Jump to content
MGR Hooper!

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

Recommended Posts

They look great but for me the chimney looks very poor where the insert is fitted at the top and I'd be concerned about gaps under the tanks to running plate.

I am sure these are things that will be addressed.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think we all expected but nonetheless a refreshing sparkle and the perfect riposte to the first to market.The difference is palpable.In this as in all things,you get what you pay for..Apply for the Kennel Club pedigree now.

 

Let’s hope it sells,sells,sells.JB ,BG & co....you won this one hands down.What was that about the hare and the tortoise ?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It also looks like they haven't done the Hornby (and Hattons P) big single sheet of plastic for the glass.

 

Yep.

 

I think its a very accurate model.  The designer evidently understood the prototype and the research material and there has clearly been investment in an extensive tooling suite. Additionally its a very refined piece of work. 

 

1 minute ago, mikesndbs said:

They look great but for me the chimney looks very poor where the insert is fitted at the top and I'd be concerned about gaps under the tanks to running plate.

I am sure these are things that will be addressed.

 

I think you need to appreciate that this is an EP sample and the state they often arrive in. 

 

Just now, Ian Hargrave said:

What I think we all expected but nonetheless a refreshing sparkle and the perfect riposte to the first to market.The difference is palpable.In this as in all things,you get what you pay for..Apply for the Kennel Club pedigree now.

 

Let’s hope it sells,sells,sells.JB ,BG & co....you won this one hands down.What was that about the hare and the tortoise ?

 

Hear, hear!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It also looks like they haven't done the Hornby (and Hattons P) big single sheet of plastic for the glass.

 

Yes the models feature individual window glazing

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking very good indeed.

 

Oliver, may I ask when do you expect to receive the remaining decorated samples? Purely selfish question on my part as I have a Southern Lined green version on order.

 

Thanks in advance,


Roy

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attention to detail is great! But if it´s supposed to be a pedigree Terrier, then there is still some way to go. I struggle with the proportions and lines of certain elements. As I was afraid of, the design appears to be based on Dapols O gauge model, meaning a lot of errors are carried over:

 

- the roof shape seems to be wrong

- the cab windows are too far apart

- the smokeboxes (especially on the A1s) feel too short

- The A1X smokebox protrudes too little in front of its base, therefore the frontmost side strip of rivets ends at the base, although the rivets go on some prototypes all the way round (32661 was one of them).

- the smokebox doors feel also too flat

- the balance weight on the middle wheels has the wrong shape

- The coupling rods are completely straight, despite the prototype having a subtle bow. Compare it with the Hornby model, Hornby on the other hand has overdone said bow.

- the bottom line of the wooden brake shoes is misaligned

- the tank vents are way too long

- the balance weights on Boxhills wheels are not picked out in green, as already described by Edwardian

- Yes, the tank top recess is there. But the recessed area should be black, already mentioned by Edwardian as well.

 

Then there are also a few shortcomings the O gauge model did not have:

 

- the black beams (?) on top of the dome protrude too far out vertically

- the inner part of the buffers is far too thin

- the scary coal rails for 32661 have already been mentioned by Edwardian

 

Sorry for the long list. Even though there are a lot of good things about the first samples to be said - I think Edwardian did a very good job in pointing them out - there is still a lot to be done. Obviously some of the mentioned errors are rather minor, but others are not. Let´s hope Dapol and Rails take their time for the necessary amendments.

 

Edited by stonetown
Typos fixed...
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

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!

 

 

Man Alive thats some review!!. With all the Knowledge on this engine just wondering if you passed this on or did you have involvement in the gestation on this model at all?

 

Some Archers' rivets would amend if anyone is that bothered.   = not me. :)

 

I am sure you will Enjoy your Terriers, I can almost sense the Antipcation in your post!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have offered comment to manufacturers on several occasions, hoping that some constructive criticism might be of help and believing that this is more productive than just spouting it on RMWeb.  I did mention on the Hornby topic that I had a bit of a head start inasmuch as a consortium had asked me to research the Terrier before the Rails/Dapol announcement caused those plans to be abortive.  In this case I have offered comment and also feedback on today's EPs to the manufacturer.  I know of others who do this. One of the disadvantages of keeping stumm about your project is that you don't get anyone's second opinion. 

 

EDIT: I should add that, having done the 7mm Terrier, I think Dapol has always known what it was doing with this prototype.

Edited by Edwardian
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren't lying about it being the steak fillet version!  I wasn't really in the market for one but that is tempting.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Looking very good indeed.

 

Oliver, may I ask when do you expect to receive the remaining decorated samples? Purely selfish question on my part as I have a Southern Lined green version on order.

 

Thanks in advance,


Roy

Hi Roy,

 

I do not have an exact date yet but then are not far behind. 

 

Thanks

oliver 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Georgeconna said:

 

Man Alive thats some review!!. With all the Knowledge on this engine just wondering if you passed this on or did you have involvement in the gestation on this model at all?

