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

[Pre Grouping fan]

Just now, John M Upton said:

How do you cancel an order?  I just tried but because the deposit part has been "dispatched" it won't let me.

 

I don't do OO anymore so it is of no use to me.

Best bet is to ring Rails in the morning to discuss it.

[John M Upton]

I've dropped them an email in the first instance, see how that goes.

[Andy Hayter]

Good luck with either of those.

I will put it down to their being overwhelmed at present, but when I phoned to tell them I could not register my new card, I was told it must be a bank problem and that I was completely wrong when I told them their opening hours were wrong on the website.  I contacted the bank who confirmed that they had authorised my card 8 time for RoS.  I sent them an email and have received no reply whatsoever.

 

Poor show Rails.  Could do, no must do better.

[NHY 581]

I'm not a fan of Rails but I think we need to be mindful that Rails will in all probability have reduced staff and differing working practices at present. The staff within the business may not be those who normally deal with orders so I  think we need to have lower expectations. 

 

I had some issues with my account voiced them on here.......then thought about it......and sorted it out. 

 

So we perhaps need to just ease up a tad..

 

 

Rob. 

[JSpencer]

On 09/05/2020 at 15:44, WisTramwayMan said:

It looks as though Rails have started processing orders, at least one of mine has had the payment taken for it.

Re the BR versions, unless the images on the Rails website are still of the pre-production versions, still very disappointed with the BR versions - on the "face" on the locomotive, possibly the most noticeable part of any locomotive, the smokebox number plate is mounted noticeably too high. Yes, I realise that at least one of the preserved locos is so afflicted, but a quick look at Middleton Press's "Branch Line to Hayling" confirms the fact that the current pictures on the website show the smokebox number on 32661 to be mounted too high, and by a noticeable margin. I HOPE that the production versions have been amended.

 

 

Just out of interest, where all of yours under one several or several different orders? Mine are lumped togethor and so  far no payment taken.

[Ian J.]

My two were in the same order, payment taken for one which is now available, the other is yet to arrive in stock.

[Les1952]

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Good luck with either of those.

I will put it down to their being overwhelmed at present, but when I phoned to tell them I could not register my new card, I was told it must be a bank problem and that I was completely wrong when I told them their opening hours were wrong on the website.  I contacted the bank who confirmed that they had authorised my card 8 time for RoS.  I sent them an email and have received no reply whatsoever.

 

Poor show Rails.  Could do, no must do better.

 

Given the number of shops that have had to shut entirely for the time being the fact that Rails are functioning AT ALL at this time is to their credit.   My own Local Model shop is closed and their website barely functioning.  Likewise three other dealers I would normally trade with.

 

Les

(not noted for being Rails biggest fan)

Edited May 10, 2020 by Les1952

[Andy Hayter]

Don't shoot the messenger.

I did say that I thought they were overwhelmed at the moment.

[WisTramwayMan]

14 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

Just out of interest, where all of yours under one several or several different orders? Mine are lumped togethor and so  far no payment taken.

Several different orders. I wonder if they're doing them model by model.

[WisTramwayMan]

14 hours ago, NHY 581 said:

I'm not a fan of Rails but I think we need to be mindful that Rails will in all probability have reduced staff and differing working practices at present. The staff within the business may not be those who normally deal with orders so I  think we need to have lower expectations. 

 

I had some issues with my account voiced them on here.......then thought about it......and sorted it out. 

 

So we perhaps need to just ease up a tad..

 

 

Rob. 

Agree totally. Rather like Royal Mail - they're probably people short, have had to implement social distancing measures, different working practices - and in those circumstances what would quite possibly resemble a well-oiled machine takes a knock. In the current situation, we should, like with Royal Mail, be grateful that they're carrying on at all and cut them some slack. I don't mind if my orders are delayed a few days, as long as they do arrive.

Edited May 11, 2020 by WisTramwayMan

[Ventnor]

On 10/05/2020 at 00:44, Bluebell Model Railway said:

The pages, and photo's Rails have sent out recently show the newly delivered models and they have it.... also each model that had been delivered were updated I think with extra photos. It would be odd to update a page and show pre pro models and not the production ones.

