Jump to content
 

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


MGR Hooper!
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Mine arrived yesterday and I'm very happy with it.

 

My one arrived today and I can see no fault with the running plate (I took a ruler to it). So very happy with it so far though I have still to test it's running capabilities and to add a DCC chip. So 3 out of 4 terriers from Rails ok so far but perhaps I am lucky. Who knows...

 

I have to say that the copper-topped chimney is a real delight though I wonder how long it will stay the colour of freshly-turned/polished copper. I assume that any touch from ones fingers and it will change shade like an old penny. A thin-coat of lacquer may keep it shiny though? Just wondering...

 

Jeremy

p.s. I have still to receive my SE Terrier - Rails are still awaiting more stock I was told.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

No, I would not be. You banged on ad-infinitum about the deficiencies of the Hornby model over-and-over in both the Hornby and Rails threads, repeatedly stating the same thing. Now you have the nerve to lecture others on the same point.


And I say that as somebody who had nailed their colours to the Rails mast.

 

Time for you to learn to take some criticism, rather than just dishing it out.

 

Roy

 

You need to dis-engage, as I will. 

 

There was no need for your post. It was not necessary, or helpful, or even remotely accurate. Typically, just as smouldering issue is to die a natural death, someone walks by with a petrol can and thinks, 'hmm, shall I ...?'

 

In any case, I cannot agree that there is a sensible equation between measured and researched comments on prototype accuracy, whether or not they bore you, and the somewhat repetitious complaintfest I've just witnessed and was objecting to. Indignation and false equivalence are the stock-in-trade of keyboard warriors.  I wouldn't have thought that was your style. 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JeremyKarl said:

My one arrived today and I can see no fault with the running plate (I took a ruler to it). So very happy with it so far though I have still to test it's running capabilities and to add a DCC chip. So 3 out of 4 terriers from Rails ok so far but perhaps I am lucky. Who knows...

 

Sounds like a similar experience to mine. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, JeremyKarl said:

I have to say that the copper-topped chimney is a real delight

 

 

It is, isn't it?  A standout quality feature for me.

 

5 minutes ago, JeremyKarl said:

though I wonder how long it will stay the colour of freshly-turned/polished copper. I assume that any touch from ones fingers and it will change shade like an old penny. A thin-coat of lacquer may keep it shiny though? Just wondering...

 

 

That's a point that hadn't crossed my mind. All I can say is that Bodiam's is still nice and shiny!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Just now, Edwardian said:

 

You need to dis-engage, as I will. 

 

There was no need for your post. It was not necessary, or helpful, or even remotely accurate. Typically, just as smouldering issue is to die a natural death, someone walks by with a petrol can and thinks, 'hmm, shall I ...?'

 

In any case, I cannot agree that there is a sensible equation between measured and researched comments on prototype accuracy, whether or not they bore you, and the somewhat repetitious complaintfest I've just witnessed and was objecting to. Indignation and false equivalence are the stock-in-trade of keyboard warriors.  I wouldn't have thought that was your style. 

 

I will dis-engage, but equally there is no need for you to lecture others who raise complaint about issues that concern them. What is important to you and is a "reasonable compromise" may not hold for others, we all have our own values. I find your posts are often of a tone that if we do not agree with you, we are wrong.

 

For example, I see nothing from Rails acknowledging that on DCC Fitted model there is no longer a pre-fitted speaker, despite still advertising it as such.

 

Roy

  • Like 1
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have two Hornby Terriers, 32655 (2nd hand and detailed) and "Rolvenden"; and Rails/ Dapol "Boxhill".

 

None have any noticeable defects and all run well, although Boxhill is slightly noisier. No significant differences in slow speed running or haulage abilities (haven't spent too long studying these, as they are all good enough for my purposes). I seem to be slightly lucky with the ones I have.

 

However, although my "Boxhill" fits together well, and the running plate is completely straight, the join in the cab roof is slightly distracting, although it fits as well as it can. The copper chimney cap fits better on the Hornby one and seems better proportioned, but it's marginal.

The representation of the motion between the frames on "Boxhill" is nice, but the flickering firebox glow is a bit bright on DC, even at slowish speeds, and I could do without it (seems brighter than the B4, from memory, haven't dug that out to check it).

