the bufferbeam and partially surrounds the buffer base.

 

In this case, the central section if the footplating has been removed.

 

I would accept that, in both models, there is little or no forward projection of the footplate around the buffer bases.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited March 25, 2019 by cctransuk

[woodenhead]

17 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Can I just remind everyone - the Rails model is a pre-production example and there will be changes before it goes on sale.

It is, so last and only chance to critique it - nothing has really been shared so far, understandable with a rival coming at the same time.

 

There is lots to like about the Rails version, but that chimney looks cheap and it has googly eyes.

 

I do like the spectacles each being seperate units rather than it being the single moulded piece of plastic on the Hornby and Hattons P.

[woodenhead]

4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Well, that's not what I'm seeing.

 

I see buffers against the surface of the bufferbeam, bolted to a backplate which is probably integral with the bufferbeam, and with a footplate that projects forward of the bufferbeam and partially surrounds the buffer base.

 

In this case, the central section if the footplating has been removed.

 

I would accept that, in both models, there is little or no forward projection of the footplate around the buffer bases.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I've not got a massive eye for detail so to see the buffers on the Hornby like I do means it really stands out.  I hadn't noticed the issue with the face until it was pointed out and it became rather more obvious to me only when stood alongside the Hornby model.

[Edwardian]

15 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Now, I may be missing something, but these look remarkably like Hornby "ghastly stick on buffers".

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

That's because you are.

 

As Woodenhead points out, Hornby have produced the full depth of the 'buffer' and stuck it to the face of the buffer beam.

 

Problem is, it's not all buffer.  The thicker part of the wider 'base' is, in fact the width of the buffer beam, which protrudes upwards.

 

Your latest post suggest an understanding of this, so I don't see why you cannot see how this is wrong on Hornby:

 

This "buffers against the surface of the bufferbeam, bolted to a backplate which is probably integral with the bufferbeam, and with a footplate that projects forward of the bufferbeam and partially surrounds the buffer base" is a correct statement.

 

In the picture of Sutton, the section that is formed of the buffer beam is black and the buffer casting is red.  Hornby seems to have produced the whole of this area in red and stuck it to the front of the buffer beam.  Rails/Dapol clearly have a very thin depth of base proud of the buffer beam, the thicker portion being correctly in line with the buffer beam, representing its thickness. 

[cctransuk]

13 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

.....The thicker part of the wider 'base' ......

 

....very thin depth of base proud of the buffer beam, the thicker portion ...

 

Sorry, no.

 

On the prototype, the thickness of the buffer base is not discernably different to that of the bufferbeam.

 

To be correct, the buffers should have a base proud of the bufferbeam, and the bufferbeam should have a very similar thickness to the buffer base and project up behind the buffer bases.

 

What I see is that neither the Hornby nor the Rails versions is correct in this respect. The Rails version only has a "very thin depth of base proud of the buffer beam"; the Hornby version has buffer bases that are somewhat too thick, and no upwards projection of the bufferbeam behind the buffer bases.

 

IMHO, it would be easiest to correct the Hornby version by removing the buffers, and drilling recesses into the bufferbeam, to accommodate half the thickness of the buffer bases.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Edwardian]

Sorry, John, you're just wrong.

 

 Which looks closer to this?  Hornby or Dapol?  Clearly Dapol 

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Edwardian said:

Sorry, John, you're just wrong.

 

 Which looks closer to this?  Hornby or Dapol?  Clearly Dapol 

 

 

 

 

Hornby - and I'll explain my reason.

 

On the LH (Dapol) view, the red ends flush with the face of the bufferbeam, with pretty much all of the buffer base and bufferbeam projection painted black..

 

On the RH (Hornby) view the red also ends flush with the bufferbeam, and the thickness of the buffer base is roughly that which should comprise both buffer base and bufferbeam projection.

 

To achieve the correct impression of a thinner buffer base and a black bufferbeam extension, it would be quite simple to recess the buffers into the bufferbeam, and paint the rear half of the buffer base black to represent the bufferbeam extension.

 

However, as the Dapol buffers do not have sufficient forward projection of their bases in front of the bufferbeam, correction would be far from simple.

 

Don't overlook the fact that both versions appear to have little or no projection of the footplate, into which the buffer bases should be recessed.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[RedgateModels]

I don't know about which one is closest, but they both look wrong how they interact with the bufferbeam in different ways. What about the length of the Rails buffer body compared to the prototype image?

[Edwardian]

I understand your point, John, but I am not seeing it as you are seeing it. 

 

On the prototype, the cast base of the buffer is slightly proud of the beam, but not proud of the footplate lip.  I think we agree on that.

 

Now, I suggest that we will need to park this until one of us has the model, but, on my assessment of all the pictures I have seen of the Rails/Dapol model:

 

- It will prove to be the case that the footplate lip is there

 

- It will prove to be the case that the cast base is represented, slightly proud of the face of the buffer beam.

 

I suggest that we may have to agree to disagree in the interim, but, whereas there are some issues with this model, I don't think the point you describe will prove to be one of. 

[G-BOAF]

I see that the ghastly join on the rear of the cab roof is still there as it was on the early test shots. Dapol got it OK in their original OO Terrier. How hard can it be to create a cab rear sheet join UNDER the cab roof not as part of it? Very odd design choice. I think the O Gauge model has the same problem, and this has been copied completely onto the OO version.

This is a real negative for the Dapol model, and disappointing to see it is still there. It WILL stick out a mile at normal viewing angles

 

Along with the cab front windows which DO jar compared to the Hornby model.