If the photos on the Rails website are of the production models that are in stock I'm a little worried. Enlarging the photo of the rear cab sheet of LB&SCR 643 shows a very odd paint finish and no rivets on the cab seam. Compare this to the BR version of 32661 which has a consistent, smooth paint finish and correct rivetted cab seam.

 

Full payment has been taken for my 643, I am now having second thoughts after studying the photos more closely. It would appear that quality may be inconsistent across the model variations. As far as I can tell from these initial models there is now very little to choose between the Hornby rendition of this loco type and that of Rails; particularly now that Hornby have corrected some of the mistakes / omissions of the earlier releases.

 

 

I will caveat my observations of 643 by saying that there are very few photos of the rear of these locomotives in early LB&SCR days that clearly show the cab seam to be rivetted. Some of the class gained single piece rear cab sheets in later life (32655 Stepney for one). The fact remains that 643 has an odd paint finish in this area!!

 

Andy.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Ventnor

[Ian J.]

I've just had a dispatch email for 32661, so looks like it'll be with me around Thursday or Friday

 

[GeoffBird]

Now that the Terriers are actually starting to be delivered, a question relating to the KESR based ones.  What headlamp positions and/or route inndicator disc positions did the locos carry in KESR and BR(S) days?   Was a special diisc code created in 1948 for the line?

[Jenny Emily]

Mine arrived. Quickly posed on a corner of my stored War of the Worlds layout. Filming a review this afternoon to hopefully go out tomorrow. 
 

it looks a lovely little thing! 

[Edwardian]

A couple of observations.

 

10 hours ago, Ventnor said:

If the photos on the Rails website are of the production models that are in stock I'm a little worried. Enlarging the photo of the rear cab sheet of LB&SCR 643 shows a very odd paint finish and no rivets on the cab seam. Compare this to the BR version of 32661 which has a consistent, smooth paint finish and correct rivetted cab seam.

 

Full payment has been taken for my 643, I am now having second thoughts after studying the photos more closely. It would appear that quality may be inconsistent across the model variations. As far as I can tell from these initial models there is now very little to choose between the Hornby rendition of this loco type and that of Rails; particularly now that Hornby have corrected some of the mistakes / omissions of the earlier releases.

 

 

I will caveat my observations of 643 by saying that there are very few photos of the rear of these locomotives in early LB&SCR days that clearly show the cab seam to be rivetted. Some of the class gained single piece rear cab sheets in later life (32655 Stepney for one). The fact remains that 643 has an odd paint finish in this area!!

 

Andy.

 

 

 

It is good to see that Hornby now has one or more models that reflect how the Terrier backsheet was constructed.  It may be a moot point, however, whether or not the prominent snap head rivets would be seen in early Brighton days.  They are on the preserved Boxhill, but, as you say, there is a dearth of contemporary photographs showing this feature clearly.

 

Yes, the strip would have been rivetted, but it is entirely possible that they were countersunk or had the tops ground off in earlier days.  See, for instance, how that seems to have been done to the buffer guide faces, as opposed to later, when the fixings protruded.  Possibly we might never know, but I would not be too hasty to call this one out as an accuracy point.

 

 

On 07/05/2020 at 03:05, Ventnor said:

Les

 

Quite right, more so as 32655 and 32661 were vacuum fitted only so the air brake pipes / equipment should also be abscent. 

 

Andy. 

 

Indeed, and I believe the Rails/Dapol models reflect this.  Last time I saw any CAD on these (August 2018) both these were without Westinghouse pumps but did have both vac exhaust pipes and pipe vac stands.  

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Ventnor said:

If the photos on the Rails website are of the production models that are in stock I'm a little worried. Enlarging the photo of the rear cab sheet of LB&SCR 643 shows a very odd paint finish and no rivets on the cab seam. Compare this to the BR version of 32661 which has a consistent, smooth paint finish and correct rivetted cab seam.

 

Full payment has been taken for my 643, I am now having second thoughts after studying the photos more closely. It would appear that quality may be inconsistent across the model variations. As far as I can tell from these initial models there is now very little to choose between the Hornby rendition of this loco type and that of Rails; particularly now that Hornby have corrected some of the mistakes / omissions of the earlier releases.