 

Is the Rails/Dapol version worth the extra cost for me? Probably not, especially as the Hornby ones are available for £70ish from some places (and I paid £57 and £61 for mine) but I'm no expert on Terriers. Your money, your choice.

 

IMG_3105.JPG

IMG_3106.JPG

IMG_3107.JPG

Edited by Tim Hall
Adding pics and a few words
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Has anyone converted one to the wider gauges yet? I would be interested to see whether that could be done while preserving the exquisitely lined-out frames of the IEG version?

Edited by Compound2632
Typo corrected
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a "winge-fest" when genuine issues of product quality are raised. Some of live us far enough away that the issue of return and replace is a daunting and expensive prospect and would take an extended time. No "free return label" by email for us.

 

For folk in that situation, getting a range of reactions from customers who take their hobby seriously is valuable input to the buying decision. For others to knock that same feedback is puzzling to me. Even more so when reviews were done using models supplied directly by the interested party (i.e. Rails); these can hardly be taken as an unbiased and accurate viewpoint however informative they may be.

 

Clearly there are benchmarks of product quality (beyond the acknowledged excellent cosmetic design) where the current model falls well short of the level set by others recent releases. While the level of these issues can't be quantified, the very diverse range and number of reports on here rings an alarm bell for me.

Edited by BWsTrains
tidy
  • Like 3
  • Agree 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

I will dis-engage, but equally there is no need for you to lecture others who raise complaint about issues that concern them. What is important to you and is a "reasonable compromise" may not hold for others, we all have our own values. I find your posts are often of a tone that if we do not agree with you, we are wrong.

 

For example, I see nothing from Rails acknowledging that on DCC Fitted model there is no longer a pre-fitted speaker, despite still advertising it as such.

 

Roy

 

17 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

No, I would not be. You banged on ad-infinitum about the deficiencies of the Hornby model over-and-over in both the Hornby and Rails threads, repeatedly stating the same thing. Now you have the nerve to lecture others on the same point.


And I say that as somebody who had nailed their colours to the Rails mast.

 

Time for you to learn to take some criticism, rather than just dishing it out.

 

Roy

 

Roy, I think you trespass unnecessarily on the personal here, and, as I credit you with not intending to cause offence and upset, I ask you, with all respect and humility, to step back from that. 

 

To put this in context, I merely posted some pictures of my Boxhill and expressed satisfaction with it.  This was followed by a resumption of the same criticisms of the model, presumably through some notion that everyone needs to be reminded that some models were not of similar quality to mine, and a particularly bizarre comment from George Conna.  Thus, I'd expressed some sympathy with Jenny's frustration and the view that the QC complaints were getting repetitive and a tad unnecessary.

 

Enter your goodself .....  Now, I actually read posts carefully before I respond to them. What your beef with me seems to amount to is that you do not, as you say, like being lectured.  Well, forget that I was not even in dialogue with you when you turned up with a petrol can and a box of matches.  No one, including me, has denied the faults or said they do not matter.  No one needs, therefore, to feel disregarded or belittled. The point was merely to question how many times we need to hear people amplifying the same QC points before it starts getting out of proportion and sounding like a whingefest that is unfair to a rather good model.

 

 

12 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

It is not a "winge-fest" when genuine issues of product quality are raised. Some of live us far enough away that the issue of return and replace is a daunting and expensive prospect and would take an extended time. No "free return label" by email for us.

 

 

In reality, so far as I can tell, the only honest disagreement here is between those, like me, who consider that the QC issues affecting some models have been adequately ventilated and that there are some positives to focus on, and those who feel that they have more they wish to say on the subject, or simply wish to echo some complaints by others. Well, I've expressed the former view and people are free, politely, to disagree and prefer the other view, which some have.

 

What I would ask for is for people not to succumb to the temptation to be personal; attacking people's records, motives etc, which is inappropriate, and, frankly, likely to elicit a response that the offender would not care to read.  A post like BWS's is much more appropriate. I share his view that genuine issues of product quality should be raised. Evidently he and I disagree as to the extent to which it is useful to repeat those issues, but that is fair play. I suspect, that if the heat and nonsense and point scoring are taken out of the equation, people here will genuinely divide between those of one view and those of the other. 