 

While Dapol has finer detail (aside from the valves on the top of the dome), and better looking chassis, the character of the Terrier is currently better captured in key ways by Hornby AT THE MOMENT.

Re the buffers, it seems that Dapol could put a little more relief on the front of the bufferbeam interface.

And Hornby could do a simple too modification that insets their 'stick on' buffers.

[cctransuk]

16 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I understand your point, John, but I am not seeing it as you are seeing it. 

 

On the prototype, the cast base of the buffer is slightly wholly (Look at the plan view of the prototype) proud of the beam, but not proud of the footplate lip.  I think we agree on that.

 

Now, I suggest that we will need to park this until one of us has the model, but, on my assessment of all the pictures I have seen of the Rails/Dapol model:

 

- It will prove to be the case that the footplate lip is there (Perhaps)?

 

- It will prove to be the case that the cast base is represented, slightly proud of the face of the buffer beam. (Slightly is insufficient - it should be half of the combined thickness of bufferbase and bufferbeam extension).

 

I suggest that we may have to agree to disagree in the interim, but, whereas there are some issues with this model, I don't think the point you describe will prove to be one of. 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited March 25, 2019 by cctransuk

[greatcoleswoodhalt]

On 20/03/2019 at 14:59, Oliver Rails said:

The purpose of these is to report any alterations and amendments to the factory. We are aware of the amendments required and these have been reported.

 

It's a shame that the amendments haven't been shared as it would be beneficial to know that what's being discussed here has been/will be addressed.

 

That being said I preordered with RoS the day of release last year and don't think I'll be lurching over to Hornby just yet...

[Anglian]

I note some of the details on the Hornby model look much finer e.g. the dome and its fittings but then the coal rails are far better on the Rails version. The details such as the tank fillers look much neater on the Hornby model. I wonder which are closer to scale?

 

I hope Rails make significant changes so my choice is easier to make. 

[cctransuk]

I have no vested interest in this discussion - I will not be buying either version as there can be no possible reason for running one through Evercreech Junction in 1961 !!

 

(Though that begs the question as to why I have bought RTR models or kits for 43 out of the 91 locos in my collection)!

 

I read the thread out of general interest, and cannot pass over statements which do not seem to be supported by fact.

 

At least the square-on cab spectacle plate photo seems to have produced a concensus on the issue of the spectacle spacing.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

 

[RedgateModels]

Having said all this. It is worthwhile considering that these samples could be decoration samples on old first shot EPs. Rails could have already fed back some or all of these physical issues with the samples way before unveiling the recent images. It would make sense to do it this way as it stops everything going on hold until the next version of the EPs are ready to do some livery finalisation. 

[Edwardian]

OK - the cast buffer is wholly proud of the beam, I did not express this clearly enough, but it is thin here, so the wide part as a whole is only slightly proud.  And it is certainly not the case that the cast part is the same thickness as the semi-circular part of the buffer beam. This is necessarily so given the construction.

 

The Dapol buffer guides are generally sound.  Hornby has this aspect seriously wrong.

 

The two valid points to make concerning the buffers would appear to be:

 

- The thickness of the buffer shank itself; and,

 

- The need for bolts to the front of the casting, though not, I think, on early condition A1s such as those announced.

 

I have heard several other criticisms of this model that I suspect are largely unfounded.

 

- The Salter valve levers do not appear excessively tall compared with a number of prototype pictures.  Hornby's are too low and spindly in comparison. This does not concern me;

 

- I am not convinced that steam exhaust domes are too tall.  They might be, by a little, but Hornby's are noticeably too short

 

- It is hard to tell, but Hornby may have the edge in its representation of the lower curve of the roof in the transverse section, but this is rather offset by the fact that the rivets on the roof strap are far too large and out of scale; Dapol's are finer, and more scale.

 

The two aspects that I would most like to see changed are:

 

- Front and rear spectacles position.  This will make a very significant difference.

 

- The middle balance weights. These should taper to each end, not be a constant width. Hornby's don't look right either. There should be a short upcurve from the spokes to the balance weight. 

 

I have to conclude that, as Phil Parker says, Rails/Dapol pictures are of a sample and we are told that there will be corrections.  Even in its present condition, it has many advantages over the Hornby production model. It is unfortunate that there are some inaccuracies, but Dapol has the opportunity to correct these. Hornby no longer has the chance to correct its shortcomings.

 

I still consider that we will end up with one solid and sensibly priced mid-range option and another that more than justifies its higher price point.

 

But we'll see, won't we?

 

  

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Edwardian

[Oliver Rails]

Thanks for your very constructive comments and we do of course welcome those. Thanks also for your positive comments. It is always nice to have such a balanced approach.

 

The samples you have seen are the very first EP’s and we have a list of corrections which we are reviewing today. This is perfectly normal at this stage. They only arrived from China late last week so this is the first chance we have had to take a detailed look. You will be pleased to hear that the balance weights are already on our list of things to look at and amend along with the cab windows, buffers and the chimney fit.

 

Thanks for taking the trouble to write in and we’d be pleased to hear if you have any other major concerns. Please just remember that sometimes at 4mm : foot we have to make some compromises when there are so many detailed variations over such a long life of the real locomotives. However we will strive to make this the best model we possibly can and still make a small profit!!

 

Oliver

[Edwardian]

That is all very good to hear, Oliver.

 

Thank you for confirming that in all the most important aspects of the EP, we can expect to see amendments.