 

 

I will caveat my observations of 643 by saying that there are very few photos of the rear of these locomotives in early LB&SCR days that clearly show the cab seam to be rivetted. Some of the class gained single piece rear cab sheets in later life (32655 Stepney for one). The fact remains that 643 has an odd paint finish in this area!!

 

Andy.

 

 

Judging by photos the use of snaphead rivets on visible plate work seems to have been anathema to many early loco superintendents especially those looking to achieve a 'perfect' finish as was often the case with Stroudley.  The only evidence, if it exists at all, would be from contemporaneous photos but I would tend to suspicious of prominent snaphead rivets where they were not needed and would have spoilt the appearance of an engine.

[Bluebell Model Railway]

12 hours ago, Ventnor said:

If the photos on the Rails website are of the production models that are in stock I'm a little worried. Enlarging the photo of the rear cab sheet of LB&SCR 643 shows a very odd paint finish and no rivets on the cab seam. Compare this to the BR version of 32661 which has a consistent, smooth paint finish and correct rivetted cab seam.

 

Full payment has been taken for my 643, I am now having second thoughts after studying the photos more closely. It would appear that quality may be inconsistent across the model variations. As far as I can tell from these initial models there is now very little to choose between the Hornby rendition of this loco type and that of Rails; particularly now that Hornby have corrected some of the mistakes / omissions of the earlier releases.

 

 

I will caveat my observations of 643 by saying that there are very few photos of the rear of these locomotives in early LB&SCR days that clearly show the cab seam to be rivetted. Some of the class gained single piece rear cab sheets in later life (32655 Stepney for one). The fact remains that 643 has an odd paint finish in this area!!

 

Andy.

 

 

Hi Andy, 

 

 I to have 643 on order... I'll stick with it as it won't be that number for long. 

 But yes I am concerned that a model that was supposed to be pedigree has errors not on all but some especially BR... Having just seen Miss Kirks photos confirms that the photos have been updated.. And it still has errors.. 

Which is a damn shame. 

 

Dapols putting together of the models when I saw the first tooling of the cab, and tanks and saw the rear of the cab was seperate did raise an eye brow especially lining up with the rest of the cab.. 

 

No payment has been taken from me but my order was very late on.. As I waited to see the final samples... 

Take that back.. £84 has been charged so I'm guessing terrier... 

 

It makes me question if I should carry on with my SECR D class Order... 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Bluebell Model Railway

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Bluebell Model Railway said:

 

It makes me question if I should carry on with my SECR D class Order... 

 

That, of course, is a matter for you, but personally I think that such a conclusion is unwarranted.

 

I would suggest, though, that some of the recent criticism of the Rails-Dapol Terrier has either been inaccurate or overdone.  People do seem to be unnecessarily nervy.  Perhaps that's the times. My frank assessment is that, while it is not perfect in every respect, it is very good; on a great number of points it is the more accurate choice with best scale appearance overall and it ought to perform better, too. 

 

As for the D Class, well that is a project I've been lucky enough to see from an earlier stage, and I don't think you can extrapolate from one project to another. The Terrier was evolved from a 7mm product, whereas the D had a clean slate, and, as it happens, a different designer, and, thus, will represent the first wholly new product from the NRM-Rails-Dapol partnership.  Whereas I think the Terrier will represent a very strong start for this collaboration, and mark a further milestone in Dapol's return to OO, I suspect that it is the D Class that will really set the standard for any future output from the partnership. From what I've seen so far, I have no concerns about it.

[Jenny Emily]

[AY Mod]

On 09/05/2020 at 12:19, 3rd Rail Exile said:

Very strange - lining the coal rails up at the corners would have been a good start...  On a closer look (blowing up the Rails' images), it almost looks as if the back section has been fixed in the wrong way round - as in "inside out".  I think I can see indentations at the correct height to line up with the sides...

 

Having had opportunity to look into this you have made an incorrect assumption I'm afraid.

 

The effect is a result of dual light sources, one to the lower left and one to the upper right being dominant on adjacent faces of the bunker rails. The light on the left is highlighting the lower surface of the ribbing and the light on the right highlighting the upper surface of the ribbing.