 

With that, I'd very much hope that courtesy and respect will resume and that we can all move on. 

 

 

Edited by Edwardian
spelling!
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

With that, I'd very much hope that courtesy and respect will resume and that we can all move on. 

 

 

Indeed, but perhaps you need to also respect that some people have views that are equally valid to yours, but not the same?

 

That is my "beef" as you put it. I am fed up being told what I should think of a model and accused of whinging or moaning for having found things that I do not like. Neither of which, to my mind, is courteous or respectful.

 

There I leave it...

 

Roy

Edited by Roy Langridge
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.

 

There were several of these Rails terriers that I had intended to buy, but I have been put off by the recurrent faults that seem to affect all the different batches. On the other hand, I have purchased a number of the Hornby models and apart from the first one which had its chimney leaning to one side, which was easily rectified, every one looks and runs very well. Most of the few design errors which were highlighted early on have been corrected in later issues, and allowing perhaps for slightly less detail in the more complex liveries they leave me fully satisfied.

 

My finances are limited and are going to be even more so after a visit to the dentist tomorrow for some crowns to be fitted, just what I need on the run up to Christmas. So I do not want the hassle of ordering something which I may have to send back.

 

Moving on, perhaps the only thing missing here is a response from Oliver Rails confirming their position on this and what ongoing action may be taken with respect to future model issues, that's assuming that there will be some. As I have indicated previously, the terrier is one of my favourite locos and there is a lot more fruit left on the terrier tree.

 

All the best

 

Ray

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
52 minutes ago, wainwright1 said:

Hi All.

 

There were several of these Rails terriers that I had intended to buy, but I have been put off by the recurrent faults that seem to affect all the different batches. On the other hand, I have purchased a number of the Hornby models and apart from the first one which had its chimney leaning to one side, which was easily rectified, every one looks and runs very well. Most of the few design errors which were highlighted early on have been corrected in later issues, and allowing perhaps for slightly less detail in the more complex liveries they leave me fully satisfied.

 

My finances are limited and are going to be even more so after a visit to the dentist tomorrow for some crowns to be fitted, just what I need on the run up to Christmas. So I do not want the hassle of ordering something which I may have to send back.

 

Moving on, perhaps the only thing missing here is a response from Oliver Rails confirming their position on this and what ongoing action may be taken with respect to future model issues, that's assuming that there will be some. As I have indicated previously, the terrier is one of my favourite locos and there is a lot more fruit left on the terrier tree.

 

All the best

 

Ray


Why not get in touch with Oliver by pm ?  I’m not sure in fact whether that question has been asked hence if not there will be no response.Worth a try I think 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2020 at 12:47, Edwardian said:

RMWeb Trade & Products: Where they'll moan if you tell them it's bad and they'll moan if you tell them it's good.

 

"... Rails was put in a very difficult position by Hornby's spoiler launch and TV hype. Theirs is, when all's said and done, objectively the better model, albeit not perfect in my view. People need to move on from that...."

 

 

 

A bit biased on that point - and not strictly true - I think it's been widely reported that Hornby were working on an upgrade of their model. You could equally spin this as Rails stole an existing model from the Hornby range and then cried fowl when the company defended itself.

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I've come here because my interest has been piqued by the NRM version in IEG or another similar, and after reading around and watching various things, it does rather seem that those defending the model are invested in some way, whether they care to admit it to themselves or not. I'm sure the models they have, are acceptable to them. But differences in opinion are allowed, and banding around terms like 'terriergate!' are unhelpful.

 

Then I look up the images Rails have themselves selected to put on their website.

 

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/boxhill.IMG_2893.jpg?preset=large

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/boxhill.IMG_2895.jpg?preset=large

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/brighton.IMG_2899.jpg?preset=large

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/brighton.IMG_2901.jpg?preset=large

 

I'm told the frames are not banana shaped. Is this just an optical illusion then? Why does either the cab look to be leaning backwards, or the front leaning forward? Why isn't the condensing pipe parallel in line and level to the tanks? What about those gaps between the superstructure and the chassis?

 

I get it, these are small locos and Rails' pictures are perhaps rather too large, and I guess if it turns up like that, then it will be 'as advertised'... and I should accept it, though realistically I'm not hurrying to buy based on those photos, sorry to say.