 

Some Archers' rivets would amend if anyone is that bothered.   = not me. :)

 

I am sure you will Enjoy your Terriers, I can almost sense the Antipcation in your post!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought the phrase that dare not speak its name had been proscribed by common consent on this forum.

 

I know this is in all senses a “broad church “.There is ,or should be,room for all,provided that views are expressed in a civilised manner.We go from the sublime to the gorblimey and sometimes opinions may not be to our taste.

 

Our learned friend ( I use the phrase in all senses of the words) from Wearside has perhaps overwhelmed some forum members by the depth and volume of his knowledge on the subject of the A1/A1X.....note I got it right this time...on two threads currently..But note one salient feature....his views are a work of meticulous and rigorous academic research expressed in clear logical style with no hint of arrogance and they are surely more help than hindrance to most.I do know from my own experience of proof reading my son’s PhD  “tome” what that entails and the hours of work that goes into it.So please don’t debunk his efforts with our great British sport of mockery if we don’ t fully understand something or simply cannot be bothered to do so.

 

His critique carries more weight than most here.

 

 

  • Agree 13
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good, much better to my eye than the Hornby one.

 

There do appear to be a few things that could be better. The smokebox/saddle issue is one that is noticeable, as are the dome top to safety valve connections. I think all that might be at issue has already been mentioned. Whether we'll see them all corrected depends on how much willingness, time and money is available to change tooling.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think this looks a much better model than the Hornby model, so this is the one I'll buy. A couple of observations based on the Bexhill model and referencing a few points made by Stonewall.

 

The centre wheel balance weights are the wrong shape and colour. The wheels look to be coloured plastic and not painted. I think the chimney joint between the main part and the cap could be improved but I suspect this is down to this being a sample.

However, the biggest single error, in my view is one Stonewall lists – the cab windows are noticeably too far apart. If nothing else is addressed I think this needs to be resolved.

 

The brass buffers look too bling to my eye. Using a white coloured metal not a yellow metal would resolve this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Anglian said:

I do think this looks a much better model than the Hornby model, so this is the one I'll buy. A couple of observations based on the Bexhill model and referencing a few points made by Stonewall.

 

The centre wheel balance weights are the wrong shape and colour. The wheels look to be coloured plastic and not painted. I think the chimney joint between the main part and the cap could be improved but I suspect this is down to this being a sample.

However, the biggest single error, in my view is one Stonewall lists – the cab windows are noticeably too far apart. If nothing else is addressed I think this needs to be resolved.

 

The brass buffers look too bling to my eye. Using a white coloured metal not a yellow metal would resolve this.

 

According to the spec list, the wheels are diecast so perhaps just painted the wrong colour on the samples? Plus they lack the fake spoke detailing painted onto the weight.

 

Regarding the buffer colour. Rails have confirmed on Facebook that the buffers will be painted as per the livery artwork on the website. in the same of Boxhill its silver and the rest black.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for many people the question is, does this model justify the additional £30 cost?

 

Having had a chance now to see both of them, for me, the answer is a resounding Yes. That doesnt mean that I think the Hornby model will be a failure, but that you get what you pay for, and the extra £30 has gone into producing a very good highly detailed model. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Oliver Rails said:

unnamed-4.jpg.9f402f613fb8a70d0f326ad5013f844d.jpg

 

Exciting news!
We are pleased to confirm the first three decorated EP samples of our eagerly awaited Terriers have arrived!

Take a look at the images below.
Please note that these are the FIRST decorated sample EP models. We are blown away with the level of detail on these models.
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.

 

Pre-Order here

All images copyright Rails of Sheffield / Dapol / NRM

 

unnamed-1.jpg.0dbc7f5d69aefc79ef5fe11f96015d07.jpg

 

unnamed-3.jpg.748acddf205bef8ace58c7c9af06c580.jpg

 

unnamed.jpg.62f760697f5a8cbeebb94587e710f873.jpg

 

Looking at 32661 and the smokebox/saddle issue, I have just been looking at a number of photos of Terriers with rivets at the front outer wrapper of the smokebox, and the rivet line is nearer the front of the smokebox than those depicted on the model. It's possible that the saddle/smokebox size and positioning is very nearly correct, but the rivets on the model are set back from the front by a gap that is, funnily enough, about the width of the rivets.

Edited by Ian J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks to be a very good rendition of my favourite loco. After reading through the above critiques, can I just mention a couple of other points that I would like to see sorted out on the Boxhill model?

The first two photos are of Boxhill as preserved at the NRM. The boiler cladding sheet sits on top of the recessed tank top and is painted in the IEG colour, along with the bolt heads, also the angle along the front of the cab. The other colour photo of Boxhill shows the end of the LHS handrail ending in a brass casting. The other two photos are showing Boxhill when in service, one before and one after conversion to a 2-4-0T for motor train working, and after the recylinder that removed the condensing pipes but clearly shows the device at the end of the RHS handrail, being an even larger diameter brass casting. I hope these corrections can be incorporated.

Along with the other points made by others, I am very much looking forward to receiving this model.

Well done Rails!