 

I believe Rails will be replacing the images at some point.

[truffy]

15 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

I believe Rails will be replacing the images at some point.

 

Hopefully showing it in a better light...

 

IGMC

[3rd Rail Exile]

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

Having had opportunity to look into this you have made an incorrect assumption I'm afraid.

 

The effect is a result of dual light sources, one to the lower left and one to the upper right being dominant on adjacent faces of the bunker rails. The light on the left is highlighting the lower surface of the ribbing and the light on the right highlighting the upper surface of the ribbing.

 

I believe Rails will be replacing the images at some point.

Thanks for explaining that Andy - it certainly looked strange in the original pictures, so I'll look forward to seeing the new ones Rails put up.  In the meantime, a close look at the images posted above by @Jenny Emily reassures me with regards to that area of the model - I'll eagerly await delivery of mine in a few days!

[BlueLightning]

So now that these are out there, can I ask if the coal rails are really as small as they look in the photos?? They should come up to the cab edge, and the rear of the bunker flare, but in the photos from Rails they look way to small to me.

 

An odd and rather glaring error to make it though after the hate thrown at Hornby for the much less obvious lack of recess in the tank tops.

 

An cropped image of 2644 showing how the coal rails should look as reference for anyone that doesn't know what to compare the model to

 

[Ventnor]

9 hours ago, Edwardian said:

A couple of observations.

 

 

It is good to see that Hornby now has one or more models that reflect how the Terrier backsheet was constructed.  It may be a moot point, however, whether or not the prominent snap head rivets would be seen in early Brighton days.  They are on the preserved Boxhill, but, as you say, there is a dearth of contemporary photographs showing this feature clearly.

 

Yes, the strip would have been rivetted, but it is entirely possible that they were countersunk or had the tops ground off in earlier days.  See, for instance, how that seems to have been done to the buffer guide faces, as opposed to later, when the fixings protruded.  Possibly we might never know, but I would not be too hasty to call this one out as an accuracy point.

 

 

 

Indeed, and I believe the Rails/Dapol models reflect this.  Last time I saw any CAD on these (August 2018) both these were without Westinghouse pumps but did have both vac exhaust pipes and pipe vac stands.  

Hello Edwardian 

 

I agree that the rivets may not have been visible and flush in early LB&SCR days and some evidence points to this being the case. My main concern was the paint finish to the cab backsheet of 643, it appears to have a "mottled" glossy finish compared to the flat finish of the rest of the model. I accept lighting can change the appearance of colour but the mottled, metalic effect? 

 

As for air / vacuum brake fittings; yes, the Rails models of 32655 and 32661 correctly do not have westinghouse air pumps as these were vacuum brake only locomotives in BR service. My point is that Rails / Dapol seem to have fitted a generic brake pipe to all BR versions (and other dual braked versions) that in appearance look very much like an air pipe:

 

32655 - BR in service condition and Dapol model:

 

32661 - BR in service condition and Dapol model:

 

"General" arrangement of dual braked locomotives in BR in service:

 

Hornby have done the opposite and appear to have fitted all models with a vacuum pipe and stand regardless of whether they were dual braked or air braked only (e.g. IOW locos). 

 

Removal and replacement with correct brake pipes I assume would be relatively simple task but it looks like redundant holes would be left in buffer beam of 32661 if the existing pipe was removed and a vacuum pipe fitted on the correct side of the buffer beam...............alternatively, don't be so pedantic and live with it, which I probably will!!

 

Given all of the above, I still think that the Dapol model captures the look and character of the "Terrier" better than the Hornby model and I do not regret waiting for this version to appear.

 

Kind regards

 

Andy.

 

 

[Pre Grouping fan]

Regarding the above with brake pipes, it will be interesting to hear from people who have them (perhaps Jenny Kirk in her review as she seems to have the first one to post images of a model delivered) whether there is a goody bag with bits like vac pipes to make the models suit the loco they represent.

 

To me the cab looks copied from the O gauge version with no parts for the vaccum brake control which Hornby included even in air brake only locos.