 

The NRM one is better, but still not flawless

http://www.locomotionmodels.com/exclusive-models/steam-locomotives/lbscr-terrier-boxhill-dcc-ready.htm

 

I don't doubt the Rails version is technically superior, it clearly is, and no doubt there are some good examples out there, but if Rails can't find a decent one to photograph, what hope has the prospective average punter got? Maybe the NRM are insisting on only good ones, so perhaps I would be better off looking there first.

 

Or perhaps I should just avoid locos with diecast chassis frames - it isn't the first time we've been here with models fitted with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, GWRtrainman said:

 

A bit biased on that point - and not strictly true - I think it's been widely reported that Hornby were working on an upgrade of their model. You could equally spin this as Rails stole an existing model from the Hornby range and then cried fowl when the company defended itself.

 

 
That’s a bit of a murky issue and open to a wide degree of interpretation. We simply don’t know. Widely reported usually goes with a degree of fanciful spin .The truth is unavailable for further comment :diablo_mini:

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
55 minutes ago, stovepipe said:

I've come here because my interest has been piqued by the NRM version in IEG or another similar, and after reading around and watching various things, it does rather seem that those defending the model are invested in some way, whether they care to admit it to themselves or not. I'm sure the models they have, are acceptable to them. But differences in opinion are allowed, and banding around terms like 'terriergate!' are unhelpful.

 

Then I look up the images Rails have themselves selected to put on their website.

 

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/boxhill.IMG_2893.jpg?preset=large

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/boxhill.IMG_2895.jpg?preset=large

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/brighton.IMG_2899.jpg?preset=large

https://images.railsofsheffield.com/product-images.axd/brighton.IMG_2901.jpg?preset=large

 

I'm told the frames are not banana shaped. Is this just an optical illusion then? Why does either the cab look to be leaning backwards, or the front leaning forward? Why isn't the condensing pipe parallel in line and level to the tanks? What about those gaps between the superstructure and the chassis?

 

I get it, these are small locos and Rails' pictures are perhaps rather too large, and I guess if it turns up like that, then it will be 'as advertised'... and I should accept it, though realistically I'm not hurrying to buy based on those photos, sorry to say.

 

The NRM one is better, but still not flawless

http://www.locomotionmodels.com/exclusive-models/steam-locomotives/lbscr-terrier-boxhill-dcc-ready.htm

 

I don't doubt the Rails version is technically superior, it clearly is, and no doubt there are some good examples out there, but if Rails can't find a decent one to photograph, what hope has the prospective average punter got? Maybe the NRM are insisting on only good ones, so perhaps I would be better off looking there first.

 

Or perhaps I should just avoid locos with diecast chassis frames - it isn't the first time we've been here with models fitted with them.


This is sadly ironic because a Rails images are usually the best of all websites. Couple of points if I may.Firstly there are AFAIK no claims that any of these models are as you say flawless so I’d be grateful if you would highlight for me the faults you currently find with the Locomotion Boxhill.Secondly please refresh my memory with regard to your comment on diecast chassis frames....historically to which examples do you refer ? 

 

 You make reference to members investing in some way in Rails Terrier. In a way this is correct but it is so in terms of pure ,rigorous academic research into the origins and history of the A1 and A1X and not in any remunerative/financial sense. Put it this way : if you had invested hours of your own time in this,would you too not be inclined to be vigorous in its defence ?

Edited by Ian Hargrave
Additional comment
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Yes Rails are to be commended for their photos generally, but with the Terrier being so small they may  have perhaps done themselves a disservice in providing such large photos. There's is only one (smaller) NRM photo to go on, but it still exhibits some hogging on the chassis frames, the chimney seems to be  leaning forward, and it seems there are some gaps under the front sandboxes and splashers. Although the NRM is a museum I don't really expect the NCiM locos to be flawless; perhaps I should have said 'below the expected standard'.

 

As to previous models I was thinking of one of the Hornby LNER K models, I'd have to check which it was - it was a few years ago.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well, I have two Hornby Terriers and one from Rails. Not one of them runs as well as any of the "old" Hornby Terriers I have. While in general terms the appearance of models has improved over the 35 years or so since it was first released (ironically, by Dapol) it's a shame that running quality hasn't.