Cheers

Ian in Blackpool 

Top of boiler cladding colour.jpg

front of handrail lhs.jpg

front of handrail rhs.jpg

front of handrail rhs b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspect the plastic looking wheels on Boxhill in particular is due to the diecast wheels having insufficient coats of paint.

The lining on the BR one looks wrong in that on the tank sides seems to be narrower in height than that on the bunker - seems to have been arranged with the grey line next to the rivets rather than running through it https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8707154557

 

Edited by Butler Henderson
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ian J. said:

 

Looking at 32661 and the smokebox/saddle issue, I have just been looking at a number of photos of Terriers with rivets at the front outer wrapper of the smokebox, and the rivet line is nearer the front of the smokebox than those depicted on the model. It's possible that the saddle/smokebox size and positioning is very nearly correct, but the rivets on the model are set back from the front by a gap that is, funnily enough, about the width of the rivets.

Ian, I agree that the smokebox wrapper front rivets are set too far back from the front, the Hornby A1X seems to get this right. Interestingly, following your post above I did a cursory "Google" for Terrier photos. The result was that some locos had / have a full circle of rivets and some have them stopping at the smokebox saddle:

  • Preserved "Bodiam" on the KESR - cannot see a full circle of rivets i.e. finish at the saddle
  • Preserved W8 on the IOW Railway - cannot see a full circle of rivets i.e. finish at the saddle (unclear though)
  • Preserved 32678 - has a full circle of rivets

More interestingly:

  • Very clear colour and BW shots of 32636 (Fenchurch) in BR days - cannot see a full circle of rivets i.e. finish at the saddle. If this is the case then the Hornby model in incorrect. https://images.app.goo.gl/QN1SmkabyWTKfYhs6     https://images.app.goo.gl/5YPJJhipyamuki7L9  Click on the colour shot for a clearer version and a web page full of info, hopefully the links will work.
  • Colour shot of 32650 at Hayling Island - has a full circle of rivets

Couldn't find any clear photos of 32661's smokebox (modelled by Rails).

 

I will have to check my books at home i.e. "Stroudley and his Terriers", "Island Terriers" and an Ian Allen published book whose title escapes me at present. I will admit, that until now, I'd always assumed that those locos that had rivets at the front of the smokebox wrapper had them in a complete circle i.e. beyond the saddle. Like I say, I'll check my books but this could be another detailing nightmare that manufacturers have had to deal with. How many detail variations do you tool for, where do you stop?  

 

I am now obsessed by rivets as well as tank top recesses!!

 

Regards

 

Andy.

  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ventnor said:

Ian, I agree that the smokebox wrapper front rivets are set too far back from the front, the Hornby A1X seems to get this right. Interestingly, following your post above I did a cursory "Google" for Terrier photos. The result was that some locos had / have a full circle of rivets and some have them stopping at the smokebox saddle:

  • Preserved "Bodiam" on the KESR - cannot see a full circle of rivets i.e. finish at the saddle
  • Preserved W8 on the IOW Railway - cannot see a full circle of rivets i.e. finish at the saddle (unclear though)
  • Preserved 32678 - has a full circle of rivets

More interestingly:

  • Very clear colour and BW shots of 32636 (Fenchurch) in BR days - cannot see a full circle of rivets i.e. finish at the saddle. If this is the case then the Hornby model in incorrect. https://images.app.goo.gl/QN1SmkabyWTKfYhs6     https://images.app.goo.gl/5YPJJhipyamuki7L9  Click on the colour shot for a clearer version and a web page full of info, hopefully the links will work.
  • Colour shot of 32650 at Hayling Island - has a full circle of rivets

Couldn't find any clear photos of 32661's smokebox (modelled by Rails).

 

I will have to check my books at home i.e. "Stroudley and his Terriers", "Island Terriers" and an Ian Allen published book whose title escapes me at present. I will admit, that until now, I'd always assumed that those locos that had rivets at the front of the smokebox wrapper had them in a complete circle i.e. beyond the saddle. Like I say, I'll check my books but this could be another detailing nightmare that manufacturers have had to deal with. How many detail variations do you tool for, where do you stop?  

 

I am now obsessed by rivets as well as tank top recesses!!

 

Regards

 

Andy.

Rivetting! Well someone had to say it, sorry!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knew counting rivets could be such... 'fun'...? ;) :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

Who knew counting rivets could be such... 'fun'...? ;) :lol:

I suppose better to be obsessed by rivets than nuts.........

 

I will stop there.... :blush_mini:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this has been mentioned earlier in this thread, I appologise.

For particularly the BR liveried Terriers there is a need for spark arrestors.

Spark arrestors were apparently oblgitory for loco's working the Hayling Island branch,

which of course was one of the main duties of the late survivors. I would not expect this feature

to be supplied with the models, and it would be very difficult to produce a convinciing

spark arrestor in 4mm. Maybe something for an accessory manufacturer with a 3D printer to grapple with.

 

I am very impressed with the livery samples and I am now convinced that my order for a Terrier should remain with Rails.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.