 

All my examples are BR livery, so I hadn't noted the issue with the join on the cab roof; given that many of the versions to be modelled would have white roofs and given that models are often viewed from above, I cannot understand why this error was not corrected. The Hornby model may have more detail issues in general, but none this obvious. As it is, the definitive Terrier is yet to be produced…

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 minutes ago, stovepipe said:

Yes Rails are to be commended for their photos generally, but with the Terrier being so small they may  have perhaps done themselves a disservice in providing such large photos. There's is only one (smaller) NRM photo to go on, but it still exhibits some hogging on the chassis frames, the chimney seems to be  leaning forward, and it seems there are some gaps under the front sandboxes and splashers. Although the NRM is a museum I don't really expect the NCiM locos to be flawless; perhaps I should have said 'below the expected standard'.

 

As to previous models I was thinking of one of the Hornby LNER K models, I'd have to check which it was - it was a few years ago.

 

 If you look at the images Dennis Lovett has posted on the Locomotion thread you will see no such leaning and the image is quite large enough for normal viewing. Another forum member has also posted images of his newly received model. He attributes both slight fore& aft “leaning “ to distortion from his camera phone which does not convey an accurate impression .He is delighted with his. What’s an expected standard btw ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Ian Hargrave said:


You make reference to members investing in some way in Rails Terrier. In a way this is correct but it is so in terms of pure ,rigorous academic research into the origins and history of the A1 and A1X and not in any remunerative/financial sense. Put it this way : if you had invested hours of your own time in this,would you too not be inclined to be vigorous in its defence ?

 

Perhaps I would, but I would not go as far as defending design decisions or assembly issues for which I have had no part of, or call wingeing those that have experienced issues, while glossing over the fact the model(s) I have received may have been specially selected, and are after all a single (or low digit) points of reference in the grand scheme of things. Especially when the sellers own photos indicate some assembly issues could well be present.

 

42 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 If you look at the images Dennis Lovett has posted on the Locomotion thread you will see no such leaning and the image is quite large enough for normal viewing. Another forum member has also posted images of his newly received model. He attributes both slight fore& aft “leaning “ to distortion from his camera phone which does not convey an accurate impression .

 

I have had a look at those photos thanks, and I agree they do look a deal better... though there is still something odd in the last rear 3/4 view. The condenser pipe projects off at an unnatural angle and I'm sorry to say that chimney still seems to be leaning forward compared to the other major vertical elements. The boiler handrail does a dive to the front too. I wish someone would take a picture with a high quality camera at a standard focal length, which could then be zoomed in -  I think possibly the only way I'm going to sort this out is to see the NRM one in the flesh. I don't suppose they are taking personal callers though...

 

41 minutes ago, Ian Hargrave said:

 What’s an expected standard btw ?

 

I define it the same way you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2020 at 11:12, Georgeconna said:

 

 

As an influencer do you get paid from rails/other suppliers to review these yokes?

 

Certainly not. I don’t get paid to produce any reviews. Indeed, the six Terriers were only loaned so the same position the magazines would be in. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/10/2020 at 16:32, JeremyKarl said:

My one arrived today and I can see no fault with the running plate (I took a ruler to it). So very happy with it so far though I have still to test it's running capabilities and to add a DCC chip. So 3 out of 4 terriers from Rails ok so far but perhaps I am lucky. Who knows...

...

Jeremy

p.s. I have still to receive my SE Terrier - Rails are still awaiting more stock I was told.

It seems I spoke too soon :o My final SE&CR one arrived with the smokebox dart and handrail above missing. I found the detached smokebox dart but not the handrail. I am puzzled as to how it could have broken off given that the ice cube packaging doesn't appear to put any force onto the front of the loco. Pity as I would happily have reattached the smokebox dart as the rest of it looks fine but I don't fancy replacing the broken off handrail, so this one will have to go back :( The footplate looks fine and I adore the lining on these locomotives - and again what an exquisite chimney!

 

20201028_120604.jpg.54af325c42d5199bde2f9de0f2d1f0dc.jpg

  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly all manufacturers have problems when it comes to stuff travelling from China.  Packaging is getting better but the inspection regime at ALL of the Chinese factories leaves something to be desired at times.  If a worker is on long hours then towards the end of a shift errors will be missed, if they are looked for at all.

 

One thing Dave Jones did was to inspect every loco.  But he did that in China (which might account for some of the money he got through) and before the loco was packed in its box.  That allowed the loco to be rammed in after he had left and damage to occur accordingly.  Removing from packaging and testing in the UK would add  to the cost of each loco- how much time to carefully remove a loco, carefully inspect every part is present and the right way up, give a function test including curves and pointwork and carefully put back in the box?  I reckon maybe 10 minutes, less at the start of a shift.  That is 6 to the hour at £15 per hour minimum including employment costs not included in wages.  You would also need to replace that nice pretty paper outer that protects the box from scuffs etc- skilled labour to do that by hand or invest in a machine....

 

The laws of getting model locos to customers seem at times like the laws of entropy-

1.  You can't win

2. You can't break even

3. You can't get out of the game

 

For 3 read system, and add the exception that the get out is by closing down or going bust....

 

Les

 

Edited by Les1952
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JeremyKarl said:

It seems I spoke too soon :o My final SE&CR one arrived with the smokebox dart and handrail above missing. I found the detached smokebox dart but not the handrail. I am puzzled as to how it could have broken off given that the ice cube packaging doesn't appear to put any force onto the front of the loco. Pity as I would happily have reattached the smokebox dart as the rest of it looks fine but I don't fancy replacing the broken off handrail, so this one will have to go back :( The footplate looks fine and I adore the lining on these locomotives - and again what an exquisite chimney!

 

20201028_120604.jpg.54af325c42d5199bde2f9de0f2d1f0dc.jpg

I personally saw a step change between the initial and final batches in terms of quality.

 

Whilst mine are mostly Hornby (and they're not perfect - a recent delivery had one of the condensing pipes broken off) a friend of mine has some of the Dapol versions.

 

Two from the first batch - suffering from missing detail, broken detail, broken darts. One took two attempts to get a good 'un (and even that needed a second set of steps sent to achieve it, for him to fit himself), and the second three attempts, but the final two from the final batch were absolutely spot on, and IMHO if you placed them and the Hornby versions side by side you'd go for the Dapols (which, let's face it, given the extra cost over the Hornby is what you'd hope for). 

 I hasten to add that no dislodged chimneys or twisted running plates were experienced with either batch. A run on the rolling road was also deemed acceptable.

 

These are non-DCC I should also add, so as regards speaker issues I cannot comment.

 

I think the above proves that Dapol CAN supply a decent model, and given that I posted earlier about the issues with the first two it seemed only fair to report on the final two, thankfully favourably. I daresay we all can but hope that the lessons have been learned, and the forthcoming 4-4-0s are right first time.....

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

One thing Dave Jones did was to inspect every loco.  But he did that in China (which might account for some of the money he got through) and before the loco was packed in its box.  That allowed the loco to be rammed in after he had left and damage to occur accordingly. 


Sorry, one thing Dave Jones claimed to have done, but evidence suggested otherwise. 
 

Roy

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, WisTramwayMan said:

I personally saw a step change between the initial and final batches in terms of quality.

 

Whilst mine are mostly Hornby (and they're not perfect - a recent delivery had one of the condensing pipes broken off) a friend of mine has some of the Dapol versions.

 

Two from the first batch - suffering from missing detail, broken detail, broken darts. One took two attempts to get a good 'un (and even that needed a second set of steps sent to achieve it, for him to fit himself), and the second three attempts, but the final two from the final batch were absolutely spot on, and IMHO if you placed them and the Hornby versions side by side you'd go for the Dapols (which, let's face it, given the extra cost over the Hornby is what you'd hope for). 

 I hasten to add that no dislodged chimneys or twisted running plates were experienced with either batch. A run on the rolling road was also deemed acceptable.

 

These are non-DCC I should also add, so as regards speaker issues I cannot comment.

 

I think the above proves that Dapol CAN supply a decent model, and given that I posted earlier about the issues with the first two it seemed only fair to report on the final two, thankfully favourably. I daresay we all can but hope that the lessons have been learned, and the forthcoming 4-4-0s are right first time.....

 
And again add to this the excellent B4. You have to ask,were these made in the same factory as the Terrier ?

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...